Jansenism, Quietism, and devotion to the sacred heart of Jesus.^71 However, there are
some scholars who appear to be overly generous in their assessment. Richard
Lovelace declares, “that the Puritans implicitly assumed that every Christian was to
be a mystic.”^72 Additionally, some scholars in their enthusiasm to affirm Puritan
mysticism fail to adequately define their use of language. Lovelace mentions the
“Puritan mysticism” of Jonathan Edwards without any indication of the nature or
meaning of this word.^73 Unfortunately, this lack of precision can be harmful
increasing the fear of more cautious scholars that leads them to quickly reject the
concept of “mysticism” due to its more dubious history. Conversely, some writers
dilute the definition of “mysticism” to such an extent that it no longer has any value
since virtually anyone can qualify.^74
Not surprisingly, there are others who object to the prospect of Puritan
mysticism. Mark Dever is reticent in describing Sibbes’ spirituality in terms of
mysticism and prefers the more conducive word “affectionate.”^75 John Coffey
registers a similar concern in applying the term “mystic” to Samuel Rutherford. He
concedes that “[p]erhaps we would be wise to follow Mark Dever’s suggestion that
instead of describing Puritans as ‘mystics’ (which implies a rather vague and
undogmatic spirituality), we would do better to follow their own terms and call them
‘affectionate theologians’.”^76 Paul Cook draws the distinction more forcefully with
Thomas Goodwin asserting that mysticism is incompatible with biblical
(^71) Campbell, Religion of the Heart (^) , 2.
(^72) Lovelace, American Pietism of Cotton Mather, 105-6.
(^73) Lovelace, “Afterword, Puritans and Spiritual Renewal,” 308.
(^74) Coffey, Theology and British Revolutions, 83n5.
(^7576) Dever, Richard Sibbes, 137.
Coffey, Theology and British Revolutions, 95.