Since the year 1900 we have had a Church in Motherwell. A few members from other places had gone to live there. It was considered a good centre in which to have a Church. The Scotch Evangelistic Committee consulted with the Slamannan District Committee. It was agreed that the Scotch Committee should bear the expense of halls, advertising, etc., and that the Slamannan Committee should send their evangelist to Motherwell for a time to see what could be done. The few members in the neighbourhood were gathered together, and some who had formerly been members with us but had dropped out were induced to again meet with us, and a beginning was made. We are not believers in the "One Man System," and to keep down as far as possible even the appearance of that, it was arranged that, when convenient, a brother from Hamilton should come and preside at the meeting for Breaking of Bread on Lord's day. Thus began a Church which has gone steadily on. It has done a good deal of uphill work. A considerable quantity of our literature has been distributed in and around Motherwell. A good deal of open-air work has been done by the members and by others whom they have called in to help. It is not a large Church, but they have a number of men who intelligently take part in conducting and addressing meetings. They have been diligent sowers, and I cannot help thinking that there is a reaping time before them. If they have not had the success which they deserve, they are at least better men on account of their hard work than they would have been if they had not tried.

Until age and failing strength recently compelled me to give up regular evangelistic work, I now and again helped Motherwell with their Gospel work, inside and outside; and I always found them willing workers. Like some other Churches, they have suffered a good deal from emigration. But this has to some extent a bright side. The Slamannan District has good men, here and there over a large part of the world, and some of them are doing good work where they are now placed. I have had opposition in connection with my Gospel work at times in Motherwell, just as I have now and again had at other places. I have had a little of this from more than one class of religious people. I might notice the most pretentious of these. It came from our old friends the Christadelphians. I had been speaking on the street, but in no way referring to them nor to what they believe; one of them began to put questions and led round to one of their pet subjects - the constitution of man. He must have intended to have a debate, if he could manage it; for we had but a few questions and answers when he challenged me to debate the subject, saying that he would bring a clever and scholarly man to meet me. We thought that he had said too much in public to be allowed to go, so we accepted. We then asked him whom he was going to bring, and he said "Thomas Nisbet, of Glasgow." We then informed him that we were old friends. I do not think that the Christadelphians of Motherwell knew when they gave the challenge that Mr. Nisbet and I had met before. They seemed to have every confidence in him. There is no doubt that he was their cleverest man. I offered to affirm, "That there is something in man that survives death."

Each side appointed a committee to make arrangements. Though I had made it clear what I was willing to affirm, there was the usual haggling in committee before they would consent to our proposition. The Christadelphian Committee urged that the immortality of the soul, or consciousness after death, should have a place in the proposition. One of our committee said, "We are not going to discuss whether a crow is black or white with men who deny the crow; let us decide about the crow first, gentlemen." Thus my committee held them to what I had offered to affirm. They pressed upon them the reasonableness of this, pointing out that it was not simply about the attributes of the soul that we differed; in the ordinary meaning of the word "soul" they denied that man had a soul, and our first real difference on this subject lies there and it ought to have our first attention. Sometimes when they cannot turn you aside from your purpose, they try to limit your field of inquiry by asking, "What is it in man that survives death? You ought to name the thing and put the name in the proposition." It is unfair in them to ask this, and it would be unwise in you to grant it. Suppose you pledged yourself to prove that the soul survives death. You could do it, of course, but in that case they could confine you to passages where the word "soul" is used. There are many passages which prove that man is a twofold being and that there is something in him that survives death where the word "soul" is not used; and if you allowed the word "soul" to go into the proposition, it would shut you out from that field of evidence. A manly opponent would not seek to do this, and it is foolish on your part to allow yourself to be tricked into a position where you are prevented from bringing all the evidence you wish to bear upon the point at issue.

My committee at Motherwell were upon the alert and would not allow me to be put into such a position. They wished to have a fair, single, and pointed issue, and they took care to leave me free to bring all the evidence that I wished to bear upon it.

The length of speeches and the proportion of time for speeches and for question and answer were largely left to Mr. Nisbet; we accepted his suggestions.

