# Cotton Mather's Apologetic -how would you characterize this?



## py3ak (Sep 17, 2004)

I read this last night in Cotton Mather's [i:ff023c0948]Christian Philosopher[/i:ff023c0948] (formatting changed slightly, because it takes too long to italicize everything that he does):


"Atheism is now for ever chased and hissed out of the World, every thing in the World concurs to a Sentence of Banishment upon it. Fly, thou Monster, and hide, and let not the darkest Recesses of Africa itself be able to cherish thee; never dare to shew thyself in a World where every thing stands ready to overwhelm thee! A BEING that must be superior to Matter, even the Creator and Governor of all Matter, is every where so conspicuous, that there can be nothing more monstrous than to deny that God that is above. No System of Atheism has ever yet been offered among the Children of Men, but what may presently be convinced of such Inconsistences, that a Man must ridiculously believe nothing certain before he can imagine them; it must be a System of Things which cannot stand together! A Bundle of Contradictions to themselves, and to all common Sense. I doubt it has been an inconsiderate thing to pay so much of a Compliment to Atheism, as to bestow solemn Treatises full of learned Arguments for the Refutation of a delirious Phrenzy, which ought rather to be put out of countenance with the most contemptuous Indignation. And I fear such Writers as have been at the pains to put the Objections of Atheism into the most plausible Terms, that they may have the honour of laying a Devil when they have raised him, have therein done too unadvisedly. However, to so much notice of the raving Atheist we may condescend while we go along, as to tell him, that for a Man to question the Being of a GOD, who requires from us an Homage of Affection, and Wonderment, and Obedience to Himself, and a perpetual Concern for the Welfare of the Human Society, for which He has in our Formation evidently suited us, would be an exalted Folly, which undergoes especially two Condemnations; it is first condemned by this, that every Part of the Universe is continually pouring in something for the confuting of it; there is not a Corner of the whole World but what supplies a Stone towards the Infliction of such a Death upon the Blasphemy as justly belongs to it; Men being utterly destitue of any Principle to keep them honest in the Dark, there would be no Integrity left in the World, but they would be as the Fishes of the Sea to one another, and worse than the creeping Things, that have no Ruler over them. Indeed from every thing in the World there is this Voice more audible than the loudest Thunder to us; God hath spoken, and these two things have I heard! First, Believe and adore a glorious GOD, who has made all these Things, and know thou that He will bring thee into Judgment! And then be careful to do nothing but what shall be for the Good of the Community which the glorious GOD has made thee a Member of. Were what God hath spoken duly complied with, the World would be soon revived into a desirable Garden of God, and Mankind would be fetch'd up into very comfortable Circumstances; till then the World continues in a wretched Condition, full of doleful creatures, with wild Beasts crying in its desolate Houses, Dragons in its most pleasant Palaces. And now declare, O every thing that is reasonable, declare and pronounce upon it whether it be possible that Maxims absolutely necessary to the Subsistence and Happiness of Mankind, can be Falsities? There is no possibility for this, that Cheats and Lyes must be so necessary, that the Ends which alone are worthy of a glorious GOD, cannot be attain'd without having them imposed upon us.
"Having dispatch'd the Atheist, with bestowing on him not many Thoughts, yet more than could be deserved by such an Idiot...."


What is your view of Mather's apologetic?


----------



## voided user1 (Sep 18, 2004)

My thoughts: 
It isn't the English we use now so it's somewhat removed. Although it seems readily apparent to those of us who find ourselves Christian that this is our Father's world, not everybody sees God in this world. No matter how much we believe the battle for hearts and minds has been won, it is still being fought here in time and space. I think Mather floats above the fray, rather than actually dealing with substantial issues in a substantial way.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 18, 2004)

[quote:62eeba5401="Wymer168"]not everybody sees God in this world.[/quote:62eeba5401]

Actually, that's not what Paul says. "For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Rom. 1:19-20) Atheists claim that they don't see God in the world, but as Christians we don't accept the unbeliever's diagnosis of himself. All men know God, but they surpress that knowledge and work very hard to convince themselves that they don't know him. This is the mystery of self-deception.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Sep 18, 2004)

I agree with you Craig. I think we see in Mather, what we would call today presupositionalism (though I know John won't like that classification  ), though in seed form. He attacks the false assumptions of the athiest and is not afraid to call them a "bundle of contradictions." He seems' to use some trancendentals, and some evidential approaches too. There are similar veins of thought in Bunyan as well in Pilgrim's Progess in the discourses with Shame and Athiest, though certainly not so developed. But I would have to say if we didn't pay close attention to Mather's argument it would look like a bunch of ad homs against the athiest.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 18, 2004)

Patrick,

I'm interested to hear you say that, because I also thought that Mather seemed like he was getting at transcendentalism in the early part, but didn't seem to stick to it consistently. I wondered specifically what people thought of the argument that what is necessary to the subsistence and happiness of mankind could not be false. Do you see any force or validity in that argument?

