What a change has passed over Slamannan district since then! Drumclair is in ruins, so are other villages at which I used to preach. Pits do not last for ever; and the miners must move when the minerals are exhausted.

Alphabetically, Armadale is the first on our district list of churches. I have been visiting that church now and again for the last thirty-six years. My work in connection with it has been mostly ordinary Gospel work; there have not been many outstanding events. Still, there is one which I may mention. Over twenty years ago, a Mr. Chamberland came to Armadale to lecture for the Christadelphians. He got good audiences, and caused some commotion in the place. He always left himnself open for question or debate at the close of his lectures. The Church in Armadale asked me to come and hear him, and, if I felt inclined, to oppose or in some way to show the other side of some of the things which he was advancing. I went and heard him. At the close of the hour, I said, "We have had equal time for the last hour, Mr. Chamberland, but you had an hour of a start. I am coming back next week to review your lecture; we shall then be equal. If you care to come and hear me, I shall also let you have an hour's debate at the close of my lecture." He came, and we had an hour's debate at the end of my lecture. He admitted that he had been fairly treated. He then challenged me to debate the whole thing, and I accepted. We had to arrange the propositions by writing. The trouble began then. I have had a lot of experience since that time trying to arrange propositions with Christadelphians in order to debate. There may be a few - very few - exceptions, but the rule is that it is next to impossible to drag a Christadelphian up to a fair, clear, single-pointed proposition. Though Mr. Chamberland seemed fair enough till we tried to arrange the propositions, I then found it hard to get along with him. We exchanged a number of letters. It may be as well for me to give some idea of our attempt to arrange the propositions.

We were both willing that the nature or constitution of man should be one of the subjects discussed. I suggested that under that head we discuss, "Is the soul of man an entity?" I would affirm, he would deny. He would not have it; that would lead us into science, he said. I assured him that I would not trouble him with science; I would confine myself to the Bible. I pointed out that that was our first real issue on that subject. I held that the soul of man was a thing, he held that the soul of man was not a thing at all, it was only an attribute of the body. Our first issue was not about the attributes of the soul, but about the existence of the soul; and existence against non-existence was a clear and pointed issue, and our first real struggle should be over that. But he would not have it. He wished the proposition to be, "Is man conscious between death and resurrection?" I had two objections to this. Suppose I allowed the word "conscious" to remain in the proposition, it would not have to be is "man" conscious, but is "any part of man" conscious between death and resurrection? But I objected to the word "conscious" being in the proposition. I believed that consciousness was an attribute of the soul, but as long as he denied the existence of the soul, he had no right to ask me to discuss the attributes of the soul with him. We had no right to discuss the attributes of God with an Atheist. He denied the existence of God, and as long as the existence of God was in dispute, it was absurd to discuss his attributes.

Mr. Chamberland replied that he could not allow the word man to be removed from the proposition, and part of man put in its place. He would not discuss anything so absurd as a part of man. I replied that the more absurd my position was, he would just have the easier work when we met. We are both agreed as to the state of the body between death and resurrection, and the body is, at least, part of man; and if we are agreed about part of man, there only remains a part to discuss about. So you must either agree to debate the actual difference or say that you do not wish a debate.

When Mr. Chamberland found that it would have to be as fair and pointed a debate as I could make it, he backed out of the whole thing. The people heard the challenge given and accepted, so I considered it but right that I should call another public meeting and explain why the debate had not come off. So I called a meeting and read the correspondence and explained why the debate had not taken place, and at the same time I gave a lecture on Christadelphianism.

The Christadelphians brought Mr. Thos. Nisbet, of Glasgow, to that meeting. At the close Mr. Nisbet offered to have a debate on the constitution of man. Like Mr. Chamberland, he would have consciousness into the proposition; and lest it should look as if I was not willing to debate, I gave way on that point. I question if I should have done it. In debates we should as far as possible begin at the beginning, and, if possible, just have one clear and pointed issue. Mr. Nisbet would have half-time Socratic method, that is, question and answer. I had never been at, or taken part in, a debate of that kind, still, I did not object. I agreed to affirm, "That the soul of man is conscious between death and resurrection." There were to be two nights' debate, but not in succession. There had to be a few days between the first and second night.

Though the manner of the debate was new, and the subject was not one I was in the habit of dealing with, I had the feeling at the close of the first night that though I had, perhaps, been cautious to a fault, I had advanced nothing that I could not hold, nor had he advanced anything that I could not meet.

