Today we will be discussing Charnock's third reason for the folly of atheism as shown in the universal consent to a Supreme Creator. His first being that this consent is universal. Secondly, we saw that this consent has been constant and uninterrupted. Today we will see his third that it is "natural and innate". Even though some men claim it not to be natural we can see clearly that it is "so natural that every man is born with a restless instinct to be some kind of religion or other". In fact, "wherever you find human nature, you find this settled persuasion". And we can see in all mankind that there is a law of nature which directs them. And certainly if there be a law of nature there must be a Lawgiver. We cannot entertain the thought that man is the creator of this law. Because as Charnock says, "no man would endure a thing that [does] frequently molest and disquiet him, if he could [reject] it." But does it have to be said to be natural? Can we not say that this notion of a god is not natural but merely a tradition passed down through the ages? Can we not say that it is something put in place by leaders to keep the people in check? Can we not say that it is simply a residing fear in people? These three questions Charnock will begin to answer to prove that it is indeed natural. The first (p37-38) we will address today; that it is not by mere tradition.

Charnock begins by noting that this argument will lead us to ad infinitum. You must trace it back to the first ancestor and ask "where did he get it"? "It cannot be supposed, that the first man should acquaint his posterity with an object of worship, and leave them ignorant of a mode of worship and of the end of worship". In other words why would the first persons have transmitted that there is a God but left out all the details? If he did do this then where and why did questions start to arise? Why did men decide to keep the notion of a god but forget the mode and end of worship? Why make it so general? Or again take the Native Americans who at the time of Charnock could not trace their beginnings. How can we say that they had their belief in a Supreme Creator given to them by tradition. What tradition?!?!? As Charnock says, "No reason can be rendered for the security of [the above questions], but that there is so clear a [trace] of a Deity upon the minds of men, such traces and shadows of him in the creatures, such indelible instincts within and invincible arguments without to keep up this universal consent."
We must acknowledge that the reason these traces of a god are here is because they are there by nature and not by tradition.

But suppose for a moment we could say it is due to tradition. Then we must also ask the question, "was it likely to be a mere intention and figment of the first man". Even if he did pass it down would he not have done so because God Himself required it? Why else would he make it up? How could we expect him to be so advanced and intelligent?

Charnock's arguments are solid in this section. It actually begs a question...if this belief in a god is so natural why do you think that men suppress it? We could make the question even more biblical. Why do people suppress the belief in God as He has revealed Himself? We could even make it more personal. Why do I suppress what God has revealed in my own life? Why do I run from the revealed God?