I HAVE referred to meeting some Christadelphians about this time. As I came in touch with them repeatedly in after years, it may be as well to say something of how we got to know them at first. Two cousins named William Christie and Peter Ramsay had joined our little Church at Braidwood. Being out for a walk one day, they got into conversation with a man who lived in the village of Cartland, near Lanark. They found the man to be interested in religion. He invited them to come to his house on a certain evening for conversation, and they consented to go. They asked me to go with them, and we all three went together at the time appointed. I was expected to take a leading part in the conversation. I did not deem it wise to raise points of difference at the very first, and thought that the best plan would be to begin at the beginning as nearly as possible, and if there were points on which we did not agree they would rise naturally as we proceeded. Before we began to talk we set a time at which we would stop, as we had two miles to go home and we had to go to work early.

In beginning to talk to this stranger, I said, "Preaching the Gospel is our first duty to the world. Now, suppose you were speaking to a man who did not profess to serve God, what would you put before him as the Gospel?" I expected that we would all think pretty much alike on this subject. But our friend got his Bible and turned to Gen. xiii. 14, 15, and read, "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever." "That," said our friend, "is the Gospel which I would preach to a sinner." I have got a few surprises in my lifetime, but I do not know that I ever got a much greater one than that.

Just at this point someone knocked at the door. Two men came in. We were informed that they had come by arrangement. The one was a Mr. Murray, a farmer, who lived near by. The other was a Mr. Wilson, who was giving a considerable portion of his time to the spread of Christadelphian doctrine. Both these men were well posted up in that line; much better, indeed, that the man we had gone to see.

I did not expect that these two men would support what the friend we had gone to see said about the Gospel. But in this I was mistaken - all three men held that the Gospel was the good news that Abraham and his seed would inherit the Land of Canaan. This was something new for us, and we found as they proceeded that they had a number of other new things for us. The whole thing being new to us, we did not attempt to argue the points with them. We spent the time putting questions and letting them explain. When our time was up, we were beginning to have some knowledge of what they were trying to enforce. They expressed a wish for more conversation, and we were willing for that. I said, "If you prefer it you can come to Braidwood. You can have my kitchen for the conversation, and I think that I can fill it with people to hear. But I make the following conditions. First, no one must speak more than five minutes at a time. And second, one on your side and one on ours must follow each other alternately." They were quite pleased to accept these terms, and we met in our kitchen one night in the week for the next six weeks; always beginning and stopping at a specified time, and the kitchen was always comfortably filled with people to hear.

As we returned from Cartland, the evening we went there for that conversation, we were all three impressed in the same way. We were all shocked at the idea of preaching the Land of Canaan for the salvation of sinners, instead of preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified. We were sure when we got time to consider the matter that we would be able to hold our own against that.

Mr. Wilson was the most polished and ready speaker on the other side. He had all the advantages - and he required them all. We pressed him to name a place in the New Testament where the Gospel of the Land of Canaan was preached for the salvation of sinners. We harassed him in that corner and would not let him go. To try and escape from that fix he said the New Testament did not contain first principles - that the Gospel was stated in the Old Testament and the New Testament took it for granted that every person knew it. In order to prove the position he had taken up, he moved that our meeting the following week should take the form of a debate, and he was prepared to prove that the New Testament did not contain first principles.

I accepted this challenge, and the next week I made my first attempt at taking part in a regular debate. I did not try how many arguments I could bring forward, but made as sure as I could that there was some force in the few arguments I did use. I did not cover much ground, but I was pretty sure of the ground that I did cover. The affirmative was naturally mine, I had to prove that the New Testament did contain first principles. It was mine to lead, his to follow - mine, to build up, his to pull down if he could. I took my principal stand upon Paul's speech to the men of Athens (Acts xvii. 23-31). I pointed out that these men did not even know the one Living and True God. How, then, could these men be said to know first principles? And Paul was not such a fool that he would teach them their second lesson first. But though Paul was of necessity teaching these people first principles, there was nothing in his speech about their Land of Canaan Gospel. But there was something in his speech about Jesus Christ, His resurrection from the dead, and exaltation to be Judge of all men. That is, our Gospel is here as a first principle in Paul's speech, but your Land of Canaan Gospel is not here.

