The practice of the cure of souls in seventeenth century English Puritanism

Abstract

The Puritan pastors in this study have ably demonstrated their practice of the cure of souls, and very little more remains to be said. It was a ubiquitous practice and one infinite in variety. Yet, despite this fact, several general conclusions concerning the Puritan cure of souls can now be drawn. In the first instance, as the title of this thesis implies, their cure of souls was practical. Pastors might, and often did, differ as to the best procedure and methods to follow, but they were all agreed that instruction and counsel should be practically applied. They rejected that part of their medieval heritage which made casuistry a theoretical science, and ethics an impractical discipline. Each element in their cure of souls was practically administered. Their catechising was conducted by way of question and answer, rather than by the earlier lecture method. Their manuals on cases of conscience treated of every conceivable problem or case likely to face the saints as they made their pilgrimage through life, and were made available to every|man, that each might have his own practical guide. Their counsel, offered either in conferences or through the post, though usually Scriptural in language, was always practical in character.In the second instance, the content of their cure of souls was biblical. The Bible was the supreme authority in their casuistry, the text "book for their Christian instruction, and the source of all their counsel. In so far as Biblical truth remained the norm and content of their ministry they were true to their Reformation heritage. But when, as in catechising, they over emphasised the Ten Commandments and other passages of the moral law, they were guilty of lapsing into a kind of Medieval Pharisaism, and of imposing "burdens too grievous to be borne. Yet, the systematic attempt, through catechising, to ^ impress upon young minds and consciences the main requirements of the accepted moral code, is to be commended. It is this which labels their care of conscience, a real cure of souls. We can only wish that they had stressed more of the great moments of the Heilsgechicte in their instruction and counsel, for then their practice would never have been liable.to the charge of legalism.A third conclusion to be drawn from this practice is that the Puritan cure of souls aimed at the individual conscience. They rightly recognised that the conscience was the implanted witness of God, the meeting point between God and man, theology and ethics. Their reliance upon Aquinas and some of the other ^Medieval scholastics was good to the degree that they saw the function of conscience as a practical judgement based upon an accumulated knowledge. They inherited more than they should have, however, and their application of Aristotelian logic and categories to the study of conscience tended to disassociate their discussion from the New Testament teaching. Despite this lapse they realised that the individual conscience needed to he both educated and counselled, by the application of Scriptural truth.In both their instructing and counselling, the Puritans were more apt to recognise what they often denied in their exercise of discipline, that each individual was different and his needs different. The various practices in their cure of souls, even when conducted within the family or group, were aimed at the individual. This method had the advantage of ministering to both the individual and the fellowship. Occasionally, in their counselling, however, the pastor's assumption of the prophetic role tended to minimise, if not neglect the role of the other.In the fourth instance, the Puritans saw the practice of their cure of souls as a long, drawn out, and continuous practice. beginning at birth and continuing until death. The main elements of this continuous practice have been singled out in this thesis, but it is not so much the individual practices as the corporate ministry which indelibly underscores their cure of souls. Indeed, it is the continuous character of their soul care that sets apart the individual practices as being somewhat superior and exceptional. Neither their catechising nor casuistry can measure up to Reformation standards, but when considered as a part of their prolonged ministry to souls, they both take on richer value. Their use of both conferences and pastoral letters to apply advice and counsel over an extended period, even in an age devoid of rapid communication, suggests that perhaps they had a keener interest in the maturation of souls than is now evinced by those who find their practice suspect. Even their use of discipline, a questioned part of any cure of souls, indicates that the more evangelically minded continued to minister even to those who cut themselves off from the purity of the fellowship.The final conclusion to be drawn from this study is, that the Puritan practice has a significance and relevance for the Church's present ministry. This significance, in terms of the historical, theological and practical, deserves comment. Historically, Puritanism provides a sure foundation upon which the Church of today can ground its cure of souls. The Puritan practice is both a Biblical and Reformation practice. Even more importantly, its interest in the conscience is not dissimilar from the present day interest of psychiatry, which is so radically affecting much of Protestantism's cure of souls.The Puritan practice provides a theological basis for present day soul care as well. First, it encourages us to rethink our own moral theology as they were compelled to re-think theirs. The Puritans were quite willing to accept the Medieval teaching on conscience, but they refused to accept their ethics ©r their discussion on moral theology. They re-examined medieval casuistry in the light of the Scriptures and made some radical changes in it. Such an examination on our part, in the light of our more advanced "Biblical scholarship, seems in order. Secondly, the Puritan practice suggests to those of us who stand in the Calvinist tradition, that if we ignore the weaknesses inherent in their Federal Theology, we can find in their Calvinism a theology of God, Christ and man sufficient for our cure of souls. Thirdly, the Puritans demonstrate that the language and terminology of the Scriptures and theology is sufficient for this great work. It is not necessary for us to borrow the jargon of psychology to effectively minister to souls.The Puritans make several practical suggestions to the present Church, as well. The Church would do well to examine and take notice of the way in which Puritan pastors effectively used catechising and confession. It may seriously be asked, whether the modern Sunday School movement is an adequate substitute for catechising. Catechising successfully taught morals and doctrine in away that the Sunday School has not. The place of confession in the life of the Church also needs to be examined. The Puritans demonstrate that it is possible to retain confession without keeping the confessional. They made it a valuable part of their cure of souls and yet avoided it abuses. The counselling ministry is well advised to reconsider its prophetic role. The Puritan pastors show that the counsel of God can be applied with telling effect, and with greater authority than any human wisdom. The Puritans further show, that pastoral letter writing often neglected or ignored today, can be a ready ally to the physician of the soul. The Puritans demonstrate, too, that the fostering of individual and family piety is a great asset to the cure of souls. Finally, the pastor of today, seeking for a model of the Reformed Pastor, can look with assurance to the Puritans, who were devoted to their Lord, faithful to their flock, and true to themselves.There are several suggestions for further study. First, an investigation of the cure of souls in left-wing Puritanism needs to be made not only its practice, but its origins, theology and development are worth examination. A true evaluation of Puritan instruction cannot be made until a comprehensive study of its catechising is made. In particular, a study of the Larger Catechism, its origin, development and effect, is long overdue. Finally, a more comprehensive study of Puritan pastoral letter writing, involving the untreated correspondence of John Owen, and the mass of Quaker letters, along with Fox's letters and many others, seems in order.