The political and religious developments of eighteenth-century New England are some of the most investigated artifacts of history. The First Great Awakening is a major feature of these developments, and several authors have revivified our interest in how best to understand this complex scene of historical events, characters, and interests. It is clear that democratization is what happened across every aspect of society in New England, and later in the forming of the new nation. But what has not always been clear is why one person or group seemed more eager to embrace democratization while another person or group tended to eschew it.
This paper will argue that a key to understanding the democratization of religion in eighteenth-century New England is the concept of authority. Specifically, the antirevivalists and the radicals did not appear to have obvious or cleanly distinguished theological convictions or methodological tactics. Thus, the categories of “Old Light” and “New Light” simply do not hold, which has been noted by significant and recent publications. Therefore, this paper will aim to explore the specific disagreements between two particular characters – Charles Chauncy (the antirevivalist) and Jonathan Edwards (the radical, or at least the proponent of enthusiasts) – and the moderates in between them under the wider banner of authority. The objective here will be to demonstrate that authority was the fundamental magnetic field which either attracted or repelled individuals and societies in relation to one pole or another.