So many Churches and parties have
laid claim to Gordon’s patronage, and such extraordinary
views have been attributed to him on religious subjects,
that it may not be out of place to say something on
the point. His mind was very comprehensive, and
his whole nature sympathetic, consequently many, differing
widely from each other, have regarded him as an ally
of their own cause. When he became Private Secretary
to Lord Ripon, on the appointment of the latter, who
is a Roman Catholic, as Governor-General of India,
it was stated in some of the Indian papers that the
new Viceroy had been urged by Mr. Gladstone to accept
a Baptist as his Private Secretary, in order to conciliate
the Nonconformist and Protestant element in England.
There was not a word of truth in the statement.
The Baptist Church has possessed some very eminent
men, such as Sir Henry Havelock, Dr. Carey, Dr. Judson,
Dr. Angus, and Mr. Spurgeon, but General Gordon was
not one of their number. He was baptized as a
member of the Church of England, and though he was
never confirmed, yet he lived and died a communicant
of that body. In many ways he was a thorough
type of that catholic generous class of Churchmen,
so characteristic of our National Church, which, taking
a large-hearted view of Church membership, recognises
all that is good, noble, and pure in other systems,
and is not afraid of losing caste by associating with
Nonconformists. Nor would it be fair to say that
his catholicity developed only in the direction of
the Nonconformists, for no man ever tried more than
he to see good in other systems of religion, such
as the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, and even
Mohammedanism. He had a remarkably open mind,
and was always anxious to distinguish between persons
and principles. He fully recognised the errors
of certain religious systems, but this did not in
the least interfere with his recognition of good in
the individuals who adhered to them. The catholicity
of his own views may be gathered from the following
extracts made from his letters at different times:
“I do not think much of getting
help from only one particular set of men; I will
take Divine aid from any of those who may be dispensing
it, whether High Church, Low Church, Greek Church,
or Roman Catholic Church; each meal shall be,
by God’s grace, my sacrament.”
“I would wish to avoid laying
down the law: you may look at a plate and
see it is round; I look at it, and see it is square;
if you are happy in your view, keep it, and I
keep mine; one day we shall both see the truth.
I say this, because we often are inclined to find
fault with those who do not think as we do, ’who
do not follow us.’ Why trouble
others and disturb their minds on matters which we
see only dimly ourselves? At the same time I own
to repugnance to the general conversation of the
world and of some religious people; there is a
sort of ‘I am holier than thou’ in their
words which I do not like, therefore I prefer
those subjects where such discussions do not enter.”
“Join no sect, though
there may be truth in all. Be of the true
army of Christ, wear His uniform,
Love: ’By this, and by no other
sign, shall men know that
ye are My disciples.’”
If we may judge of a man by his friends
and his books, few can surpass General Gordon in catholicity.
He used to say that he learned certain truths from
certain individuals. Thus, from the writings of
an eminent Plymouth Brother, C. H. Mackintosh, he
learnt the doctrine of the two natures within himself,
and from a Mr. Jukes he learnt the lesson of the crucifixion
of the flesh. “Mr. Mylne,” he used
to say, “taught me the importance of intercessory
prayer, and Colonel Travers taught me the importance
of bringing forth the fruit of the Spirit.”
He valued also Bishop Pearson’s work on the
Creed, and the standard work on the Thirty-nine Articles
by the lately-retired Bishop of Winchester. “The
Imitation of Christ,” by Thomas a Kempis, was
a favourite book, and one which he gave away largely.
“Christ’s Mystical,” by Hall, and
“The Deep Things of God,” by Hill, were
also much valued, and given away to his friends, as
well as Clark’s “Scripture Promises,”
and Wilson on “Contentment.” He was
an admirer of the eminent preacher Charles H. Spurgeon,
about whom he says:
“I found six or seven sermons
of Spurgeon in the hotel, and read them.
I like him; he is very earnest; he says: ’I
believe that not a worm is picked up by a bird
without direct intervention of God, yet I believe
entirely in man’s free will; but I cannot and
do not pretend to reconcile the two.’
He says he reads the paper to see what God is
doing and what are His designs. I confess I have
now much the same feeling; nothing shocks me but
myself.”
He was personally very fond of the
late Bishop of Lincoln, Dr. Christopher Wordsworth,
describing him as “imbued with the indwelling
of God; only one fault he is hard on the
Roman Catholics.” The last phrase gives
a good insight into the working of Gordon’s mind.
