"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 cla.s.sification 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 a.s.surance, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d. 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 G.o.d is true; but G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d."

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 pa.s.s 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d, and that consequently in the case of those who did turn, it must have been G.o.d'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 t.i.tle 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 pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and d.a.m.nation 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 G.o.d'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 G.o.d 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 G.o.d, 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, G.o.d 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 G.o.d--_that_ gives a superhuman strength."

It has been a.s.serted 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 pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d."

_From the Soudan, April 20, 1876._--"The sacerdotal cla.s.s 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 G.o.d 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 n.o.ble 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 G.o.d, who by Thy Divine Providence hast appointed divers orders of ministers in Thy Church, &c." This merely a.s.serts 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 pa.s.sages will show:--

"_December 4, 1880._--'This do in remembrance of _Me_.' I mean, with G.o.d'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 G.o.d_, and _trust in self_, and eat in _distrust of self_, and _trust in G.o.d_. It is very wonderful, as is also that the a.n.a.logy 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 G.o.d 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 partic.i.p.ation. By "eating," Gordon meant, not the mere swallowing of the symbols, but the whole process of partic.i.p.ation 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 circ.u.mstances 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 gla.s.sful of wine and some bread, and they knelt together, and asked G.o.d 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 G.o.d if a clergyman had been present? The Bible nowhere a.s.serts 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 G.o.d. 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 a.s.sured that no man contended more than he did for that liberty which is the very essence of Christian teaching.