study of Scripture without neglecting an affective praying of Scripture. Further, and
reflective of many Puritans, he was a student of the Communion of Saints. Ambrose
was not ignorant of the roots of Christian mysticism and demonstrated not only an
awareness of the patristic and medieval representatives, but also some of the Eastern
Orthodox tradition as well. Additionally, Ambrose recognized the great importance,
indeed, the necessity of the Holy Spirit to guide his theology and direct his life. One
further aspect of his contemplative-mystical piety was the importance of spiritual
marriage with Jesus and how through living in that conscious relationship with
gratitude awakened him to know and love God more fully. Briefly, that summarizes
the nature of Isaac Ambrose’s contemplative-mystical piety.
Second, this research has revised Simon Chan’s conclusion of placing
Ambrose within the ascetical stream of Puritan meditation. Clearly Ambrose
displayed a strong ascetical theme within his theology and piety. However, where
Chan misreads and distorts Ambrose is by minimizing the equal importance of the
Holy Spirit in his theology and practice of meditation. Chan’s two categories are not
intended to be exclusive or binary and one is likely to find varying degrees of
dependence upon asceticism or the Holy Spirit in different Puritans. Nonetheless, the
weakness of this approach is that it tends to create an unhealthy dichotomy that drives
a wedge between one of the most fundamental foundations of Reformed theology of
Word and Spirit. This critical theme emerged at various points throughout this study
and whenever it became unbalanced it produced distorted expressions of mysticism.
However, whenever the unity of Word and Spirit was maintained, as it was in
Ambrose’s theology and piety, it produced a healthy biblical contemplative-mystical
piety. Therefore, it is essential in casting Ambrose as ascetical, that readers do not