Romish Catholicism, as a religious system, was about
as opposed as anything could be to his own views,
which were all in favour of comprehensiveness, and
a large display of individuality. But though he
had no sympathy with the narrow exclusiveness of that
ecclesiastical survival of the dark middle ages the
Roman system he had the greatest sympathy
with earnest individuals, who in spite of their system
possessed the Spirit of Christ. He had many sincere
friends who were members of the Church of Rome, and
he used to remark that some of them set a noble example
of devotion to many Protestants, who did not act up
to their own principles. Writing on the 5th January
1878, he says:
“Why does the Romish Church thrive
with so many errors in it? It is because
of those godly men in her who live Christ’s life,
and who, like as Zoar was spared for Lot’s
sake, bring a blessing on the whole community.
For self-devotion, for self-denial, the Roman Catholic
Church is in advance of our present-day Protestantism.
What is it if you know the sound truths and do
not act up to them? Actions speak loudly
and are read of all; words are as the breath of
man.”
But in spite of his large-hearted
toleration he had no hesitation in speaking out against
the tendency of Romanism which unduly exaggerates
the position of the priests, and puts the laity into
a subservient position with regard to them. Writing
from Khartoum with regard to the Abyssinians, he says:
“The excommunication of the priests
is the great weapon it is terrible;
far worse than, or quite as bad as, that of the Inquisition.
It amuses me to hear the Catholic priests here [Khartoum]
complain of it, and say that the priests want to keep
the people ignorant, so as to rule them. Is
it not what they would do elsewhere, if
they could?”
It may be supposed by some that General
Gordon was a member of what is known as the Evangelical
party in the Church of England, but though he held
perhaps more in common with that party than with any
other, it would be inaccurate to say that he belonged
to it. Religious party views are always rather
difficult to describe, and it will be found that in
every party there are some whose minds do not run on
partisan lines. An eminent bishop was once asked
to define the three parties of the National Church,
and he replied, that the High Churchman always asked
what the Church taught, the Broad Churchman could be
distinguished by his asking what reason taught, and
the Evangelical was known by his asking what the Bible
taught. If such a rough-and-ready system of classification
be applied to General Gordon, there can be no question
that his loyalty to the Bible would stamp him at once.
In addition, however, to this characteristic, which
was the most prominent one in his life, he held in
common with the Evangelicals, and far more strongly
than the majority of them, the doctrine of Election,
and the wise policy of cultivating friendly relations
with Nonconformists, to whose places of worship he
frequently went, as also the doctrine of personal
assurance, and that of the utter depravity of human
nature. But Gordon was not of a type of mind
that can ever go completely with a party. He
had such a strong individuality, that it would have
been impossible for him to do as many do sink
his own views on questions not of vital importance,
so as to be enabled to work with the party with which
he was most in accord. He was nothing, if not
original and genuine; he sought the truth for himself,
and would not receive stereotyped views of religion
where he did not see that they were in harmony with
the Bible.
“He that cannot think
is a fool,
He that will not is a bigot,
He that dares not is a slave.”
His fearlessness in the search for
truth made him frequently touch on subjects on which
his own mind was not fully made up. The fate of
those who had not accepted Christ as their Saviour
was one of these points. Though he frequently
spoke of his own salvation, through the merits of
Christ, he believed that God had provided some means
of saving those who had never had opportunities of
hearing of Christ, but he never dogmatised on what
those means were. Referring to his Mohammedan
secretary, Berzati Bey, he writes on the 12th April
1881:
“He will ever be one of those
who have taught me the great lesson, that in all
nations and in all climes there are those who are
perfect gentlemen, and who, though they may not
be called Christians, are so in spirit and in
truth. They may not see how Christ is their
Saviour, but they die with a sense that all their
efforts are useless, and with the conviction that
unless God provides some way of satisfying His
justice, they have no hope.”
The fate of the heathen who are suffering,
not from any personal rejection of true religion,
but on account of the sins of some distant ancestors
who forsook the worship of the true God, is a mysterious
subject, and one on which true Christians have differed.
The most that any of us can do is to take comfort
in the conviction that
“The love of God is
broader
Than the measure of man’s
mind.”
