The Oxford Methodists

Rev. John Gambold, M.A., the Moravian Bishop

The whole of the Oxford Methodists intended to devote their lives to the service of the Church of England. This, at Oxford, was their highest wish and holiest ambition. The future was hidden from them,—fortunately so. Without this, their brotherhood would not have lasted for a single week; and many of the results of their godly intercourse would never have been realized. How different from the course of Clayton was that of Ingham; and how different again was that of Gambold from that of Whitefield and the Wesley brothers; and again, how different was that of Hervey and Broughton from any of the others! Men would have ordered it otherwise; but who will say that the way of Providence was not infinitely better? There may be much in the lives of men that is mysterious and perplexing; but of all the sincerely pious it may be confidently asserted,—“A man’s heart deviseth his ways, but the Lord directeth his steps.” The subject of the following memoir is no exception.

John Gambold was born April 10th, 1711, at Puncheston, in Pembrokeshire, South Wales. His father, a clergyman of the Church of England, lived an ornament to his profession, and was greatly respected, for his unaffected piety and purity of manners. The children of this devout minister were educated with the utmost care and attention, and no pains were spared to instil into their minds the principles and precepts of the Christian religion.

Nothing is known of the early life of young Gambold, except, that he was greatly benefited by his father’s instructions; and, at the early age of fifteen, went to the University of Oxford, where he entered as servitor in Christ Church College, and soon became eminent for his diligent devotion to reading and study. He was naturally of a vivacious and active spirit; and, besides his attention to his collegiate exercises, employed himself in an extensive perusal of the most approved dramatists and poets in the English language.121

Two years after he went to Oxford, his father died; and this event, together with the exhortations and counsels he received from the dying minister in his last moments, so affected him, that he at once abandoned poetry and plays, lost his liveliness of disposition, sunk into a state of melancholy, and made the salvation of his soul the chief business of life. Painful experience was the inspirer of a short poem of his, afterwards published in his collected works:—

“In nature’s ebbs, which lay the soul in chains,
Beneath weak nerves and ill-sufficing veins,
Who can support bare being, unendow’d
With gust voluptuous, or reflection proud?
No more bright images the brain commands,—
No great design the glowing heart expands,—
No longer shines the animated face,—
Motion and speech forget their conscious grace.
How can the brave, the witty, and the gay
Survive, when mirth, wit, courage die away?
None but the Christian’s all-comprising power
Subdues each chance, and lives through every hour:
Watchful, he suffers all, and feels within
All smart proportion’d to some root of sin;
He strikes each error with his Maker’s rod,
And, by self-knowledge, penetrates to God.”

Gambold entered Christ Church College in the same year that Charles Wesley did, the latter being more than two years older than the former. John Wesley also was a member of the same college, and twelve months before, on September 19, 1725, had been ordained a deacon. In 1729, the society of Oxford Methodists was formed by Charles Wesley; and, a year afterwards, Gambold, still only in his teens, became one of them. He shall narrate his own story, written when Wesley was in Georgia. The account is long; but, containing as it does a full description of the rise and peculiarities of the “Holy Club,” and a faithful delineation of the character and influence of their confessed “curator,” it is too important to be omitted. Gambold writes:—

“Mr. Wesley, late of Lincoln College, has been the instrument of so much good to me, that, I shall never forget him. Could I remember him as I ought, it would have very near the same effect as if he was still present; for a conversation so unreserved as was his, so zealous in engaging his friends to every instance of Christian piety, has left nothing now to be said, nothing but what occurs to us as often as we are disposed to remember him impartially.

“About the middle of March, 1730, I became acquainted with Mr. Charles Wesley, of Christ Church. I was just then come up from the country, and had made a resolution to find out some pious persons of religion to keep company with, or else to instil something of it into those I knew already. I had been, for two years before, in deep melancholy: so God was pleased to order it, to disappoint and break a proud spirit, and to embitter the world to me; as I was inclining to relish its vanities. During this time, I had no friend to whom I could open my mind, to any purpose. No man did care for my soul; or none, at least, understood its paths. They, that were at ease, could not guess what my sorrow was for. The learned endeavoured to give me right notions, and the friendly to divert me. But I had a weight upon my heart, which only prayer could in some degree remove. I prepared myself to make trial of the value and comfort of society, being a little recovered. One day, an old acquaintance entertained me with some reflections on the whimsical Mr. Wesley, his preciseness and pious extravagancies. Though I had lived with him four years in the same college, yet, so unable was I to take notice of anything that passed, that I knew nothing of his character; but, upon hearing this, I suspected he might be a good Christian. I therefore went to his room, and, without any ceremony, desired the benefit of his conversation. I had so large a share of it henceforth, that hardly a day passed, while I was at college, but we were together once, if not oftener.

“After some time, he introduced me to his brother John, of Lincoln College. ‘For,’ said he, ‘he is somewhat older than I, and can resolve your doubts better.’ This, as I found afterwards, was a thing which he was deeply sensible of; for I never observed any person have a more real deference for another, than he constantly had for his brother. Indeed, he followed his brother entirely. Could I describe one of them, I should describe both. And therefore I shall say no more of Charles, but that he was a man made for friendship; who, by his cheerfulness and vivacity, would refresh his friend’s heart; with attentive consideration, would enter into and settle all his concerns; so far as he was able, would do anything for him, great or small; and, by a habit of openness and freedom, leave no room for misunderstanding.

“The Wesleys were already talked of for some religious practices, which were first occasioned by Mr. Morgan, of Christ Church. From these combined friends, began a little society; for several others, from time to time, fell in; most of them only to be improved by their serious and useful discourse; and some few espousing all their resolutions and their whole way of life.

“Mr. John Wesley was always the chief manager, for which he was very fit; for he not only had more learning and experience than the rest, but he was blest with such activity as to be always gaining ground, and such steadiness that he lost none. What proposals he made to any was sure to charm them, because he was so much in earnest; nor could they afterwards slight them, because they saw him always the same. What supported this uniform vigour, was the care he took to consider well of every affair before he engaged in it, making all his decisions in the fear of God, without passion, humour, or self-confidence: for, though he had naturally a very clear apprehension, yet, his exact prudence depended more on humanity and singleness of heart. To this I may add, that he had, I think, something of authority in his countenance; though, as he did not want address, he could soften his manner, and point it as occasion required. Yet, he never assumed anything to himself above his companions. Any of them might speak their mind, and their words were as strictly regarded by him as his were by them.

“It was their custom to meet most evenings, either at his chamber or one of the others, where, after some prayers, (the chief subject of which was charity,) they ate their supper together, and he read some book. But the chief business was to review what each had done that day, in pursuance of their common design, and to consult what steps were to be taken the next.

“Their undertaking included these several particulars:—to converse with young students; to visit the prisons; to instruct some poor families; and to take care of a school, and a parish workhouse.

“They took great pains with the younger members of the University, to rescue them from bad company, and encourage them in a sober, studious life. If they had some interest with any such, they would get them to breakfast; and, over a dish of tea, endeavour to fasten some good hint upon them. They would bring them acquainted with other well disposed young men. They would help them in those parts of learning which they stuck at. They would close with their best sentiments, drive on their convictions, give them rules of piety, when they would receive them, and watch over them with great tenderness.

“Some or other of them went to the Castle every day; and another most commonly to Bocardo. Whoever came to the Castle was to read in the chapel to as many prisoners as would attend, and to talk to the man or men whom he had taken particularly in charge. Before reading, he asked: Whether they had prayers yesterday? (For some serious men among the prisoners read family prayers with the rest.) Whether they had read over again what was read last, and what they remembered of it? Then he went over the heads of it to them; and afterwards went on in the same book for a quarter of an hour. The books they used were the ‘Christian Monitor,’ the ‘Country Parson’s Advice to his Parishioners,’ and such-like. When he had done, he summed up the several particulars that had been insisted on, enforced the advice given, and reduced it at last to two or three sentences, which they might easily remember. Then he took his man aside, and asked him, Whether he was in the chapel yesterday? and other questions concerning his care to serve God, and learn his duty.

“When a new prisoner came, their conversation with him, for four or five times, was particularly close and searching. Whether he bore no malice towards those that did prosecute him, or any others? The first time, after professions of good-will, they only inquired of his circumstances in the world. Such questions imported friendship, and engaged the man to open his heart. Afterwards, they entered upon such enquiries as most concern a prisoner. Whether he submitted to this disposal of Providence? Whether he repented of his past life? Last of all, they asked him, Whether he constantly used private prayer, and whether he had ever communicated? Thus, most or all of the prisoners were spoken to in their turns. But, if any one was either under sentence of death, or appeared to have some intentions of a new life, they came every day to his assistance; and partook in the conflict and suspense of those who should now be found able, or not able, to lay hold on salvation. In order to release those who were confined for small debts, and were bettered by their affliction, and likewise to purchase books, physic, and other necessaries,—they raised a small fund, to which many of their acquaintance contributed quarterly. They had prayers at the Castle most Wednesdays and Fridays, a sermon on Sundays, and the Sacrament once a month.

“When they undertook any poor family, they saw them, at least, once a week; sometimes gave them money; admonished them of their vices; read to them, and examined their children.

“The school was, I think, of Mr. Wesley’s own setting up. At all events, he paid the mistress, and clothed some, if not all, of the children. When they went thither, they enquired how each child behaved; saw their work (for some could knit and spin); heard them read; heard them their prayers and catechism; and explained part of it.

“In the same manner, they taught the children in the workhouse; and read to the old people as they did to the prisoners.

“Though some practices of Mr. Wesley and his friends were much blamed,—as their fasting on Wednesday and Friday, after the custom of the Primitive Church,—their coming on those Sundays, when there was no sacrament in their own colleges, to receive it at Christ Church,—yet nothing was so much disliked as these charitable employments. They seldom took any notice of the accusations brought against them; but, if they made any reply, it was commonly such a plain and simple one, as if there was nothing more in the case, but that they had heard such doctrines of their Saviour, and believed and done accordingly,—‘Shall we be the more happy in another life, the more virtuous we are in this? Are we the more virtuous, the more intensely we love God and man? Is love, as all habits, the more intense, the more we exercise it? Is either helping, or trying to help man, for God’s sake, an exercise of love to God or man? Particularly, Is the feeding the hungry, the giving drink to the thirsty, the clothing the naked, the visiting sick persons, or prisoners, an exercise of love to God or man? Is the endeavouring to teach the ignorant, to admonish sinners, to encourage the good, to comfort the afflicted, to confirm the wavering, and to reconcile enemies, an exercise of love to God or man? Shall we be the more happy in another life, if we do the former of these things, and try to do the latter? Or if we do not the one, nor try to do the other?”

In the above extracts, the reader has the practices which principally distinguished the Oxford Methodists from their fellows. The account is full of interest, and of great importance, being written by one of the members of this godly brotherhood, and immediately after that brotherhood was broken up. The remainder of Gambold’s narrative is chiefly a defence and eulogy of Wesley, their “Curator;” and only such parts of it will be given as affect the whole of these earnest students. Gambold continues:—

“What I would chiefly remark upon, is the manner in which Mr. Wesley directed his friends.

