Offender

1. J.J. Andrew Offender or Defender ? 1

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 2

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 3

4. We have cited only a few samples of Amended literature and tapes that omit any reference to the fact that the baptized believer becomes a party to the Abrahamic covenant and consequently an heir to the things covenanted therein. Many more samples could be submitted and are on file in the writer’s library. ...How did this erosion of doctrine take place? ...The answer lies in the title of a booklet that was published in 1894 in Britain, entitled The Blood of theCovenant by Bro. J.J. Andrew. ... The Amendment to the Statement of Faith was introduced in 1898 to counteract the Andrew view. Amended writers and teachers, since that time, in their zeal to denigrate the Andrew view, have thrown the baby out with the bath water. The bath water is the extreme position taken by Bro. Andrew. Edward W Farrar Doctrinal Consequences of Clause 24 B.A.S.F pp. 21-22 4

5. 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

6. I have never heard the expression that J.J. Andrew is the father of the Unamended community. But I do know that his views have been for years and currently are shared by many in the Unamended. “.... The Amended have a right to call JJA extreme because his views do not agree with theirs, but the Unamended hold his views by and large on the purpose of baptism, inherited alienation including that of Jesus, and the grave-releasing efficacy of the blood of the covenant.” James S. Stanton Logos - June 1995 pp. 281-282 6

7. 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 7

8. 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 8

9. When called from darkness to light, by the preaching of the gospel, whether they submit to that gospel or refuse submission, they are “not their own.” They neither live nor die to themselves as formerly. They have passed into a special relationship to Deity, in which their lives, good or evil, come under divine supervision, and form the basis of a future accountability, unknown in their state of darkness, at which God winked.Robert Roberts Christendom Astray p. 111 9

10. The dead in Adam have not been brought under “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. continue 10

11. 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 p. 42 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 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.” 11

12. 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

13. 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

14. All Will Not Be Resurrected All men, however, will not then be raised from the dead; for “Where no lawis there is no transgression” -(Rom. 4:15); and “As many as have sinnedwithout law shall also PERISH withoutlaw” -(Rom. 2:12) ... Daniel is, therefore, quite in harmony with the other prophets when he predicts that only some, or “many of them that sleep”... shall awake. 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. AndrewThe Real Christ pp. 174-175 14

15. ... We have, in past times, dwelt together in unity as regards the particular issue raised tonight, and if there is any change, it rests - you know where - with brother Andrew, who thinks he has discovered that some things he used to think were true are not true. ... He was not always of this mind. His change of mind might not have necessitated the present meeting, but he has taken steps which involve an attempt to coerce us into the reception of his views, ...RESURRECTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DEBATEBrother Roberts - First Night 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. Ibid Brother Andrew - First Night 15

16. ...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) continue 16

17. Answer If 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 commence 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

18. 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 - Keeper18 Volume 1 (March, 1895) p. 128

19. 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 perogative;” with “insulting God,” etc. continue 19

20. 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.20 continue

21. ... 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, 28221

22. A Rallying Point In view of the divided state of the brethren of the British Isles it has become difficult for one to go from place to place without offence on one side or another. This deplorable state of things has arisen largely of late from disputes and differences on Adamic condemnation and justification in Christ, and the “third class resurrection” theory. The result is the existence here of no less than seven different bodies - “Partial Inspirationists,” “Renunciationists,” extremists on third class resurrection, those who agree with the latter partly, but who allow “doubters,” those who do not make the third class matter a test of fellowship, and those called “The Andrew Party.” What a wilderness to travel in!22 continue

23. The brethren in America have succeeded in keeping these troubles from their shores...At present most of them stand firmly on the old foundation occupied for forty years… “The Old Birmingham Statement of Faith and Basis of Fellowship.” Thomas WilliamsAdvocate - Oct. 190023

24. 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.Life and Works of Thomas Williams Editing Committee note p. 15224