It must not, however, be thought,
because Gordon held that the ignorance of the heathen
was no bar to their salvation, that he in any way
undervalued the benefits of the Christian faith.
Again and again, in view of his being asked to become
a Mohammedan in order to save his life, he says in
substance what he wrote on September 10, 1884, when
Khartoum was surrounded with bigoted Mahdists:
“If the Christian faith is a myth, then let
men throw it off; but it is mean and dishonourable
to do so merely to save one’s life, if one believes
it is the true faith.”
He also believed that heathen magicians
had influence with God. Writing to his sister
shortly after a repulse that his men received from
some natives near Moogie, in the Equatorial Province,
he says: “Did I not mention the incantations
made against us by the magicians on the other side,
and how somehow, from the earnestness that they made
them with, I had some thought of misgiving on account
of them? These prayers were earnest prayers for
celestial aid, in which the Pray-er knew he would
need help from some unknown power to avert a danger.
That the native knows not the true God is true; but
God knows him, and moved him to pray, and answered
his prayer.”
But while General Gordon held much
in common with the liberal Evangelicals, there was
one point on which he differed from them very strongly,
and on which he was more in sympathy with the Broad
Church party in the National Church, or those amongst
the Nonconformists known as the Down Grade party;
this was the doctrine known as Universalism.
Whether we agree with him or not, we must in honesty
recognise the fact that Gordon held a modified form
of the doctrine that there is no such thing as future
punishment. Writing on the 13th October 1878 he
gives his views thus:
“I look on universal salvation
for every human being, past, present, or future,
as certain, and, as I hope for my own, no doubt comes
into my mind on this subject. Is it credible that
so many would wish it to be otherwise,
and fight you about it? And among those many
are numbers, whose lives, weighed truly as to their
merits by the scale of the sanctuary, would kick
the beam against those they condemn.
“Once I did believe that some
perished altogether at the end of the world were
annihilated, as having no souls. After this, I
believed that the world was made up of incarnated
children of God and incarnated children of the
evil spirit; and then I came to the belief that
the two are in one.
“With reference to the doctrine
of annihilation, I do not think it gives the same
idea of God as is obtained from this other view.
It may show force to annihilate, but we should
think more highly of a monarch who would, by his
wisdom, kindness, and long-suffering, turn a rebel
people into faithful subjects, than of him who had
the land wasted and utterly destroyed his rebellious
subjects. I do not think that after the declaration,
‘It is finished,’ there can be
any more probation; punishment brings no one to
God.”
Once more, writing on the 16th May 1883, he says:
“I have become much more timid
about speaking of these matters of universal salvation,
yet perforce one comes to this question. If every
one lives, then he must live by the fact of his possession
of an emanation of the Life of Life, which must
be good, and never can be evil. This emanation
is the cause of his existence, his life in fact,
and that I regard as the ‘he.’”
Perhaps the best answer will be found
in Sir William Butler’s “Life of Gordon.”
Dealing with Gordon’s difficulty about future
punishment, he says with truth:
“Yet never lived there man who
in his own life had seen more of the vast sum
of human wrong-doing which has to be righted somewhere,
and on which no sword of justice ever lights in
this world. He does not seem to have asked
himself the question, If I am shooting and hanging
these maker of orphans; if I am punishing with stripes
and chains these sellers and buyers of human flesh,
and doing it in the name of truth and right, is
the Great Judge of all to be denied His right
to use the sword of justice upon those who are beyond
my reach? Are nine-tenths of the evil-doers
on earth not only to escape the penalty of their
crimes, but often and often to be favoured reapers
in the harvest of the world’s success? You
catch the common robber, or the man who steals,
perhaps through starvation, penury, or through
knowing no better, and you imprison him for years
or for life; and is the rich usurer who has wrung the
widow’s farthing from her, is the fraudulent
bankrupt, is the unjust judge, is the cruel spoiler
of war to pass from a world that in millions and
millions of cases gave them wealth and honours, and
stars and garters, instead of ropes and bars and
gallows, to go forthwith to free pardon, to everlasting
light and endless rest beyond the grave?
It would indeed be strange justice that meted to Jude
and Judas the same measure of mercy in the final judgment.”
It must be borne in mind that Gordon
was not a trained theologian but an earnest Christian
soldier. As his brother, Sir Henry Gordon, reminds
us, he led a very lonely life, and consequently often
lost opportunities of hearing both sides of a question.
