"A portion of the ‘first principles’ may be presented in a somewhat different light" — J. J. Andrew

"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" (JJ Andrew, Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, Opening Comments).

"It is further alleged that ‘first principles which have been established and settled for forty years are ‘recast’ and this is adduced as ‘proof that there is something unnatural in the argument’. The allegation being untrue, the conclusion based upon it has no weight. A portion of the ‘first principles’ may be presented in a somewhat different light, but the only really new items are a violent death in relation to Edenic disobedience, and the doctrinal aspect of ‘the second death.’" (JJ. Andrew, The Sanctuary Keeper, July 1894, p. 13).

"Dr. Thomas was much clearer [than R. Roberts], though he did not carry the principles he enunciated to their logical conclusion." (Sanctuary Keeper, June 1902, p. 57)

"Dr. Thomas did not carry his premises to their logical conlusion, and hence the discord between his statements concerning the taking away of Adamic condemnation and those relating to resurrection." (Blood of the Covenant), p. 53. This quotation is found amongst two pages of statements that brother Thomas was not infallible and demonstrations of how JJ Andrew thought brother Thomas contradicted himself.

"T. asks whether our late beloved brother Dr. Thomas, did not believe that enlightened rejecters would be raised to judgment for refusing to become connected with Christ after they had come to the knowledge of the Truth? Yes; in Elpis Israel Dr. Thomas wrote as follows:-'If they prefer to eat of the world's forbidden fruit, they come under the sentence of death in their own behalf. They are . . . condemned to a resurrection to judgment for rejecting the gospel of the kingdom of God' (p. 117). In The Revealed Mystery the Doctor, writing of those who 'come to an understanding of the gospel, but have rejected it,' says that this class 'comes forth from the grave again to encounter the burning indignation of Christ, the judge of the living and the dead' (p. 14). But, in the first volume of Eureka, Dr. Thomas extended Resurrection and Judgment to a much larger class. Writing of the expression 'the second death,' in Rev. 21:8, he writes, 'All the clergies of Christendom, and their pietistic followers . . . Sacramentarians of all sects . . . are condemned to the fiery indignation and sore punishment of the Second Death' (p. 264). Those, therefore, who quote Dr. Thomas as an authority for their belief in the resurrection of unbaptized 'enlightened rejecters,' should, to be consistent, contend for the resurrection of all the members of the apostasy. But to do this would destroy their main argument that Light is the basis of responsibility to the judgment seat. Dr. Thomas evidently believed that both darkness and light made men responsible; for it is unquestionable that 'the clergies' and their 'followers' are in darkness on the first principles of the Truth. If this two-fold basis be correct, it is obvious that a Papist or Protestant who becomes enlightened in the things of the Kingdom and the Name, does not pass from a state of non-responsibility to one of responsibility to another…” (JJ. Andrew, The Sanctuary Keeper, September 1897, p. 43; Note: This was a pathetic slander but it does demonstrate that JJA knew he could not turn to JT to support his views in his generation).