163. III. Not A Probationary State.

III. Not A Probationary State.

1. Significant Silence of Scripture.—The Scriptures make no announcement of any probation after the present life. The merest suggestion of such a state is all that may reasonably be claimed; and rarely is any thing more actually claimed. As to any explicit utterance in favor of a second probation, there is a dead silence of the Scriptures. How is this? Probation, with its privileges and responsibilities, very deeply concerns us. No period of our existence is fraught with deeper interest. The Scriptures are replete with such views of our present probation. They constantly press it upon our attention as involving the most solemn responsibilities of the present life and the profoundest interests of the future life. In a future probation there must be a renewal of all that so deeply concerns a present probation; yet there is not an explicit word respecting it. Such silence of the Scriptures is utterly irreconcilable with the reality of such a probation.

2. Clear Sense of Scripture.—The urgency with which the Scriptures press the importance of improving the present opportunities of salvation deny us all hope of a future probation. A few texts will make this position fear fully sure: “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest” (Ecclesiastes 9:10). “The night cometh, when no man can work” (John 9:4). “Then Jesus said unto them. Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have the light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light” (John 12:35-36). “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation” (Hebrews 2:1-3)? The many texts which assure us of salvation on our repentance and faith, but either directly or by implication deny it to us on the refusal or neglect of such terms, equally affirm the same truth. It suffices that we give a few by reference (Mark 16:15-16; John 3:14 -l6, 18, 36). The deeds for which we shall render an account at the judgment, and according to which our destiny shall be determined, are deeds of the present life. There is not the slightest reference to any other. Many texts might easily be cited in proof of these statements. However, they are so surely true that one may suffice: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad” (Corinthians 5:10). If there be a future probation we would rationally think of it as continuing until the final judgment. On every reasonable view of it, the responsible deeds of the great majority of mankind would be incalculably more numerous therein than such deeds of the present life. Yet in all the texts which set forth the final judgment, many of which are very specific as to the deeds for which account shall be rendered, there is not the slightest reference to any other deeds than those of the present life. This fact is most conclusive against a second probation.

3. The Question Respecting the Heathen.—A second probation is specially maintained in behalf of the heathen. Much that is plausible may be said in support of this view; and the more as against any doctrine or system of doctrines which denies the possibility of their salvation. We have no responsible part in any such issue, as we hold no such doctrine. The question before us is, not the reasons which may be urged in favor of a future probation of the heathen, but the sense of the Scriptures respecting such a probation. In the light of the Scriptures there is a distinction between the heathen and such as have the law of God in the form of a divine revelation, and between those under the Jewish economy and those under the Christian, as it respects the degree of guilt and the severity of future punishment (Luke 12:47-48; Romans 2:12; Hebrews 12:25). There is, however, no distinction as it respects their amenability to the same judgment for the deeds of the present life, or the determination of their final destiny according to the same. On these points the words of Ht. Paul are most explicit. In the first place, he sets forth a moral responsibility under the light of nature (Romans 1:18-21).That such is his meaning is perfectly clear in the passage given by reference. Then we have his declaration of the divine equity in the judgment and destiny of men, without any distinction as between Jew and Gentile (Romans 2:6-11). And finally we have these explicit words: “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law . . . in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel” (Romans 2:12-16). Such is clearly the doctrine of St. Paul, and it is impossible to read into his words the meaning of a second probation for the heathen world. The facts above presented are so conclusive against the assumption of a future probation that opposing texts, for which nothing more can reasonably be claimed than the suggestion of such a probation, are without weight in the issue. This is true of the text respecting the sin against the Holy Ghost (Matthew 12:31-32). Only a part of it need be cited: “But whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” It is assumed that these words imply a possible forgiveness of all sins in a future state, except the specified sin of blasphemy. Surely this is slender ground on which to base a future probation. The words, “neither in the world to come,” may mean, not a future state in distinction from the present, but simply the absolute irremissibility of the one specified sin. Further, any interpretation of the text in favor of a future probation must concede it the meaning of eternal punishment—the very doctrine against which such probation is maintained. And who knows how many finally commit the sin that never hath forgiveness? If it is true that some think this a very rare sin, it is equally true that others think it very common with the finally incorrigible; so that the promise of gain is not enough to justify the assumption of a future probation on such slight ground. The ground is equally slight in the text wherein it is said that Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:18-20). Some of the best commentators say that the words, “he went and preached,” mean simply, he preached. But how? Not in person, but by the Spirit. And to whom? To those who were disobedient in the time of Noah. It may have been then that Christ preached to them by the Spirit, either through his strivings with them (Genesis 6:3) or in the preaching of Noah (2 Peter 2:5). Hence the assumption that Christ went and preached in hades has slight warrant in this text. That he there preached the Gospel has no warrant. Further, the narrow limits of this preaching, whatever or wherever it was, allows no ground for the assumption of a common preaching of the Gospel to the spirits of the dead. Indeed, the obscurity of the text and the uncertainty of its meaning, which appear in the diversities of its interpretation, allow it no doctrinal weight in favor of a future probation.

4. Not a Purgatorial State.—Purgatory, as an assumed Christian doctrine, is peculiar to Romanism. It has no place in the creed of any other Church, though in some it may be held by individual members. In Romanism Christians compose two classes: the imperfect, and the truly good. The former have impurities which must be cleansed away, and venial sins which must be expiated in penal suffering, in order to a meetness for heaven. Even the truly good, while free from the guilt of mortal sins, yet have deserts of temporal punishment which must be expiated. Purgatory provides for both classes, as in its penal and purifying fires both may attain to a fitness for heaven. But it provides only for such as the Romish Church recognizes as Christians; therefore it has no connection with the doctrine of a second probation.

It is a part of the doctrine that purgatory is in some respects subject to the Church. By prayers, and alms, and masses its penal sufferings may be mitigated or the hour of release hastened. The doctrine has been a fruitful source of revenue; a mighty power of oppression and extortion that has not remained unused. Hardly any other doctrine has such proportion or such potency in the Papal system. Yet there is but slight pretension to any Scripture ground of the doctrine. Indeed, there is no such ground. It may be found in Homer, and Plato, and Virgil, and other classical writers, but not in the Scriptures. It was unknown to the early Church; assumed no definite form until late in the fourth century; and was first decreed as an article of faith by the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century. The doctrine is openly false to the soteriology of the Gospel, according to which we are saved, completely saved, from the guilt and pollution of sin through the blood of Christ and the sanctification of the Spirit.

Hobart: The State of the Departed; Brown: The Dead in Christ, their State, Present and Future; Wightman: The Undying Soul and the Intermediate State; West: The State of the Dead; Whately: A View of Scripture Revelation Concerning a Future State; Bush: The Intermediate State, etc.; Merrill: The New Testament Idea of Hell; Townsend: The Intermediate World; Cremer: Beyond the Grave; Fyfe: The Hereafter: Sheol, Hades, etc.; Bickersteth: Hades and Heaven; Huidekoper: Christ’s Mission to the Underworld; Wright: Relation of Death to Probation; Craven: Excursus in Lange on Revelation, Am. ed., 1874, pp. 364-377; Dorner: System of Christian Doctrine, vol. iv, pp. 373-434.