The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1895-06-27
MIR. MARSTON'S ARTICLE.
Is Eternal Torment a Penalty For
Sin?


Sin?
EDITOR GOLD LEAF, Sir Some
eight or ten years ago introduced to
the town of Henderson the idea that
External Torment" is not the Bible
penalty for sin. The distinguished
titles of "a,heist, ","inidel," "dangerous
character, ETC., were conferred for my
voluntary services. An opportunity
was recently given in the Burwell Hall
for the authors of such delectable"
epithets to come and substantiate.
They failed to do so. BY your liber
ality, sir, | will now publish brief
synopsis of what intended to say on
that occasion. Those who hold that
torment is the penalty for sin, rest the
proof Of their theory on the basis Of
the parallels, figures and symbols Of
the New Testament, which, is well
known, contain neither law nor doctrine.
They are only metaphors employed to
illustrate other subjects. They do not
interfere with the law containing the
penalty for sin, and it does not require
far fetched theological science to fin |
an explanation TO the parallels, some
of which are now drawing near to
fulhllment; mole especially those
symbollzing the "wheat and tares,"
and "Dives and Lazarus" Both are
due to be literally fulfilled when that
long predicted social trouble strikes
our world eighteen years from now.
A knowledge of the nature of the
penalty for the broken law has not
been conveyed to us through the
medium of symbols, but directly
through literal law containing ten
English words, Divnely enacted in the
Garden of Eden four thousand years
before parable was written, and given
to the first man for the purpose Of
conveying to him what the conse-
QuenCes would be in case it should be
broken. And if that short and simple,
but imperative, law be read Alright,
then death, not lite in anguish, is the
penalty for sin. But since death, as
in this case, has been construed into
life, (matters not under what condition.
perhaps the manipulators will conde-
scend TO explain their moans oberandi,
or, possibly, they may make the futile
attempt to harmonic the two extremes
-" life and eath"-together. Until
that is done we claim the verdict in
bahalf of the death penalty. If in
giving the law, death was said and
life was meant, that puts its author in
an awkward and untruthful position :;
and if ever Adam finds himself in the
condition of paying the torment pen
atty, he would have good grounds to
appeal for justice and claim a new
trial. The law containing the penalty
for sin had been in existence forty-four
hundred years before it received the
human attachment conveying the tor
ment theory by that monstrous system
which has disgraced humanity, known
by the cognomen of "the man of SIM"
The death sentence passed upon Adam
would have been final hut for redemp-
ton, which settles the condition of the
first penalty, and to be carried out by
Redeemer who, by paying back an
equivalent to Divine Justice, secures
to the race the recovery of the life lost
through Adams transgression, and to
be restored in a general resurrection.
But justice demands that the exact
penalty incurred must be the penalty
paid, or redemption would be null
and void. Now the question arises is
it the one enacted in the Garden of
Eden, or that which was promulgated
in the City of Rome forty -four hundred
years afterwards We have an elabo-
rate account of the settlement of the
former penalty both in sacred and
profane history, but no account of the
latter. Nevertheless, if torment is the
penalty, that penalty must be paid,
and the one who has undertaken its
payment must be now undergoing its
infection, which, of course, must be
eternal in order to keep humanity out
Of it, or else the race has not yet been
redeemed. A school boy can solve
that problem. We repeat, that the
penalty incurred must he the penalty
paid, or the bill would go to protest
when presented for endorsement in
the Court of Divine Justice. "The
wages of sin is death ought to settle
the whole question of life i'll anguish.
That horrid theory had a heather
origin, though, as held by the heather,
it was not that merciless doctrine it
afterwards became when it began
gradually to attach itself to nominal
Christianity during its blending with
heather PHILOSOPHERS in the second
and third centuries. 1t remained for
the great apostacy to tack on to heather
philosophy the horrid details now SO