while there is a strong dependency upon the direct operation or inner testimony of the
Spirit.^146 One is struck by the relatively small number of members of the Spirit mystic
stream but more surprising is that Chan employs the suspect term “enthusiasts” to
describe this stream when he himself declares, “[p]art of the failure to deal adequately
with the question may be due to the fact that attempts at understanding puritan
mysticism have been based largely on the wrong sources—on those who should be
called “enthusiasts” rather than “mystics.”^147
Sheldrake previously asserted the strengths and weaknesses of typologies and
in Chan’s usage they appear mostly negative. There are at least three reasons for this.
First, and most importantly Chan’s distinction places Ambrose in the ascetical stream
that specifically implies that he and others of this category had a weak or insignificant
understanding of the inner testimony of the Spirit. However, a more accurate reading
of Ambrose reveals a very strong reliance upon the direct operation or inner witness
of the Spirit’s work in meditation and contemplation. While it may be accurate to
maintain the priority of the Spirit’s role in Sibbes it is nonetheless inaccurate to
minimize or ignore it in Ambrose. Therefore, Chan’s structure and use of
classification drives a wedge in Ambrose’s theology and leads him to underestimate
the role of the Spirit in Ambrose’s piety. Second, the ascetical school anchored in
Hall was not known for its imagination. This is hardly accurate for Ambrose or
Baxter. Third, Chan’s usage of the terminology “enthusiastic” is unhelpful since
Brauer among others use this language to describe the radical Puritans of the Quakers,
Seekers, and Ranters.^148
146
147 Chan, “Puritan Meditative Tradition,” 191, 194, 196, 197, 210, 216.^
148 Chan, “Puritan Meditative Tradition,” 120. Brauer, “Types of Puritan Piety,” 56-8.