“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.