“Because he required such a regulation of our studies, as might devote them all to God, he has been cried out upon as one that discouraged learning. Far from that;—the first thing he struck at in young men, was that indolence which would not submit to close thinking. Nor was he against reading much, especially at first; because then the mind ought to fill itself with materials, and try every thing that looks bright and perfect.

“He earnestly recommended to them a method and order in all their actions. After their morning devotions (which were at a fixed and early hour, from five to six being the time, morning as well as evening), he advised them to determine with themselves what they were to do all the parts of the day. By such foresight, they would, at every hour’s end, not be in doubt how to dispose of themselves; and, by bringing themselves under the necessity of such a plan, they might correct the impotence of a mind that had been used to live by humour and chance, and prepare it by degrees to bear the other restraints of a holy life.

“The next thing was to put them upon keeping the fasts, visiting poor people, and coming to the weekly Sacrament: not only to subdue the body, increase charity, and obtain Divine grace; but (as he expressed it) to cut off their retreat to the world. He judged, that, if they did these things, men would cast out their name as evil, and, by the impossibility of keeping fair any longer with the world, oblige them to take their whole refuge in Christianity. But those, whose resolutions he thought would not bear this test, he left to gather strength by their secret exercises.

“It was his earnest care to introduce them to the treasures of wisdom and hope in the Holy Scriptures: to teach them not only to endure that book, but to form themselves by it, and to fly to it as the great antidote against the darkness of this world. For some years past, he and his friends read the New Testament together at evening. After every portion of it, having heard the conjectures the rest had to offer, he made his observations on the phrase, design, and difficult places. One or two wrote these down from his mouth.

“He laid much stress upon self-examination. He taught them (besides what occurs in his Collection of Prayers) to take account of their actions in a very exact manner, by writing a constant diary. In this, they noted down in cipher, once if not oftener in the day, what chiefly their employments had been in the several parts of it, and how they had performed each. Mr. Wesley had these records of his life by him for many years past. And some I have known, who, to seal their convictions and make their repentance more solemn, would write down such reflections upon themselves as the anguish of their soul at that time suggested, adding any spiritual maxim which some experience of their own had confirmed to them.

“Then, to keep in their minds an awful sense of God’s presence, with a constant dependence on His help, he advised them to ejaculatory prayers. They had a book of Ejaculations relating to the chief virtues, and, lying by them as they stood at their studies, they at intervals snatched a short petition out of it. But at last, instead of that variety, they contented themselves with the following aspirations (containing acts of faith, hope, love, and self-resignation at the end of every hour)—‘Consider and hear me,’ etc.

“The last means he recommended was meditation. Their usual time for this was the hour next before dinner.

“After this, he committed them to God. What remained for him to do, was to encourage them in the discomforts and temptations they might feel, and to guard them against all spiritual delusions. In this spiritual care of his acquaintance, Mr. Wesley persisted amidst all discouragements. He overlooked not only one’s absurd or disagreeable qualities, but even his coldness and neglect of him, if he thought it might be conquered. He helped one in things out of religion, that he might be more welcome to help him in that. His knowledge of the world, and his insight into physic, were often of use to us.

“If any one could have provoked him, I should; for I was slow in coming into his measures, and very remiss in doing my part. I frequently contradicted his assertions; or, which is much the same, distinguished upon them. I hardly ever submitted to his advice at the time he gave it, though I relented afterwards. One time he was in fear, that, I had taken up notions that were not safe, and pursued my spiritual improvement in an erroneous, because inactive, way. So he came over and stayed with me near a week. He accosted me with the utmost softness, condoled with me the incumbrances of my constitution, heard all I had to say, endeavoured to pick out my meaning, and yielded to me as far as he could. I never saw more humility in him than at this time. It was enough to cool the warmest imaginations that swell an overweening heart. It was, indeed, his custom to humble himself most before the proud,—not to reproach them; but, in a way of secret intercession, to procure their pardon.

“He had not only friends in Oxford to assist, but a great many correspondents. He set apart one day at least in the week (and he was no slow composer) for writing letters; in which, without levity or affectation, but with plainness and fervour, he gave his advice in particular cases, and vindicated the strict original sense of the Gospel precepts.”122

This long account does something more than give a general idea of the Oxford Methodists and of their distinguished leader. It exhibits the course of life adopted by Gambold in his twentieth year. Like the rest of his youthful friends, he became an earnest religionist; but he was not happy. “He gave way to desponding thoughts; neglected his person and apparel; confined himself as much as possible to his room; and applied, in search of information and comfort, to the works of such authors as he supposed could satisfy his inquiries, namely, the fathers of the first ages of the Christian Church. Of these, the most abstruse were his greatest favourites, and particularly those which are called mystics. Being well versed in the Greek language, he was much pleased with that energy of expression in which it excels. The deep speculations of these ancient writers, their beautiful allusions, the richness of style with which they clothed their ideas, and the strain of piety running through the whole, suited his taste, and so far influenced his understanding, that he adopted their sentiments, went the same lengths with them in the scenes of imagination, and, by degrees, became so much like one of them, that his cast of mind bore a nearer resemblance to that which was peculiar in them, than to any that appeared among the modern. By a close attention to writers of this stamp, he contracted such a turn of mind, and imbibed such an exalted notion of internal purity, that he could not be satisfied with himself, unless he became such a refined being as those philosophical Christians portrayed. This being the state to which his aim was directed, he spared no pains to model himself according to the idea which he had formed of it. His exertions were abortive. Disappointment occasioned great concern;” and it was not until after years of laborious endeavour to form and establish a righteousness of his own, that he was led to submit to “the righteousness of God, by faith of Jesus Christ.”

In September, 1733, he was ordained, by Dr. Potter, Bishop of Oxford; and, as soon as he was capable of holding a living, was instituted to that of Stanton-Harcourt. In this sequestered village, where his parochial duties were not numerous, he had more leisure than was desirable to pursue his philosophical inquiries. He loved retirement, and seldom went abroad. But whenever he could prevail upon himself to visit any of his friends, and, among the rest, Lord Harcourt, he was received with much respect. His abilities, both natural and acquired, were great, but his unfeigned humility was so apparent to every one with whom he conversed, that, his superior powers excited no dislike in any. Indeed, his whole conduct was so inoffensive, that he very rarely, if ever, made himself an enemy. Still, his philosophical and platonic kind of religion failed to make him happy, and was of little use to his rustic parishioners. Four years were spent,—almost wasted,—in those high flights of imagination, deep speculation, intense reflection, and metaphysical reasoning, to which his natural disposition inclined him.

Meanwhile, his friendship with the Wesleys was continued. Charles returned from Georgia in the month of December, 1736; and, in the following February, speaks of meeting his “good friend Mr. Gambold,” at Oxford, who was “right glad to see” him. In fact, at this period and more or less for at least a year and a half afterwards, Kezziah Wesley, the youngest surviving sister of John and Charles, was domiciled with Gambold and his sister (who kept his house,) at Stanton-Harcourt. Poor Kezziah, from childhood, had been delicate, and her health had not been bettered by her residence at Lincoln, where, at nineteen years of age, she became a teacher in a boarding-school, and was painfully in want of both clothes and money. Her life was a wandering one. For a time, she lived in the house of the Vicar of Bexley, the Rev. Mr. Piers, and, afterwards, she resided with an aunt at Islington. It was not long that she needed the kindness of her friends, for, at the age of thirty-one, nearly a year and a half before the decease of her Christian mother, she peacefully expired, on the 9th of March, 1741.123

John Wesley landed in England on February 1, 1738; and, a week afterwards, met with Peter Böhler, just arrived from Germany. Within a fortnight, the two Wesleys, accompanied by Böhler, set out for Oxford, whence all the first brotherhood of Oxford Methodists were now dispersed. The elder Wesley writes:—

“I found not one of those who had formerly joined with me; and only three gentlemen who trod in their steps, building up one another in the faith.”

The nearest to Oxford was Gambold; and, accordingly, on February 18th, Wesley says:—

“We went to Stanton-Harcourt, to Mr. Gambold, and found my old friend recovered from his mystic delusion, and convinced that St. Paul was a better writer than either Tauler or Jacob Behmen.”

Gambold was already returning to gospel simplicity; and his acquaintance with Böhler rendered him service of the highest importance. Böhler held meetings in Oxford, attended both by members of the university and citizens. He delivered discourses in Latin, and Gambold interpreted them for the benefit of those of his audiences who were unfamiliar with that language. This friendship with the newly arrived German, proved the means, not only of the conversion of the two Wesleys, but, ultimately of Gambold also.

“After many struggles and conflicting thoughts, arising from repeated attempts to combine philosophy with the simplicity of the gospel; he, at length, by the grace of God, yielded to the power of the latter. He saw and lamented his natural depravity and consequent alienation from God, and also the insufficiency of his best works to merit heaven. He rejoiced in the sufficiency of the atonement of Jesus to sanctify and justify every true believer in Him. His former melancholy was dissipated; his spirit was made joyful in God his Saviour; and he became, in the fullest sense of the term, a new man.”124

The following letters will show the change which took place in Gambold’s views and feelings. The first was addressed to Wesley, and has never before been published. As will be seen, it was written three days before Wesley’s return from Georgia, and, consequently, before Wesley and Gambold became acquainted with Böhler. It is given here without abridgment, and verbatim.

“January 27, 1737-8.

“Dear Sir,—The point you mention has long been a difficulty to me; of which I could find no end, but that general solution of all doubt, and cure of all anxieties, resignation to eternal Providence. Can I offer a more particular solution now? No; but I will let you see, that I, and doubtless many more, labour under the same perplexity; which will incline one to believe, that, as God has a fire of grace to cleanse us from our common pollutions, so he has also a light in reserve, (and the needs of so many strongly call for it,) that would give a comfortable turn to our common speculations.

“O, what is regeneration? And what doth baptism? How shall we reconcile faith and fact? Is Christianity become effete, and sunk again into the bosom of nature? Was the short triumph of it over flesh and blood designed as the standing enjoyment, or standing humiliation of succeeding ages? Was the Church to condemn the world as God does, in order to meet and embrace it at last?

“What advantage would a deist make of the present appearance of things? He would say, that, when the gospel, by setting up some particular institutions, made a separation from natural religion, it was only an economical enmity;—the new dispensation did operate upon the old, as plaisters do upon the body, which, when they have spent their strength in expelling its diseases, drop off, and leave it sound, clean, and beautiful. That, the distance it stood in from it, was only a means to correct the prejudices, and manage the affections of mankind; and, as these ends were served, Christianity and natural religion were to come closer. That, the former was to lose its name in the latter, when its whole light was kindled up,—when the grace of a Redeemer, the inward touches of divine power, and the obligations of penance and self-denial, which were received for a while as extraneous appendages to natural religion, were found to be involved in the very bowels of it. That, the restitution of all things is the time when they shall fully be reconciled; when nature and grace shall be at their height, and the perfection of both be the same thing. That, this conclusion seems to be nigh us in the present age, when evangelical and moral virtue, which formerly stood in points so remote from each other, are so near falling into coincident lines, that, men have much ado to make any distinction that will hold in fact.

“But to come to the point. That regeneration is the beginning of a life which is not fully enjoyed but in another world, we all know. But how much of it may be enjoyed at present? What degree of it does the experience of mankind encourage us to expect? And by what symptoms shall we know it?