He might come across a book on one side, and thus
adopt a certain set of views without hearing the opposite
side. No man was more capable of forming a sound
opinion, when arguments pro and con
were fairly laid before him, but his peculiar style
of life often prevented him from doing justice to his
own judgment.
If Gordon was likely to err in one
direction more than another, it was in that of an
exaggerated form of kindness. He had a tender,
loving heart, which unduly influenced his judgment.
It would be well for all students of God’s Word
if it could be said that their only failings arose
from exaggerated virtues. All have some weak points,
and it would be ridiculous to claim for Gordon immunity
from error.
“Find earth where grows
no weed, and you may find
A heart wherein no error grows.”
No writer would be doing justice to
Gordon if he failed to deal with his views on the
subject of God’s Sovereignty, for from the beginning
to the end of his religious life he attached the greatest
importance to this doctrine. He was avowedly
what is generally called a Calvinist, though as a
matter of fact he very seldom made use of the term.
That sainted prelate, the late Bishop Waldegrave,
when once he heard a young clergyman sneering at the
doctrine which so frequently goes by the name of Calvinism,
remarked: “Young man, before you denounce
Calvinism, take care that you properly understand
what the term means, or possibly you may find yourself
contending against some of God’s truths.”
Now that it is so fashionable to denounce Calvinism,
it is perhaps well to act on the good bishop’s
advice, and see whether we thoroughly comprehend it,
or whether all the time we are not contending with
a creation of our own imagination which is but a caricature
of the thing itself. Even Froude, the great historian,
who, whatever else he is, is not a Calvinist, inquires
how it is that Calvinistic doctrines have “possessed
such singular attractions for some of the greatest
men who have ever lived? If it be a creed of
intellectual servitude, how was it able to inspire
and sustain the hardest efforts ever made by man to
break the yoke of unjust authority?”
Of course in Calvinism, as in the
opposite doctrine, some have gone to great extremes
and brought ridicule on the subject, but as Gordon’s
views were strictly moderate, and eminently practical,
it is not necessary to consider to what extreme lengths
some may go who differ from him on either side, nor
is it necessary to consider all the revolting doctrines
which have been attributed to Calvin by his enemies,
nor some of the things he may even have said in the
heat of argument. Gordon was distinctly of the
moderate school of Calvinists; he believed that the
heart of man was so corrupted by the Fall, that he
could not of his own accord turn to God, and that consequently
in the case of those who did turn, it must have been
God’s work, drawing the heart to Himself.
He contended that to look at Christianity from the
opposite standpoint, that of Human Responsibility,
pandered to the pride which is innate in the human
heart. Thus the individual would be always tempted
to think that it was his wisdom, his
foresight, his strength, his decision,
or his something, that made him close with
the offer of mercy, and so looking around him, and
seeing many going astray, he would be tempted to congratulate
himself on his success, when so many failed,
and to fondly imagine that it was a case of the survival
of the fittest. Once let the Christian grasp the
actual truth, and he is deprived of this element of
self-glorification. His title to honour is removed
by the thought that an exterior power, unknown to
himself, drew him with the cords of love, or drove
him with the lash of fear. There are numerous
passages in which Gordon expressed himself on this
subject, but perhaps the following states his views
as well as any:
“To accept the doctrine of man
having no free will, he must acknowledge his utter
insignificance, for then no one is cleverer or
better than his neighbour; this must be always abhorrent
to the flesh. ‘Have not I done this
or that?’ ’Had I naught to do with it?’
For my part, I can give myself no credit for anything
I ever did; and further, I credit no man with
talents, &c. &c., in anything he may have done.
Napoleon, Luther, indeed all men, I consider,
were directly worked on, and directed to work out God’s
great scheme. Tell me any doctrine which so
humbles man as this, or which is so contrary to
his nature and to his natural pride.”
Although writers have often attempted
to show that Gordon was an extreme Calvinist, there
is no evidence that he ever stated his views on the
subject in any stronger language than that used in
Article XVII. of the Prayer-Book of the Church of
England, which says: “Predestination
to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby
(before the foundations of the world were laid) He
hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us,
to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He
hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring
them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels
made to honour.” However it may be with
others, Churchmen at all events have no right to sneer
at Gordon’s views on the doctrine of God’s
Sovereignty, or Fatalism, as he more frequently used
to call it.
