Offender

1. J.J. Andrew Offender or Defender ?

2. “We indicated our agreement to the proposals made at the March conference because we understood, at that time, that all the problems arising out of the J.J. Andrewerrors had been examined and as a consequence agreement had been expressed on the Nature of Man, the Nature of Christ and the Atonement.” “The principal cause of the difficulty lies in the strong inferences which our Unamended brethren seem to expect us to draw, whereby resurrectional responsibility is directly related to covenant making. We do not and cannot accept this concept because it appears to us to be the doctrine of J.J. Andrew in another guise.” 10/9/81 Letter to the Secretary of the Amended Continental Reunion Committee on behalf of CMPA brethren

3. Bro. Farrar criticizes the phrase used by the authors that “Bro. Andrew is the father of the Unamended Community.” Whilst it is true historically that Bro. Williams as editor of the Advocate magazine predates the division caused by the teachings of Bro. Andrew, the statement was considered representatively as indicating that the Advocate brethren follow the teachings presented by Bro. Andrew in the areas of resurrectional responsibility and hereditary alienation. ...the Advocate Community adheres to the teachings...which are clearly aligned to those of J.J. Andrew. For example...a person must “Be baptized for the remission of sins - Adamic and individual.” ...the Advocate Community continues to teach that we are alienated from God by birth, in addition to personal transgression. Logos - March 1995

4. In the 1890’s a very vigorous controversy arose. This controversy was principally between Robert Roberts and J.J. Andrew who discerned a drift in Robert Robert’s writings in “The Christadelphian” magazine in 1893. The drift was away from the firmly declared teaching in the writings of R.R. from 1870 to 1883 and J.J.A. published excerpts to demonstrate this drift. He began to publish his own magazine, “The Sanctuary Keeper” and in the first issue, July 1894, he published an indictment against the teaching of “The Christadelphian.” This was pretty strong stuff and caused a great resentment against J.J. Andrew among the friends and supporters of Robert Roberts. K.G. McPhee CHRISTADELPHIAN HISTORY A Story of DIVISION

5. Among the prominent names of the pioneers of our faith is one that stands out as a principal defender and activist. This man is more often associated with the controversy surrounding a few of his teachings, than he is with the many other contributions that he made. ... We are speaking of Brother J. J. Andrew. ... The position of this magazine has always been that the general understanding of Bro. Andrew in these areas is consistent with the teachings of Bro. John Thomas and the teaching contained in Bro. Roberts’ final work, The Law of Moses. The Advocate Committee Advocate - March 1997 pp. 63-64

6. Preface To The First Edition  Twenty years ago the One Body passed through a controversial conflict concerning the nature of Jesus Christ at his first appearing. It was then clearly demonstrated that Christ was, by birth, related to condemnation in Adam to the same extent as the rest of the race, and that He was made of the same fallen, or sinful nature ... It fell to my lot to take a prominent part in the aforesaid conflict, and as the result of it I wrote the pamphlet entitled “The Doctrine of the Atonement.” The scriptural principles embodied therein constitute the basis of what I have here written; and they are consistently applied to the several steps by which men may pass from condemnation in Adam to immortalization in Christ ... J.J. Andrew The Blood of the Covenant

7. 32. − OBJECTIONS A - Historical raising of the dead − Because Elijah and Elisha raised men who had not been justified from sin, it is contended that any number who have died without such justification can likewise be raised. Yes, for the same object, but not for one totally different. What was that object? To attest the word of God spoken by the prophets, and to strengthen the faith of some. It was therefore for an object outside themselves, not one to which they alone were related; they died again under precisely the same conditions as those under which they first died; that is, they were re-consigned to the grave, not because of a condemnation pronounced after coming out but because of the condemnation under which they were born. Their restoration to life did not terminate the death imposed for Adam’s “offence;” it merely suspended the operation of that continued