“Let us consult our observation as to the gradual progress of a religious life. At first, men are solicited with strong convictions of conscience: the pain of these and the sensible pleasure they feel as rewarding their acts of duty, are their bias to religion; while an overwhelming admiration of divine things, and a view to the issues of eternity, check their natural boldness and levity; at once abase and enlarge the understanding; and, from the anguish of hope and fear, produce zeal. Then, having reformed all crying disorders, and being prompt and expert in exercises of devotion, there is less matter for vehement remorse or fear; and the peace and congratulation of conscience hereupon being comfort sufficient, the more transporting flashes of joy are withdrawn; and thus, the man, having no religious passions, and being in war with corrupt passions, acquaints himself with the measures, motives, and fitness of virtues, and acts them in the strength of rational consideration.

“Here he labours long, and seems perhaps to have overcome all his vicious inclinations; (unless some one may show itself, more to his secret confusion and pain, than guilt,) being always in a posture of religious care, severity of thought, and habitual regularity of life. But then he complains of a general lukewarmness,—his intercourse with God is not enlivened with any particular successes, tender affections, or noble discoveries. For this he is much afflicted; yet, in the multitude of his thoughts within him, there is a good hope towards God at the bottom, which becomes more explicit by listening to the gospel. The redemption through Christ drops like balm into his soul, and he scruples not now to confess that his religious actions were but formal and worthless; yet, through gratitude to his Saviour and joy in Him, he is more ready than ever to continue the practice of them.

“Yet, he frequently falls into faintings and desolations. He is chiefly troubled at the opposition which self-love and pride make to the spirit of Christ within him. These make him unfaithful in the happy moments of grace, and infest him continually in his weaker intervals. Yea, he can trace them through every action of his life, and begin to see the depth and extent of his depravity. Hereupon, he keeps himself in constant recollection, to watch and resist it. He rejoices that, upon applying to God, a temptation vanishes; yet, very often it dwells so obstinately upon his mind, that his thoughts are shut up within the circle of their own folly and baseness, and he can only send groanings that cannot be uttered after the divine gift he once enjoyed. That gift, however, returns, and sometimes so long together, that he is able to form some idea of a spiritual life,—of the purity and long-suffering, the humility and charity, the magnanimity and singleness of heart, that are suitable for one in whom the Holy Spirit dwells. His desire insensibly sets him on work to procure those dispositions, which follow upon his wish; for the soul no sooner conceives the temper it would be in, but the body (being taught that obsequiousness by the strong recollection lately used, which suspends, clarifies, and determines the animal spirit) immediately furnishes the sensation, air, and whole energy of that temper.

“These smooth and ready emotions of virtue, which seem to give a man a more real and genuine possession of it than ever, do also encourage the mind to launch out in sublime theories; wherein it is much assisted by the repose and security it enjoys towards God, and by the delicate philosophic joy overflowing all the faculties, which raises the imagination to greater magnificence and sagacity. Here the grand system of Providence and all its various dispensations; the correspondencies of heaven and earth, of time and eternity; the gaiety and mournings of nature, and the greatness and abjectness of man; the saving mystery of human life, and the saving mystery of Christianity inserted into it;—all these are inquired into, not out of vain curiosity, but at the instigation of love, to salute the divine goodness in all its works. This is the meridian of the religious man. His notions and his virtues are at the height, in their full clearness and fervour. The love of holiness shines through him, and unites under it all the movements of nature. It commands and pierces all that converse with him. All, after this, is, to the eye of man, a decline and a fall; but a decline by a regular appointed path, and a fall into the arms of secret and infinite mercy. I need not explain to you what I mean; so I will shut up the description.

“Now, where in all these stages shall we place our regeneration? And what shall we say it is? There is reason to think, that, we have no more real goodness (except experience) in one of these states than another,—in the last than the first; we only fill our minds with new sets of ideas, and, by a temporary force, drive our constitution into something that seems answerable to them. Let this force cease, and we are the same as before; when we are in the most plausible posture of virtue, let us but sleep upon it, or otherwise remit the contention of the mind, and ’tis no more; affectation gives place to nature.

“But, you will say, the operation of grace is a real thing. It is so; but, for all the indications we commonly go by to prove the peculiar presence of it, it may be nowhere or everywhere to be found. Most people measure it by the relish they have for some particular schemes and draughts of religion. Little do they think, that, the persons whom they most condemn as unspiritual and deluded, abating for what is merely accidental, are in the same state of heart as themselves. It may be the same complexional turn of the soul, (God also speaking peace to it, and to every man in his own language,) that makes the mystic happy in his prayer and quietness, the solifidian in his imputed righteousness, and the moral man in a good conscience. Nay, perhaps, what many a man calls divine love and joy in the Holy Ghost, has nothing in it, beyond the alacrity of youth or good blood in other people, but a set of phrases and notions from the last book he read; which has given a determination to that natural vigour and sweetness of temper, that were indifferent to any other issue or exercise.

“I do not doubt but there is goodness in mankind, and a goodness of God’s inspiring too; but, I believe it more evenly distributed among them, and less annexed to particular ways of thinking and behaviour. Nay, that it is not so annexed even to Christianity, (though it does essentially depend on Christ, the universal Redeemer,) but, that, as it was in being before this particular institution, so it might be obtained if the initiating rite should happen to be wanting. Yet, this rite must always be used, for the same reason as it was at first appointed, to be memorial to mankind of what is continually done for them in their hearts. Therefore, it was attended with such extraordinary effects at first, that, by these manifestations of the divine life, the reality of it might be firmly believed and depended on in succeeding times, as well as sacramentally acknowledged. The same would still continue, if we had more faith in, and zeal for, the Christian institution; for, according as men believe and expect, God does unto them. But, at present, He seems to have let the Church drop into the world, and does not so much distinguish some from the rest, in righteousness and salvation.

“Whether this be a right state of things, I cannot tell; but it seems unavoidable when every one that is born, is, of course, a member of the Church. If the safety and tolerable piety of whole nations is thereby better provided for, the exemplariness and instruction of an elect city set upon a hill cease. It seems to be the order of Providence now, that none should have much holiness, that all may have a little.

“Dear sir, I have given no particular answer to your questions; but I have said something hastily, perhaps very wrong; but I know to whom Miss Wesley125 gives her love, and would have written, but she is somewhat indisposed.

“Your affectionate brother and servant,

“J. Gambold.”

Such was Gambold’s philosophical religion, previous to his acquaintance with Peter Böhler. He was sincere and in earnest; but he was enveloped in a mystic fog. His was a grand attempt to save himself, but how the thing was to be accomplished he hardly knew. It was greatly to his credit, as it was also to that of Wesley, that he was willing to be taught, even by a German stranger. Twelve months after the date of the foregoing letter, Gambold wrote another equally important. In the interval, both he and the two Wesley’s had been “brought out of” Pharisaic and Philosophic “darkness into marvellous light.” The two letters have only to be compared to see the surprising change in the writer’s views. The following was addressed to Wesley’s brother Charles:—

“January 23rd, 1738-9.

“Dear Sir,—I understand that you have written to me, but the letter happened to be lost, and I did not receive it. Your brother desired me to reed his sermon for him; which, God willing, I shall do next Sunday.

“I have seen upon this occasion, more than ever I could have imagined, how intolerable the doctrine of faith is to the mind of man; how peculiarly intolerable, even to most religious men. One may say the most unchristian things, even down to deism; the most enthusiastic things, so they proceed but upon mental raptures, lights, and unions; the most severe things, even the whole rigour of ascetic mortification; and all this will be forgiven. But if you speak of faith, in such a manner as makes Christ a Saviour to the utmost,—a most universal help and refuge,—in such a manner as takes away glorying, but adds happiness to wretched man; as discovers greater pollution in the best of us than we could before acknowledge, but brings a greater deliverance from it, than we could before expect. If any one offers to talk at this rate, he shall be heard with the same abhorrence as if he were going to rob mankind of their salvation, their Mediator, and their hopes of forgiveness.

“I am persuaded that a Montanist, or a Novatian, who, from the height of his purity, should look down with contempt upon poor sinners, and exclude them from all mercy, would not be thought such an overthrower of the Gospel, as he who should learn, from the Author of it, to be a friend of publicans and sinners, and to sit down upon a level with them as soon as they begin to repent. But this is not to be wondered at. For all religious people have such a quantity of righteousness acquired by such painful exercise, and formed at last into current habits, which is their wealth both for this world and the next! Now all other schemes of religion are either so complaisant, as to tell them they are very rich, and have enough to triumph in; or else, only a little rough, but friendly in the main, by telling them their riches are not yet sufficient, but by such arts of self-denial and mental refinement, they may enlarge the stock. But the doctrine of faith is a downright robber. It takes away all this wealth, and only tells us it is deposited for us with some one else, upon whose bounty we must live like mere beggars. Indeed, they who are truly beggars, vile and filthy sinners till very lately, may stoop to live in this dependent condition; it suits them well enough; but those who have long distinguished themselves from the herd of vicious wretches, or have even gone beyond moral men,—for them to be told, that they are either not so well, or but the same needy, impotent, insignificant vessels of mercy with the others,—this is more shocking to reason than transubstantiation; for reason had rather resign its pretentions to judge what is bread or flesh, than have this honour wrested from it, to be the architect of virtue and righteousness.

“But whither am I running? My design was only to give you warning, that, wherever you go, this foolishness of preaching will alienate hearts from you, and open mouths against you. What are you then to do, my dear friend? I will not exhort you to courage; we need not talk of that, for nothing that is approaching is evil. I will only mention the prejudice we shall be under if we seem in the least to lay aside universal charity and modesty of expression. Though we love some persons more than we did, let us love none less; and the rather, because we cannot say any one is bad, or destitute of divine grace, for not thinking as we do. He only less apprehends, less enjoys that in Christianity, which is the refuge of the weak and miserable, and will be his when he finds himself so. Indignation at mankind is a temper unsuitable to this cause. If we are indeed at peace with God in Christ, let it soften our demeanour still more, even towards gainsayers. Let them reject us: till then, and (as far as it will be admitted,) afterwards, let our friendship with them continue inviolate.

“Then as to expressions. What has given most offence hitherto, is what, perhaps, may be best spared,—as some people’s confident and hasty triumphs in the grace of God; not by way of humble thankfulness to Him for looking upon them, or acknowledgment of some peace and strength unknown before; but insisting on the completeness of their justification, the completeness of their deliverance already from all sin, and taking to them every apostolical boast in the strongest terms. I do not deny but power over sin, and every Gospel privilege, are bestowed, perhaps, in as large a degree, in the beginning of grace, as at any time afterwards; for it depends upon the actual operation of the Spirit that moment upon the heart, not on a mere federal or habitual union with Him; and his operation is particularly strong at the first entrance upon a new life. Yet, as such converts must remember, that, as this absolute degree of innocence, excluding for the most part even the first motions of sin, may soon depart from them, and be given them but sometimes; though till they fall from God, they will still be free from wilful sins; so while it continues, it is the most slippery and dangerous thing, among all the blessings they receive, for themselves to reflect much upon, and the most exceptionable that they can talk of to other men. Let us speak of everything in such a manner, as may convey glory to Christ, without letting it glance on ourselves by the way.

