Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1847-04-02
Deal Gcntly...again.

The author of the following communication
| ,ntitles it "' Deal Gently answered" So
ar as an "answer" to an argument is under
TODD to be a REPUTATION Of it, we are constraln-
| ID to say that the "answer" of'' n **H*' in
'tead ofrefuting tends strongly to confirm the
correctness Of the position we have taken.
! The writer below says the language OF our
lrtce of last week " is in spirit of censure y:
md of character to encourage men in break
ing over all rules, obligations and principles OF
our Society,"" 1t may be so; but our cores
pendent will observe that the ruling question
with us was not at all what effect the pubca-
ton or non publica'ion of the resolution might
have upon the " rules &c. &C." of the Kecha-
bite Socieiy but what would be its legitimate in
duencc upon felio,c being. We thought, and
we still think, that its influence upon the Offend
ing brother (whatever power it might exercise
in restraining others) would be unmtigated
evil. This is all we had to do with the matter
In our Judgment, and we believe in the judg-
ment of our friend below, the publication in our
columns of resolution of expulsion would
have tendency to PREVENT the reformation OF
the person against whom it might be aimed
This being the case are we to stop and enquire
what effect the non-pujlication of the resolution
mi Lht have Oh the rules, obligations, or prnci-
pies of Society! Are we to be called on
to place one OF our neghbors in an opproArious
and painful position before the public, without
regard to his own feelings or those Of his friends.
because if we do not do SO a Society may
suffer in the integrity of its rules and obliga.
tons - We think not. We must be excused
for saying that neither to us, nor TO any OTHER
man, or voluntary association Of men, is COM
United the fearful prerogative Of sacrifring Il
fellow being for the benefit Of others.
Our correspondent propounds several qnes-
tons to US. He asks if, after the second trans
erosion, forgiveness has not reached its hmitsF
Ifhe desires our answer,we say: Certainly not
Again he asks if, this great work can 60 on il
members are allowed time and time again-or
in your own language seventy times seven,
-four hundred and ninety y to violate the rules
ofthc " Society" And again. if he desires ON
answer, we say: Certainly we do Does moi
our friend understand that the command to for
8 gire mot BY any means in our words , 'seven
ty times SEVEN" was given to a Society,
u and probably much smaller, certainly les
:, worldly prosperous Society than the one
= whose welfare he is SO Jealous to guard All
II my friend let us beware how we attempt IL
improre on the doctrines Of the bible II the
i little d" Society, eighteen hundred years ago
struggling against principalitics and powers
= the evil passions and the corrupt hearts OF men
n scoiled at BY the million and rcvilcd by the
supper ten thousand Of those days. were in
' s.ructed to forgive an offending brother fou
: hundred and ninety tines can you ask ii
!! behalf of a modern Society, strong in public
: approval powerful in numbers, and assured il
: the correctness of its principles, if forgiveness
S has not reached its limii on the second or hir
transrression! II there is really danger in OK
csing more extended Charity for IN" inhrm'
ties of our fellow-men, If larger spirit OF Tor
, giveness is incompatible with the well-being y
the Society," is it not wise to enquire wethe
the fault is with the Society or the principle p
Is it not fair to suspect that an association
whose means Of doing good are leopard
: lied by too liberal exercise Of love an
charity is built upon an unstable foundation
Or. at least that some of the fundamental prn
r ciples Of which our friend speaks, might b
; changed to the mutual advantage of all its mem
I beers