The committees made all the arrangements, and we met in the Y.M.C.A. hall; there was a large audience. As it was the same subject which Mr. Nisbet and I discussed at Armadale and Slamannan, I need not give many particulars. I may mention that Gen. 2:7 did not come up at Motherwell at all; we had fought that to a finish at Slamannan. Matt. 10:21: "Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." This passage came up in all our debates on this subject. In question and answer we got to closer grips on this verse at Motherwell than we did anywhere else. I was putting the questions, and I asked Mr. Nisbet, "Does this passage prove that man has a soul and a body?" "Not soul, as you understand it" he replied. "Never you mind how I understand it; does it prove that man has a soul and a body?" I drew a relectant "Yes" to this question. "Does this passage prove that the soul is not killed when the body is killed?" "Not soul, I say, as you understand it." "Never mind what I understand; does this verse prove that the soul is not killed when the body is killed?" Again I got a very reluctant "Yes." "As you understand the word 'soul' you believe that the soul goes out of existence when the body is killed?" "That is about it," he said. "Come! come! Mr. Nisbet, you and I know each other fairly well now. Do you believe that the soul goes out of existence when the body is killed?" Again I got a "Yes." "You admit that this passage teaches that the soul is not killed when the body is killed; and you say that the soul goes out of existence when the body is killed; if the soul goes out of existence when the body is killed, how comes it that the soul is not killed when the body is killed?" His gun hung fire for a second or two, and then he replied, "That's the rub." There was a round of laughter and applause all over that hall, which showed that the audience had been closely following the point and that the corner which he was driven into told heavily against him. It is perfectly impossible to harmonize this verse with the Christadelphian theory of the constitution of man.

What Mr. Nisbet, and the Christadelphians generally, mean by "The Spirit of God" was more clearly developed at Motherwell than it had been at Armadale or Slamannan. In question and answer something like the following took place. "Mr. Nisbet, when you say 'Spirit of God,' you mean by that a force which has neither individuality nor intelligence?" "Yes." "You believe that man is made up of a body and this force, which you are pleased to call 'Spirit of God'? "Yes." "In like manner you believe that the spirit of man is a force which has neither individuality nor intelligence?" "Yes." "When Stephen was stoned he called out, 'Lord Jesus receive my spirit.' Was the spirit of Stephen the spirit of an individual?" "Yes." "And is the spirit of an individual not an individual spirit?" "No." It was very evident that the audience resented this answer. "You admit, Mr. Nisbet, that man has intelligence?" "Yes." "Man, you say, has a body, but that body by itself has no intelligence?" "It has no intelligence by itself." "But you believe that 'Spirit of God' operates upon that body and thus human intelligence is produced?" "Yes." "But 'Spirit of God,' you say, has no intelligence in itself any more than the body has?" "That is so." "Thus two things neither of them possessing intelligence operate on each other and produce intelligence?" "Yes." "You believe then that intelligence came out of where it was never in?" "Yes."

In my next speech after this turn of questioning, I offered to meet Mr. Nisbet on the foregoing point alone. That is, I offered that if Mr. Nisbet would meet me and affirm that intelligence came out of where there never was any intelligence, I would deny, and we would spend an evening on that single point. He did not accept. Neither Scripture nor common sense can be made to support their theory of the constitution of man.

I may record another incident in connexion with this debate. In one of my speeches I was dealing with Luke 24:36-40, where Jesus after His resurrection came and stood in the midst of the disciples. They were afraid; they thought they saw a spirit. They had no doubt as to who was there, but they knew that Jesus was dead, so they did not believe that He was in the body; they thought that it was the spirit of Jesus. I called attention to the fact that these disciples had been three years under the teaching of Jesus, and, at the end of that time, they believed that man had a spirit that could exist apart from the body and was capable of being seen. I said that if Mr. Nisbet had a person under his teaching for three years, and at the end of that time that person believed that a man had such a spirit as the disciples believed in, he would consider himself disgraced as a teacher. At that point Mr. Nisbet spoke; he said, "It is not pneuma, the ordinary Greek word for 'spirit,' that is there; it is phantasma, meaning 'phantom,' that is used there." I replied, "You are mistaken, Mr. Nisbet, it is pneuma that is used there." "If I am wrong," he said, "I shall write to the local papers." "All right," I replied, "you will write and say you were mistaken, or you will not write at all." I was about to proceed with my speech, when a man in the audience said, "I have my Greek Testament here, Mr. Anderson, and you are right." "Thank you," I said, "but I was sure that I was right."

This account of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples is enough in itself to destroy the Christadelphian theory of the constitution of man. Jesus did not rebuke them for believing that man had an individual spirit that could exist and possess intelligence apart from the body. No Christadelphian Body, so far as I know, would accept any one to fellowship who held that belief. They could be disciples of Christ and hold that belief; but they could not be Christadelphians and hold it. If to believe this is the great evil and error which the Christadelphians try to make out, it is an impeachment of Jesus as a Teacher that He had not His disciples better taught; and when you impeach the Master, whatever else you may be, on that subject at least, you are not a Christian. Mr. Nisbet saw that clearly, hence his attempt to turn aside the point of that argument.

