Today we will be looking at Charnock's third reason (p.41) why the existence of a god is natural and innate. We have seen that it is not because of mere tradition that there is a universal consent to this truth. Nor can we say that it is because of societies leaders having made this notion up so as to keep the masses in check. His third reason is that it is not fear that introduced this belief.
Charnock's argument here is simple. Fear is the consequence of wickedness. You do not fear a god unless a god was already there prior. Unless you feel that you have offended a Deity there is no reason for fear to rise up. As he has argued prior, "it is not the existence of a thing that excites any of [these] affections, but the relationship a thing bears to us in particular." Charnock also notes that it was more often love and hope of blessing which gave birth to sacrifices than fear of punishment. "The fear of evils in the world, and the hopes of relief and assistance from the gods, and not a terrifying fear of God, was the principal spring of their worship". Even in Scripture when we think of the "fear of God as the beginning of wisdom" we think of it not as a terrifying fear but a reverential fear.
Fear, whether reverential or terrifying, only comes from already knowing an established god. It is not grounds for making one up. The question I believe the Lord would ask us today is this. What does a meditation upon His character spring up in us? Are we shamed by the worshippers of a false god? Are they more devoted than we who worship the real and living God? The character of God should excite all sorts of passions within us, all reach their climax in humble exuberant worship of the living God. The existence of fear, then, is not a reason to deny the existence of God but to worship Him all the more!

Today we will be looking at Charnock's second reason why a universal consent to the existence of God is natural (p38-41). His reasoning here is that the existence of a god is not something that could have been contrived by governors. He gives two reasons why this is so. First of all it is unaccountable how such a thing would come to pass. Charnock gives numerous questions that really have no answer. For instance, "What mutual correspondence could such have, whose interests are for the most part different, and their designs contrary to one another?" Or again, "How could they who were divided by such vast seas, have this mutual converse"?

Charnock's argument here rests upon his earlier argument that this belief in the existence of god is universal in its consent. If we were to counter argue Charnock we would say that the original rulers contrived of this god and took it with them wherever they went. As they travelled around the globe they took their belief in a god or gods. But again Charnock would take us back to the original man. Where did this belief even come from? Or again we can see that "the being of a God is owned by some nations that have scarce any form of policy among them". And perhaps an even more fitting argument is to ask, why would a ruler (or group of rulers) want to contrive a being which detested their unjust practices? As Charnock says, "No man satisfying his pleasures would impose such a deceit upon himself to render and make himself more miserable than the creatures he [has] dominion over."

Then we must ask another question; which transitions to our second point. How could such a deceit endure so long? If men in their natural state would be so desirous to cast of this restraint why would it endure for so long? How could these rulers have kept this for so long? Why would some of them not have desired to cast off this restraint? If we would permit for a moment that this notion of a god was made up and is indeed a lie, and then compare it to other lies we must ask why has this lie prevailed? Or as Charnock asks, "If a cheat [imposes] upon some towns and countries, he will be found out by the more piercing inquires of other places; and it is not easy to name any imposture that hath walked so long in its disguise in the world, without being unmasked and whipped out by some nation or other". Why then has this "lie" not been whipped out?

Again, we could probably point to a few exceptions, and perhaps this argument would not bode well in the 21st century. What would atheistic nations do to Charnock's argument? How does North Korea fit into this? (Perhaps you could say that a nation making itself a god would further prove the point...I am not sure). But all in all I think Charnock makes a good point. It is quite ludicrous to think that a group of rulers got together and made up a notion of a god. Especially gods that had more power than they, or gods who required something of them, or gods that would keep their injustice at bay.

Next time we will see that fear is not a reason for this universal consent, and then we will move to the second reason why atheism is sheer folly: by reason of that which all creatures manifest.

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?

