t 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 th