“John Gambold.”126

Though exception may be taken to some of the expressions, yet the above is a most admirable letter; and shows that Gambold had embraced the same faith as Wesley,—sinners are saved solely through the merits of Christ Jesus; and on the simple exercise of faith in Him. It was not without a struggle that he was brought to this conviction. Peter Böhler said to Wesley, “My brother, my brother, that philosophy of yours must be purged away.” The same might have been said to Gambold. His learning had to give place to the simple teaching of the Word of God. He had to relinquish philosophical theories; and submit to the authoritative utterances of Christ and of His Apostles. Reason had to bend to revelation. In the case of a sincere and earnest man, like Gambold, this mental transformation was not a trifle. He himself, in a letter without date, and apparently addressed to Wesley, refers to the difficulties, and obstacles he encountered. His very learning was a hindrance in the way of his being saved; and he was reluctantly convinced, that, when “the aphorisms of learning pretend to describe and circumscribe the process of salvation, then the words of any one who has but a good heart and common sense, are generally more complete than those of a finished divine; and tally better with the unsearchable divine economy.” He continues:—

“These obstacles of nature’s education, I have often sighed under; and, imagining I knew where the shoe pinched in your case also, I advised the most artless, direct, and confident laying hold of the Scripture declaration, without the ceremony and circuitions of a man of learning, and a man of prudence, or a man of decorum, but simply as a plain man, who wants for his own soul to experience the manifestation of redeeming grace. The words of our Saviour and His apostles, which I said we are to take quite simply, are such as these,—‘Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’ ‘Him that cometh unto Me, I will in no wise cast out.’ ‘He that believeth, shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.’ ‘If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.’ ‘My grace is sufficient for thee; for My strength is made perfect in thy weakness.’ ‘This is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners,’ etc., etc.”

There is another letter, written by Gambold, during his transition state, which further illustrates his views and feelings at this important crisis. It was addressed “to a studious young lady,”—probably Kezziah Wesley,—and concerning it Wesley himself remarks:—“It well deserves the attention of the serious and sensible reader. Indeed, unless read with a good deal of attention, it will scarce be understood, the thoughts are so deep, and so concisely expressed.” The following are brief extracts:—

“I will no more speak against reading, since, as you say, you ‘take pleasure in nothing else in the world.’ For, I cannot deny, but I should be glad myself to have some object of pleasure in the world; something, whether great or mean, I do not care, so it be innocent, that might be a relief to my weary mind. In the situation I am in, not yet admitted to the glorious comforts of faith, and yet sick of the burden of corrupt nature, it seems necessary sometimes to set aside the dejecting prospect, by some amusement, however low. The lower it is, the fitter for me, till faith in Christ raises me from spiritual darkness and death. Then I would hope for such solid consolation, as may well supersede the poor amusements and delights of the natural man.”

“There is no such lumber in the world, as our last year’s notions, which yet, in their day, were wonderfully fine and delightful. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge will not keep: it is pleasant enough when you first pluck it; but, if you pretend to lay it up, it will rot. The man who has discovered, as far as human thought can go, the manner how the world was created, and how it shall be restored, the nature of the human soul, and its state after death,—when he has done, what is he the better? When the heat of thinking is over, will his heart be found in any better or nobler condition, than other men’s? Unless some bye-reasons engage him still to his old speculations (as the respect paid him upon that account by the world and by his juniors), will not he confess, that he is now never the happier for them? Will not he prefer plain common-sense before all such subtleties? Alas, alas! Under the greatest accomplishments of the head, the heart remains just the same as it was. This is very true, though it does not presently appear to us. I cannot, therefore, agree to that fine Platonical insinuation, that, ‘so much as we have of truth, so much we have of God.’

“I heartily condole with you under the troubles of this life: I am ready to sink under them myself. You suffered severely, while you lived with us, from sickness and pain, bodily hardships, etc. It grieves me to think, that ever it should be your lot to struggle with these. Yet, while you continue in this world, you must expect to bear your cross. Comfort yourself under it as well as you can, by applying arguments for patience; and if at any time you should not have strength of mind to do this, God Himself will either support and comfort you, or pity and accept you amidst your weakness.”

“Now, after all this long talk, the chief thing, that, by my calling and my conscience, I ought to have spoken of, and recommended to you, I have passed over; and that is faith in Christ. This is the thing that I ought to speak of with zeal and delight;—that ought to be the brightest in my imagination, and nearest to my heart. How little do any other speculations or reasonings conduce to this faith; and how insignificant are they, if they do not conduce to it! I know, and actually make the reflection upon myself, that, whatever I read, or write, or speak, upon any other subject but this, I am a miserable trifler. Perhaps then I do very ill, to trifle with you. It may be, you have felt the great work of faith, cleansing you from all sin in the blood of Christ;—that, being righteous before God, you have peace therefrom, which passes all understanding;—that, all things are become new with you; and you have a new judgment and taste, as well as new satisfactions and employments suggested to you by the Spirit of wisdom and consolation. You seem to hint in the beginning of your letter, that, either you are in this state, or the desire of your heart is towards it; for you say, you now acquiesce in that, which (by the description I could make of it), is the righteousness of faith. If so, then you have cause to rejoice; and your joy no man taketh from you.”

Some may think, that, in these quotations, the importance of human learning is unduly lowered; but all will admit that the learned recluse at Stanton-Harcourt, had embraced the simple method of human salvation, by a simple and sole reliance on the sacrifice and merits of Christ Jesus. This is the point which we are wishful to enforce; inasmuch as it, not only is “the truth as it is in Jesus;” but, was the origin of the great Methodist movement of the eighteenth century. Without this, England would have been without its latest religious reformation. On this ground, some other extracts from the works of Gambold, may be useful.

It is a fact, not generally noticed, that, though Gambold’s Tragedy,—the Martyrdom of Ignatius, was not published until after the authors death,127 it was written as early as the year 1740; and, hence, may be taken as an exposition of Gambold’s views and feelings, at this early period of his life.

It certainly seems somewhat strange, that an earnest young clergyman, twenty-nine years of age, and only recently brought to the enjoyment of personal salvation, by penitent faith in Christ, should employ his time and pen upon a dramatical production; but it must be borne in mind,—(1) that, from his youth, Gambold had had a great fondness for dramatic pieces, both ancient and modern, (2) that, Gambold’s Tragedy was never intended for the stage, (3) that, its sentiments are unexceptionably pure and good; and (4) that, he was not the first who had attempted to represent the principles and practices of the Christian religion in such a form.

Gambold’s work may be a defective drama; but it is a thoughtful poem, and deserves attention. Take the following extracts, all bearing upon faith in Christ and its immediate results.

“This is the sum, my brethren! Christ is all:
If e’er we lean to other things we fall.
Spirit, and rites, and reason too, are good,
If planted and if glorying in His blood.
Faith is so simple, whence all good doth spring,
Mankind can’t think it is so great a thing;
Still o’er this pearl steps their ambitious pride,
Pursuing gladly any form beside.”

“Come hither, ye, whom from an evil world
The name of Jesus draws! You count Him sweet,
And great, and mighty, by that glimm’ring light
Your novice minds have gained. You venerate
That full acquaintance, and that vital union
Whereby the faithful know Him; and to this
You now aspire. But can you then let go
Your manly wisdom, and become as babes,
To learn new maxims and the mind of Christ?
Can you forsake your former ease and sunshine,
T’ associate with a poor afflicted people,
The scorn of all mankind? Can you the weight
Of your whole souls, with all your hopes of God,
Rest on a long-past action; and that, such
As your Lord’s mystic but opprobrious death?”

          “The friends of Christ
Don’t strive with sin, but trample under foot
Its poor, exploded, antiquated strength;
They don’t rely on some benign event
From the wide wheel of things; but pierce directly
Where Jesus now admits them, and ordains
Their thrones in bliss: hence they in spirit stand
Free from all spot, amidst the train of heaven,
And see God’s face, whose full and constant smile
Doth so attend them through the wilds of life,
That natural dejection, flitting fears,
And all vicissitude, are swallowed up
In one still dawn of that eternal day.”

          “Are there not here
Men who can say, in soberness and truth,
That guilt is done away, and innocence,
Fearless and free, restored within their breasts?
That vice, with dark inextricable bands,
No more detains, nor drives to acts of shame
The blushing, reasoning, reluctant mind?
That, for the passions, which by turns inspire
The worthless life of nature,—anger, sloth,
And avarice, and pride,—pure love prevails,
Kindled by heaven, nor by a bad world quenched?
That, they have inwardly exchanged their climate,
And passed from death to life; so that their heart,
Healed and exulting, from its deep recess,
Returns this answer: That the power of evil,
The sting of pain, and terrors of the grave,
Are now no more, or but at distance rage
In faithless minds; while not a dart can reach
Their citadel of peace in Jesu’s love?
That they, in short, to God’s paternal face
And firm affection can appeal and look,
Nor earthly griefs dare intercept the prospect;
But still to every want they feel as men,—
To every priestly, charitable prayer
They breathe as saints of God; His ear and power
Are nigh; till, thus, by constant use and proof
Of aid celestial, heaven is, more than earth,
Their home, the country of their heart and commerce?”

More extracts are not needed. John Gambold, the learned, moping, gloomy, philosophic Mystic, became an humble, happy, trustful believer in Christ Jesus. He shall tell his own story. Though he was introduced to Böhler in January, 1738, and became his interpreter when he preached, yet, for two years after this, his state of mind was very painful. In a letter dated April 3, 1740, he describes himself as being “mostly pensive and dejected, surrounded with solitude, sickness, and silence; not gathering strength, like the heroes, from rich circumstances, but, like vulgar minds, contracting an abjectness that blunts every finer sentiment, and damps every nobler ardour of the soul.” The day of his deliverance, however, was drawing nigh. Speaking of the Moravians, he writes:—

“I looked upon them as a happy people, and their doctrine as fundamentally true, but could not apply the comforts thereof to myself, being discouraged from so doing by the deep sense I had of my own guilt and depravity, and by being defeated in the hopes of being happy in the notions which I had formerly imbibed. Therefore, I despaired of being in a condition better than the generality of mankind, or different from them. But, in December, 1740, my younger brother, having been with the Brethren in London, came to see me. The account which he gave of the happy course he observed amongst them, struck me with such an agreeable surprise, that I could not but return with him thither. My design was to see the order established, and to feel the spirit which prevailed amongst them where several of them dwelt together. The purpose of my visit was answered to my great satisfaction, and I could believe, not only that they were right both in principle and practice, but that I might have a share of the same grace which they enjoyed. After having been again in their company, I perceived an impulse upon my mind to devote myself entirely to Him who died for me, and to live wholly for Him and to His service.”

It is a curious fact, that, in the same year in which Wesley seceded from the London Moravians, Gambold became enamoured with them. Philip Henry Molther had created immense confusion and bitterness, by preaching the unscriptural doctrine, that, “to search the Scriptures, to pray, or to communicate, before we have faith, is to seek salvation by works; and such works must be laid aside before faith can be received.” Strangely enough, Gambold, and also Westley Hall (another of the Oxford Methodists), adopted this dangerous delusion. Hence the following from Wesley’s Journal:—

“1741, January 28. Our old friends, Mr. Gambold and Mr. Hall, came to see my brother and me. The conversation turned wholly on silent prayer, and quiet waiting for God; which, they said, was the only possible way to attain living, saving faith.

