II. Essence of Grew’s “Intermediate State” Tract

Grew’s first tract, The Intermediate State (written c. 1835), contended in the explanatory Preface that the “entire man” was “subjected to the dominion of death,” and that “hope of all future existence must be founded on the glorious doctrine of the resurrection from the grave.” This, of course, involved “entire rejection” of the “popular theory of the soul’s independent and never-ceasing consciousness.” ^{55) Henry Grew, The Intermediate State (1844 ed.), Preface, p. 2.} That was his basic premise. And it was written in a very simple but forthright manner.CFF2 302.1

1. SOUL NOT CAPABLE OF SEPARATE CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE

Grew challenged the postulate of the “conscious existence” of the soul “independently of and separate from the body.” ^{66) Ibid., p. 3.} And in demonstrating the un-Biblical character of such claims, he presented a series of propositions:
“1. The account of the creation of man is opposed to the theory that he possesses a distinct spiritual subsistence which is capable of conscious existence independently of the body.” ^{77) Ibid.}CFF2 302.2

Supporting this contention, Grew states that the “breath of life” (the “principle of vitality”) was “antecedent to its connection with the new formed man,” but was not a “conscious, intelligent and immortal substance.” And he asks, pointedly, that if it did not possess consciousness prior to connection with the body, “how can it possess it when, at death, it is separated from that organization”? Again, “How can we account for the fact of all omission of the creation of such an immortal soul” in the “inspired record of his original creation”? ^{88) Ibid., p. 4.} Those points were foundational.CFF2 302.3

2. “UNCONSCIOUSNESS” MARKS PERIOD BETWEEN DEATH AND RESURRECTION

Next, Grew deals with the original Hebrew and Greek terms for “soul” and “spirit,” ^{99) Ibid., pp. 5-7.} none of which “signifies an immortal soul which survives the death of the body.” ^{1010) Ibid., p. 6.} His next proposition is that “the Bible teaches that MAN, THE SOUL, as well as the body, dies.” ^{1212) Ibid., pp. 8, 9.} And he contends that always “death is the opposite of life; the cessation or privation of it.” He adds that while the Bible says, “The dead know not any thing,” have no more reward, their love and their hatred is “perished,” the “popular” Immortal-Soul theory, On the contrary, affirms that “the dead know more than they did before.” But the Bible teaches that “the state between death and the resurrection” is one of “unconsciousness.”CFF2 303.1

3. ALL FUTURE EXISTENCE DEPENDS ON RESURRECTION

Grew’s next point is that “the Bible teaches that man is dependent on his resurrection from the grave for all future existence.” “Our Saviour predicates their living, entirely on their resurrection from the grave; consequently, they have no [immortal] life at present.” And Paul asserts that if there be no “resurrection,” then they “have perished to exist no more.” Grew then observes that “to say that an immortal soul can perish is a contradiction in terms.” Meantime, the believer’s life is hidden “with Christ,” to be manifest when He “‘shall appear’ the second time.” ^{1313) Ibid., pp. 9, 10.}CFF2 303.2

4. “FUTURE FELICITY” BEGINS AT SECOND ADVENT

Point 6 is that “the Bible teaches that the saints are to wait for future glory until Jesus comes to be, glorified in his kingdom.” ^{1414) Ibid., p. 10.} His kingdom is to be established on the earth made “new,” following the second coming of Christ—not at death. In other words, our “future felicity” is not to be enjoyed as “disembodied spirits in the intermediate state.” ^{1515) Ibid., p 11.} Hence (point 7) the “great object of the saints’ hope,” is “the coming of Jesus Christ, our resurrection from the dead, and our gathering together unto him in his kingdom.” ^{1616) Ibid., p 12.} Grew also contends (point 8) that “among the innumerable promises, to the saints in general, of future blessedness, not one is to be found of felicity in the intermediate state.” ^{1717) Ibid., p. 13.}CFF2 303.3

It therefore follows (point 9) that “the saints will not be presented before the presence ‘of God’ or unto Jesus Christ, until the resurrection from the grave.” The apostolic exhortations are enforced, not by the consideration of any judgment at death, but by the coming of our Lord.” ^{1818) Ibid., p. 14.} And he insists (point 13) that “the intermediate state is a condition of unconsciousness.” ^{1919) Ibid., p. 15.} Grew repeats, in conclusion, that “not in a single instance is man, in the general, declared to be immortal.” ^{2020) Ibid., p. 16.} It was evidently this tract that fell into the hands of Storrs.CFF2 304.1