8. death. Moreover, they were not raised as the result of a promise, or on the basis of a Divine law; their restoration to life was a special exercise of Divine power, unconnected with any preceding conditions imposed upon them. These features are sufficient to show that their case furnishes no illustration of the principle on which “the just and unjust” in Christ will be raised, and that consequently it does not prove the resurrection to punishment of any who have died in Adam. The dead in Christ are raised for the administration of “the law of the spirit of life,” which gives a blessing to the faithful and retribution to the unfaithful. Before coming under that law, they were freed from the power of “the law of sin and death” by justification from that which brought it into operation. The dead in Adam have not been brought under continued

9. “the law of the spirit of life” and therefore they are not amenable to its retribution. They have never been freed from “the law of sin and death,” and therefore the death on which they have entered is endless. To bring then out of the grave for further punishment would be to terminate one endless death for the purpose of inflicting upon them another...Cannot God raise anyone, and for any purpose? No; because to do so would stultify His own word. God has chosen to regulate His action in regard to death and resurrection by law. He has decreed that death must follow sin, and that such death can only be terminated or averted by justification from the sin which caused it. The endless subjection to death of unjustified sinners is essential to the fulfillment of “the law of sin and death;” and, on the other hand, the deliverance continued

10. from the grave of those who have died after being justified - whether faithful or unfaithful - is equally necessary to the fulfillment of “the law of the spirit of life.” To stop the operation of “the law of sin and death” without justification from sin for the purpose of applying a feature confined to “the law of the spirit of life,” would introduce confusion, and be a violation of justice; it would also destroy the distinction between two laws of an antagonistic character. God has shown, both by word and deed, that strict adherence to His own laws is a supreme feature of His character. J. J. Andrew The Blood of the Covenant pp. 41- 42

11. It is with no pleasure that I write an answer to the pamphlet that has just been published by Brother J.J. Andrew, of London, entitled, “Blood of the Covenant.” The personal respect in which I hold him; the number of good things that the pamphlet contains; the advantage given to the enemies of the truth by conflict among its friends; and the discouragement and distress that must necessarily be caused to many who are waiting for Christ by the flood of mystifying technicalities let loose upon them from quarters where edification ought to be looked for...Robert Roberts “The Resurrection to Condemnation”

12. What is the matter with you over there? Who is this man that you are venting your cruelty on?...Is all this fuss because he does not believe in the resurrection of some out of Christ? No, that cannot be; for some in nearly every ecclesia have not believed that ever since the revival of truth in this nineteenth century and no such fuss as this has been raised. No; it is not because he did not believein the resurrection of some out of Christ; but it is because he had made that belief offensive by continually forcing it upon the attention of the ecclesia and has sent out a pamphlet giving vent to his belief. Well, since the difference between him and yourselves was not considered an essential one it would have been wiser on his part not to make it offensive;...Thomas Williams Advocate - June 1894

13. The “many” will comprise all those who, by a knowledge of God’s revealed truth, have been brought into a state of responsibility, from the time of Abel to the second appearing of Jesus Christ ... J.J. Andrew, The Real Christ, pp. 174-175

14. Reference has been made to my change of attitude. Yes, a change from a position which I never deemed strong to one which I do deem strong. Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, Brother Andrew – First Night

15. ...evidence that has been advanced in proof that there is no resurrection outside the Abrahamic covenant. …When in London you partially recognized this truth; but you also taught that God may, or will, raise some Gentiles for punishment, or for testimony. (Bro. Andrew) 16

16. AnswerIf you mean by “this truth” that the resurrection which is a subject matter of the gospel is “through Jesus” only, and that only those in covenant relation are the subjects thereof, I not only “recognized this when in London,” but long before you did, and when you were opposed to it. Indeed, I recognized it at my immersion, and as I told Bro. Roberts, learned it through reading “Twelve Lectures.” When I first heard that you were discussing the question in London, I concluded, from my knowledge of your position previously, that you were contending for your old position still; and it was under this impression I commenced reading “The Blood of the Covenant,” by which, to my surprise, I learned of your change. (Bro. Williams)Life and Works of Thomas Williams p. 155 & 157

