Edwin Sandys on the first motions of sin

[Reformed Covenanter]

That they [Romanists] seek not his glory, but their own, it may appear unto any man which thoroughly considereth of their doctrine. First they will not acknowledge that poverty and nakedness, those filthy garments of corruption and sin wherein Adam hath wrapped his posterity; But in the pride of their hearts, they dissemble it, diminish it, and make light of it. For although they deny not but that man’s nature is corrupted, yet mark how they pair and lessen this corruption. The Prophet David doeth term it wickedness, and sin: but they make it only an inclination unto sinning.

For more, see Edwin Sandys on the first motions of sin.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This post is relevant to the controversy over whether or not SSA is a sin. I was reading James Durham yesterday on Rome's view of concupiscence and he linked it to embracing justification on account of good works, as a defective view of sin will lead to a defective view of salvation. If correct, the claim that SSA is not sinful is a very dangerous error; opposing it is a hill on which to die.