I supported this passage with a few others of like nature, and had the pleasure of seeing that I had built up what Mr. Wilson could not pull down. Of course, you always see after a debate where, at some points, you might have done better, but I had a feeling of certainty that night that I had taken ground that could be held. I was a youth then, I am an old man now, but I could now stand with confidence on the ground I took up then.

Before I pass from these meetings I wish to mention another one of them in particular. Bro. Ramsay asked me to leave the Christadelphians in his hands for an evening. I was willing to do that if he wished it. Peter was better at putting questions that making speeches. When the meeting was opened, he said, "What Gospel have you for me, gentlemen? Preach your Gospel to me." "The Gospel," they replied, "is the good news that Abraham and his seed will inherit the Land of Canaan." "But it makes no matter to me," he said, "what Abraham and his seed are going to inherit. I am not one of Abraham's seed by the flesh, and you say that I am not one of his seed by faith, it therefore makes no matter to me what Abraham and his seed are going to inherit; what good news have you for me?"

Peter Ramsay so managed that question that they had considerable difficulty with it. He then made another move and said, "Abraham and his seed seem to be coming in for all the blessings; can you tell how I can get to be one of Abraham's seed?" Mr. Ramsay so managed this question that he compelled them to admit, that you become one of Abraham's seed by believing in and obeying the Lord Jesus Christ. "Well," said Peter, "that is what we have been preaching all the time and yet you are here opposing us." "But," they replied, "your hope is all wrong." Peter then turned to Peter i. 3, 4, and said, "I hope for an inheritance, incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for me." He then asked, "What is the matter with that hope?" They had not a very pleasant time of it, as Mr. Ramsay pressed his hope upon them and asked them to point out what was the matter with it.

We received no harm from these meetings, and came out of them feeling stronger than when we entered upon them. We had some help from old Mr. Tennant when he came over on the Sundays, but we had no books on the subject at that time. We might have been the better of "The History and Mystery of Christadelphianism," by David King, to have given us some idea of the people that we were dealing with. Or we might have been the better of the pamphlet by Mr. Jackson, of Derby, on the Christadelphian Land of Canaan Gospel but we did not have them; still, we got through without harm.

Chapter VII
Conversation and discussion with the (Plymouth) brethren

WHEN we lived in Braidwood, there were a number of churches in the district of the people known as Plymouth Brethren. William Christie and I visited some of the leading men in these churches to see if we could not come to an understanding and have fellowship with each other. We made little of it, still we considered it to be our duty to try, and were more contented with regard to them after we did try. On these visits we always made it known that we were willing to accept or do anything that was clearly revealed in the Bible, and we were willing to give up anything that was not clearly revealed, and we expected them to do the same. We could not get them to consent to these terms. One of the points which lay between us in practice was: all those meetings, at that time, admitted the unbaptised to the Lord's Supper. We could not prove that any of the New Testament churches did this, and we therefore objected. They would not give way on this point and we could not honestly give way, so this point itself was enough to bar us from each other's fellowship.

It may be as well to give the substance of one of those conversations. In this case we were sent for by one of the "Brethren" to talk over matters with a view to fellowship. We touched upon the open communion question, but found that he could not prove it nor was he willing to give it up. We called his attention to the second chapter of Acts, and said, "Now there is an example of how we proceed. We preach; the people hear, become anxious, repent and get baptised; and then continue steadfastly in the Apostle's doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." "Now," we said, "there is a model of how we act as a Church. If you should come to Braidwood would you have any objections to meet with us, seeing that we can give you a plain example from Scripture for all that we do?"

"No," he said, "I do not think that I would object to meet with you." "Well," we said, "will you take the New Testament and read us a plain description of your practice as a Church, so that when we come to Lesmahazow we may have no reason for objecting to sit in fellowship with you?" He said, "It is not very long since I became a member here, and in some things I am only groping my way yet." "But," we said, "you admit that you can see what we practise in the Scriptures. We dare not give up what we see, to come and grope along with you. Would it not be better for you to do as we do when you can see it, and as soon as you have groped out anything else we shall be as ready to accept it as you are, and we would act together still." But we could not move him, and we had each to go our own way. He was a very earnest man, and we always remained good friends though we could not act as he did.