Today we will be looking at Charnock's second point of evidence (p33-35) concerning the folly of the atheist rejecting that which all nations, in all places and ages have adhered to. Last time we saw that this has been a universal consent. Today we will see that it is constant and uninterrupted. By this Charnock means that there has never been a time since the beginning of the world where a belief in God has not been universally known. To this end Charnock gives three evidences:

1. In all the changes of the world a belief in the existence of God has been maintained. Even when empires have been overturned their gods might have changed but the belief in a god or gods has not. Even when the notion of a multiplicity of gods was rejected the notion of one true God grew stronger. As Charnock says, "the being of one God was more vigorously owned when the unreasonableness of multiplicity of gods was manifest; and grew taller by the detection of counterfeits." It is an absurdity to think that such an imposture could have "walked perpetually in the world without being discovered, and whipped out by some nation or other."
2. Men by nature desire to not have a god--it is not for lack of desire or trying that men have not been able to stamp out this nation. By its very persistence it proves its existence. Or as Charnock said, "The fears and anxieties in the consciences of men have given men sufficient occasion to root it out, had it been possible for them to do it." Since no man in his natural state desires to be controlled by someone or something he naturally tries to reject a god who is in control of him. Charnock gives the evidence of Adam and notes that we too follow after our father. But, "since men under the turmoils and lashes of their own consciences could never bring their hearts to a settled dissent from this truth, it evidenceth, that as it took its birth at the beginning of the world, it cannot expire, no not in the ashes of it, nor in anything but the reduction of the soul to that nothing from whence it sprung". Charnock is simply stating here that this is such a fixed truth that as long as the soul endures (which will be eternal) so will the conception of a belief in the existence of a god.
3. The devil deems it impossible to root out the notion of an existence of god. If you go back to the narrative of the Fall we see that the devil did not try to convince Adam and Eve that God did not exist but rather distorted Him and tried to convince them that they too were gods. The reason? "He knew it impossible to effect it, and therefore in vain to attempt it". Certainly, the Deceiver set himself up in many places as a god but was never able to throw out the notion altogether. To which Charnock comments, "The impressions of a Deity were so strong as not to be struck out by the malice and power of hell".

Here Charnock gives 3 rather decent arguments. They certainly are not the "nail in the coffin" but alongside all other evidences prove formidable. I especially like 1 & 2 put together. If we take it as truth that men would rather deny a god than adhere to one then it shows that men would have been giving much effort to putting out this notion. They would have put much effort into whipping out this imposture--however, because of the continued belief in the existence of God it shows they have not been able. However, this argument is not airtight. Some might argue that it is within man (as an evolutionary tendency) to keep the existence of a god. Therefore, it would bring down Charnock's argument.

The last argument must be established upon the authority of Scripture. For those of us who adhere to the infallible Word of God we stand behind Charnock. It is a great point that Satan, rather than trying to blot out his existence, has masqueraded as a god instead. Put together these 3 arguments serve as sufficeint evidence to show that throughout history the existence of a god has been accepted.

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.

In this section (p27-29) Charnock's main point is that we do not have to only rely upon Scripture to prove the existence of God. In fact God has revealed himself in the creation as well as in the Scriptures. (This is what theologians refer to general revelation and special revelation) Charnock gives two proofs of this thought:

1. Charnock first wants us to understand that God's revelation is "an [object] of our faith, and an [object] of our reason". It appears that we can "discover" God's nature through the Scriptures and his existence through creation/reason. What Charnock wants us to understand though is that faith (which is necessary for salvation) cannot come through mere reason. Because it "purely [depends] upon reason". Hebrews 11:6 shows the necessity of faith, but Charnock wants us to realize that the "faith" that is spoken of is not the mere existence of God but "what God is in relation to them that seek him, a rewarder". Speaking of that faith which is necessary to please God we read, "He that seeks to God according to the mind of God, must believe that he is such a God that will pardon sin, and justify a seeker of him; that he is a God of that ability and will, to justify a sinner in that way he hat appointed for the clearing the holiness of his nature, and vindicating the honor of his law violated by man. No man can seek God or love God, unless he believe Him to be thus; and he cannot seek God without a discovery of his own mind how he would be sought." If we are to have the type of faith that please God then it must be the type of faith that can only come from God. It is therefore necessary that man must not only know that God exists but also something of His character (that He is a rewarder). No one admires anything simply because it exists, "the bare existence of a thing is not the ground of affection to it". I do not love my wife simply because she exists, I love her because I know her--and so it must be if we are to have the type of faith that please God. However, Scripture does declare that because of Him revealing Himself men can "know" Him--but they do not care for knowing Him. "The notices of God are as intelligible to us by reason, as any object in the world is visible; he is written in every letter".

   Perhaps I am merely misunderstanding what Charnock is saying in this point, but to me it appears that he does not necessarily prove it. I understand from this section what Charnock is saying about the necessity of special revelation for faith. And I agree with his final statement that the "notices of God" are clear to us by reason and the existence of God is written throughout all of creation. What I do not understand is how everything prior to that sentence went to proving it. It appears to me that Charnock merely puts this truth in at the end of the paragraph and does not adequately show his point. But I would venture to say that it is I who am mistaken more so than Charnock.