“Sirenum voces, et Circes pocula nosti?

“Was there ever so pleasing a scheme? But where is it written? Not in any of those books which I account the oracles of God. I allow, if there is a better way to God than the scriptural way, this is it. But the prejudice of education so hangs upon me, that I cannot think there is. I must, therefore, still wait in the Bible-way, from which this differs as light from darkness.”

The reader has here a characteristic specimen of Wesley’s refined irony, and determined adherence to the word of God. In the latter, Gambold sometimes failed. He was still a young man of only thirty; and yet not a few of the years of his past life had been worse than wasted, by his indulging in the philosophical speculations of the ancients, instead of taking the Scriptures for his guide; and now, when he had emerged from the mists of the early ages of the Christian Church, he suddenly plunged into the delusive fog of the newly-arrived Philip Henry Molther. How long he continued there we have no means of knowing; but one thing is certain, that, the above-named heresy occasioned contentions which created a partial estrangement between him and his old friend Wesley. In July, 1741, Wesley had to preach before the Oxford University, in the church of St Mary’s; and, being in doubt as to the subject of his sermon, whether it should be from the text, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian,” or from, “How is the faithful city become an harlot!” he went to Oxford, a month before the time of its delivery, to advise with Gambold concerning it, but met with a response far from friendly. Wesley writes:—

“He seemed to think it of no moment; ‘For,’ said he, ‘all here are so prejudiced, that they will mind nothing you say.’”

Wesley adds:—

“I know not that. However, I am to deliver my own soul, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear.”

Even this was not all. Only a fortnight later, Wesley wrote:—

“1741, July 2. I met Mr. Gambold again, who honestly told me he was ashamed of my company, and, therefore, must be excused from going to the society with me. This is plain dealing at last.”

Such was another of the disastrous results of Molther’s visit to the London Moravians: Wesley and Gambold, bound together by hundreds of endearing facts, were parted; and, though not converted into foes, were no longer friends.

It is a melancholy fact, that this estrangement was not temporary. Twelve months before, the friendship between Whitefield and Wesley had been ruptured; but, in 1742, there was a sincere and hearty reunion, which lasted until death. In the case of Gambold, it was otherwise, but through no fault of Wesley’s. On December 23, 1745, Charles Wesley wrote as follows:—

“I met my old friend, John Gambold, at my printer’s, and appointed to meet him to-morrow at Dr. Newton’s. I brought my brother with me. I found the Germans had quite estranged and stole away his heart, which nevertheless relented, while we talked over the passages of our former friendship; but he hardened himself against the weakness of gratitude. We could not prevail upon him to meet us again.”

Yea, more than this. Eighteen years afterwards, Wesley himself made the following entries in his journal:—

“1763, November 5. I spent some time with my old friend, John. Gambold. Who but Count Zinzendorf could have separated such friends as we were? Shall we never unite again?

“December 16. I spent an agreeable hour, and not unprofitably, with my old friend, John Gambold. O how gladly could I join heart and hand again! But, alas! thy heart is not as my heart!”

Gambold would not resume the friendship; but, to the very last, Wesley held him in high esteem. Only twelve months before Gambold’s death, he spoke of him as being one of the most “sensible men in England.”128 But to return to Oxford, where the breach first occurred.

Wesley’s sermon, before the University, was preached and published; and it is a curious fact, that, of all the sermons Gambold ever preached, only two have appeared in print, and, that, one of the two was delivered in the same year, in the same church, and before the same audience, as this of Wesley’s was. Gambold’s sermon was founded upon the text, “And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people;” and was entitled: “Christianity Tidings of Joy. A Sermon preached before the University of Oxford, at St. Mary’s, on Sunday, December 27, 1741. Published at the request of Mr. Vice-Chancellor.”

The two sermons were widely different. Wesley’s was intensely practical and faithful; an earnest and comprehensive enforcement of experimental and practical religion, with a direct, searching, personal application, which, under the circumstances, was much more likely to be censured than applauded. Gambold’s was much more than twice the length of Wesley’s; but not half so simple and useful. Wesley’s was full of the Methodist doctrine of the day; Gambold’s was a metaphysical disquisition, which might, with consistency, have been uttered by any of the Oxford divines opposed to the Methodist movement. It would not be true to say, that, his remarks were not pertinent; but they were not what such an audience might have expected from a newly converted Methodist. How to account for this we know not. His sermon is long, learned, and able; but it fails to reach the heart and conscience as Wesley’s does. Besides, there is one sentence in it which, as coming from such a man, is perfectly perplexing. He expressly asserts that “a man’s sins are forgiven in baptism;” and that baptism, “the channel of remission, is qualification enough for heaven, to those who die upon it.” To reconcile the discrepancy between this and Gambold’s own statements as already quoted, is difficult, if not impossible. The fact seems to be, that, though he had embraced the doctrine of salvation by faith only, he was still infected with some of the High Church principles of the Oxford Methodists; and his evangelical and able ministry was marred and made misty by the philosophical speculations and reasonings in which he had so long indulged. That he was a trustful and saved believer in Jesus Christ, there cannot be a doubt; but he failed to announce the great doctrines, which he had been taught by Böhler, with the simplicity, clearness, earnestness, and pathos that Wesley did. Wesley’s heart was full of them; and, in all his wanderings, they were almost the only theme of his daily ministry. Gambold held, and also preached them; but, perhaps, from his metaphysical cast of mind, they were not so clearly and forcibly presented as by his quondam friend.

Nine months after the delivery of his sermon before the University, Gambold formally severed himself from the Established Church, and united with the Moravians. He was the fifth of the Oxford Methodists who had joined the Brethren. Of these, the two Wesleys had seceded,—or, it might almost be said,—had been virtually expelled. The third, Benjamin Ingham, in this very year, 1742, transferred to the Moravians more than fifty societies, which he had been the instrument of raising in two of the northern counties. Westley Hall, the fourth, need not here be further mentioned. Gambold, the fifth, was the only one who died in the Moravian communion. The step he took was well-considered. He might seem odd; but he was unquestionably sincere. The Moravians in England were only of a few years’ standing, and had many faults; but there was one thing in existence among them, and practised by them, after which Gambold, newly converted, longed with the utmost earnestness,—Christian fellowship. Of this, there was none at Stanton-Harcourt; and it was only now, in 1742, that his old friend Wesley thoroughly succeeded in making such a provision for the Methodists, by dividing their Societies into Classes. This was the thing for which Gambold pined. It could be enjoyed nowhere except among either Wesley’s people or the Moravians. Gambold and Wesley were no longer friends; and, hence, the union of Gambold with the Brethren. With this view, he applied to them for admission, committing himself to their direction, and having no choice with regard to any station or office to be held by him in the future. In the beginning of October, 1742, he simply writes:—

“Having had assurance that such a favour might be granted, I left my parish with a view to live wholly with the Brethren.”

Of course he had previously communicated his intention to the Bishop of Oxford, and also to his patron, Lord Harcourt; and both had strongly urged him to change his purpose: but his resolution was fixed. In due form he resigned his living, and issued an address to his parishioners, of which the following is the substance:—

“It is not in consequence of any resentment, or of any worldly motive that I give up my parish. I have not so implicitly given up my judgment to others as to be prevailed upon, by their persuasion, to take this step. The reason for my so doing is well grounded, and to my own satisfaction. It does not, I assure you, proceed from any dislike that I have to the worship of God in the Church of England. I find no fault with any passage or clause in the Common Prayer Book. Nor can I, in justice, be considered in the same light with such persons as slight and forsake one party of Christians and go over to another without sufficient cause. But that which has determined the choice I have made, was the earnest desire I found in myself of that improvement in the knowledge of the Gospel, and in the experience of the grace of Jesus Christ, which I stood in need of. The blessings purchased by the blood of the Shepherd of our souls, I longed to enjoy in fellowship with a little flock of His sheep, who daily feed on the merits of His passion, and whose great concern is to build up one another in their most holy faith, and to propagate the truth, as it is in Jesus, for the good of others. His gracious presence, the power of His Word, and the virtue of His blood, I wanted to have a more lively sense of, for my own comfort and support in the Christian warfare; and I had reason to hope for those means of happiness, especially where brethren dwell together in unity, for there the Lord commandeth His blessing and life for evermore. This is all I aim at in withdrawing myself from you; and may this departure give no offence to any one.

“I now take my last adieu, and earnestly pray for you and for myself. For myself, that I may be faithful to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and prove His servant, truly devoted to Him, where I am going; and may you, where you remain, be as obedient to the influence of His Spirit and the dictates of His word as I wish to be; so shall we one day rejoice before the Great Shepherd of our souls, that merciful and compassionate Saviour, in whom there is, in the meantime, life, peace, and joy for all believers. I do not go from you because I cannot live in the Church of England, as an outward profession, or because I prefer any other form of ecclesiastical government before that which is by law established in this kingdom; but the inducement which leads me to this change, is the great concern I have for the attainment of a happy state of mind; and, to compass this end, no means, through the blessing of God, appear to me so proper as a free intercourse with those who are of the same principles with my own, to whom I may communicate without reserve; and from whom I can receive that assistance of advice and comfort, which is necessary for a person encompassed with such infirmities as I am. I heartily wish you may derive more benefit from the instructions of my successor, than you have, or could have done, from mine; and I trust this will be the case.”

Nothing need be added to this, except the remark that, in these days, when the utility and necessity of meetings for religious fellowship are so boldly called in question, an argument in their favour may be taken from the yearning experience of this Oxford Methodist.

Gambold spent twenty-nine years in close and active connection with the Moravians; but his life, compared with the career of Wesley and of Whitefield, was uneventful.

At the time of his admission, “the congregation of the Lamb, with its officers and servants as settled in London,” consisted of twenty-one married men, thirteen married women, three widowers, five widows, sixteen single men, and fourteen single women, a total of seventy-two persons. This was a small affair. The Moravians had the start of Wesley’s society in London; and yet that Society, in February, 1743, numbered not fewer than 1950 members.129 It is also a curious fact, that, nearly one half of the Moravian Society were office-bearers; that is, “Congregation Elders, Vice Elders, Eldresses, Waiters, Choristers, Admonitors, Censors, Servants, and Sick Waiters.” Excepting Gambold and James Hutton, none seem to have had the advantages of education; and, probably, all the men were tradesmen, journeymen, or mechanics.130 This was the society Gambold joined, for the sake of Christian fellowship.

His stay in London was not long. On the 14th of May, 1743, he married, and, for eighteen months afterwards, abode in Wales, chiefly at Haverfordwest, where he kept a school, and preached occasionally.

Gambold returned to London in November, 1744; and here, with trifling exceptions, he seems to have resided until his death, in 1771. Here, at Fetter Lane, he preached with power, eloquence, and sacred unction; and numbers were benefited by his ministry. His views of baptism, and his mode of administering it, may be gathered from a paragraph in the “Memoirs of James Hutton,” where, under date of September 13, 1745, it is said,—

“Gambold baptized Brother Fell’s little boy. He spoke on baptism, and said, ‘it was a delivering a child over into the death of our Saviour.’ After prayer, he took the child into his arms, and, taking water three times, he baptized him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; then, singing some verses, he carried the child round to the labourers who were present, who blessed him by laying on of hands.”