There were scarcely two opinions as to our having the stronger position in the debate at Motherwell. It did us good, but no harm.

Mr. Nisbet and I met five times in public debate; I have mentioned three of them; perhaps it will be as well to finish what we have got to say about our contact with each other. Our next meeting was in Kilwinning. The Christadelphians were causing considerable commotion in that town. We have a member in that town called William Neice. He asked me to come and deliver a lecture there. I did so. After our meeting we got into conversation with one of the Christadelphians. He informed me that they were willing to debate anything upon which we differed. I informed him that I was equally willing for that. "What about propositions?" he asked. I shall leave a few propositions with Mr. Neice. He can form a committee to act for me, and you can form a committee to act for the other side." That was agreed to. I left a few propositions with Mr. Neice. I expected that he would quietly put the propositions before the other committee, but he considered it best to let it be publicly known that we were willing to meet them. So he got the propositions printed in the local papers, and invited any Christadelphian in Scotland or England to debate these propositions. That led to considerable newspaper correspondence. My friend Mr. Nisbet appeared among those who wrote to the papers, and the Christadelphians seemed willing that he should represent them. "The constitution of man" was to be taken up first, and debated in Kilwinning. "The kingdom of God" was to be arranged for afterwards, and debated in the town of Irvine.

In Kilwinning we were meeting for the fourth time on the same subject, and Mr. Nisbet might have known by that time that I would watch their trickery; all the same there was the usual haggling and wriggling before Mr. Nisbet could be drawn right up to the point at issue. He knew all the time, of course, that I was holding out to him a fair, clear, single-pointed issue. He knew that that point was so important that, if he could win there, my position was ruined; and, if he lost, it equally meant ruin for him on that subject. That is the kind of thing a man should desire if he is sure of the truth of his position. Mr. Nisbet's reluctance to come squarely up only made me the more certain that he knew the weakness of his cause. However, he had gone too far to go back and ultimately had to face the issue. Mr. Neice said that "the drawing of Mr. Nisbet up to his line was an education in itself in regard to Christadelphianism."

There was nothing in the debate itself which calls for special remark. We went over nearly the same ground we had covered at Motherwell: and as at Motherwell, I felt my side the stronger all the time. Mr. Nisbet tried hard to raise side issues at Kilwinning. For example, he put a question which had no bearing upon the subject. I refused to answer. He said, "I shall compel you to answer." "Oh! will you? I do not know how you will manage that, but I am waiting to see how you are going to manage it." He said, "If you do not answer, I shall sit down and stop the debate." He sat down. My chairman, James Wardrop, is one of the quietest but firmest of men. He then rose and said, "We shall be very sorry if you stop the debate, Mr. Nisbet, but that question has nothing to do with the subject, and, even if the debate should stop, you must stop pressing that question." Mr. Wardrop's decision was supported by an outburst of applause that made Mr. Nisbet see that his little game was up, and he had just to go on again.

I was thanked by a good many people outside of our religious connexion for the part I played in the debate at Kilwinning.

I do not regret having met Mr. Nisbet four times on the same subject. So far as I know, he is the strongest man they have in Scotland. The strength of my position and the weakness of his became more evident every time we met. It leaves me as certain of the error of their position as I am of my own existence.

Some time after the debate in Kilwinning we met in Irvine. There was the usual wriggling over the proposition, of course, before we could agree about it. My experience of Christadelphians is that they love a catch as they love their life, and do their best to get it. No man should love debate for its own sake. He should only consent to it when he believes the cause of truth may be helped by it. No man has a right to take part in debate who is not careful about the propositions to be debated. You have no right to give away a battle before you begin by taking up a position which gives the enemy an advantage over you.

The debate took place in the Town Hall, Irvine, on 19th and 20th October, 1904. Mr. James Wardrop was again chairman for me, and Mr. Andrew Thomas, of Glasgow, was chairman for Mr. Nisbet. The proposition was, "That a kingdom of God which was at hand in the days of John the Baptist is now in existence, and is ruled from the throne of God, having laws and subjects on the earth." The debate is in print. We offered to share the responsibility of reporting and printing with our friends on the other side, but they did not accept. We were therefore responsible for reporting and printing.

In order to show the position I took up in that debate I think I cannot do better than quote my first speech:-

"Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nisbet, Ladies and Gentlemen: - You have heard the proposition, that 'the kingdom of God which was at hand in the days of John the Baptist, is now in existence, and is ruled from the throne of God, having laws and subjects on the earth.' If you keep before you exactly and as clearly as you can where we agree and where we differ, it will help a great deal. Mr. Nisbet and I both agree that the Jews were a kingdom of God - that is, that there is a kingdom of God behind us, a kingdom that once existed, but does not now exist. There we are both agreed. Again, we both believe that there is a kingdom in the future, a kingdom of glory that is not here yet. Again, we are both agreed, and, as far as I know, both sides will admit that God exercises an overruling power among the nations of the earth. These are points we are agreed upon, and hence do not discuss. The point is, has Christ a kingdom now? This is the point of difference: is there a kingdom of God, having specific laws that people may obey, to which they may become obedient subjects, and which is governed from the throne of God? Is there such a kingdom? I say, 'yes.' Mr. Nisbet says, 'no.' This is the point of difference, and, of course, it is for me to lead proof of what I affirm, and it is Mr. Nisbet's business to examine that proof. We shall begin by looking at Col. 1:13, where Paul says, speaking of God, 'Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son.' That affirms all that I require to affirm. It distinctly states that there is a kingdom of God's dear Son now, and that Paul and the Colossians were translated into it then. It had an existence in the days in which Paul wrote that epistle to the Colossians. The verse says distinctly what I believe, and distinctly contradicts what Mr. Nisbet says. Turn with me now to Hebrews 12, and there you will read at the second verse, 'Looking unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.' I quote that passage because there is a throne named there, and a throne indicates a kingdom, and Jesus is there set down at the right hand of the throne of God. That He is not there simply occupying a seat of honour without the power is evident. If you turn to Matt. 28:18, you have Jesus saying, 'All power is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.'

"My chief point here, is that Christ has all power in heaven and on earth. That is, He is seated on the throne of God; with all the power of the throne of God delivered to him. In 1 Peter 3:22, speaking of Jesus, Peter says, 'Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him.' How a kingdom can be denied in the face of these passages is, I confess, a perfect mystery to me. If there was a kingdom into which the Colossians were translated and that kingdom was that of God's dear Son, and if you have that Son on the throne of God, with the power of the throne handed to Him, and angels and authorities and powers subject to Him - it strikes me as absurd to deny a present kingdom. Look at Acts 5:31; the Apostles there make this statement, 'Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.' In the first place there is the word 'Prince.' He is exalted a Prince, and as a Prince He grants repentance. I know that our friends on the other side say, 'He is a Prince, that means the son of a king, but he is not the King.' I admit that prince sometimes means the son of a king, but it also sometimes means king, and it will have to be settled whether it is son of a king or sovereign here. In Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary the first meaning of the word 'prince' is, 'One of the highest rank, a sovereign.' And other good dictionaries give the same meaning. Whether 'prince' means 'sovereign' or 'son of a sovereign' will be settled by the context. It is quite clear that the context settles it here. Christ can save and forgive. Is that the work of a king, or of a king's son? If you have Christ as a Prince to save and pardon, He is by name and power the Sovereign Jesus. I am perfectly satisfied that these passages convey kingdom to any unprejudiced mind, and you cannot help thinking of a present kingdom when you read statements such as these. All this is in keeping with what you read in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You have the theme of 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand.' John the Baptist proclaimed that; Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven is at hand. The Twelve made their voices heard over the land of Palestine proclaiming the kingdom at hand. The Seventy were sent out preaching the kingdom of heaven is at hand, and that is eighteen hundred years since, and no kingdom has yet been set up! It is worse than absurd: it is misleading. It cannot be denied that something was at hand, something lived and died immediately after that. The Jewish temple was then standing, sacrifice being offered there. The Jews were exhorted that they should obey what God had commanded in that temple. But shortly after that Judaism came to a finish and Christianity sprang into being. Something had come and gone. That something which was at hand had all the essentials of a kingdom, even if you deny the name of it. If there is a kingdom into which the Colossians passed, if there are laws that men can and do obey, surely you have all the essentials of a kingdom. I may be asked whether there is territory? I say, 'The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof,' and I am not badly off for territory. And that included you have all the essentials of a kingdom, even if you deny the name. But the name is there as well as the essentials, and you cannot get clear of that fact in dealing with the kingdom. From the first Pentecost after Christ's resurrection, the kingdom at hand was no longer the main theme of the twelve. They preached that Jesus was exalted at the right hand of God, that he was Lord of all and had all power, and that man should believe in and submit to His kingly power and glory: and the kingdom at hand was no longer the theme of the Apostles.