Nor did Gordon confine his views on
Election merely to the initial stage of the Christian
life; he believed that the same loving Father, who
in the first instance had drawn him into the fold,
watched over him, and ordained for him what was to
happen. Some fatalists, seeing that a certain
thing is likely to happen, say that God has
ordained that it shall be, and they fold their hands,
and make no effort to avert a catastrophe. Not
so with Gordon; until the thing had actually happened,
he would exert all his powers to prevent it; but when
he failed to avert any impending trouble, he would
find comfort in the thought that it was ordained by
God, and would fret no more about it. In a letter
to his sister, he said:
“It is a delightful thing to be
a fatalist, not as that word is generally employed,
but to accept that, when things happen and
not before, God has for some wise reason
so ordained them. We have nothing further
to do, when the scroll of events is unrolled, than
to accept them as being for the best; but before
it is unrolled, it is another matter, for
you would not say, ’I sat still and let
things happen.’ With this belief all I can
say is, that amidst troubles and worries no one
can have peace till he thus stays upon his God that
gives a superhuman strength.”
It has been asserted that Gordon was
very hard on the clergy, and that he did not believe
in a divinely appointed order of ministry. This
has probably arisen from certain statements of his
that have appeared in a disconnected form. Take
the following passages from letters written at different
periods of his life:
From the Crimea. “We
have a great deal to regret in the want of
good working clergymen, there
being none here that I know of who
interest themselves about
the men.”
From Gravesend. “The
world’s preachers and the world’s religion
of forms and ceremonies are hard and cold, with
no life in them, nothing to cheer or comfort the
broken-hearted. Explain, O preachers, how
it is that we ask and do not get comfort, that your
cold services cheer not. Is it not because
ye speak to the flesh which is at enmity to all
that is spiritual and must die (joy is only from
the spirit)?... You preach death as an enemy instead
of a friend and liberator. You speak of Heaven,
but belie your words by making your home here.
Be as uncharitable as you like, but attend my
church or chapel regularly.... Does your vast
system of ceremonies, meetings, and services tend
to lessen sin in the world? It may make men
conceal it. Where would you find more hardness
to a fallen one than you would in a congregation
of worshippers of the Church of this day?
Surely this hardness is of the devil, and they who
show it know not God.”
From the Soudan, April 20, 1876. “The
sacerdotal class have always abounded; they are
allied with the temporal civil power, who need
their aid to keep the people quiet. ’By
whose authority teachest thou these things?’
is their cry; from them alone must come the authority.”
From Jaffa, July 11, 1883. “I
believe the deadness in some of the clergy is
owing, firstly, to not reading the Scriptures; secondly,
to not meditating over them; thirdly, to not praying
sufficiently; fourthly, to being taken up with
religious secular work (Acts v-4). I
wonder how it is that, when a subject of the greatest
import is brought up, one sees so very little interest
taken in it; and how willingly it is allowed to
drop with a sort of ‘Oh yes, I know all
about that.’”
Yet it is quite incorrect to say that
Gordon undervalued the work of hard-working clergymen.
He was of a critical turn of mind and used to criticise
their methods of working, but no one recognised more
fully than he did the good that was being done by
many devoted workers, and these he would of course
exclude when administering blame for the shortcomings
of the others. He had a way of speaking and writing
in general terms that might be a little misleading
to those who do not understand him, but he always
took it for granted, in his private letters to his
sister, or to his intimate friends, that they would
understand to whom he meant his words to apply.
There are plenty of his statements which show that
he valued highly the ministry of some of the more
spiritually minded among the clergy. Those who
preached the truth of the indwelling of God had in
his opinion a great influence over those to whom they
ministered. Writing from South Africa on 5th June
1882, he says: “Both clergymen here
preach the great secret, the indwelling, but not as
strongly as I could wish. Their churches are
full, while, where it is not preached, they are comparatively
empty.”
It would indeed quite misrepresent
Gordon’s views to say that he ignored the work
of the ministry as a body. He was one of those
who believed that it was the duty of every one to
be a labourer in the vineyard, whether he was ordained
or not, and he himself set a noble example in working
for his Master. At the same time he never called
in question the principle which the Bible, and also
the Prayer-Book of the National Church, recognise,
that it is for the good of Christianity that there
should be a division of labour, and that, while all
should be workers, some should give themselves wholly
to the work of the ministry. Apparently, in Apostolic
days, every one who was converted became a labourer,
and there certainly was no hard-and-fast line of demarcation
between laymen and ministers. Perhaps we have
gone too far in the other direction, and made too
much distinction between lay and clerical workers,
but it is only due to the National Church of this
country to say, that this is the result of custom and
of secular law, rather than of ecclesiastical law.