25. My reasons for declining to fellowship you, when in London the early part of last year, were given you in writing;...J. J. Andrew20 We 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 190525

26. ...From the beginning of the controversy you had appeared publicly in agreement with me, you heard my address and answers to questions in Barnsbury, and you afterwards voted to invite a return visit ... Then suddenly you became a busy opponent. ...... In this you have gone to the extreme, impaired your usefulness and humiliated those who defended you before you changed from the “happy medium” to the presumptuous extreme.Thomas WilliamsAdvocate - July 190526

27. 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 190527

28. 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.28 continue

29. 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. 29 continue

30. 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 Williams30Advocate August 1907

31. The question of making resurrection of Gentiles out of Christ a test of fellowship depends upon the way it is held.If it be recognized that Adam brought death upon the entire race by his sin, that baptism into Christ frees men from the permanent power of death, and that such of the baptized as die will rise through their relationship to Christ, but that it is possible God may, by His independent power, raise some others, I should not consider it a barrier to fellowship. But if it be contended that some Gentile out of Christ will be raised on the same basis as those in Christ, this contention would be a barrier to fellowship. J.J. Andrew Advocate - Oct. 1900 Reprinted in Selected Works of Thomas Williams p. 48931

32. The Weightier MattersWhen 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.32Islip Collyer - Principles and Proverbs

33. ... 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. ... “Feminine fanaticism” was my explanation, though you, the unconscious victim, could not be expected to see it ...Thomas WilliamsAdvocate - July 190533

34. 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”...34 continue

35. 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. 3-435

36. The Renunciationist controversy... brought this subject into bolder relief... This is seen in “The Doctrine of the Atonement” which I wrote in 1882 ... “The Doctrine of the Atonement” … sent in manuscript to Bro. Roberts who, after perusal, said that it was the best thing that had been written on the subject, and undertook to publish it. The principles it contains are set forth in “The Blood of the Covenant,”... I fully believed that they were held by all Christadelphians, excepting those who had endorsed Renunciationism. But the arguments with which I have been opposed show that this was not so, or that there has been a change of belief in order to maintain resurrection OUT OF Christ. The consequence is that the teaching of Dr. Thomas on sin and its removal is now nullified by some who profess to uphold it ... This will be seen by the following ...36 continue

37. The Christadelphian1894 “The idea of imputing the sin of Adam to helpless babes is one of the old monstrosities of Papalised theology.” - p. 242, p. 304 “The theory of ‘legal guilt’ through Adam is subversive of every principle of Divine Justice.” -- p.305 “The contention that those who have been baptised are free from Adamic condemnation is ‘absurd.’ ” -- p.223 “Baptism is never proposed to us as the means of getting rid of Adam’s sentence.” -- p.347 “As for the righteousness of Christ, that is the righteousness of Christ, and nobody else’s.”-- p.242 “The word saint . . applies only to those who will finally attain to immortality.” -- p.22237 continue

38. “Jesus was not a ‘sinner in Adam.’” -- p.345“Christ was not alienated from God -- p.351...“The death of Christ was not a punishment.” -- p. 351“Christ’s death was purely a matter of choice.” -- p. 351“It was unnecessary for Christ to have been nailed to the tree, except as part of the obedience the Father required.” -- p. 467“The Scriptures never use the word cleanse in reference to Christ’s own sin-nature; blood-shedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin.” – “The Responsibility Debate,” p. 2238 continue

39. The Editor of The Christadelphian professes to uphold all that Dr. Thomas taught; but, as long as he teaches that our position by birth does not require a justification by blood-shedding, he is making a false claim. Indeed his teaching on this subject during the past two years has done more to mar the work of Dr. Thomas than anything which has occured since the Doctor’s death. It is solely because of adherence to the Scriptural teaching set forth by Dr. Thomas that I have, in carrying that teaching to its logical conclusion, been led to differ from him on resurrection to judgment. The Sanctuary-Keeper Vol 1 March 1895 p. 110-11239