Puritanism^101 she employs the language of union with God, which is more typically
Roman Catholic, than the Puritan preference of union with Christ. For the Puritans
this created a stronger parallel between union with Christ and Jesus as the divine
Bridegroom in spiritual marriage.^102 Further, in light of this it is noteworthy to trace
her criticism of Charles Hambrick-Stowe whom she insists employs a Roman
Catholic understanding of union as the culmination rather than the origin of the
spiritual life.^103 However, upon closer examination the specific references she cites
reveals her misreading of Hambrick-Stowe. Clearly he recognizes as chapter 2 of this
thesis will argue that the Puritans understood union with Christ as the beginning of
spiritual marriage and “that they [i.e. the Puritans] would not attain full salvation until
the soul was perfectly united with Christ after death.”^104 One limitation of this
otherwise outstanding study of Puritan mysticism is that Williams did not dialogue
with any dissertations including Brauer and the soon to be examined research of
Simon Chan.
There are two themes that remain underdeveloped in Williams. First, she
acknowledges that time and space prevented her from exploring more fully the
patristic and medieval roots of Puritan mysticism.^105 This is simply an
acknowledgment that no thesis can cover everything and must have boundaries and
limitations. Second, while Williams addresses the nature and practice of
contemplation within Puritan piety she devotes much of her energy to the examination
of the apophatic nature of it. This is extremely valuable since this dimension is
(^101) Williams, “Puritan Enjoyment of God,” 11 (^) - 12.
(^102) This will be developed in chapter 2.
(^103) Williams, “Puritan Enjoyment of God,” 11-12, 66.
(^104) Hambrick-Stowe, Practice of Piety, 19, 197, cf. 60, 79, 286 Williams misses
Hambrick (^105) Williams, “Puritan Enjoyment of God,” x, cf. 16, 302n346.-Stowe’s emphasis upon “full” union. (^)