As already stated, the Moravian Society in London was small; but its meetings were numerous. From a list of the “public and private opportunities of the Brethren at London, throughout the whole week,” in February, 1747, we learn that they had four sermons every Sunday, two in English and two in German; also German preaching every Tuesday, and English every Tuesday and Thursday. Besides these services, however, there were twenty-two others on Sunday, six on Monday, five on Tuesday, thirteen on Wednesday, nine on Thursday, five on Friday, and five on Saturday, making seventy-two religious services every week, exclusive of monthly general meetings, prayer days, children’s prayer days, and sacraments. To what extent Gambold took part in these Moravian meetings, it is impossible to say; but, numerically considered, there was, beyond a doubt, sufficient scope to gratify his longings for religious fellowship.

In 1747, Gambold, accompanied by Ingham, Okeley, Hutton, and Cennick, paid a visit to Hernhaag, where he continued for several months, and gained the respect and love of all who knew him. His visit was at an important crisis in the Brethren’s history; and, probably, was occasioned by the disastrous fanaticism which had broken out in that important settlement. In 1738, a building was begun at Hernhaag, designed to serve as an asylum for persons educated in the German Calvinistic Church, and persecuted on account of their connection with the Brethren. In 1740, a congregation was regularly organized; and, in a few years, Hernhaag contained a greater number of inhabitants than Herrnhut. Here boarding-schools were established for the education of the children of the Moravian ministers, whether employed in the service of the church at home or in foreign lands; and the place altogether was one of great importance. In 1746, however, there was the utmost danger of this Christian settlement being ruined. Here began an evil, which soon became widespread, and which required vigorous and long-continued efforts to annihilate. The following is extracted from Holmes’ “History of the Protestant Church of the United Brethren” (Vol. i., p. 399).

“In their zeal to root out self-righteousness, the Brethren were not sufficiently on their guard against levity of expression. The delight they took in speaking of the sufferings of Christ, which arose from the penetrating sense they had of their infinite value, by degrees degenerated into fanciful representations of the various scenes of His passion. Their style, in speaking and writing, lost its former plainness and simplicity, and became turgid, puerile, and fanatical, abounding in playful allusions to Christ as the Lamb, the Bridegroom, etc., by which He is described in holy writ, and in fanciful representations of the wound in His side. In describing the spiritual relation between Christ and His Church, the highly figurative language of the Canticles was substituted in the place of the dignified simplicity, used by our Saviour and His apostles, when speaking on this subject. Some less-experienced preachers even seemed to vie with each other in introducing, into their discourses, the most extravagant, and often wholly unintelligible, expressions. This kept the hearers in a state of constant excitement, but was not calculated to subject every thought of the heart to the obedience of Christ. Religion, instead of enlightening the understanding, governing the affections, and regulating the general conduct, became a play of the imagination.

“This species of fanaticism first broke out at Herrnhaag, in the year 1746, and, from thence, spread into several other congregations. Many were carried away by it, for it seemed to promise a certain joyous perfection, representing believers as innocent, playful children, who might be quite at their ease amidst all the trials and difficulties incident to the present life. The effect produced was such as might be expected. The more serious members of the church (and these after all formed the major part) bitterly lamented an evil, which they could not at once eradicate. Others, considering the malady as incurable, withdrew from its communion. The behaviour of such as were most infected with this error, though not immoral and criminal, was yet highly disgraceful to their Christian profession. Had not God in mercy averted the impending danger, a spirit of religious levity and antinomianism might, by degrees, have sapped the very foundation of the Brethren’s Church, and completed her ruin.”

What part Gambold took in this affair at Herrnhaag, and with what results, we have no means of knowing; but certain it is, that, this pestiferous lusciousness spread to England, and, for many a long year afterwards, disgraced the Moravian hymns, and justly exposed the Moravians themselves to the censures and taunts of both friends and foes. It would be easy to quote instances illustrative of this, from the English Moravian Hymn Book, “published chiefly for the Use of the Congregations in Union with the Brethren’s Church,” in 1754; but the reader would not be edified by such quotations.

The Moravians in England, when compared with the Methodists, could hardly be considered a prosperous community. From the first, a considerable number of their members belonged to other churches; and, in 1749, an effort was made to multiply such extra-ecclesiastical adherents, by instituting what was called an English Tropus, the object being to provide a means whereby the members of other communities, and, notably, of the Church of England, might be enrolled in the Moravian Brotherhood, without severing themselves from the churches of which they already formed a part. This was one of the subjects discussed at a synod held in London in the above-mentioned year; and, to facilitate the matter, Gambold addressed the following letter “To Papa, i.e. Count Zinzendorf,” the beginning of which, to mention nothing else, shows how far even Gambold had fallen into the offensive use of the adulatory language of Moravian sycophants.

“Most dear and paternal Heart.—A certain reflection has this day arisen in my mind, which, such as it is, I wish to communicate to you. I perceive that you and your faithful colleagues are earnestly labouring to bring it about, that, those, who flee from the fold of the Anglican religion, may not be completely cut off from the said religion; but still continue in ecclesiastical bond with it; and, therefore, you propose to constitute an Anglican tropus among the Brethren,—an object most dear to us, and with the greatest propriety recommended; inasmuch as it is beginning, as I imagine, to be thought desirable by the clergy of this country also. I greatly fear, however, that there are, in their hierarchy, certain deficiencies which may occasion some obstruction to the consent of the majority; moreover, other considerations may oppose the arrangement, that one prelate (the others being unconsulted, except, perhaps, synodically), should be able to concede this privilege.

“Two special means, or symbols of union, are contained, as I understand, under the word Tropus. One requisite is, that some prelate of the Anglican Church should be invested with the office of examining into such matters as the Brethren agitate, and, on the part of his Church, and with the seal of the same, assisting at their ordinations. The other requisite is, that the Liturgy, or Prayers of the Anglican Church should be admitted in our assembly. The former involves the appointment of prudent political men; the latter provides for the security of religious, pious persons sustaining any injury from us; tending, moreover, to the abatement of disaffection as respects both communities, and to their mutual benefit and salvation. I, therefore, earnestly desire the accomplishment of the design.

“What evil, in the mean time, could ensue if the whole Book of Prayers of the Anglican Church should occasionally be used in public; not at this time as prayers, but as text; and an explanation occasionally given as to the passages which, with us, may seem to require some explanation? Certain exceedingly grand portions of sacred Scripture which are intermingled with these may, in this service, be omitted as being beyond all dispute; and so, in six or eight prelections, or short discourses, the whole may be finished. The service may, with propriety, be preceded by some such introduction as the following:

“Inasmuch as we and some other nurslings of the Anglican Church, who have embraced the spiritual aid of the Moravian Brethren, yet certainly with no design, by so doing, of departing from our own proper religion; being, however, in such situation, it manifestly follows that we constitute an assembly which is extraordinary and extra-parochial, being ecclesiastically made up out of various parishes; and that we, moreover, have a sacred place of meeting, which certainly is not a parish church; consequently many will immediately conclude that we are now of a different mind, and that we have altogether forsaken the Anglican Church. Such, however, would be an erroneous opinion. That we constitute such a society or assembly as we have mentioned, arises from our desire to exercise that salutary and vigorous discipline which the Anglican Church pants for; but, by reason of its exceeding magnitude, cannot maintain; that we have a place in which we assemble, and a pulpit, arises from our delight in hearing the principal doctrine respecting the death and grace of our Redeemer more clearly and more fully enunciated there than can in these times be expected elsewhere, notwithstanding the same doctrine is maintained in the primary article of the Anglican Church. There is, therefore, no reason why we should be offended with the Church of our fatherland; and let it not so tenaciously disallow to us those superadded aids for our benefit and edification which we now enjoy, and nothing will be more agreeable to us than (provided these be preserved with a good conscience) henceforward still to preserve with it the bond of unity. For we are able to do so both openly and sincerely. In testimony of this, we are prepared to adopt in our assemblies the Liturgy or Common Prayers of the Anglican Church. But, because, as we are informed, the use of the Anglican Liturgy, beyond the ordinary churches, will either be unlawful, or, at least, exceedingly offensive; and as a kind of secret disaffection, rather than amity, might arise therefrom with those whom, from the most sincere respect, we would not injure even in the least, we must therefore defer the adoption of this Liturgy, in our proseucha or house of prayer, until full liberty of using it be granted to us by those who have the authority. In the meantime, however, in order to its being made manifest that what we have asserted is true, that union with the Church of our fatherland is possible, since no violence is thereby done to our conscience (providing there be left to us discipline and evangelization, neither one nor the other of which being opposed to the Anglican Church; nay, perhaps, more closely allied to it than some imagine),—let us proceed to examine in due order the whole liturgy of the Anglican Church. As to what others, who, diverging into sects, have departed from the Anglican fold, may have to object to this Liturgy I shall take no notice, for they and we are neither affected nor aggrieved by the same things. But, throughout this examination I shall make it my special care to omit nothing which can, in accordance with our light and principles, or indeed ever can, occasion any obstacle to any one of us. To such passages I shall assign that sense and exposition which I judge to have been, and to be, the true meaning; and, unless I am deceived, such will be found neither grievous nor unreasonable to the mind which is imbued with the dearer knowledge and love of the Saviour.’

“I have run out further than is suitable for an introduction; but, as if carefully reviewing the whole matter in question, I have been imagining what effect would result from the procedure: the same that you also desire through the means of a Tropus, only more feebly and less constant. But why, in any degree, less constant? Because it is sufficiently constant, considering the novelty of the measure. Such a declaration would sink into the memory, and would be preserved by all as a memorial of the true mind and will of the Brethren.

“Your most respectful son, and desiring to be excused, though some should prate beyond their measure,

“John Gambold”.131

This long and tiresome letter is not without its use. For eight years, Gambold had been a Moravian; he was in the vigour of his manhood; but his mode of thinking and style of writing were not improved; nay, had become as murky as the religious clouds in which he lived. Besides, he was only eleven years the junior of Zinzendorf, and was naturally and scholastically his equal, if not his superior; and, yet, contaminated by the sycophancy of his associates, Gambold, the Oxford student, the learned mystic, the dramatic poet, condescends to use the offensive twaddle then so common, and must needs address the ambitious foreigner as “Papa,” and “Most dear and paternal Heart.” Think of Wesley, or even of Ingham, employing such epithets as these! The manliness of the man was being dwarfed by the fooleries of his friends.

But, apart from this, Gambold’s letter is a curious production, and not without interest at the present day, as containing a scheme for a kind of amalgamation of some of the Moravians with the Established Church. The Moravians differed from the Methodists; for Zinzendorf, at the very Synod held immediately after the date of Gambold’s letter, formally announced that the English Moravians were “now openly in the eye of the world acknowledged to be a Church;” whereas Wesley, to the day of his death, denied this distinction to the Methodists, affirming, in the strongest terms, that the Methodists were not a Church, but only Societies within a Church. Thus, the position of the two communities was different. To be consistent, the Methodists might have claimed, and, indeed, ought to have claimed, membership with some existing Church, beyond the circle of the Society enclosure; but, according to Zinzendorf and the London Synod of 1749, the Moravians were themselves a Church; and, hence, for any Moravian, like Gambold, to profess himself a member of the Anglican Church, was, in point of fact, to claim to be a member of two Churches instead of one. This was a grave inconsistency; but, in accordance with Gambold’s suggestions, an attempt was made to carry it into effect.

