An Appeal to the People in Behalf of Their Rights as Authorized Interpreters of the Bible

by Catharine Esther Beecher

In regard to the formation of a virtuous character, as a matter of experience, it usually results from a slow and gradual process of training and development. The general purpose to obey all the laws of rectitude originates, as a general fact, not as a definitely formed purpose, whose time of inception can be distinctly marked. Yet it is not unfrequently the case that persons who have passed a life of unrestrained indulgence, by some marked and powerful influence, are suddenly led to a decided and definitely marked purpose of virtuous obedience, and carry out this purpose with great success.

Any such sudden change, in popular language, would be called “the commencement of a new life.” And when this sudden change takes place under the [pg 140] influence of motives presented in the Bible, it is called by one class of theologians the “new birth” or “regeneration.”

Is True Virtue Possible before Regeneration?

In the discussions which are to follow, it will be found that almost every point debated involves, as a foundation question, “what is true virtue?” And the grand question at issue between the system of common sense and the teachings of all theologians who uphold the Augustine theory, is this: is true virtue possible to an unregenerate mind? Theology says no, common sense says yes. Theology teaches that previous to regeneration every voluntary act of every human mind is “sin, and only sin.” Common sense maintains, on the contrary, that every voluntary act which is in agreement with the best good of all concerned, when the intention is to act right, is virtuous without any regard to the question of the regeneration of the mind. In other words, theology teaches that true virtue is the right voluntary action of a mind after its “nature” is changed by God, and common sense teaches that true virtue is the right voluntary action of any mind without any change in its nature.

The discussion of this point involves the further consideration of certain mental experiences which will shed some light on the subject. It will be found that in case of all persons who are said to “act on principle,” or to be “conscientious persons,” that, in the greater portion of their voluntary acts, they have no conscious immediate reference to the rules of rectitude. There seems to be an unconscious general purpose to [pg 141] act right on all occasions, which becomes obvious only when a case occurs involving a seeming violation of the rules of rectitude. At such times the mind becomes conscious of its ruling purpose. But the greater portion of all the daily acts of life have been decided upon as in agreement with the all-controlling general purpose, and a man chooses to do many things in which he has no conscious reference to rule. And still such acts have, in past time, been subjects of reflection in reference to the question of right and wrong, and have been decided to be right, and it is in consequence of this decision that the mind no longer considers these questions with a conscious reference to rule.

The distinction between what is denominated “a man of principle” and an “unprincipled man,” is simply this, that the former is one who has formed habits of self-regulation by the rules of rectitude, and the latter has not.

This mental analysis is important in reference to deciding the character of a virtuous action.

A virtuous act, as defined above, is one in which the thing chosen is right and the motive is right. But it is not indispensable that the person who performs the act should be immediately conscious of a reference to rule in each right specific volition. It is sufficient that the mind be under the control of a ruling purpose of rectitude, so that all the subordinate minor purposes are in fact regulated, though unconsciously, by this purpose.

It is at this point that the class of theologians who make regeneration to include a voluntary act on the part of man, are in antagonism with the experience [pg 142] and common sense of mankind. Such maintain that every act of every human being is “sin, and only sin,” until a ruling purpose is formed to obey God as the chief end, and one also which is actually more efficient and stronger in controlling the ordinary acts of life than the purpose to gratify self. Previous to the existence of this general purpose, they maintain that every act of self-denial or self-sacrifice for the good of others is “sin, and only sin.” According to their theory, choosing that which is right because it is right, is not a virtuous act until a ruling purpose of universal obedience to God is formed.

That is to say, it is the ruling purpose, or the want of a ruling purpose to obey God in all things, which decides the character of every specific act of choice. Thus if a child is trained to be honest, truthful, and self-denying, and succeeds very often in conforming to such instructions, there is no true virtue in any such acts until a ruling purpose of obedience to God is generated, which is habitually more controlling than the impulses of self-indulgence. This is the point where the people and theologians are at issue.