Considering that the Prayer-Book was written or compiled
by the clergy, it is wonderful how carefully they
avoided setting up undue claims, so as to magnify their
own office. There is indeed only one expression
in the Prayer-Book to indicate that the authors believed
that the ministry was of Divine appointment, and that
is a sentence, occurring three times over in the Ordination
Service, which runs: “Almighty God, who
by Thy Divine Providence hast appointed divers orders
of ministers in Thy Church, &c.” This merely
asserts that the Bible teaches that there were deacons
and elders, or ministers, in Apostolic days, and it
is difficult to read the New Testament without recognising
this fact. Certainly Gordon did not deny it.
Indeed no body even of the Nonconformists does so except
the Plymouth Brethren. Gordon’s shrewd
common sense showed him that, apart from any Divine
sanction to the principle, there must be a division
of labour, there must be specialists in every department
of life, and religion was no exception to the general
rule. Though he would resent the pretentious
claims of an exclusive ministry, he never opposed the
principle of a scriptural ministry. He had friends
who were in the ministry, and he derived great benefits
from their teaching.
The truth is that Gordon thought more
of the man than he did of the profession or calling.
Shovel hats, wideawakes, long-tailed black coats,
and white ties were nothing to him. What he valued
was the man who was to be found beneath the clerical
costume. Was he a true man, or was he merely
a professional hireling? Had he a heart to sympathise
with the sufferings of his fellow-creatures, and to
help them to wage war with sin and temptation?
If so he would find a true friend in Gordon; but it
mattered little in his eyes what the external profession
was, if there was an absence of the internal reality.
Gordon hated everything that was not genuine, and
of all the shams in life the religious one was to
him the worst.
It is not a little interesting to
note that while some considered him almost a Plymouth
Brother on the one hand, others have attributed to
him extreme party views in an opposite direction on
the subject of the Lord’s Supper. It may
not, therefore, be out of place to show exactly what
his views were, for though apparently peculiar, they
were certainly not extreme. For many years he
appears not to have given much thought to the subject
of Holy Communion, but in 1880 the Rev. Horace Waller
directed his attention to it, and after that time he
took up the subject very warmly, as the following
passages will show:
“December 4, 1880. ’This
do in remembrance of Me.’ I mean,
with God’s blessing, to try and realise the
truth that is in this dying request. I hope
I may be given to see the truth and comfort to
be derived from the Communion. I have in some
degree seen it must be a means of very great grace;
but of this in the future. It is a beautiful
subject. Do not peck at words. Communion
is better than sacrament, but communion may exist
without the eating of the bread, &c. Sacrament
means the performance of a certain act, which is
an outward and visible sign of spiritual grace.
You need not fear my leaving off this subject,
it is far too engrossing to me, and is extremely
interesting.”
“March 26, 1881. I
had looked forward to a Communion, but could
not go. I must confess
to putting great (but not salvation)
strength on that Sacrament.”
“February 18, 1882. What
a wonderful history! these thoughts of eatings
and sacraments. Eat in distrust of God,
and trust in self, and eat in distrust
of self, and trust in God. It is very
wonderful, as is also that the analogy should be so
hidden. Eve knew no more what would happen
to her by her eating, than we do by our eating.”
“January 10, 1883. I
hear that at my village the Greek-Russian Church
give the Lord’s Supper to all who present themselves,
without query; they give it in both kinds bread
and wine, so I shall go there. It is odd
that no queries were asked when we poisoned ourselves
in Eden; but that, when we wish to take the antidote,
queries are asked. It is sufficient for me that
the Greek Church is Christian, and that they ’show
forth the Lord’s death till He come.’”
But though Gordon never adopted extreme
views, or in any way exaggerated the benefits of that
sacred meal to which all Christians attach importance,
still, from the somewhat peculiar way in which he
sometimes stated his views, they might be thought very
fanciful. For instance, he used to contend that
as sin came into the world by eating, it was only
natural that by “eating, spiritually and actually,
Christ who is the Life,” sin should be destroyed.