Take what happened immediately after, and you have in name, in theme, and in everything else, a kingdom now here. Keep this point well before you. Remember that the present kingdom is the thing disputed; that I have proven that there is a kingdom; that subjects are enjoined to observe all things which he commanded; and remember that he is seated upon a higher throne than ever mortal sat upon. Suppose we turn to Rev. 1:5, 'And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood.' Here Jesus is called the Prince of the kings of the earth, and that does not differ from the King of kings."

The foregoing speech gives a fair idea of the position I took up. I gave more proof during the debate, but I do not know that more is required. Four or five clear passages from God's Word will prove a point just as well as fifty, and we often err in giving too many. A long string of passages often serves to confuse the mind rather than increase conviction. When possible let arguments be few, but clear and strong. Let weak or hazy arguments be kept out of the way; they only give an opponent something to play with. Those who wish to know more of this debate can see the printed report. In my opinion, it would have helped to clear up matters a bit if Mr. Nisbet and I had met another time or two on the kingdom. I heard one man express an opinion, which I think would be pretty general; he said, "We could always follow Mr. Anderson; we were often not sure what Mr. Nisbet meant."

The subject is an important one, and the point which Mr. Nisbet and I had before us is the first in natural order. Has Christ a kingdom now or has He not? should be settled first thing. And settling this settles more than appears at first sight.

I have said that this subject is important; let me give at least one reason for saying so. Nearly all those who deny a present kingdom undervalue this dispensation, and thereby undervalue the influence of the Gospel of Christ. They often tell us that this dispensation forms no part of God's real plan. That when Christ came His intention was to set up an earthly kingdom; but the Jews were hostile. He therefore could not get the intended kingdom set up. So this dispensation is just a kind of make-shift that he was driven to when he was unable to get His kingdom set up. In keeping with this we are told that there is nothing about this dispensation in the prophecies of the Old Testament, for the good reason that God never intended this dispensation to exist. All the prophecies, they say, speak about a kingdom; there is no kingdom now, therefore none of the prophecies can be applied to this time. How any person can read the New Testament through once, and after reading it say that no prophecy of the Old Testament applies to this time is more than I can tell. If there are "seven wonders" without this one, this may be put down for an eighth wonder. We had better be careful about adopting a theory, for it is evident that there are many people who, when they do adopt a theory, move heaven and earth to make everything bend to it. Let me in this connection just quote one passage out of scores that may be quoted. Acts 3:24, "Yes, and all the prophets from Samuel, and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days." That passage alone is enough to upset the theory referred to.

This theory has a very bad effect. When a man gets it into his head that God never intended this dispensation to exist, it is very easy to get him to believe that you need not expect much good to come out of it. And that is the general effect it has upon those who believe it. They never expect the Gospel of Christ to do much good, they only expect the world to grow worse and worse till the Lord comes. They are anxious to have it made bad enough so that they may expect the Lord soon. If you venture to express an opinion that the Gospel of the Grace of God will have a thousand years of a victory among all the nations of the earth before the end comes, you only shock them. They believe in no such thing. If you hint that some of the good things foretold about the Jews in the Old Testament may refer to the Jews after they have accepted the Gospel which they are now rejecting, they will not have it. They do not believe that the Jews ever will receive the Gospel in the same way that we Gentiles have received it, though, in my opinion, that is taught in the 11th chapter of Romans. The Jews, according to them have never to know the individual bliss of yielding to a loving Saviour as we Gentiles have done. They have to be driven in in a crowd like a flock of sheep before a dog when the Lord comes the second time. Should these people chance to be right, I am glad that I am not a Jew. But I see no chance of them being right. The middle wall of partition between Jew and Gentile has been broken down, and it never will be built up again. Jews and Gentiles are now fellow-heirs of the same blessings, and the Jews must henceforth be saved in the same manner as the Gentiles, or not at all. The Jews no longer exist as a nation. God has set aside the Law and made the Gospel binding in its place. We have a higher and better religion than the Jew ever had, and we shall never again be moved back to that system of shadow and symbol, now that the substance has come. The Gospel is God's last and best religion for man. Those who deny a present kingdom deny all this. It is no trivial error that leads a person thus to belittle the Gospel of the Grace of God that Christ left the glories of heaven and came to earth to establish.