A number of basic themes suggest themselves as focal points for a study of the thought of Jonathan Edwards. The dissertation is an attempt to argue that experience is one of them, and that an attentive eye to the doctrine of experience will reveal it as the unifying theme of his philosophy. Specifically, at the center of Edwards' aesthetic and religious vision there lies a rich and profound sense of experience, and of the relation of all things to some form of perception. The evidence is to be found in Edwards' extensive published and unpublished writings. Among the several editions of his collected works, the 1808 Worcester edition and the 1829 Dwight edition are the most complete and most reliable. Another especially valuable source is the "Miscellaneous Observations," a notebook of random thoughts Edwards kept throughout his life. Parts of this journal are published, but a great deal remains unpublished in the Yale University Library, and contains a wealth of insights into the mind of Edwards. It is important to note the doctrinal influences of covenant theology. There had always been a disposition among the Puritans to emphasize real assent in religious matters. Their gradual acceptance of experience as a guide to doctrine can be attributed to the influence of medieval Neo-Platonism as well as to their own historical situation. Three elements form the center of Edwards' doctrine of experience. They are the idea of beauty, the sense of the heart, and the theological concept of grace. An explanation of each of these components in themselves and in their interrelations reveals the full meaning of experience. A sense of beauty suffused his own personal experiences and allowed him to see the world in relation to the universal consciousness of God. Man perceives the presence of divine consciousness throughout reality with a sense of the heart. The seat of man's cognitive life is his heart, which includes the understanding as well as the will. By defining grace as a "new simple idea," Edwards proposes that it is a new principle of nature within man, and that it is a taste for moral excellency which is specifically designated as love. As a metaphysical principle, the consent to being is an attempt to rethink the category of substance in terms of relation. The truly significant fact of the doctrine resides in an implicit theory of value-response—that value is objectively rooted in God, and that everything gives consent to it through man. Edwards' theology is an effort to place Newtonian physics into a wider frame of reference. He adapts the concepts of atoms, space, and gravity to an organic metaphysics of consent. Divine creation is a diffusive process of communication, and natural objects and events are called "images or shadows" because they bear an intrinsic relation to God's communicative nature. The specific agency of creation is to be found in the Incarnation, which is the capstone of his whole system of thought. Experience has held a position of preeminence among the major themes of American philosophy. The conclusion of this paper is that Edwards' philosophy can be viewed as the systematic explication of his doctrine of experience, and that it is possible to consider him an early exponent of the American tradition which gives experience a position of primacy in relation to thought.

This thesis examines the revivalist writings of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and George Whitefield (1714-1770) for evidence that the Great Awakening altered their perspective on revival. It is principally based on primary sources written between 1736 and 1743. Six separate chapters explore their background, their understanding of revival, their efforts at propagating it, their techniques in managing the revival, their defense of revival, and their institutionalization of revival. Both their understandings of revival came from their own observations of the revivals that accompanied their evangelistic efforts. Their theological background, heavily influenced by Calvin, insisted that God was responsible for both conversions and revival. The thesis notes that Whitefield�s and Edwards� use of four primary techniques to propagate revival evolved as they experienced revival. Their preaching, their organization of small, religious education groups, their publishing of sermons, and their written narratives of revival all show signs of adaptation to changing circumstances. Both managed revival by using small groups and publications to guide people way from inappropriate spiritual expressions. These groups and documents also provided opportunities to educate new converts about their spiritual experiences. Edwards and Whitefield had the opportunity to clarify their understanding of revival as they defended the revival against those critics who questioned their claims about God�s role in the religious events of 1735-1743. Both institutionalized revival by interacting with the next generation of evangelical ministers and by making available their doctrines and their own experiences in their published narratives. This propensity to publish their reflections on revival allowed future generations access to their revival principles. The overriding hypothesis of this study is that Whitefield�s and Edwards� understanding of revival grew out of their involvement in revival in the eighteenth century religious revivals of colonial North America and that their revival writings and preaching were attempts to codify and transfer the lessons they had learned about revival to future generations of Christians who might, they hoped, themselves experience a God-ordained time of revival. The key conclusions of this study are that 1) Whitefield�s and Edwards� positions on revival issues developed through repeated exposures to revival, 2) Whitefield and Edwards used similar means to propagate, manage, defend, and institutionalize revival, 3) Whitefield�s sermons and journals themselves express a clear and concise theology, 4) a comparison of Whitefield�s and Edwards� theology refutes the suggestion that the lack of a uniform theology throughout the colonies negates the reality of the Great Awakening, 5) a careful study of Whitefield�s and Edwards� revival writings produces a heightened awareness of the nature of their narrative works, 6) Edwards� revival writings show a concern for worship that is too often missed in studies of his work, 7) Edwards and Whitefield were actively involved in developing, recording, and teaching the principles of authentic revival.

This thesis examines the revivalist writings of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and George Whitefield (1714-1770) for evidence that the Great Awakening altered their perspective on revival. It is principally based on primary sources written between 1736 and 1743. Six separate chapters explore their background, their understanding of revival, their efforts at propagating it, their techniques in managing the revival, their defense of revival, and their institutionalization of revival. Both their understandings of revival came from their own observations of the revivals that accompanied their evangelistic efforts. Their theological background, heavily influenced by Calvin, insisted that God was responsible for both conversions and revival. The thesis notes that Whitefield�s and Edwards� use of four primary techniques to propagate revival evolved as they experienced revival. Their preaching, their organization of small, religious education groups, their publishing of sermons, and their written narratives of revival all show signs of adaptation to changing circumstances. Both managed revival by using small groups and publications to guide people way from inappropriate spiritual expressions. These groups and documents also provided opportunities to educate new converts about their spiritual experiences. Edwards and Whitefield had the opportunity to clarify their understanding of revival as they defended the revival against those critics who questioned their claims about God�s role in the religious events of 1735-1743. Both institutionalized revival by interacting with the next generation of evangelical ministers and by making available their doctrines and their own experiences in their published narratives. This propensity to publish their reflections on revival allowed future generations access to their revival principles. The overriding hypothesis of this study is that Whitefield�s and Edwards� understanding of revival grew out of their involvement in revival in the eighteenth century religious revivals of colonial North America and that their revival writings and preaching were attempts to codify and transfer the lessons they had learned about revival to future generations of Christians who might, they hoped, themselves experience a God-ordained time of revival. The key conclusions of this study are that 1) Whitefield�s and Edwards� positions on revival issues developed through repeated exposures to revival, 2) Whitefield and Edwards used similar means to propagate, manage, defend, and institutionalize revival, 3) Whitefield�s sermons and journals themselves express a clear and concise theology, 4) a comparison of Whitefield�s and Edwards� theology refutes the suggestion that the lack of a uniform theology throughout the colonies negates the reality of the Great Awakening, 5) a careful study of Whitefield�s and Edwards� revival writings produces a heightened awareness of the nature of their narrative works, 6) Edwards� revival writings show a concern for worship that is too often missed in studies of his work, 7) Edwards and Whitefield were actively involved in developing, recording, and teaching the principles of authentic revival.