This is a good book. Its scope is slightly shorter than its title suggests, covering the period from 1605 to 1705. Its subject matter has been variously defined, and, as the author notes, mysticism is “a relative and fluid term” (9). Here it is used as “a shorthand for the mystical element in religion” (10), one which derives from the Greek mystikos, meaning “secret” or “mysterious,” and which contemporaries tended to call “mystical theology” or “mystical divinity” (10, 11). Acknowledging its roots in a tradition which conceptualized God by what he was—i.e., positive or cataphatic theology— and what he was not—i.e., negative or apophatic theology—Temple emphasizes the experiential element of early modern English mysticism: personal religious experiences that were sometimes expressed through sexual imagery derived from the Bible (particularly the Song of Solomon), sometimes as the soul's path to God through a process of purgation, illumination, and union. At other times, however, these experiences remained unarticulated because of their apparently ineffable nature. Moreover, in Temple's view, the debates under discussion here between supporters and detractors of mysticism need to be seen as “the final consequence of a process which had started during the medieval period: the divorce of spirituality and theology, and the separation of mystical experience and doctrinal insight into distinctly separate spheres” (16).

In a work consisting of five central chapters and prefaced by a solid introduction, Temple argues that during the period under discussion mystical experiences were generally greeted with “distrust, suspicion and derision” (1); indeed, that there was a gradual and comprehensive rejection of mysticism in England during the seventeenth century. Thus, whereas, at the beginning of the period, mysticism had largely Catholic overtones through its association with monastic orders such as the Benedictines and Carmelites, as the century progressed, polemicists collapsed the boundaries between Catholics and sectarians in order to attack Papists as much as Familists, Antinomians, and Ranters as so-called enthusiasts. Some of that onslaught on “certain spiritual and ecstatic experiences” came, as a later chapter discusses, “by converting medical theory into polemical weaponry” (77); some of it came as a by-product of the opposition between faith and reason, with the result that mysticism became positioned as anti-rational, even counter-Enlightenment (3, 139).

Chapter 1 concerns Augustine Baker (1575–1641), a prolific author deeply influenced by “illicit books” and whose “conversion coincided with a revival of the English Benedictine Congregation and a revival of mysticism in monastic circles more generally” (20). Both during his lifetime and after his death, Baker attracted followers as well as critics among whom were several figures discussed in this study—Gertrude More, Margaret Gascoigne, Barbara Constable, and Francis Hull. Even so, as Temple notes, Baker's brand of mysticism was “controversial and uncomfortable to many within the English Benedictine Congregation,” doubtless because of the freedom it gave to nuns to express their intimate religious experiences (30, 43). The second chapter covers well-trodden ground: the mystical and spiritual writings of Protestants—notably Francis Rous, John Everard, Giles Randall, and the Ranters (with a particular focus on Abiezer Coppe, Joseph Salmon, and Jacob Bauthumley). There is nothing new here, but the discussion fits well within the overall framework of the book. Chapter 3 charts hostility towards mysticism from two directions in the period 1630–1670: medical theory and pre-Christian paganism. Thus, the first part focusses on Robert Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy and Meric Casaubon's A Treatise concerning Enthusiasme to illustrate polemical strategies that linked melancholy with enthusiasm, thereby essentially delegitimating claims of mystical and spiritual experiences. The second part concentrates on attempts by “Protestant apologists to link Catholicism with pre-Christian paganism” (95), while a final section deals with the Cambridge Platonists and their interest in texts by mystic authors. This leads nicely to the fourth chapter on rationality and mysticism after the Restoration. Here Temple deals with the conflict between the Benedictine Serenus Cressy and the Anglican Edward Stillingfleet, in particular “the role of rationality in religion, the origins of fanaticism and the validity of tradition as a source of doctrinal authority” (109). The chapter is divided into four sections: Cressy's conversion narrative Exomologesis (1647; 2^nd ed., 1653); his association with the Great Tew circle and the influence of William Chillingworth's writings; Cressy's experiences after the Restoration; and Stillingfleet's wide-ranging denunciations, not just of Cressy but of saints, visionaries, mystics, and monastic orders. This prompts Temple to conclude that “mysticism was thus a very effective weapon for Anglican apologists seeking to discredit Catholic claims to doctrinal authority” (137). The final chapter is on mysticism and the Philadelphian movement, 1650–1705. The key figures under discussion here are Jane Lead, Richard Roach, and Francis Lee, as well as continental figures such as Antoinette Bourignon and Pierre Poiret (not indexed). Here Temple argues that the Philadelphians’ embrace of mysticism contributed substantially to their downfall; indeed, he argues that the Philadelphians’ love of irenicism and sustained engagement with Catholic mystical texts became a tool with which their critics would attack them” (159). While nearly all the sources used in this chapter are familiar to specialists, and while a focus on mysticism precluded sustained exploration of Philadelphian apocalyptic and allied beliefs, the evidence presented here nonetheless helps sustain the book's central arguments.

Finally, although this book needed a thorough proofread prior to submission—egregious examples include “Woodhouse” for “Woodhead” (127) and “Bradford” for “Bradfield” (144), that is a minor quibble. In sum, it is an important work that is thoroughly recommended for all readers interested in the varieties of early modern religious experience.