Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1907-03-01
Communicated
MUST WE FORGET
WHEN WE FORGIVE =?


MUST WE FORGET
WHEN WE FORGIVE p?
EDITOR VIRGINIA CITIZEN.
With due respect to the Philadelphia
Evening Bulletin and to the author of
the mediocre article published by you
under the caption 1--WE must forget
when we forgive, beg the privilege
of personal opinion in the matter.
In the first place, allow me to ask:
What constitutes forgiveness? Every
body will concede the fact that it is the
pardon of the cause of some overt act
which produces condition OF mind in
some person antagonistic to the person
responsible for the offense- admitting
that the term applies to the act in. a
literal sense. In other words, our
sense of justice has been outraged to
an extent amenable or otherwise to the
civil law, but indisputable so to the
moral law of our being. Acceding this
as the basic principle of mans moral
obligation to his fellow-man we must
necessarily deduce 1.-The higher law
which appeals to our humanity in the
settlement of the question of forgive
ness. With forgiveness as a fnality
the problem may be solved by the
Divine injunction: "Do unto others
as you would that they should
do unto you", but our colleague
has taken a plunge into metaphysics
which is misleading, inasmuch as his
statement imposes an ulterior obliga-
tion. He appears to have departed
from the general knowledge of the con-
struction of the human brain, admit
ting that organ to be the seat or centre
of ''the mind'' of man, disposing of
the faculty of memory to the extent
comprehending a complete metamor-
phose of the anatomical structure of
the ''think-box. 1t may be argued
that without the consent of the mind
the heart cannot exercise its moral
functions-love, forgiveness and the
like: granting this, then forgiveness is
of the mind rather than the heart.
incline to the belief that the mind is a
component of the soul, and exercises
functions peculiar to itself and forceful
for good or evil. Forgiving is the re-
sultant effect of the exercise of a moral
functions commonly credited to the
heart, while forgetting is regarded by
the laity as an effort of the mind 1t
must be, in fact, the effectual blotting
out of a mental impression, calling for
an inverse action of the mechanism of
the brain. Why? Because the impress
sion made upon the mind of man by an
act of another derogatory to its sense
of justice and personal rights is indeli-
bic in its characterization and its efface-
ment can be but the turning back'' of
the memory. In contradistinction is the
effect of good deeds done us, the mind
makes no effort, in many instances, to
retain the impression.
/ believe that "To forgive is Divine,
to forget is an impossibility. God
forgives the sinner but continues to
hate the sin. We, tho weak, can and
do forgive those who offend US, but we
cannot forget the offence, nor is it right
that we should wholly blot it out from
our memory-gr granting the possibility of
such feat-nor just to the offender.
Why? Because we thereby give him a
certain license torepeat the offence, we
put temptation in his way and say to
him in effect: '"Trample upon ourrights
as you will, your acts can make no i'm
preston upon US; our ''think-works are
encased within an armor of forget
fulneSs."
True it is that ''too often we only for
give with our lips," our heart has not
been revealed, but hidden meath the
cloak of lying words which, could their
Interpretation be known, convey a sin
lister threat. Forgiveness has not en-
tered into the matter; the mind has
retained the impression of the injury,
fancied or real, and the heart has within
its dark recesses the hatred which must
some day be brought to the surface.
Just why our colleague wrote this phrase
we do not know, as it is evident to the
most careless reader that forgetfulness
cannot enter as factor. Again he
says: ''The question each one of us
should ask ourselves before we utter
words of pardon is, Can / forever blot
out of my mind all recollection Of this
injury?' If the answer is not an affirma-
tive one, it is idle to promise forgiveness,
the two must go together"
cannot believe that the writer means
to imply the total eclipse of the reten-
tive faculty of the mind in relation to
these acts of the "degenerates;" if so
then truly Christ died in vain, and our
humanity rivals the Divine.
E. f. ROGERS.
Wheaton, Va, February 9, 1907.
DnEc DATDI0TISM DAVo