On one of the days betwen the two nights' debate, I have a visit from two of our brethren from Slamannan. They had come all that distance to see me. They said that they wished to talk to me about the debate. One of them said, "I went to the debate with my mind made up to do justice to both sides. I knew little about the subject, but I was resolved to try and find whether the truth lay with you or the other man. And if Mr. Nisbet had fought the second hour as he did the first he would at least have commanded my respect. But he learned in the first hour that he was not equal to a fair struggle in a level field. And after that he aimed at any catch to try and get you into a corner, and if he had got you there he would have kept you there. You behaved in your usual fashion. If you got him into a tight place, as soon as you thought he felt your grip you let him go. He would not have done that with you. You again and again let him go before the audience clearly saw the strength of your position; you thought that they saw it, but they did not. For the sake of the truth you will have to play a stronger game with that man; you showed him mercy that he did not deserve." I respected the judgement of these two brethren, and they were both strongly of the same opinion. Mrs. Anderson spoke at this point, and said, "Be sure, men, that you are right before you give that advice. If he fairly gets it into his head that that Mr. Nisbet is the kind of man you think, then you may see a firmer man that you want to see; but I know that, as a rule, he will act as you say he did the first night." I thanked my friends for coming, and said I would consider what they had said, but that I considered it better to err on the one side than on the other. Still, I had to confess that on two points, at least, I had the conviction, even at the time, that Mr. Nisbet was trickish rather than strong and manly. I shall just notice these two points. Before the debate I had seen a tract by Mr. Nisbet; in that tract he referred to Gen. 2:7 in the following manner: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (that is caused an inrush of air into his lungs); and man became a living soul." In a speech I called attention to Mr. Nisbet's theory of man. I wondered if Mr. Nisbet really thought that man was just an air-machine; or if he thought that when man was formed of the dust of the ground that, if there had been some one alongside with a pair of bellows, all it required was the use of the bellows to give consciousness, intelligence, and activity to the inanimate form. He did not seem to relish me making the naked facts of his theory stand forth in that fashion. During my time for questions, I asked, "What does 'breath of life' mean in Gen. 2:7?" Mr. Nisbet replied by naming the gases of which the air is composed. I said, "Mr. Nisbet, a number of men here understand your little trick." I thought it trickery then, I do so still.

Just a few words on the other point. I had said nothing in my speeches about Paradise, neither had Mr. N. But in his time for questions he asked, "Where is Paradise - up or down?" I said, "You must allow me to explain, Mr. N. I cannot answer that with just 'up' or 'down.'" But he would allow no explanation; I must answer with "up" or "down", and nothing more. I refused to answer in that way, and for a time we were at a standstill. When I went back for the second night, I found that some were thinking it was a point in his favour that he had brought me to a stand, so I determined not to let it go at that. On the second night I raised the question of Paradise and asked, "Where is Paradise, Mr. Nisbet - up or down?" It was now his turn to stand still, he would not answer with an "up" or "down". A titter went over the whole hall when he refused to answer the same question which he had pressed upon me. When he hesitated, I said, "Come, Mr. Nisbet, up or down?" After a pause he said, "Neither." "Do you remember that a few nights ago you pressed me to answer with an 'up' or 'down,' and you would permit nothing else? and now you say that it neither up nor down. You must then have been pressing me to tell one or other of what you believed to be two lies, and you did not care which of them I told, so long as you prevented me from telling the truth."

Mr. Nisbet is no doubt a clever man, but these are samples of trickery that no man should go down to. I believe I was the better for the visit of my two friends from Slamannan. There was closer gripping the second night than the first. And though I saw where I might have done better at a number of points, I had not a particle of doubt as to my side being the side of truth, and therefore the side of strength. I saw no reason why I should not be able to fight a second battle on that subject better than I had fought the first.

Mr. Nisbet made a blunder at Armadale, and repeated it at Slamannan, that I hardly expected him to make. In keeping with his theory of man being a windmill, he put the question to me, "Does man live first or breathe first?" I replied, "He lives first and breathes as a consequence." In his speech he represented Mr. Anderson as saying that people could live without breath. In my speech I corrected him, saying that I did not say that people could live without breathing, it was a question of which first; I was not inclined to discuss that matter further with Mr. Nisbet; I would leave the old women to settle whether Mr. Nisbet lived first or breathed first, and I was quite sure that they would decide in my favour.

