本文從「愛德華茲是否可稱為美國的奧古斯丁？」這個問題出發，試圖檢視他的歷史觀和相關的神學理念。在第一部分首先檢視愛德華茲的神學架構，並指明當代學者分別以多元圖像或單一主軸來詮釋他的神學貢獻，近年來特別著重他的美學和歷史觀。第二部分則嘗試分析《救贖工作的歷史》這個系列講道篇，並呈現愛德華茲對上帝在歷史中的救贖計劃的基本理解、分期架構、基督之後的發展及其詮釋模式。這也包括了他將奮興運動視為「神聖作為的彰顯」的觀點，以及他如何將此觀點應用在近代的歷史進展上。第三部分檢視了當代學者對愛德華茲歷史觀的多元評價，特別是視其為進步史觀或反進步史觀代表人物的論辯。最後，本文再度回到愛德華茲與奧古斯丁的比較，指出兩人在神學思想內涵的近似性，但也發覺因兩人所處時代精神的差異，他們的歷史觀點也有了顯著的不同。

This article seeks to examine Jonathan Edwards’ view of history and related theological ideas by asking the opening question: “Can we call Edwards America’s Augustine?” In the first part, Edwards’ theological framework is explored and it is found that scholars varied in interpreting his theological contribution either with multi–faceted perspectives or a single–coherent structure. Of the latter, it is noted that recently his aesthetics and view of history have gained particular attention. In the second part, Edwards’ series of sermons on “A History of the Work of Redemption” are scrutinized in order to present his understanding of God’s salvific plan in history, its periodic structure, its post–Christ developments and his modes of interpretation. This understanding also includes his view of “revivals” as “manifestations of divine agency” and how he applied that to recent historical developments. In the third part, recent scholars’ evaluations of Edwards’ view of history are considered and the main debate falls on whether he represents progressive or anti–progressive viewpoint. In conclusion, Edwards and Augustine are once again placed side by side for scrutiny and comparison. Even though there is an affinity in their historical theological thinking, however, the Zeitgeist which separates them also sets them apart.