Thus the theory of eternal torment has this everlasting drawback that men will not believe it. It may be, and has been, accounted the orthodox view; and men may try to believe it, but as a matter of fact they do not. To think that a person will suffer forever, and ever, is beyond actual belief. Just think for a while of torment without end. Lengthen out the time in your imagination, and when you have reached the utmost stretch of imagination, then think that eternity is only beginning, and that through eternal cycles of aeons it will go on forever and ever, and ever. It used to be a favorite method of illustrating the eternity of torment to suppose that after a million of years one grain of soil were taken from the earth; then after another million of years, another grain; then after another million of years, another grain; and so on until the whole of the earth had disappeared; then repeat the proceeding ten thousand millions of times; and then eternity would be only beginning! Imagine, if you can, a soul in torment all these uncounted ages; and then think of the process being repeated over and over again, without end, without end, without end! No man can believe it. But if you tell him he is to suffer until he is reclaimed, he can believe that; it comes easily within the scope of his imagination--yes, and of his reason too. Hence it will have more effect on a man's conviction, and will produce a greater influence on his life, to be told that if he dies impenitent he will suffer until he repents, and is reformed. Now when we consider the natural affinity which the mind has for truth, and when we recognize the impossibility of believing in endless torment, we have a strong presumption that the theory is not true. At all events, in the present unsettled state of the question would it not be a wholesome thing to take the more limited view of suffering, and have men believe it in their inmost souls, rather than the view of eternal torment, with a hesitating, half hearted presentation of it, and consequently without producing genuine conviction? This is a serious question; let all serious minds ponder it. The want of candor in expressing definite conviction on this subject seems to me to be a formidable barrier to church union. The following article of mine on this point lately appeared in _The Homiletic Review_: