Brauer offers a number of significant conclusions that must be briefly
mentioned. His claim that Puritan mysticism developed from within Puritanism itself
as they read “Augustine, Gregory and Bernard” rather than any direct “contemporary
Continental” influence appears accurate.^58 However, his contention that Rous was the
first Puritan mystic^59 is inconsistent with the Puritan themes and tendencies just
mentioned. Further, his narrow definition of mysticism prevents him from noticing
the mystical element in writers such as Sibbes, whom he specifically denies was a
mystic.^60 This restriction in defining Puritan mysticism leads to Brauer’s surprising
claim that there were only six to eight Puritan mystics.^61 His list of Puritan “mystics
in the fullest sense of the term” includes John Everard, Giles Randall, Peter Sterry,
and perhaps Morgan Llwyd and Walter Cradock.”^62 These individuals typically
represent the radical stream of Puritanism. Clearly this small number reflects his
definition that relies upon the Dionysian mysticism of the threefold way. While
Brauer concedes that Rous never used the triplex via in his writings he still insists that
they can reflect those insights.^63 The most questionable conclusion reached by Brauer
asserts that those Puritans who were mystics eventually moved away from
Puritanism.^64 While this reveals some degree of accuracy related to the Quakers and
other Spirit enthusiasts these individuals are usually not representative of a healthy
Christian mysticism. Further, Rous himself never left Puritanism and Brauer
ultimately tempers those remarks regarding him, who “emerged directly from his
(^58) Brauer, “Francis Rous, Puritan Mystic,” 33, cf. 279, 323, 329. (^)
(^59) Brauer, “Francis Rous, Puritan Mystic,” 44, 184, 231, 287, 329.
(^60) Brauer, “Francis Rous, Puritan Mystic,” 291.
(^61) Brauer, “Francis Rous, Puritan Mystic,” 293.
(^62) Brauer, “Francis Rous, Puritan Mystic,” 289.
(^6364) Brauer, “Francis Rous, Puritan Mystic,” 131.
Brauer, “Francis Rous, Puritan Mystic,” 289.