Resurrectional Responsibility.
Debate At Essex Hall, London
Between brethren J.J. Andrew and R. Roberts
April 3rd and 5th, 1894
Chairman — Brother Lake.
Appendix concerning Events Mentioned On Page 65
J.J. Andrew: Since the debate, reference has been made to the correspondence between brother Roberts and myself, with the result of showing that he first mooted “the possible need of a conversation” between us about the manuscript I had sent him, and that thereupon I invited him to London for that purpose. No mention is made of my ecclesial resolution; indeed, I did not know that he was aware of it until after his arrival.
R. Roberts: The words “possible need of” are brother Andrew’s words quoted from his rejoinder to my letter of proposal. They are not mine. They may represent the impression made upon his mind by my proposal: they do not represent the spirit of my proposal: this is correctly stated in my speech above, and would doubtless appear from my letter of July 11th, 1892, if he could produce it. As to my proposal that he should withdraw the resolution of which he had given notice, this was made at the interview, and as the result of what passed at that interview. It was not made in the correspondence, as he seems to assume that I think. I pressed the proposal upon him viva voce, offering, if he would do so, to write a full answer to his manuscript. He withdrew the resolution. I wrote the answer. It does not matter much, but these are the facts.
J.J. Andrew: The following extracts are all that we can find on the matter: “July 22nd, 1892. Dear brother Roberts, I received yours of the 11th inst., and as you mention the possible need of a conversation, I write to say that I go to the seaside tomorrow for a fortnight. I return on the 6th August, and after that date shall be ready to see you if an interview be desirable. Unfortunately, I cannot come to Birmingham, but if you will come here, I will pay your expenses and accommodate you for one or more nights — J.J. Andrew.” “July 29th, 1892. Dear brother Andrew, I thank you for the invitation to London, and for your offer to pay my traveling expenses. It is too kind. To the latter proposal I must not submit; but to come and see you I may arrange later, should it appear the best thing to do — R. Roberts.” No mention was made of my ecclesial proposition, previous to brother Roberts’ arrival, and when he introduced it in conversation, he wanted me to add some words to it. This I declined, and said that I would rather withdraw it, but that this would be contingent on the withdrawal of the statement made in the Islington ecclesia, which gave rise to it. The only promise I gave was to consider the matter. I did so; I asked if the statement in question could be withdrawn, received an affirmative reply, and, as a consequence, withdrew the proposition.
R. Roberts: Our memories are not in accord as to details, but I have no suspicion of brother Andrew intentionally misrepresenting facts. It is easy to forget when men are so fatiguingly busy as both brother Andrew and I are. In this case, where documentary proof was available, brother Andrew’s memory was not proved the best. Per contra, I was more likely to have a correct memory of my own movements and objects than he. I should not have troubled about his manuscript if it had not been for his ecclesial proposition — threatening division; the getting rid of the latter was my anxiety.
J.J. Andrew: Brother Roberts’ letter of July 11th (which I had forgotten at the time of the debate) was written after reading a portion only of my manuscript, and before he was likely to have known of my ecclesial proposition. It was written, while from home, on a letter-card, and being apparently unimportant, was doubtless destroyed by me as soon as answered. My reply reflects its tenor, and, I believe, also its phraseology, and gives definite shape to the suggestion it contained for a conversation on the subject-matter of my manuscript.
Frank G. Jannaway: I can fully endorse brother Roberts’ version of the incident, having, prior to the above correspondence, sent him a copy of brother Andrew’s intended “ecclesial proposition,” together with a letter in reference thereto, which evidently caused the letter of July 11th, 1892, to be written. My copying book contains copy of a letter, dated July 13th, 1892, to brother Roberts, from which I extract the following sentences: “Your two notes to hand. I am pleased at your remark re the ‘responsibility resolution.’ We will do our best to induce brother J. J. Andrew to withdraw it AS YOU SUGGEST.” Thus it is clear that brother Roberts was fully cognizant of the resolution of which brother J. J. Andrew had given notice, to amend the Islington basis, and that the “getting rid” of this was brother Roberts’ “anxiety.”
J. J. Andrew: Then I was not treated with the candour to which I was entitled. I should never have asked brother Roberts to come to London to discuss my ecclesial proposition, much less have offered to pay any expenses. I regret having to advert to these minor matters; it is entirely due to brother Roberts having unnecessarily introduced them into his pamphlet.
