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 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 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.