The proposed Synod met in London, in September, 1749; and “the Most Reverend Thomas Wilson, Bishop of Sodor and Man,” already in the eighty-sixth year of his age, with great formality, and with a pomp of language almost startling, was “chosen into the order and number of the Anetecessors of the General Synod of the Brethren of the Anatolic Unity.” It was also decreed further, “that, the aforesaid Most Reverend Prelate ought to be offered the administration of the Reformed tropus in our hierarchy for life, with full liberty, in case of emergency, to employ, as his substitute, the Rev. Thomas Wilson, Royal Almoner, Doctor of Theology, and Prebendary of St. Peter’s, Westminster.”

The good old Bishop, with joy and thankfulness, accepted the office to which the Moravians had elected him;132 and, thus, Gambold and Zinzendorf succeeded in securing the patronage of an English Prelate. Practically, the arrangement was of little use, perhaps of none at all. Five years afterwards, the venerable and pious Bishop was gathered to his fathers, at the age of ninety-one.

Moravianism and its illustrious “Papa” had now arrived at the zenith of their offensive ambition. It would be useless, and also far from pleasant, to disinter the history of the Moravian Brotherhood at this important crisis. A few of the facts have been mentioned in Ingham’s Memoir; and nothing more need now be added, except, that, while Zinzendorf was almost idolatrously honoured by the Moravians themselves, he was the subject of severe but just attacks outside the pale of his own community. Prudently, though perhaps somewhat arrogantly, he generally declined to defend himself, partly on the ground that royalty always acted thus; but he found it desirable to do something else which was almost tantamount to this. In this same year, 1749, he published, in his own private printing-office, a folio volume of 184 pages, entitled, “Acta Fratrum Unitatis in Angliâ, 1749;” the whole of which, with the exception of the sixth section of the second part, was translated or edited by Gambold. The first part of this curious work consists entirely of Acts of Parliament and Reports of Parliamentary Committees in reference to the Brethren, together with original documents adduced as proofs of the propositions which had been made. The second part embraces:—1. A paraphrase of the twenty-one Articles of the Confession of Augsburg; 2. The Brethren’s method of preaching the Gospel according to the Synod of Berne; 3. The Moravian Litany; 4. Extracts from the Minutes of Moravian Synods; 5. Zinzendorf’s Rationale of the Brethren’s Liturgies; 6. Original passages from the writings of the early fathers of the Church, and of theologians of the middle ages.

This was not the only service which Gambold rendered to Zinzendorf and the Moravians. On June 4, 1750, he sent to Spangenberg a long letter, which was afterwards published in a pamphlet, with the title, “An Essay towards giving some just ideas of the personal character of Count Zinzendorf, the present Advocate and Ordinary of the Brethren’s Church: In several Letters wrote by Eye-Witnesses. Published by James Hutton, late of Westminster, and now of Chelsea. London, 1755.” 8vo. Gambold’s letter is too long for insertion here; but throughout it is a vindication of the Count,—the best doubtless that Gambold could supply,—and a few extracts may be useful:—

“There are a great number of thinking persons, who, if the bear-skin could be taken off from the Brethren, would directly be well satisfied with that somewhat extraordinary, but yet reasonable, zeal for the fundamentals of Christianity, which, after all, is the Brethren’s whole mystery and peculiarity.”

“The Brethren’s Church has, at present, an illustrious nobleman both for her Advocate and Ordinary; and most of the hard imputations cast upon her by her antagonists are levelled against him, and either arise from or imply a misunderstanding of his true character. He is an extraordinary person or genius, and, as such, requires to be looked at in a particular point of view, if one will avoid error. I will, therefore, do nothing else but set down to that end some remarks which occur to me, from ten or eleven years’ acquaintance with him.”

“Count Zinzendorf has in him something unlike other people. But what is it? A very tender and deep-rooted love to our blessed Redeemer, and the highest and most honourable conceptions of His atonement. He willingly believes, as the New Testament supposes, that the bitter sufferings of the Saviour are alone able to enervate, as well as atone for sin; and the contemplation and influence of His tormented person, to effect our sanctification in all its branches. And all the hearty expressions to the honour of Jesus, that are found in ancient Hymns, or Meditations of pious Divines, (which, because mankind do not always keep up to the same strain of truth, are unjustly looked upon as flights and raptures), are with him serious principles.”

“Some have censured him for introducing, or suffering to be introduced, some new Phrases, and delivering assertions which have the look of Paradoxes; but these Phrases and Paradoxes, when examined to the bottom, are orthodox; and, if not verbatim used in former ages, are, at least, parallel to the always received theological language; and, upon some occasions, are necessary, and happily effectual, to set people a-thinking, and to recover in their minds the full idea belonging to many terms and sayings over which they, by frequent repetition, have fallen asleep, and forgot the force and import of them. In the same view, he also likes very much to translate the Scriptures in a free, round manner, and in modern words.”

“The same jealousy to keep the word of God from being robbed of its energy, has led him to oppose another abuse. Many pious people, though not sleepy and unmoved by the words they repeat, yet amidst their best emotion, have only vague and indeterminate ideas, nor can it be known precisely what they mean. Now, though a dealer in mere metaphors and allegories may be a very good soul, yet, it is not for the honour of God, that its doctrine should rest upon such a foundation; but all its assertions must rather be literally ascertainable realities, in the same manner as physical ones are, upon a nearer experience; and this is the motive of his bringing spiritual matters to a point, under a clothing and illustration somewhat philosophical, for a season, until the supposition that those matters are only something shadowy, and not substance, is exploded.”

“His original design was purely to preach and recommend his Saviour to mankind at large, wherever he could find audience. It was wholly accidental, and by him unsought, that he has been entrusted with the direction of a particular Church. However others may look upon the occurrences in the Brethren’s congregation, he is always deeply struck with reverence for our Saviour’s immediate guidance of, and benediction over the whole, which occasions his using, sometimes about things which others may account small or common, that magnificence of expression which is observable in him. The same tender attention to his Master’s mind and order, renders him sometimes, when he apprehends any deviation therefrom, more vehement in his manner, than is incident to those who have not zeal enough ever to be constrained in spirit. Upon this account, he has been thought magisterial; but very unjustly, for, abstracting from the fervour, which, in an agony of faithfulness, he may at such times discover, he is ready to be informed by any one, distrustful of himself, extremely moderate towards those against whom he may be expected to be sharp, and not at all fond of power.

“Further, from a long experience in regard to congregations, he sometimes delivers his opinion about the method of carrying on the Gospel work in a very systematical manner, implying, one might think, a great deal of policy; but, when his counsels are traced to their first idea, they are always an inculcation of one or other of the known maxims of our Saviour, with only a more direct application to special and present cases than is common.

“He is deeply persuaded of the blessed ends attained by gathering some of the children of God together into such little congregations as he has the care of; but he is also fully convinced, not only that there are many more of God’s children remaining scattered in the several Christian parties and societies; but even that the establishments, confessions, forms of worship, etc., in those societies, have a blessed effect for the salvation of such. For which reason, if the hearts on all sides did but permit things to go according to his mind, the souls who are quickened to spiritual life, even through the necessity of the Brethren, should, notwithstanding, remain generally in the communion and way they had been brought up in, without the least affront or infringement offered thereto.

“His noble way of thinking, in several other particulars, will not so much recommend him at first sight, as expose him to censure; but noble it is, however, and will be found best in the end. He is against using any compulsion with hearts, who ought to be led by the love of the Saviour, and by a new nature; and is endeavouring to bring the discipline of the congregation to such a temperature, as that it may assist a work of grace where it is, but not mimic it where it is not. In pursuance of which principle, he rather tolerates (with secret grief and employing only distant hints), several unessential faults of those about him, than correct them with detriment to the ingenuity of spirit. These faults are charged upon him; as for instance, a few ill-judged flights of spiritual joy and cheerfulness, which he discerned to be such from the beginning, but would not retrench them, because they would not subside of themselves; and the true Christian gaiety of spirit is too valuable a jewel to hazard the breaking of it, by a rough blow in the polishing. So far goes the generosity of his conceptions, that he is resolved to drop the whole fabric of the congregation, if ever the life and spirit should be found to have left it. No wonder, then, that he insists upon adapting the outward worship, from time to time, to the inward state of the members; so that the Liturgy, from honesty and not from fickleness, is capable of many progressive gradations, and even of retrogradations, rather than fall into hypocrisy.

“In short, the person I have been speaking of is a plain man, who proceeds straight forward; and, amidst all the richness of his active and extensive genius, will always be serving and inculcating one only point, namely, the meritorious sufferings of our Creator,—a point by which alone Christians are distinguished from Deists.”

How far this serves as a vindication or apology, the reader must form his own opinion; but it exhibits the fidelity of Gambold to his German leader, and also indicates some of the principles which Gambold himself entertained at this period of his history.

Gambold did more than this for the censured Zinzendorf. In 1751, a five shillings volume was published, with the title, “Maxims, Theological Ideas, and Sentences, out of the present Ordinary of the Brethren’s Dissertations and Discourses, from the year 1738 to 1747. Extracted by John Gambold, M.A. 8vo.” In his Preface, Gambold writes:—

“Every one has heard, in some light or other, this noble person’s name mentioned. To judge impartially of him, we are to look back at what he has preached in a course of several years, especially since the discourses, by their nature and circumstances, were such a free out-pouring of his heart.”

To this there could be no objection; but it may be doubted whether Gambold’s extracts were as impartial as he wished them to be regarded.

In 1753, Gambold rendered another service to the Count, by the publication of “The Ordinary’s Remarks upon the manner of his being treated in Controversy. Translated from the High-Dutch, with a Preface, by John Gambold, Minister of the Moravian Chapel in Fetter Lane.”

And shortly after this, in 1754, Gambold issued, “A Modest Plea for the Church of the Brethren,” of which publication, Lavington, Bishop of Exeter, wrote:—

“The whole drift of this pamphlet is to commend their sect in general terms, without answering any one accusation brought against them.”133

Lavington was a bitter antagonist, and what he says must be received with caution; but still, the very title of Gambold’s production indicates that the Brethren’s Church was hardly perfect.

More than this. In 1754, was published the largest hymn-book in the English language: “A Collection of Hymns of the Children of God in all Ages, from the Beginning till now. In two Parts. Designed chiefly for the Use of the Congregations in Union with the Brethren’s Church.” Two Volumes, pp. 380, and 390.134 8vo. Zinzendorf projected this; but Gambold was his chief editor.135 The Preface, which probably was Gambold’s production, contains the following description of the Brotherhood:—

“The Brethren’s grand topic, in their hymns, as every one may see, is the Person and Propitiation of Jesus Christ. They collect, as in the focus of a burning glass, what has descended to them from past ages, or properly from the Bible itself, upon this head; and, that it may not be evaded under the notion of dicta ardentia, they present it in a system, and apply that system to practice. They affirm our free acceptance with God as sinners, and through pure grace, and yet the necessity of, and powerful assistances for, a most real holiness of life afterwards, with such a warmth, upon each of these subjects successively, that many a reader runs away with the supposition of their over-doing on that side he happened to take notice of, for want of waiting the balance. They cherish, as an hereditary platform from their ancestors, a very high persuasion of, and very strict rules concerning, a New Testament Church. To mention but one peculiarity more, they continually betray a burning propensity to the work of propagating the Gospel of peace. If any one finds more things uttered in this spirit, than he can make application of in his sphere, let him remember that these are a people, very many of whose members have such a call. Above a hundred of them have already consumed and laid down their mortal tabernacles in ministering the Gospel to the heathen.”

