Or, if he does not believe in endless torment, does he not believe in
Restoration? Might he not have uttered some warnings along that line?
Surely, it is a tremendous conviction to give a sinful man, that if he
does not repent in this life he must do so in the next, though it takes
thousands of years, and untold penalties, to bring him to that state of
mind. But not a word of this terror did the preacher utter. That would
be a repudiation of the endless torment theory, which would be
unorthodox, and possibly subject the preacher himself to pains and
penalties. So he simply said nothing by way of warning, except failure
in this life. And that does not seem to amount to very much after all.
Is it worth while to preach a sermon about it? Would not the old
philosophy be almost as good, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow
we die?"

Would it not be better to take the suffering incident to the
Restoration theory, and be positive about it as a warning rather than
the vague and half-hearted reference to eternal punishment, or the
omission of any reference to it whatever? The manner in which it is
referred to, when spoken of at all, gives one the strong impression that
it is not believed. For, if believed, it would certainly not be preached
in any vague or heartless way. Even the lurid representations of hell
that formerly prevailed, were possibly better; for at least they
were sincere.

But it may be said that we have no details of the suffering incident to
Restoration, and that therefore such a warning cannot be used with
effect. I would say that neither have we any details of endless torment.
So the same argument applies. I would say further that we have very
meagre details of heavenly joy. But that does not prevent our belief in