Commentary on Romans, Treatise · Chapter 7 · Dialogue 12
DIAL. XII.
Verse 16. If I doe then that which I would not, I consent to the Law that it is good.
Tim.
VVHat doth this Text containe?
Silas.
Two inferences & conclusions whichIf I doe what I would not, then I consent to the Law that it is good, but the former is nue, therefore the latter. doe arise from the former strife betweene originall sinne and Pauls renued mind. The first is out of the 16. verse, the summe and effect whereof is this, that there was a good agreement and consent betweene the heart of Paul being renued, and Gods law; seeing he abhorred the cuill which was done by him, being contrary to the Law. The second conclusion is contained in the 17. verse, the effect and summe whereof is this, If I abhorre the sinne which I doe, then I being renued doe it not, but that sinfull corruption that dwels and stickes in my nature, doth it.
Tim.
What is meant by that which Paul did doe, and would not hauehave done?
Silas.
Some euill thing forbid in the law of God, which though hee hated, yet corruption wrested it from him, whereof he inferreth that so farre foorth as he was regenerate, he did approoue Gods law to be good and holy. For whosoeuer hates an euill in this respect that the law forbids it, and loues a good thing in this respect that the law commands it, he must needs hauehave some thing in him that doth allow the law, and consent to it to bee good, howsoeuer he doe the euill he hates, and cannot doe the good he would,
Tim.
What instruction will arise from hence?
Silas.
That it is a true and certaine marke of a man grafted into Christ, and regenerate by his Spirit, to consent vntounto the Lawe; when his sinnes can displease him because they are against the law, and good duties are loued and therefore performed, because Gods law requires them: the reason is because none can consent to the law of God and allow of it, saue such as are borne anew of God, whose law it is.
Tim.
How is it written then that the Gentiles doe by nature the things contained in the Law, Rom. 2, 14?
Silas.
That place is to be vnderstood of precepts and rules giuen foorth for pollicy, and gouernment of Citties. For which purposes the very Heathen forbid vices and command honest things pertaining to ciuill life: and not of their daily conuersation, wherein they were great sinners, eyther openly, or secretly, as Paul accusech them before, Chapters, 1, 2. Besides in their common life they did some good things, and eschued some euill, out of vaine-glory to get praise of men.
Tim.
But Esau and Caine were displeased with the euils they did against the Law, and yet were no regenerate men.
Sil.
It is true, they were displeased for their sinnes, not for that they allowed Gods lawe, which condemned their sinnes; but because they begun to feele the discommodities and calamities of their sins, and did feare further destruction. Secondly, they were so displeased with the euils they did against the law, that they had no care to doe the good commanded in the law, as regenerate men hauehave; and that out of conscience and obedience of the lawe, and in one thing as well as in another.
Tim.
But Herod was not onelyonly displeased, but he did good things. Mark 6, 20.
Silas.
Herod was indeed displeased with his sinnes, becauseMark 20, 6. hee feared the punishment, and not because the lawe forbad it; for then hee would hauehave put away Herodias his brothers wife, & hauehave repented of that main and grosse sin. Secondly, though he did good things, yet not throughly: for when the text sayeth, (hee did many things) it implyes that hee neglected other things which were as needfull to bee done as those which hee did: whereas the regenerate that consenteth to the law, doth hate, and repent of one sin as well as another, and allowe one duty as well another, though they perfectly neuer leaue any sinne nor doe any duty.
Tim.
Yet it is reported of this Paul, that when hee was a Pharisy and vnregenerate, he was conuersant in all the righteousnes of the law without rebuke?
Silas.
All this is true, and yet did not hee then consent to the lawe of God that it was good. First, because his conuersation was vnrebukeable outwardly & before men alone, his lusts and inward motions being vicious and sinfull before God. Secondly, the feare of men or the feare of punishment from God, or both (and not the louelove of the law) might and did moue him to be outwardly righteous. Lastly, hee was not stirred vp to the works which hee did by faith and charity, either towardes GOD or man. All things are quite contrary in the regenerate, who content to the law of God both outwardly and inwardly, and hauehave a pure heart cleansed by faith, the ground and foundation of all that good they do.
Tim.
Yea, but euen regenerate men they do many euil things, quite contrary to the lawe, and doe leaue vndone sundry good things inioyned in the lawe, and in those thinges which they doe best, they come short to the perfection of the law: how doe they then consent to the law?
Sil.
Yes, all this may be and stand very well together, if men consider his conclusion set downe in the next verse; which is, that Paul as he was renued, so farre his mind, his will, his affections, did all allow the whole law; and the euils which he did, he was violently drawne vntounto them by original sin, which still remained in him.
Tim.
Shew vsus then when it may be sayde of a man, that hee consents to the law?
Sylas.
When hee is so affected to the lawe, as Dauid and Paul were, not for degree, but for sincerity of affection: see Psal. 1, 2. & 119, 14, 15, 16, 18, 30, 31. Rom. 7, 22, 23.
Tim.
Nowe declare vntounto vsus what profit wee are to make of this doctrine?
Silas.
First, wee hauehave from hence a notable difference betweene the godly and the vngodly, the sincere Christian and the hypocrite: for the vngodly man and the hypocrite, when he doth any good or eschue any euill, it is not from the heart, because the law commaunds it; for he euer hath respect vntounto gaine, or credit, or pleasure, or pain, and not to the will of God: but the godly though hee sin, yet from his heart he loues the law, hauing that in him which resisteth and hateth sin. Secondly, from hence we hauehave a special comfort vntounto al such as consent to the law of God, whose inward man delighteth in it, and whose minde serueth it: such surely are regenerate, though they hauehave many fearefull imperfections and sinnes: yet if they in trueth allow the law, condemning those sinnes they doe, and allowing those things they doe not, because the law willeth them, (repēting from their harts so oftē as they violate the law through weaknes) this is a certain mark of a new born child of God. …. It sheweth how fearful their case is which are ignorant of Gods law, either because they cannot, or because they care not to know it. These do not consent to the Law which they do not know; and therefore are as yet in the estate of damnation. Therefore, it is a needfull thing together with the preaching of the Gospel, to hauehave the Law soundly interpreted and applyed. For, as men cannot consent to the Gospell without the preaching of the Gospell, which is the power of God to write it in our heart; so we cannot so much as know the Law without the preaching of the Law. Finally, heere is a sure truth, that whosoeuer willeth not the euil which he doth, but disalloweth it, out of a reuerent louelove vntounto the Law, whereunto hee seeth the euill which he dooth repugnant, he certainly approoueth the Law to bee good, and a rule of rightnesse.