I made Mr. Nisbet's acquaintance first at Armadale, but circumstances have brought us together a number of times since. We have five times been engaged in public debate, four times on the nature of man and once on the kingdom of God. Some time after the debate at Armadale the Christadelphians made themselves very active at Slamannan. A few good men left the Methodists there and joined the Christadelphians. They brought lecturers and had a number of public meetings. I was questioned by some of them at our gospel meetings for a time, but they soon got tired of that. As it was reported that they were willing or rather anxious for debate, our elders at Slamannan asked me to make it public that I was open to defend anything that we held as an article of faith or a condition of fellowship. I did that, and also added that I was willing to defend anything that I had ever preached in the Slamannan district. But they made no attack upon us. After a while, Mr. Nisbet came to lecture at Slamannan. Our elders asked me to go and hear him and use my own judgment as to debate or otherwise. I went and heard him. There was a good deal in the lecture about man coming from the dust and returning to the dust, but I saw nothing in the lecture that I thought would make a good proposition for debate. After the lecture he invited questions. I put the question - "Has man a soul and a body?" "What do you mean by soul?" he asked. "Put your own meaning upon it, Mr. Nesbit, but has man a soul and a body?" He talked round about a few times, but I pressed my question, "Has man a soul and a body?" At last he said, "Man has a body and life, and the life is often called the soul." "Does the soul leave the body before it returns to the dust?" I asked. He said "No." "Oh, Mr. Nisbet! you say that the soul means the life, and if the soul does not leave the body before it returns to the dust that would be burying a man alive, would it not?" A slight laugh went over the hall, and it caused Mr. Nisbet to come out strongly. He said, "I am prepared to prove that nothing separates from the body at death, that can exist or be conscious between death and resurrection." "Then you will know what I mean, Mr. Nisbet, when I tell you that I shall let you try your hand at that." "You will, of course, take the affirmative, Mr. Anderson." "I shall do nothing of the kind. You say that you can prove; I shall let you do it." "Catch me affirming a negative," he said. "There are two of us not to be caught just at present." "You affirmed at Armadale." "Yes, I did more than I had any right to do at Armadale, but this is a new battle, and you shall come right up to your line. We give a good deal of liberty of opinion in regard to the state between death and resurrection, you give none. Every one must believe what you have just said that you can prove before they are allowed into your fellowship. What you hold as a positive article of faith, you ought to be able to give proof for. I am only asking you to do your duty. So, please, undertake your proof or take back your swagger." At this point Mr. Andrew Murray of Slamannan rose and said, "Mr. Nisbet, you are a strange man. You stand there and declare that you can prove a certain nothing; another man says he will let you try that, and as soon as he accepts you, you turn round and ask him to do the proving. You surely do not imagine that we are so stupid that we cannot see through a thing like that." Mr. Nisbet saw that he had no road out, but he only accepted, with not the best of grace, what he should have been quite willing to undertake, and what was nothing more than his duty. Some of his friends were not too well pleased because I had forced him to take a stand for what he professed to believe.

We appointed a committee on each side to arrange for the debate. But I had a severe attack of pneumonia before the debate could come off, and I was unfit for ordinary duty for about two years. It was therefore about two years after the challenge was given and accepted before the debate came off. It was a long time before I could be about at all, still I did not think that I was dangerously ill. After I was able to be about the Scotch Annual Meeting came on. It was in Edinburgh that year. I thought that I would venture to go to it. Dr. Thomson, one of our elders in Edinburgh, saw me just after I went in. The conference was not started, so he came to me and said, "Bro. Anderson! what are you doing here? What is the matter?" I said that I had been ill with inflammation in the lungs, but I did not think that there was very much the matter. He said, "You are quite mistaken, you are dangerously ill, you must take the advice of a specialist before you leave Edinburgh. And you must take no part in this conference today no matter what is being discussed; you are not fit, you must take care." Up to that time, though I knew I was ill, I did not think that there was any danger. Mr. Alexander Paton, of Edinburgh, heard the most of what Dr. Thomson said, and he informed the doctor that on Monday he was going to Melrose Hydropathic for a month. He said, "Bro. Anderson must put himself under my care for a month; there is a good doctor there, and we shall see what a month at Melrose will do." I went to Melrose for a month with Mr. Paton. The doctor there took as gloomy a view of matters as Dr. Thomson had done. It was his opinion that I should leave the country. I could not say that I felt much the better of the month at Melrose, but I improved a bit after I came home.

