The Mathers: Three Generations of Puritan Intellectuals, 1596-1728 by Robert Middlekauff

draw the Dorchester men into a church, and certainly because he despised impurity in God's house, he proved himself more dedicated than most to keeping the counterfeit out. Although he often went to William Ames, John Ball, Paul Baynes, and even Cartwright for guidance in his thought about the Church, on this matter of examination none of the scholars gave him his lead. Rather it was Calvin he found most persuasiveCalvin who counted it "foolish credulity" to accept "meer verball acknowledgments" as satisfying the requirements of faith. 42 Nothing ought to be taken at face valueor so Richard Mather read Calvin. The Church must "search and examine" into men's hearts, otherwise sinful men, hypocrites, liars, designing men would find their way into the Lord's house. 43
Calvin carried great authority but Scripture even more, and Mather went to the Old and New Testament for proof of the need for preventing charity from developing into foolishness. The second book of Kings told the melancholy story of Gedaliah who lost his life for being "over charitable" to the treacherous Ishmaeleven after a warning against such weakness was delivered to him. 44 Other holy passages reported the results of examinations, however, of Philip searching the heart of the eunuch, of John The Baptist who "sifted the very thought of them that came to his Baptisme," and most gloriously of the Angel of Ephesus who earned Christ's praise for trying those claiming to be Apostles and discovering them to be liars. As Mather read Revelations, Christ "commended" the Angel for "suspiciousness," and provided a standard that His Church must honor. 45 Rational charity for Mather clearly implied a willingness to accept weak Christians but to receive none without suspicion that they might be fraudulent. He might well have

 

Page 53
substituted "suspicious" for rational. In any event, he summed up his views by urging that charity not be suspicious without cause yet it must "not trust all faire pretences too farre." 46
Mather's colleagues in the pulpits of New England, and his son Increase, and his grandson Cotton, all were to agree that rational charity should be exercised so as not to exclude any Christian. Better to admit ten hypocrites, John Cotton once wrote, than keep out a single Christian. 47 Richard Mather heard this argument often and rejected it specificallybetter keep out many Christians, he urged, than admit a single hypocrite. The "hurt" in denying membership to one with saving faith, he explained, was "negative"; the Church would miss the good that the saint had in him, but it would not receive the evil that a hypocrite carried in his soul. 48 In the history of the Church what impressed Richard was how much wickedness a single corrupt person might do, as Satan's desire to sow the tares among the wheat demonstrated. And Ecclesiastes reported that "one sinner destroyeth much good." 49
If Scriptural history and his own experience made Mather wary of unexamined avowals of graciousness, they did not dampen his confidence that the Church could judge accurately the experience of applicants. We can see today that among the effects of much preaching about predestination and the process of conversion was the appearance of a large number of laymen uncertain of their inner states. Perhaps some were over-scrupulous, at any rate they hesitated to claim that their private experience revealed the working of grace. Others simply said that they had not undergone conversion, but the pattern of their lives seemed to suggest that they might entertain hopes. In the 1640's Richard Mather was still full of confidence, and he urged them all to trust the churches by telling the elders how things stood within their minds and souls at the moment. Those knowledgeable in such matters would decide whether their experience was gracious. The Church would make mistakes, but Mather did not consider those errors sinful, even when they resulted in the admission of hypocrites. An unregenerate