In this section (p29-42) Charnock's intent will be clear to show that it is a "folly to deny or doubt of that which hath been the acknowledged sentiment of all nations, in all places and ages. There is no nation but hath owned some kind of religion, and, therefore, no nation but hath consented in the notion of a Supreme Creator and Governor." In other words if you look at the history of mankind you can see that they have always had a consent to a "higher power", therefore, rather than disproving that their is a one true God this serves to prove it. He will do this by showing three things 1. This has been universal. 2. It has been constant and uninterrupted. 3. It is natural and innate. Today we will look at the first (p30-33). Charnock gives 4 points to prove that a belief in God has been universal.

1. No nation has been exempt from a belief in God. I really want to disagree with Charnock here. Especially when he makes such bold statements as, "No instance can be given of any one people in the world that disclaimed it". Or even further, "One died for asserting one God; none, in the former ages upon record, hath died for asserting no God." The first statement I can find no contradiction in. As I sat and thought about it, I could not think of a country that explicitly has no form of a god. Perhaps there is one. If you can think of one then please send your comment along. The second statement I think I can disprove. In thinking of many during the Inquisition or a few other times when Christians got into the "burn ya at the stake" type of mood. I can think of some people who would indeed die for the cause of renouncing a God. But perhaps many of these did not die so much for renouncing that a god exists but rather that it is the Triune God of the Bible. Thoughts? Charnock's last statement under this point is the one that holds the most weight in my opinion: "you shall scarce find the most distracted bedlam, in his raving fits, to deny a God, though he may blaspheme and fancy himself one." Charnock is simply saying that even those who are lunatics do not deny a god, they might think that they are He, but they do not deny the fact. I thought it was at least an interesting thought.
2. Charnock's second point is the one that I find most helpful. Many claim in our culture today that the very belief in all of these multiple gods and different forms of idolatry really proves that there is no God but just something that creatures by evolutionary process have developed. Charnock, certainly, did not have to defend his position against evolution (it has not been invented yet) but he does give a good defense that the fact of a multiplicity of gods does not weaken the case for God but rather confirms it. After citing multiple examples of the worship of the gods of other cultures Charnock says, "The worship sprung from a true principle, though it was not applied to a right object: while they were rational creatures, they could not deface the notion; yet while they were corrupt creatures it was not difficult to apply themselves to a wrong object from a true principle". Then to prove this Charnock makes a wonderful analogy. "No man would be imposed upon to take a Bristol stone instead of a diamond, if he did not know that there were such things as diamonds in the world". A Bristol stone is a rock crystal used to make ornaments, it looks like a diamond. Charnock's point is that no man would be tempted to pervert a reality unless there were a reality that existed. Charnock notes that "people would never have given the title of a God to men or brutes had there not been a pre-existing and unquestioned persuasion, that there was such a being;--how else should the notion of a God come into their minds?--the notion that there is a God must be more ancient". Granted this is kind of an argument from silence and probably could not be proven--but it is a good point nonetheless.
3. Charnock's third point is that when we study history we see that many men have had arguments about all sorts of things, however, the existence of God was never the subject of contention. They indeed had "contentions about the nature of God and the number of gods" but never that a God existed. "The question was not whether there was a First Cause, but what it was". Therefore, that which was, "never subjected to any controversy, but acknowledged by the whole world, has reason to be embraced as a truth without any doubt". I will not venture to disagree with Charnock about the lack of contention concerning the existence of God. Jogging my memory I can think of none; however, that memory is quite limited. My contention with this point is that I do not think that just because something has not been argued about necessarily proves it to be so. Men might not have ever argued that the sun was the center of our universe until Copernicus thought otherwise. But, I believe that Charnock lived in a day that was much different than ours. Indeed he lived when the Enlightenment was a growing movement--but we have seen the fruits of the Enlightenment and we have many bold atheist in our day. We now have arguments and contentions about the existence of God. Therefore, I am not certain that this point would hold much weight in our day.
4. Charnock seems to have realized the objection to his third point and counters it in his fourth. He says that even if we would grant that there are some who are legit atheist, "what are they to the multitude of men that have sprung out of the loins of Adam?" At first this appears to be a somewhat silly argument. It seems that Charnock is merely saying that majority rules and therefore it must be correct. But we know this not to be the case. I think, though, that Charnock is getting to something much deeper than a mere majority rule. Charnock's point is that, "why should then the exceptions of a few, not one to millions, discredit that which is voted certainly true by the joint consent of the world?" And I agree with Charnock. Something in my American spirit wants to rise up and disagree--but I realize that it is folly. Charnock is certainly correct in asserting, "what if some men be blind, shall any conclude from thence that eyes are not natural to men"? The exception proves the rule. And that is what Charnock is saying. He further ponders, "it is strange if there were any reason on their side, that in so long a space of time as hath run out from the creation of the world, there could not be engaged a considerable number to frame a society for the profession of it". Again I am not certain that such an argument from silence is the best one but nonetheless it seems to be a pretty fair point. Charnock sums up this section by saying that if you are going to ascribe everything to nature then it appears that the law of nature heartily affirms that their is a God.

Honestly, I find this section rather weak as far as proving the existence of God. I feel that Charnock shines in his second point but seems to make only arguments from silence in 1, 3, 4. You cannot prove that God exists just because people in history do not seem to argue about it, it seems that many nations have assented to it, and lastly that a few dissenters cannot set the rule. I do agree with Charnock that the exception usually makes the rule. But, I am not certain that if these are the only evidence that we had that we could prove that God exists. Thankfully, it is not all that we have and Charnock's main goal is to show that the existence of God appears to be universally assented to. And for that reason I will stand behind Charnock and heartily agree with him. It does indeed appear that the existence of a god is a universally affirmed truth. How do you apply this to your life? The only thing that struck me was a reminder of a story that Sam Storms once told about a Hindu women that had stopped traffic to worship cow poop. And before we laugh, Storms reminds us that she shames us. I think of Charnock's statement about the passionated worship of the multiple gods, and am saddened by my lack of passionate worship for the one true God! So, today might we worship Him in spirit and truth.