The last statement is remarkable, and greatly to the honour of the Brethren’s Church, especially when it is remembered that only thirty years had elapsed since the Church was founded at Herrnhuth, in Germany.

From these brief notices of his literary labours, it will be seen, that, Gambold was a faithful, unflinching friend of the illustrious Count. The English Moravians were passing through the terrible crisis already mentioned in the Memoir of Ingham. They were nearly wrecked; and not undeservedly. Ingham left them; but Gambold did his utmost to defend them; and, as the chief English member of their community, was ordained a “Chor-Episcopus,” in other words, an Assistant Bishop. The ceremony took place at a Synod, held at Lindsey House, London, in November, 1754; and was performed by Bishops Watteville, and John and David Nitschmann.136

Little more remains to be told of this sincere and devoted man. For seventeen years, he wore the honours of his office “with humility and diffidence.” The writer of the Memoir, prefixed to Gambold’s works, remarks:—

“Such a Bishop would have justly been esteemed an honour to any Church, whether ancient or modern, if disinterestedness of spirit, humility of mind, devotion of heart, a benevolent disposition towards all men, and a voluntary submission to the service, not only of the Church in general, but of every member thereof, though in the most inferior situation, be the proper qualifications and distinguished ornaments of the Christian Episcopacy.”

It has been already stated, that, of the thousands of sermons which Gambold preached, during the thirty-eight years of his Christian ministry, only two were printed. One of these was delivered, before the University of Oxford, in 1741; the other, in Fetter Lane Chapel, London, on a National Fast Day, in 1756.

At the latter period, the nation was in a state of great excitement and alarm. War with France was inevitable. February 6, 1756, was observed as a day of humiliation and prayer. Such a fast in London had not been seen since the Restoration. Business was suspended; and churches and chapels everywhere were crowded. Gambold’s sermon was founded upon the text, “Tremble, thou Earth, at the presence of the Lord;” and, when published, was entitled, “The Reasonableness and Extent of Religious Reverence.” Though somewhat metaphysical in its style, and mode of reasoning, it displays ability, and is worth perusing.

So far as is known, there are only two other works with the publication of which Gambold was connected.137 One was a beautiful and comprehensive Catechism, of about sixty pages, 12mo, published in the year 1765, with the title, “A Short Summary of Christian Doctrine, in the Way of Question and Answer: The Answers being all made in the sound and venerable Words of the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England. To which are added, Some Extracts out of the Homilies. Collected for the Service of a few Persons, Members of the Established Church; but imagined not to be unuseful to others.” Two facts are made manifest by this publication; namely, that, Gambold’s creed was orthodox; and that, notwithstanding his Moravian bishopric, he had still a warm affection for the Church of England.

The other book, referred to above, was Cranz’s History of Greenland. This was, in the first instance, published in Germany; but the General Synod of 1765, directed that it should be translated into English; and a great part of the translation, and the whole of the editing was devolved upon Gambold. The work was published, in London, in 1767, with the following title: “The History of Greenland: containing a Description of the Country and its Inhabitants; and particularly a Relation of the Mission carried on, for above thirty years, by the Unitas Fratrum at New Herrnhuth and Lichtenfels, in that Country. By David Cranz. Translated from the High Dutch; and illustrated with Maps and other Copperplates. London, 1767. Printed for the Brethren’s Society for the Furtherance of the Gospel among the Heathen.” 8vo; vol. i., pp. 405; vol. ii., pp. 497.

About eighty copies were distributed among the nobility and gentry, for the purpose of enlightening them respecting the Moravian Mission; and the writer of the Memoirs of James Hutton, says:—

“Although the work, in a pecuniary sense, was by no means profitable; yet, the distribution of the copies among the higher ranks, produced the happiest effects, by removing the prejudice which had been excited in the public mind, through the writings of the Bishop of Exeter, and others.”

For ten years after his episcopal ordination, Gambold resided chiefly in London, employing himself in every branch of service for the congregation settled there, and in regular correspondence with all his fellow-labourers of the same communion throughout England.

In 1760, the death of Zinzendorf occurred; and four years later, a General Synod was held at Marienborn, which Gambold attended. Besides Himself, there were present, eleven bishops, forty-six presbyters, deacons, and lay-elders, and thirty-seven deputies from different congregations. It was opened, with great solemnity, on the 1st of July, and continued its deliberations, by several adjournments, in forty-four sessions, till the 29th of August.

Ten years had elapsed since the last General Synod; and, hence, many and momentous were the questions that had to be considered. Their sphere of labour had been considerably enlarged, especially in heathen countries. There had been the long and embittered controversy in England. Some of their Settlements had been disturbed and injured by the existing war. Zinzendorf, their chief, had died; and the debt of the Brethren’s Church amounted to the alarming sum of £150,000.138 It is unnecessary to enter into the details of this important Conference. Suffice it to say, that, from this period, Moravianism became a purer, healthier, and more scriptural thing than it had been before.

Gambold secured the respect and love of the Brethren composing this General Synod; and was in a position to be of greater service to his community than ever. His work, however, was nearly ended. After the sessions of the Synod were concluded, he returned to London, where he continued to reside till 1768, when he was seized with “a dropsical asthma,” from which his sufferings were such, that his friends, who were about him, apprehended that every day would be his last. Hoping to be benefited by the change, he removed to his native air; and, for a time, there were flickering hopes of amended health. Wishing to render himself useful to the Brethren’s Church at Haverfordwest, he exerted his failing energies to the utmost. As far as he was able, he visited the sick, and poor, and tried to comfort them in their distresses. When he could, he preached; his last text being “Set your affections on things above.” When not able to preach in public, he explained the Scriptures in private, and held fellowship with his Christian friends. His work was done; and it only remains to see how the Oxford Methodist, and Moravian Bishop died.

In a letter dated October 11, 1770, after stating that his asthma was so relieved that he could now lie down in bed, and obtain a little sleep, he continued:—

“I ought to be thankful for every mitigation of pain; but it becomes, I think, plainer than ever, that I have a real attack of the dropsy, which whether I shall get the better of it, or it, by and by, get the better of me, is a question. I totter on my legs, and, though I look pretty well, yet there are few intervals in the day wherein I have anything like strength either of body or mind. However, I set no bounds to my Saviour’s power, if He sees it good to continue me here a little longer; but it is hardly to be any more expected in my case. I really do all I can to support my impaired constitution, and walk, most days, a little in the chapel or burying-ground, till I am ready to drop down. All that I can properly desire of my gracious Lord is, that, He would be merciful to me an unworthy sinner, wash me from all my unfaithfulness and transgressions in His blood, keep me in communion with Himself and His people, help me to behave rightly, at least not offensively, in my sickness, and be perceptibly near to me in my last hour, whenever it is to be.”

In another letter, dated July 28, 1771, he wrote:—

“The writing of the few lines before the present, was the work of several days, attended with more difficulty and pain than any one is able to conceive, who does not feel what I have suffered. But to complain is disagreeable to me. The constant prayer of my heart, most tenderly united with yours, is for the welfare and prosperity of the Church of God, and especially that part of it which is the immediate object of our care. May our faithful and best Friend, who purchased it with His blood, and is the supreme Head thereof, so defend His people amidst all opposition, and support His servants who labour in the word and doctrine, and have the general charge over His house, that the several members of it may increase in faith, hope, and love, to their comfort and joy.

“With respect to myself, if I may judge from what I feel, I can think no otherwise than that I am very near the end of my course. Therefore, all my prayers are centred in this, that my gracious Lord may wash me, a sinner, in His blood, and abide always near me, especially in my last extremity.”

The last time that he attended the public celebration of the Lord’s Supper, was only five days before his death. At the conclusion of it, weak and wasted as he was, he commenced singing a verse of praise and thanksgiving, and the impression produced was such, that the whole congregation began to weep.

From the nature of his disease, it was seldom he could sleep; but he was always patient and confiding. “All He does is well done,” said he; “let us only look to Him, and the end will be blessed.” He was deeply thankful for the kind offices of his friends, and especially for those of his loving wife, who nursed him, in every stage of his illness, with the greatest tenderness. Just before the close of all his sufferings, he was heard to pray: “Dear Saviour! remember my poor name, and come, come soon!” His prayer was answered. Shortly after these words were uttered, he peacefully expired, on September 13, 1771, leaving behind him, besides his widow, two children, a son and a daughter, to lament their loss.139

Gambold, like Wesley, wrote an epitaph on himself; and, as it is a fair specimen of the better class of his poetical productions, it is here subjoined:—

“Ask not, who ended here his span?
His name, reproach, and praise, was—Man.
Did no great deeds adorn his course
No deed of his, but show’d him worse!
One thing was great, which God supplied,
He suffered human life,—and died.
What points of knowledge did he gain?
That life was sacred all,—and vain;
Sacred, how high? and vain, how low?
He knew not here, but died to know.”

Though Bishop Gambold was a man of great learning, and of extensive reading, especially in the early writings of the Christian Church, he himself was not a voluminous author. Excepting his translations, and the works he merely edited, all that he published of his own were two sermons; his Short Summary of Christian Doctrine; a few Prefaces; and some brief Hymns and Poems. In this respect, he differed widely from his old friend Wesley. Then again, though an able and effective preacher, his pulpit exercises were almost entirely confined to the small village of Stanton-Harcourt, and the Brethren’s Chapel in Fetter Lane, London. In this also, he differed, not only from Wesley, but from Whitefield. Still, it would be incorrect to say, that his life, to a great extent, was a useless one. Wesley, after publishing one of Gambold’s poetic pieces, is reported to have said: “And this light was buried under a bushel! How might he have enlightened all Christendom!”140 We scarcely concur in this. Gambold, notwithstanding his learning and his piety, was constitutionally too timorous and retiring to be the man to enlighten all Christendom; but, at the same time, he was of such service to the Moravian Church, that, it is an extravagance to say, “his light was buried under a bushel.” With all its weaknesses, follies, and faults, at the beginning of its history, the Moravian Brotherhood set a Christian and heroic example to other Churches, in its missions to the heathen; and the man who chiefly helped to edify, purify, improve, and perpetuate such a community, did no mean service to the cause of the Divine Redeemer. Gambold’s poetry has been over-estimated by Methodist and Moravian writers; and, perhaps also, his natural ability and learning; but all must admit, that he was an exceedingly devout and earnest Christian; and that, though he might, for a season, be somewhat tainted with the religious lusciousness of the early Moravian society, his moral character, from first to last, was without a speck.

Perhaps it ought to be added, that, a beautiful portrait of Gambold was painted by Abraham Louis Brandt, an earnest and laborious Moravian minister, and that an exquisite engraving from the original picture was prefixed to Gambold’s works, when first published in 1789.