A Treatise on Domestic Economy; For the Use of Young Ladies at Home and at School

by Catharine Esther Beecher

But what was the grand peculiarity of the character of Christ? It was self-denying benevolence. He came not to "seek His own;" He "went about doing good," and this was His "meat and drink;" that is, it was this which sustained the health and life of His mind, as food and drink sustain the health and life of the body. Now, the mind of man is so made, that it can gradually be transformed into the same likeness. A selfish being, who, for a whole life, has been nourishing habits of indolent self-indulgence, can, by taking Christ as his example, by communion with Him, and by daily striving to imitate His character and conduct, form such a temper of mind, that "doing good" will become the chief and highest source of enjoyment. And this heavenly principle will grow stronger and stronger, until self-denial loses the more painful part of its character, and then, living to make happiness, will be so delightful and absorbing a pursuit, that all exertions, regarded as the means to this end, will be like the joyous efforts of men, when they strive for a prize or a crown, with the full hope of success.

In this view of the subject, efforts and self-denial, for the good of others, are to be regarded, not merely as duties enjoined for the benefit of others, but as the moral training indispensable to the formation of that character, on which depends our own happiness. This view, exhibits the full meaning of the Saviour's declaration, "how hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" He had before taught, that the kingdom of Heaven consisted, not in such enjoyments as the worldly seek, but, in the temper of self-denying benevolence, like His own; and, as the rich have far greater temptations to indolent self-indulgence, they are far less likely to acquire this temper, than those, who, by limited means, are inured to some degree of self-denial.

But, on this point, one important distinction needs to be made; and that is, between the self-denial, which has no other aim than mere self-mortification, and that, which is exercised to secure greater good to ourselves and others. The first is the foundation of monasticism, penances, and all other forms of asceticism; the latter, only, is that which Christianity requires.

A second consideration, which may give definiteness to this subject, is, that the formation of a perfect character, involves, not the extermination of any principles of our nature, but rather the regulating of them, according to the rules of reason and religion; so that the lower propensities shall always be kept subordinate to nobler principles. Thus, we are not to aim at destroying our appetites, or at needlessly denying them, but rather so to regulate them, that they shall best secure the objects for which they were implanted. We are not to annihilate the love of praise and admiration; but so to control it, that the favor of God shall be regarded more than the estimation of men. We are not to extirpate the principle of curiosity, which leads us to acquire knowledge; but so to direct it, that all our acquisitions shall be useful and not frivolous or injurious. And thus, with all the principles of the mind, God has implanted no desires in our constitution, which are evil and pernicious. On the contrary, all our constitutional propensities, either of mind or body, He designed we should gratify, whenever no evils would thence result, either to ourselves or others. Such passions as envy, ambition, pride, revenge, and hatred, are to be exterminated; for they are either excesses or excrescences: not created by God, but rather the result of our own neglect to form habits of benevolence and self-control.

In deciding the rules of our conduct, therefore, we are ever to bear in mind, that the developement of the nobler principles, and the subjugation of inferior propensities to them, is to be the main object of effort, both for ourselves and for others. And, in conformity with this, in all our plans, we are to place religious and moral interests as first in estimation, our social and intellectual interests, next, and our physical gratifications, as subordinate to all.

A third consideration, is, that, though the means for sustaining life and health are to be regarded as necessaries, without which no other duties can be performed, yet, that a very large portion of the time, spent by most persons, in easy circumstances, for food, raiment, and dwellings, are for mere superfluities, which are right, when they do not involve the sacrifice of higher interests, and wrong, when they do. Life and health can be sustained in the humblest dwellings, with the plainest dress, and the simplest food; and, after taking from our means, what is necessary for life and health, the remainder is to be so divided, that the larger portion shall be given to supply the moral and intellectual wants of ourselves and others, and the smaller share to procure those additional gratifications, of taste and appetite, which are desirable, but not indispensable. Mankind, thus far, have never made this apportionment of their means; yet, just as fast as they have risen from a savage state, mere physical wants have been made, to an increasing extent, subordinate to higher objects.

Another very important consideration, is, that, in urging the duty of charity, and the prior claims of moral and religious objects, no rule of duty should be maintained, which it would not be right and wise for all to follow. And we are to test the wisdom of any general rule, by inquiring what would be the result, if all mankind should practise according to it. In view of this, we are enabled to judge of the correctness of those, who maintain, that, to be consistent, men believing in the eternal destruction of all those of our race who are not brought under the influence of the Christian system, should give up, not merely the elegances, but all the superfluities, of life, and devote the whole of their means, not indispensable to life and health, for the propagation of Christianity. But, if this is the duty of any, it is the duty of all; and we are to inquire what would be the result, if all conscientious persons gave up the use of all superfluities. Suppose, that two millions of the people in the United States, were conscientious persons, and relinquished the use of every thing not absolutely necessary to life and health. It would instantly throw out of employment one half of the whole community. The manufacturers, mechanics, merchants, agriculturists, and all the agencies they employ, would be beggared, and one half of those not reduced to poverty, would be obliged to spend all their extra means, in simply supplying necessaries to the other half. The use of superfluities, therefore, to a certain extent, is as indispensable to promote industry, virtue, and religion, as any direct giving of money or time; and it is owing entirely to a want of reflection, and of comprehensive views, that any men ever make so great a mistake, as is here exhibited.

Instead, then, of urging a rule of duty which is at once irrational and impracticable, there is another course, which commends itself to the understandings of all. For whatever may be the practice, of intelligent men, they universally concede the principle, that our physical gratifications should always be made subordinate to social, intellectual, and moral, advantages. And all that is required, for the advancement of our whole race to the most perfect state of society, is, simply, that men should act in agreement with this principle. And, if only a very small portion, of the most intelligent of our race, should act according to this rule, under the control of Christian benevolence, the immense supplies, furnished, for the general good, would be far beyond what any would imagine, who had never made any calculations on the subject. In this Nation, alone, suppose the one million and more, of professed followers of Christ, should give a larger portion of their means, for the social, intellectual, and moral, wants of mankind, than for the superfluities that minister to taste, convenience, and appetite; it would be enough to furnish all the schools, colleges, Bibles, ministers, and missionaries, that the whole world could demand; or, at least, it would be far more, than properly qualified agents to administer it, could employ.

But, it may be objected, that, though this view is one, which, in the abstract, looks plausible and rational, not one in a thousand, can practically adopt it. How few keep any account, at all, of their current expenses! How impossible it is, to determine, exactly, what are necessaries, and what are superfluities! And in regard to women, how few have the control of an income, so as not to be bound by the wishes of a parent or a husband!

In reference to these difficulties, the first remark is, that we are never under obligations to do, what is entirely out of our power, so that those persons, who have no power to regulate their expenses or their charities, are under no sort of obligation to attempt it. The second remark is, that, when a rule of duty is discovered, we are bound to aim at it, and to fulfil it, just so far as we can. We have no right to throw it aside, because we shall find some difficult cases, when we come to apply it. The third remark is, that no person can tell how much can be done, till a faithful trial has been made. If a woman has never kept any accounts, nor attempted to regulate her expenditures by the right rule, nor used her influence with those that control her plans, to secure this object, she has no right to say how much she can, or cannot, do, till after a fair trial has been made.