“I cannot repeat it too often, that as the body
was poisoned by the eating of a fruit, so it must
be cured from its malady by absorbing an antidote.
To the world this is foolishness. I own it, but
the wisdom of God is foolishness to man” (Observations
on Holy Communion). In other words,
the evil came in by eating, so the antidote to sin
should come by the same means. Plainly stated,
this does unquestionably sound somewhat fanciful;
but then it must be remembered that Gordon was neither
a theologian nor a lawyer, and consequently he never
studied accuracy of definition. The fact is,
that many have completely misunderstood his views
for the simple reason that they have interpreted his
words too literally, and made no allowance for poetic
imagination and figurative language. There is
a sense in which he was correct. No orthodox
Christian doubts the fact that sin came into the world
through our ancestors eating the forbidden fruit.
The antidote to sin is Christ, and for us to partake
of the benefits of His death we must appropriate Him
by faith, or, in other words, we must by faith feed
on Him, which is the same as a spiritual participation.
By “eating,” Gordon meant, not the mere
swallowing of the symbols, but the whole process of
participation in the death of Christ. Every sound
Christian theologian must admit that this is necessary
to salvation, and more than this Gordon did not mean.
It is interesting to note that this
independent searcher after truth was by no means singular
in his views, and that traces of them are to be found
in the works of Augustine and other patristic writings,
which possibly he had never seen. One writer
has remarked that in the garden of Eden the command
was “Eat not,” and we know too well how
that injunction was disobeyed. When Christ, the
antidote to sin, came, He bade His followers “Take,
eat,” but with the perversity of human nature
that characterises fallen man, too often that command
is also neglected.
There is another point to which reference
should be made. When at Khartoum, Gordon wrote
to a friend, “There is no eating up here, which
I miss.” Some have contended that in this
sentence he showed that he recognised the necessity
for the presence of a priest, to make the Lord’s
Supper a valid ordinance. As a matter of fact,
he never believed that the presence of a clergyman
was necessary for Holy Communion. There were
besides himself only two Englishmen at Khartoum during
the siege, and one of them was Power, a Roman Catholic,
who, although a great admirer of Gordon, probably
would, from early training, have had conscientious
scruples about taking the Lord’s Supper without
the presence of a priest. The other Englishman
was Colonel Stewart, who, despite his friendship for
Gordon, was not in sympathy with him in regard to
religious matters. Had the three Englishmen been
like-minded, there can be no question that that sentence
in Gordon’s letter would never have been written.
This is a subject that touches Christian
men in the army and navy, as well as in the merchant
service, very closely. Frequently such men for
months together never see a clergyman, and it would
be absurd to say that under such circumstances they
must neglect the dying command of their Saviour.
It is told of three officers, who
were great friends, that on the night before the battle
of Waterloo, they agreed to partake together of the
Holy Communion. The senior of them took an ordinary
glassful of wine and some bread, and they knelt together,
and asked God to bless the sacred rite. They
rose, and the senior administered to each, using the
beautiful words of the Church of England Communion
Service. They never met together again on earth,
but who can question the validity of that sacred meal,
and who would dare to say that the ceremony would have
been more acceptable to God if a clergyman had been
present? The Bible nowhere asserts that the presence
of a minister is necessary, and our National Church
has very wisely followed the example of the Bible.
The Church of Rome does teach that the presence of
a priest is necessary to make Holy Communion a valid
ordinance. Our National Church, in common with
the various bodies of Nonconformists, recognises, as
a matter of ecclesiastical order, that under ordinary
circumstances, an officiating clergyman should be
present. But his presence in no way affects the
validity of the sacrament, being merely a wise precaution
against the admission of unworthy communicants.
The laity surrender into the hands of the clergyman,
or the minister aided by elders or deacons, their
power of admitting or rejecting worthy or unworthy
persons. But under abnormal circumstances, such
as those in which Gordon was placed at Khartoum, ecclesiastical
order would be suspended, and any two or three Christian
laymen would have a perfect right to partake of the
Holy Communion in accordance with the Word of God.
This is the view that Christian officers in the army
and navy have always taken, and those who were pained
to think that Gordon gave his support to their opponents,
may rest assured that no man contended more than he
did for that liberty which is the very essence of
Christian teaching.