Of course, another part could be characterized as "Aggresionalistic Apologetics" when he says
[quote:deaa36342c]there is not a Corner of the whole World but what supplies a Stone towards the Infliction of such a Death upon the Blasphemy as justly belongs to it [/quote:deaa36342c]


----------



## JohnV (Sep 19, 2004)

[quote:4ca44f0df9="puritansailor"]I agree with you Craig. I think we see in Mather, what we would call today presupositionalism (though I know John won't like that classification [/quote:4ca44f0df9]
That's funny, Patrick, because I too agree with Craig's assessment. Craig said nothing about it being Presuppositional, though; and there is no particular reason from what he said to think so either. 

[quote:4ca44f0df9] though in seed form. He attacks the false assumptions of the athiest and is not afraid to call them a "bundle of contradictions." He seems' to use some trancendentals, and some evidential approaches too. There are similar veins of thought in Bunyan as well in Pilgrim's Progess in the discourses with Shame and Athiest, though certainly not so developed. But I would have to say if we didn't pay close attention to Mather's argument it would look like a bunch of ad homs against the athiest.[/quote:4ca44f0df9]

I think that it's pretty basic, what Mather said: God created the universe, so there can be no argument from fact or logic that can contradict that. The arguments have been shown to be invented fact and thought, and that should silence them if they had any integrity. 

I think what Jon was pointing out is that it is not usually rustlers that let the cattle out, but rather the hired hands themselves always leaving the gates open. As Connie Francis once sang, "Yes, my heart has a mind of its own." 

So its not that I would disagree with you, its just that that is not the whole of it. Just as some think that presuppositions are basic, so too it must be realized that facts are basic. It's like swimming: you need to be in the water to do it; so too the world of ideas and thoughtforms has to be in the environment of the created world just as it is. And as it is, apart from man's preconceived notions, it declares God's glory. Its not the Presuppositionalism that I object to, for it too says the same thing; its that its rhetoric circles around its perceived exclusivity from evidentialism, making terms like "transcendentals" difficult to understand for some. But that is a mistaken notion of what evidentialism is. It is necessary, as you rightly pointed out in Bunyan and Mather, that the two go hand in hand: facts and thoughtforms, evidentialism and presuppositionalism. I have only ever rejected either one to be exclusive of the other. Bunyan, Mather, and Calvin for that matter, would not have divided them as we tend to do today. I would agree with them on this. 

I think Mather is right. It has ever been so, and remains so today: Atheism is discredited as a mere building up of rebellion in the form of carefully crafted arguments. It can never be more than that, since all presuppositions and all facts, to be truly accounted for, must declare the truth that God is God, and that it is He that made this universe, this whole diversity of forms, ideas, facts, material, and communities of men as one whole entity. Just the word 'universe' alone says it. 

I suppose that it could be said that, as Presuppositionalists think that all unbelief should abandon its presuppositions, so I would include the residual unbelief that remains in the believer in that. The former would divide the believer from the unbeliever ideally, while the latter includes the believer with the unbeliever practically. After all, is that not why we are on this Board together, to have iron sharpening iron, to work out differences, to help us grow out of our "baggage" from previous beliefs and ideas? For that we need to work on both the facts as they are and our preconceived notions that we carry along with us that keep us from seeing the facts for what they are.


----------



## voided user1 (Sep 19, 2004)

There were glimmers of presuppositionalism, but at the same time if you look at it again isn't it evidentialist? I thought it was much more that way. I consider myself a presuppositionalist, so I'm not sure what you're saying Patrick.

Craig, I'm not denying the truth of Rom. 1. Obviously people have chosen to deny what is clear in nature, yet that unbelief impacts generations it seems sometimes.


----------