2. His second point is that often in Scriptures we are told to look at the creatures to understand God. He points out that truth that when Paul is speaking to Bible-believing Jews in Romans 1:9 he points to creation just as he does when he is speaking to biblically ignorant pagans in Acts 16, 17. Even God Himself does this when talking to Job. When we look at God's answer to Job in 38-40 we do not see him showing any miracle or displaying his power any other way than pointing Job to nature. Charnock then makes the point, "but what miracles could rationally be supposed to work upon an atheist, who is not drawn to a sense of the truth proclaimed aloud by so many wonders of the creation?" This sounds to me very similar to what Jesus said concerning the unbelieving Jews--"If they do not believe Moses then they will not believe even someone raises from the dead." God has revealed Himself in Creation and in Scripture and if we reject these two things what more will be offered. Therefore, this is a display of the atheist folly.

Next time we will look further into this. Charnock will show us the folly of atheism based upon the universal consent of a Creator. Today, we must ask ourselves how to apply what we have learned. First of all we should thank God for his mighty work in saving us and leaving us not to mere general revelation but gave us further grace by giving us special revelation. Secondly, we should ask ourselves "what more do we want from God"? I know often in our discontent we pray for God to reveal Himself more, we figure that if he would show us this or that then we would be more apt to worship. The truth of the matter is that we have creation, creatures, and the His Word. If that is not sufficient then even if God appeared in human form, slapped us in the face and told us what we wanted to hear, we would still be asking questions and denying that it was God who slapped us. Therefore, let us focus on and rejoice in the revelation that God has given us. Be passionate about the Word and open up your eyes and look for how God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures.

Today we will be looking at p25-27 and the 5 reasons Charnock gives for why it is useful to know that God exist. Thus section is under the heading "Every atheist is a grand fool". Charnock's main thesis statement under this section is that, "If he were not a fool, he would not imagine a thing so contrary to the stream of the universal reason of the world, contrary to the rational dictates of his own soul, and contrary to the testimony of every creature, and link in the chain of creation: If he were not a fool, he would not strip himself of humanity, and degrade himself lower than the most despicable brute". What Charnock is saying is that you would have to be a complete fool to ignore what every thing around you is crying out--There is a God! The question I ask myself, though, is why am I such a fool. If Charnock is right, and I believe he is, then I too have "atheistical bubblings" within my own soul. Why am I so foolish in these moments, and how can I combat them?

If it is so obvious that God exist then why do we need to spend such time going about proving his existence? Charnock gives 5 reasons why this discipline is necessary.

1. Does not the growth of atheism prove that it is necessary? Charnock speaks of his age in the 17th century of growing in atheism--how much more is this true of our age? Our age is the fruit of Charnock's Age of the Enlightenment. The growing number of atheist in his day has greatly influenced the vast amount of bold atheist in ours. It is also interesting to note what Charnock does about the difference in the ministry of Paul and in ours today. "The apostles spent little time urging this truth [that God exist]; it was taken for granted all over the world, and they were generally devout in the worship of those idols they thought to be gods: that age run from one God to many, and our age is running from one God to none at all".
2. The existence of God is the foundation of all religion. When Charnock is speaking of religion he does not mean it as we do today. Today we think of the Buddhist religion, the Christian religion, the Muslim religion, etc. Religion is almost a dirty word in Christian circles today. We say, "we are not a religion we are a faith". Charnock's word "religion" would probably be similar to our word "piety". To a Puritan religion was synonymous with the devout fulfillment of religious obligations or reverence for God. This is why Charnock says, "We cannot pay God a due and regular homage [religion], unless we understand him in his perfections, what he is; and we can pay him no homage at all, unless we believe that he is." He is simply saying it is fundamental for us to know God's attributes and know God in his essence so that he can properly worshipped. However, if we do not know God at all, if he is unknown in his existence, then we cannot worship Him at all.
3. If our belief is resting on no more than our parents, teachers, or acquaintances then it cannot rightfully be said to be our own. "It is as much as to say there is no God, when we know not why we believe there is". This is a strong statement, but what I think Charnock is saying is that if we have no passion to know why we believe and a desire to dig deep then can we rightfully say that we even know Him?
4. It is also necessary to study the existence of God so as to lower the force of that secret atheism that bubbles up inside of us. Because of our residing sin and our desire for wickedness we secretly desire that atheism be true. Charnock's argument is that if we continuously keep in mind that God exist (and further know who this God is that exist) then it will serve a great purpose in keeping our secret atheistic tendencies in check. Furthermore he is using this as an argument for the unregenerate man as well. If he can come to see that God exists then it will keep him in check as far as his ungodly living and might actually serve to draw him to God.
5. Even when we are believing and loving God it is also important for us to study this because it is good for our own soul (it draws us away from sin and to God). It is also encouraging for us to see every creature in light of God. Charnock's point, I believe, is that the more we see God in creation and in the delight that others have for God then the more that we ourselves will delight in God.

