to preach the gospel and to speak in His name. They are commanded to speak, rebuke, and exhort with all authority. But private Christians, who are no more than mere brethren, if they exhort, should do so by way of entreaty, and in the most humble manner. And even "if a layman does not assume an authoritative manner, yet if he forsakes his proper calling, and spends his time in going about from house to house to counsel and exhort, he goes beyond his line and violates Christian rules." For teaching is the business of the clergy. All are not apostles or prophets, all are not teachers. According, then, to the apostolic command, He that teacheth let him wait on teaching. "It will be a very dangerous thing for laymen, in these respects, to invade the office of a minister! None ought to carry the ark of God but the Levites only. And because one presumed to touch the ark that was not of the sons of Aaron, therefore the Lord made a breach upon them, and covered their day of rejoicing with a cloud in His anger." No strenuous upholder of the notion of an apostolic succession could desire more explicit language than this.

Such was Edwards' devotion to the principle of church authority that he seems almost willing to limit the spread of the movement, if there is danger of its weakening or overthrowing the power of the clergy. Mingled with these strict principles of ecclesiastical authority, we may discern traces of the aristocratic pride which marked the manner of

THE UN CONVERTED MINISTERS.

215

the ancient Puritan clergy. It was right, as Edwards thought, that "they should have the outward appearance and show of authority, in style and behavior, which was proper and fit to be seen in them." Hence he was inwardly shocked at the way in which the "meanest of the people" took upon them to criticise the most eminent ministers, sitting in judgment upon their deficiencies, or pronouncing them converted or unconverted. So far as his own relations with the ministers were concerned, he had solemnly exhorted and adjured them to recognize the work as divine, and labor zealously for its promotion. If this impossible advice could have been received, there would have been an end of the difficulty. But even if the ministers did not accept the work as divine, or if they were really unconverted, yet Edwards does not propose that the mere brethren shall be the ones to take them to task. The power of judging and openly censuring others should be in the hands of particular persons or consistories appointed for the purpose. Upon the question whether it was a duty for people to desert the ministry of those who unqualifiedly and openly condemned the revival,-upon this point Edwards maintains a prudent reticence. For himself he remarks: "I should not think that any person had power to oblige me constantly to attend the ministry of one who did from time to time plainly pray and preach against this work, or speak reproachfully of it frequently in his public perform

ances, after all Christian methods had been used for a remedy and to no purpose." His reserve upon this subject, the burning question of the day, may be construed as indicating a subordinate sympathy, not easily reconciled with his view of the importance of ecclesiastical order.

However definite and rigid may have been Edwards' idea of conversion, he was unwilling for himself to pronounce upon the condition of his fellow-ministers. He was even willing to admit that they might be in a state of grace, and yet oppose the work through prejudice or other reasons. His moderation was in strong contrast with the over-zealous converts who denounced the unconverted ministers as if they were guilty of desecrating the church, like the ancient money-changers in the Jewish temple. These zealots, as they may be called, claimed for their justification the words of Christ, that He came to send not peace, but a sword. One of the scourges which they employed in order to drive the unconverted ministers from the temple was the most violent imprecatory language. Those who indulged in this profane vocabulary defended its use on the ground that they only said what was true, that they must be bold for Christ's sake, and not mince matters in His cause. Edwards complains that the language of common sailors is introduced among Christian peo

1 Compare on this point a letter of Edwards in which he gives advice as to how to deal with repentant separatists. Dwight, p. 204.

METHODS OF THE ZEALOTS.

217

ple under the cloak of high sanctity. "The words 'devil' and 'hell' are almost continually in their mouths." While he admits that every kind and degree of sin is justly characterized as devilish, cursed, hellish, his refined nature, as well as his aristocratic instincts, revolted within him when such epithets were hurled by those whom he calls the meanest of the people against the most eminent ministers or magistrates. It was as improper as it would be for a child to say concerning his parents, "that they commit every day hundreds of hellish, damned acts, or that they are cursed dogs, hell-hounds, devils." He draws a distinction between characterizing sin in the abstract in these truthful terms and giving them a concrete application to individuals. But the zealots made no such distinction. Nor is it greatly to be wondered at that, when such a vocabulary was thought proper for the pulpit, it should find its way to general use among the people.

Edwards was hardly in a position which could be called consistent, when he advised the zealots to drop their denunciation of the unconverted ministers. The zealots maintained that to allow thein to remain in their parishes was a "bloody, hell-peopling charity." Edwards thought it would be no such dreadful danger if they were left undisturbed. It almost seems as if a change were passing over his mind, as if he were condemning his own practice. He now advises the ministers to be careful "how they discompose and ruffle the minds of those that

they esteem carnal men, or how great an uproar they raise in the carnal world, and so lay blocks in the way of the propagation of religion." But certainly no one could have ruffled the carnal mind more than Edwards had done, as in his sermon at Enfield. It may be that the caution now exhibited is no evidence of a retractation. It was a peculiarity of Edwards that he becomes at times so intent upon the point before him, as to leave all the other pieces upon the board unguarded. One would like to think that the intense fervor of his youth, as well as his inexperience at an exceptional moment, constitute an apology for those features of his earlier preaching which have injured his memory.

IV.

TREATISE ON THE RELIGIOUS AFFECTIONS.

То

WHEN Edwards published his book on the Religious Affections, in 1746, the Great Awakening as a religious movement had come to an end. use his own language, the devil had prevailed against what seemed so happy and so promising in its beginning. But the dust and the smoke of the controversy were still in the air; an endless variety of opinions prevailed as to the nature of true religion. The Religious Affections was written as a series of sermons in the years 1742 and 1743, following immediately the meditations which