HIS CATHOLICITY
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 vi. 2-4). 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_, p. 12). 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.