Richard Sibbes. Kaufmann places Ambrose in the meditative tradition of Hall yet
oddly cites him as an example of heavenly meditation.^126 Indeed there are numerous
places where Kaufmann appears to misread Ambrose, but since they are directly
related to the development of Ambrose’s understanding and practice of meditation
and contemplation they will be discussed in chapter 4. However, Kaufmann does not
appear to appreciate the fullness of Ambrose’s method of meditation nor the
importance of imagination for him in this process. Barbara Lewalski is another
literary critic who includes Ambrose in her study, though to a much lesser extent than
Kaufmann.^127 Her primary goal is to redress the strongly Roman Catholic focus of
Louis Martz’s study of meditation. Lewalski makes two significant contributions in
relation to Kaufmann: a more balanced treatment of Puritan meditation and liberating
Ambrose from the restrictive status of a lifeless clone of Hall. Erica Longfellow is
the most recent literary critic to include Ambrose in her study.^128 Once again there is
little interaction with Ambrose’s piety. The primary focus of Kaufmann, Lewalski,
and Longfellow has been on Ambrose’s style of meditation. In reality their treatment
reflects more of the mechanics of meditation. In every case, Media was the only
source examined with little appreciation for the theological or experiential dimensions
of Ambrose’s piety. Therefore, while in varying degrees these sources engage the
nature of Puritan meditation, Ambrose is not the primary figure of any of them.
Additionally, none of these works have included Ambrose’s magnum opus Looking
Unto Jesus which provides a vivid christological kaleidoscope of Puritan meditation
through a theological foundation of union with Christ. Therefore, no scholarship has
focused exclusively on Ambrose or even examined all of his works.
126
127 Kaufmann, Pilgrim’s Progress and Puritan Meditation, 134.^
128 Lewalski, Longfellow, Protestant PoeticsWomen and Religious Writing.^.