'Neither reasonable, nor orthodox, nor scriptural': on excessively radical accounts of the Fall

Another example of Richard Warner - in the first volume of his Old Church of England Principles Opposed to "New Light" - critiquing in Hookerian fashion excessively radical accounts of Original Sin and expressing the characteristically Anglican affirmation of and gratitude for signs of goodness and virtue in common life:

I purpose, my brethren, to shew you, in the remaining part of my discourse, that all such notions as these are contrary to common sense and common experience, to the principles of the Established Church, and to the gospel of Jesus Christ; and, consequently, that all who teach them are neither reasonable, nor orthodox, nor scriptural preachers. These notions are, first, contrary to common sense and common experience. If mankind were nothing but a mass of corruption and wickedness, and had no other inclinations but such as are malignant and devilish, what would become of human society? or how could human beings exist all together? In that case, the hand of every man would be against his neighbour, and the whole earth would be filled with secret malignity or open violence. There would be no affection between parents and children, husband and wife, brother and sister, friend and friend; for every one would be pursuing his own selfish interests, and trying all the means of forwarding them alone. But in what part of the world, I pray you, can we find such a horrible scene as this?

... there are to be seen the remains of the image of God, in more or less of natural affection; in frequent acts of kindness and generosity; in the protection of the young and feeble; in respect for the aged; and compassion to the miserable ... Who among us, if we beheld an, object of wretchedness, would not instantly feel a desire of relieving it arise in his bosom? Who, if he saw an act of unprovoked violence or cruelty committed, would not immediately feel an emotion of honest indignation? Is there a man that hears me, who does not respect religion and virtue, whenever he sees them, although he may not practise them himself? or, can he hear of an action of mercy, of humanity, or generosity, without feeling that his heart secretly approves of it? 

... And what, I beseech you, is such natural conduct, but a proof, that the image of God, in which we were created, is not destroyed; but that we yet bear about us some marks of being originally the work of God, and not the creatures of Satan?