I inquired more particularly into my condition after that. Our doctor at Fauldhouse said that he was sure I was in consumption. Other two doctors said the same thing, but held out hope, saying that consumption was curable. I had not much faith in consumption being curable if it had got a real hold. I had all but made up my mind to go to Australia. I called upon Dr. Thomson in Edinburgh, to let him know and to say good-bye. He advised me not to go. He said he had a son a doctor in Australia, and he was often not well pleased at the doctors here sending people out to die there. He said, "There is, perhaps, nothing better than a sea voyage, if a man has as much money as to get the first-class comforts and a first-class ship, and, if the climate does not suit, to come first-class home again. But if a man has to take the risks of an ordinary voyage, and risks after he goes there, the chances are that the voyage will not make up for the want of home comforts." He also informed me that there was a good deal of fluid in my left side and if that could not be absorbed I would have to be pierced. He added that there were men here who could be trusted to do a thing like that, I did not know into whose hands I might fall there. He gave me instructions as to how best to keep clear of a chill, and advised me to risk the winter at home. I left the doctor with my mind changed as to going to Australia. He also said that he was not sure that I was in consumption. When a man was down in body as I was, he had all the symptoms of it, but it might only be the effects of the inflammation.

Just after this I was invited to go to Auchtermuchty for a double purpose - the change might do me good and I might be able to give some little help to the little church there. That move was a great benefit to me. I was lodged with "the Cant family" in Rossieden Cottage, a short distance out the Cupar Road from Auchtermuchty. The cottage is at the foot of a whinny hill and sheltered from the east wind. Mrs. Cant was a good nurse. She had lost two brothers with consumption, and though she never gave me a hint of that kind, she told others that I was going the same road, and she did not think that she could be deceived with that trouble. I did not know that till afterwards. If I had known it at the time, I would have admired her efforts more than I did. She fought what she considered a hopeless battle, with more cheerfulness and energy than most people could have fought a hopeful one. She had a lot of hens and consequently of fresh eggs, and cooked the latter in any way that I could be induced to take them. These with plenty of fresh milk, or any other thing that she thought would help to build me up and give strength, came my way. I was there for about six months. I had a run home once or twice in that time.

The chapel we met in there was a small place and easy to speak in. Except when visitors came, I generally addressed the Church in the forenoon on Sunday, and preached the gospel in the evening. But I held no public meetings during the week. We had very nice meetings on the Sunday evenings, and place generally well filled. I enjoyed addressing those meetings, and the Church was pleased with my visit.

Though I was gaining strength, I did not believe that I would get better. My left lung was still bleeding less or more every day. I could not hide that from Sister Cant, of course, and I got to know afterwards that it had the same effect on her that it had on me, that is, it convinced us both that I was in consumption. I knew that many people in consumption deceived themselves thinking that they were getting better when they were not, so I watched my strength closely to see if I was gaining or losing. Every morning that the weather would permit, after breakfast, I walked a mile along the Cupar road; I walked that mile to time. I started at the first milestone beyond Rossieden Cottage and walked towards Cupar to the next milestone. I was careful to keep my mouth closed and walked the mile as fast as I could with the air which could be inhaled and expelled by the nostrils.

Week by week I knew that I was gaining a little, I could do the mile in shorter time. My theory was that I was getting away from the inflammation faster than the consumption was overtaking me. When I got that I could walk the mile inside of seventeen minutes, I was sure I was as well then as I would be. I then made up my mind to go home. When I left Auchtermuchty they made me a present of a handsome Bible; they also sent a present to Mrs. Anderson. The Bible bears the date of January, 1888. I was sure then that I had only about a year to live, but I am writing this twenty-three years afterwards.

I wrote to Slamannan asking them to arrange for the debate with Mr. Nisbet. They were not willing that I should debate. But I pressed, saying that they must allow me to pay my debt. We met; the hall was packed in every corner even to the platform. It was of course warm. I sweated profusely and drank more water than I ever remember doing on a platform before or since. But my strength was equal to my task, and I felt that I had the upper hand all the way through. I am not advertising public debates as a cure for consumption, but the fact remains that about two weeks after the debate at Slamannan with Mr. Nisbet my lung stopped bleeding and has never bled since. Mrs. Cant was doing better than she thought, and I was not so near my end as I thought I was when I engaged in that debate. I am now inclined to think that Dr. Thomson was right; that I was not in consumption - that it was the effects of the inflammation.