17. It was this and similar unsound arguments which satisfied me that the belief in resurrection out of Christ was untenable. First, it was said that any in Adam could be raised through the blood of Christ, and then it was contended that even Christ was not raised through his own blood. When such contradictory and unscriptural reasoning is required to bolster up any tenet it is obviously based on an unsound foundation. It was to me quite a revelation to find that a fundamental truth concerning Christ’s death and resurrection could be so perverted by those professing his name; and, perceiving the danger involved, duty compelled me to oppose it and to use every opportunity for setting forth the teaching of the Scriptures.J. J. AndrewThe Sanctuary - Keeper Volume 1 (March, 1895) p. 128

18. WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU OVER THERE?Wait a little bit, brethren; ...Give that man you have at your feet, whom you are kicking, bruising and stabbing, a chance to breathe. ...What is the matter with you over there? Who is this man that you are venting your cruelty on? ...The J. J. Andrew who has been a faithful and able and loving brother, lo, these many years? ... Now let me beg of you to consider if all these false and ridiculous charges have not increased one wrong into a legion? ...for here you come running and rushing and stumbling over each other to charge this brother with “limiting the power of the Holy one of Israel;” with denying “the supremacy of God;” with “sitting in judgment” and “assuming God’s prerogative;” with “insulting God,” etc. continue

19. Is it that one “limits the power of the God of Israel” because he thinks God’s own arrangement according to His revealed plan is so and so? ... 1a.. Are we at baptism delivered from anything we received from Adam? Your answers show that the complaint of the circular was not without foundation; for you ridicule the very thought of Adam’s sin being imputed to us ...... In this excited assault upon Brother Andrew you have been cutting and slashing till your own positions you occupied when in a normal state have been abandoned and the most reckless statements made. continue

20. ... I received his book, read it carefully; agreed with many things it contained, differed from many other things. One thing, however, impressed me, and that was that a becoming spirit, which all his writings show to be characteristic of the man, pervades the book throughout. ... As it is, your duty is to recall the false things you have imputed to him and escape the dangerous results of bearing false witness against your neighbor...Thomas Williams “What Is The Matter”Advocate - June 1894 pp. 277, 278, 280, 281, 282

21. The following article, “An Exchange of Views Between Brother J. J. Andrew and Brother Thomas Williams” is reproduced here in part in order to correct the impression or belief long held by many, that these two brethren held and taught the same ideas relating to resurrectional responsibility. As this article demonstrates, this was not so; they did not agree, and they were not in fellowship one with another. Advocate Committee, Life and Works of Thomas Williams p. 152

22. My reasons for declining to fellowship you, when in London the early part of last year, were given you in writing;...J. J. AndrewWe are sorry, however, that he still strives to justify his extreme claim and fellowship attitude on the question of resurrection, namely, that God has so circumscribed His power by the law of the resurrection that it is impossible for Him, in the future, to raise any one to life again, for any purpose, who is not in the “everlasting covenant,” and, moreover, that an acceptation of this claim must be made a basis of fellowship.Thomas WilliamsAdvocate - July 1905

23. You admit, then, that the change in your fellowship attitude was the result of a change in your belief, and thus you admit that it was through no fault of mine. You need not date your former attitude as far back as the writing of “The Blood of the Covenant;” for it was in the year 1900 that you wrote me that if one believed that God, “by His independent power,” outside the law of resurrection, might “raise some others” you would not consider it a barrier to fellowship. It was not long before our last visit to London that you helped to quiet a disturbance in Camberwell by showing the brethren there that they were going too far in making a test of fellowship upon the basis of limiting the “independent power” of God to the resurrection of those only who are in covenant relation. Your change was a very sudden one. Thomas WilliamsAdvocate - July 1905