Next time we will look at the folly of atheism as evident by the light of reason. For today ask yourself whether or not you have a passion to know God deeply. Also, think about how encouraging it is to see others have a delight in God. Does your delight in God cause others to want to know Him more, or less?

I recently received a book entitled The Existence and Attributes of God. It is a long book (1100+ pages). The author of the book is a 17th Century Puritan by the name of Stephen Charnock. You can actually order it online from the Christian Book Distributors for only 12.99. It is an excellent book and one that we will be going through on our blog. You do not have to buy it or read it--although that would be beneficial.

Today we will be looking at Discourse I--The Existence of God (from page 23-25):

"The fool hat said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalm 14:1

Charnock notes that Pslam 14:1 is not speaking of the Gentile only but, as St. Paul helps us see, to the Jew as well. For "all are under sin". Charnock then begins to expound upon this text by noting that "the fool" is referring to the wicked man--"one dead in sin, yet one not so much void of rational faculties as of grace in those faculties, not one that wants [=lacks] reason, but abuses his reason." Here Charnock is standing with the apostle Paul in saying that it is not that the "fool" is actually an idiot (lacks reason) but he is a "fool" because he abuses his reason.

Charnock further points out that it is in the fools heart where his atheism is made manifest. It is not as if he has put together an elaborate scheme and has went to great lengths to develop a sophisticated argument to disprove God. Rather he "tampered with his own heart to bring it to that persuasion, and smothered in himself those notices of a Diety; which is so plain against the light of nature, that such a man may well be called a fool for it". In other words it is so obvious that there is a God and it must be supressed so violently that one would be said a fool to deny it. One would think of a foolish person that would argue while staring at the color blue that it is in fact the color green.

We further see that it is not Jehovah God which is denied but is instead Eloahia [Elohim] which name signifies the providence of God. It is then, "not that he denies the existence of a Supreme Being, that created the world, but his regarding the creatures, his government, and consequently his reward of the righteous or punishments of the wicked." Charnock then helps us to see that there are three types of atheist. The absolute atheist, the atheist which denies God's providence [probably considered agnostic in our day], and the atheist in regard to one or more of the other perfections due his nature [the "open" theologians in our day who in some form deny his omniscience]. Charnock then says that the type of atheist spoken of here in Psalm 14 is more the type of Atheist that denies the providence of God. But, Charnock notes, to deny God's Providence is "to in effect deny the being of God".

But lest we become prideful and think that we ourselves are not fools because we believe in the existence of God, Charnock points us to the truth that "the fool" is in the singular but the plurality of the evil practices displays that their is a "secret atheism" in us all. "No man is exempted from some spice of atheism by the depravition of his nature...though there are indelible convictions of the being of a God, that they cannot absoultely deny it; yet there are some atheistical bubblings in the hearts of men, which evidence themselves in their actions". What it appears Charnock is saying here is that by our actions we deny God. This text then shows us how fully man is corrupt--in our mind and in our other faculties as a result.

In the coming weeks Charnock is going to display for us that God does indeed exist and the folly in thinking otherwise. He will also give us advice for battling these "atheistical bubblings" in our hearts. It would be advisable to check back frequently to see our discussion on Charnock. As we do this let me give you one tip: It can sometimes be difficult reading the writings of the Puritans--they had a different writing style and sometimes even the language was different. Therefore, it would be advisable to slowly go over the sentences in bold (those by Charnock) read my explanation and then go back and re-read the bold words to see if you can see how the explanation corresponds to what Charnock is saying. And, as alwasy feel free to comment and e-mail any questions.