As to the debate, there were hardly two opinions about it; that I had the stronger side was generally admitted. One of the Methodists who was forced to find a seat on the platform, was sitting near me, he was so pleased with me that he rose and shook hands every time I sat down.

I may relate one feature of that debate. Gen. 2:7 was before us at Armadale. But the impression at Armadale was that I moved away too soon from that portion of Scripture, seeing that it is a passage which the Christadelphians often try to make a good deal of. I made up my mind that I would not err on that side at Slamannan. So as soon as my time for questions came I produced Mr. Nisbet's tract, and said, "Here is a tract written by you; in it you refer to Gen. 2:7, where it is said that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life. You say that this means that God caused an inrush of air into his lungs. Do you still believe what you have written here?" "Yes." "That is, you believe that man is made up of a body and an inrush of air?" "Not only that," Mr. Nisbet replied. "Then what in addition to air was put into man at the beginning?" Mr. Nisbet is the cleverest man I ever met at making nice little speeches all round a point without touching it. He gave a beautiful example of that in reply to my question. But when he stopped the same question was waiting for him. "What besides air was put into man at the beginning?" He again made a nice little speech, and when he finished, I without remark put the same question - "What beside air was put into man at the beginning?" He again made a speech, and I again put my question, and thus we continued till my time for putting questions was up. We had some speeches between, but when my time for questions came again, without further remark I again put my question and let him go on with his speeches. This continued right through my second time for questions. When my third time for questions came, I said, "Mr. Nisbet, I held you at Gen. 2:7 at Armadale till I was sure that the audience saw that you were evading and shuffling, but only few of them saw it. I shall not make that mistake here. I shall not put a second question to you tonight till you answer that one; then, 'What beside air went into man at the beginning?'" He replied, "Spirit of God." There was an outburst of applause when that answer was dragged from him which made you sure that it was worth all the time spent on it. I then asked, "Is the Spirit of God capable of consciousness?" He answered, "Yes." The applause was still louder when this answer was given. I replied that the debate might now close; that his case was gone. But we moved on then to other points. The Slamannan debate fought Gen. 2:7 to a finish, as far as Mr. Nisbet and I are concerned. We met in debate on the same subject at Motherwell, and Kilwinning after that, but Gen. 2:7 never came up again. I feel inclined to make a few remarks on Gen. 2:7 before I move on. That passage informs us that God made man of the dust of the ground. Man here means body, and nothing but body; that is all that was made of the dust of the ground. Then God breathed into man's nostrils the "breath of life" and man became a living soul. "Breath of life" is the only thing mentioned in addition to body that goes to constitute man. That is, body and breath of life make up the whole man. In this passage, then, "breath of life" stands for all that goes to constitute a man, with the exception of body. All that the rest of the Scriptures teach us about the inward man must be here covered by the phrase "breath of life." In Matt. 10:28 we have, "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul." Here body and soul cover the whole man, just as man and breath of life cover the whole man in Gen. 2:7. But man in Gen. 2:7 just means what body means in Matt. 10:28. That being so, "Breath of life" must just mean in Gen. 2:7 what "soul" means in Matt. 10:28, for each of these mean the whole of man except the body. "Man" in the one passage is equal to "body" in the other passage; and "breath of life" in the one passage is equal to "soul" in the other passage, for each passage covers the whole man. But Matt. 10:28 informs us that man cannot kill the soul; that being so, man cannot kill what is called "breath of life" in Gen. 2:7, for both mean the same thing. There was something put into man at the beginning, then, that man cannot kill. As soon as you get a clear hold of that you can do more than hold your own with a Christadelphian on Gen. 2:7, for the Christadelphian holds that there is nothing in man which man cannot kill.

Mr. Nisbet did not seem to be too well pleased with the debate, for he came back after it to lecture on the debate. Some of my friends asked if I was not going to follow his example. I said no, I had no such intention, and I was quite pleased that Mr. Nisbet saw a need for it. I have never done that, nor have I deemed it wise to refer to a debate from the public platform after it was past. Preaching the Gospel is our main work, and though defence of the truth may now and again demand our attention, let us leave that alone as soon as we can and proceed with our work. I have always acting on this plan, and I do not regret it. Lecturing on the debate, when you have already had equal time in it, has never appeared to me to be a manly thing.