24. BRO. J. J. ANDREW DEAD.-- Death has at last claimed a devoted, faithful and able brother. Our beloved and highly esteemed brother, J. J. Andrew, died early in the month of June. Perhaps of him it can be said as Paul did of himself, “For him to die was gain,” since for five or six years he had been sadly afflicted with paralysis, affecting him physically, mentally and vocally. This affliction, almost at its first attack, brought to a close a long life of usefulness in the Truth, and as we believe, almost terminated that probation which will receive the approval of the Lord when the time of dispensation of rewards comes. It was up to that time it could be said of our dear brother that he had fought a good fight, he had kept the faith, he had finished his course. The lingering days that followed till death came may not be counted. continue

25. For nearly forty years Bro. J. J. Andrew has been a power of good in the work of the Truth, both by pen and by tongue, and especially by example as seen in a life that adorned the doctrines he was so well able to forcefully, yet calmly, and logically set forth. In the battles which The Christadelphian fought for years for the purity of the Truth, who did more able and valiant work than Bro. J. J. Andrew? While others rushed in and, perhaps, vehemently met the first onslaughts, it was Bro. Andrew’s calm, logical work of clearing up all difficulties and removing all obstacles that helped more than anything else to fortify and establish the strongholds of the Truth. He was so constituted that whatever he took in hand to do, it must be done thoroughly. continue

26. He was a veritable embodiment of precision, and so long as he was spared affliction he was able to largely counteract the tendency of this characteristic to run to extremes. Toward the latter part of his life the Christadelphian world had the sad opportunity of witnessing how suddenly friends could become bitter foes. But aggravating as were some of the tongues that “set on fire of Gehenna,” our dear brother, who is now at rest from it all, never retaliated, but made it manifest that he had well learned the lesson of the Master, who, “when he was reviled, reviled not again.” Take your rest, dear Bro. Andrew, in death’s silent and undisturbed repose. Our turn may come ere long; but our prayer is that when the trumpet shall sound to wake the Lord’s sleeping ones we shall be worthy as we believe you are to receive the longed-for words from the lips of our absent Lord, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” Thomas WilliamsAdvocate August 1907

27. When there is a failure to maintain the principle of balance, the greatest danger is that the very first principles of right conduct may be neglected, while all attention is bestowed upon matters of little importance which for the moment chance to loom large. This indifference to essentials and scrupulous whitening of exteriors is such a common failing of humanity that we can gather lessons from almost all parts of history ...The mind grows along the line of its activities. That is why men always tend to exaggerate the importance of matters to which they have given much attention or which have been the subject of their discussion. ... In the most natural manner they would exaggerate the importance of these subjects while the essential principles on which they agreed received no attention.Islip Collyer - Principles and Proverbs The Weightier Matters

28. ... It was just before my arrival, when a few excitable sisters were using their influence in favor of the extreme attitude, that you suddenly changed ...I was not blind to the fanaticism of excited sisters. I saw your weak condition, and I told the truth and gave the facts when, to shield you, I offered the real explanation ... though you, the unconscious victim, could not be expected to see it ...Thomas WilliamsAdvocate - July 1905

29. Brother Andrew had been an excellent student of Scripture and had been a tower of strength to Robert Roberts as his assistant in the work of publishing “The Christadelphian.” As we read his writings produced in his early years, the 1870’s and 1880’s, we find his reasoning crisp and clear. In his last years (he died at age 67 in 1907) it is evident that his thinking was not as consistent as it had been formerly. He had had a stroke which seriously undermined his strength. It was in these last years that he assumed and defended the position that Thomas Williams referred to as “Bro. J.J. Andrew’s Extremes”... continue

30. We have believed for many years that the continuing effort by the Amended brotherhood to blame the division of 1898 on Bro. J.J. Andrew is a gross miscarriage of justice. The charitable thing would be to appreciate the constructive work done by Bro. Andrew in his good years and, with forbearance, extend compassion to him for the difficulties he suffered in his last years.K. G. McPhee CHRISTADELPHIAN HISTORYA Story of Division pp. 3-4