ABSTRACT
I. The doctrine explained.—What the doctrine is not.—Distinguished from total depravity by nature.—Must be consistent with just views of the nature of holiness and sin.—II. The doctrine proved (1.) from Scripture.—Remark on man’s enmity to God. (2.) The argument from experience and observation.—Certain traits of character are adduced against its truth.—Considered under three particulars.—Traits specified, are innocence of childhood, honor, gratitude.—They are shown to be not morally good.—Argument on the application of the words good, lovely, &c. Argument from experience and observation continued.—Traits in question are not morally good.—Argument on the nature of the features adduced.—Considered as simply constitutional affections.—Reply to objection, that not to have them is sinful —The same considered as voluntary practical principles.—Third source of argument—from external action.—Habitual obedience to God the only legitimate evidence.—Habitual violation of one command decisive against goodness.—The good adduced may result from selfishness. Argument continued from experience and observation.—The good characteristics alleged are considered in childhood and in adults.—Shown to be positively sinful, so far as they have any moral quality, by the nature of moral action and the true principles of judging of it.
