How did the american preacher jonathan edwards’s preaching style compare with the british preacher george whitefield’s? whitefield and edwards both reduced their audiences to tears with their booming, theatrical sermons. whitefield and edwards both attempted to instill fear in their parishioners using images of hell fires. whitefield had a powerful, passionate style, while edwards spoke to his parishioners calmly and quietly. whitefield stressed salvation through good works while edwards stressed salvation through god’s grace. whitefield appealed to his parishioners’ emotions while edwards appealed to his parishioners’ reason.

The correct answer is C) Whitefield had a powerful, passionate style, while Edwards spoke to his parishioners calmly and quietly.

American preacher Jonathan Edwards’s preaching style compare with the British preacher George Whitefield’s in that Whitefield had a powerful, passionate style, while Edwards spoke to his parishioners calmly and quietly.

The Britsih preacher George Whitefield's teaching style was imitated by several American preachers. George Whitefield (1717-1770) was an evangelist of the Church of England. He used to teach in England and Scotia and then traveled to the American colonies to preach in Massachusetts, Georgia, and many others during the beginning of the Methodist movement.

His particular tone of voice, his style, and the emotion when he preached helped stimuli the audience that always responded to the dramatization of his speech. Jonathan Edwards’s preaching style was calm and quiet, allowing its audiences to reflect on the issues.

the answer to fill in the blank in this question would be the word resource, it is defined as the money, material or people (since human resource is a very valuable good) that a company or a person has at disposition (meaning they can use the resource as they see fit), to be able to complete a task or achieve a goal.  

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is