We at times came less or more into conflict with the "Brethren." About the time concerning which I am writing just now, I had a rather unpleasant experience with them. I had gone on a Sunday afternoon to hold an open-air meeting in the mining village of Overtown. I generally give opportunity for question or remark when I finish an outside address; I did so then, but no one took advantage of it. I went to drink a cup of tea with a friend before I started on my five-mile walk home. We had a brother living in Overtown at that time who was blessed with more zeal than prudence. Before I was finished with my tea this brother came to inform me that a debate had been arranged for between a Mr. Steel and myself, the debate to take place on Wednesday evening.

I said, "James, this is out of the question. How can I take part in a thing like that? I am not at your call, nor any other man's, to debate when and where you may think fit. Has Mr. Steel been consulted?" "No," he replied, "Mr. Steel knows nothing about it as yet." "Then what tempted you to act like this?" "I do not see that I could have done anything else," he said. He then told me how it happened. "After you went away," he said, "a good many people remained talking among themselves, and a man said, 'If Mr. Steel had been here, Mr. Anderson would have been called in question for some things he said, he would not have got away as he did.'" "I spoke then," said James, and I told him: "If you know where to find Mr. Steel, I know where to find Mr. Anderson, and I am sure that he will be willing to defend what he has said." "We were both alike sure, so we fixed a debate for Wednesday night, and quite a lot of people heard us do it." "This will never do, James," I replied; "the other man seems to be as rash as you are, to say the least of it, so you must come with me and see that man."

We went to the man's house and saw him. I told him that I considered that they had both acted rashly; that they should have seen Mr. Steel and myself before they fixed anything; that he should go and see Mr. Steel, and if Mr. Steel thought that it would do any good for him and me to meet and talk over matters, then, they might arrange, but it would never do to rush into things like this. To my surprise our friend said, "I understand you; you have been caught more suddenly than you expected. You feel that you are not in a position to meet Mr. Steel, and you are pleading for time to prepare yourself. But Mr. Steel will have sympathy with you; he is a fine Christian man, and I have no doubt that he will grant you whatever time you ask. But as for Mr. Steel, he does not require that, he is always ready." I could not persuade that man that I was pleading for order; he would believe nothing but that I was feeling my weakness and was pleading for time. So I had just to ask him to let Mr. Steel know that I was not pleased with this way of doing things, but I would be at the place appointed, at the time fixed, but that I would not blame Mr. Steel though he was not there.

Our friend and Mr. Steel both belonged to the "Brethren." I had said that baptism preceded by faith and repentance was for the remission of sins. That was the point they found fault with.

I went to the appointed place on the Wednesday evening, and found it filled with people. Mr. Steel came, but a bit late. I tried to make some arrangements with him when he came. I said that we would require some one to preside over the meeting, but he said, "Oh no, the Holy Spirit will preside." I said that we might trust each other as to time and order, but there would have to be some arrangement, there would have to be a time fixed for stopping before we started, and there would have to be a fixed time for our speeches. We agreed to ten-minute speeches. He suggested that he should open with prayer and I should close. I agreed.

Mr. Steel had more than a common amount of sanctimonious affectation, even for one of the "Brethren." He assumed great knowledge, and talked down to you all the time. In his opening prayer he poured out his complaint about "flesh desiring to have a chairman." When a man insults you in a speech you may reply, but when a man insults you in a prayer it is not so easy knowing what to do. He sent his insult to heaven, and I left Heaven to deal with it; I took no notice of it. He spoke longer than his time every time he got up. I did not deem it wise to take notice of that; I thought it might spoil the effect of the meeting, and I had the impression that I could make it up another way; I could make a better use of my time than he could. I took care not to follow his bad example; I always sat down at my time.

We were coming to closer grips before the finish, and I thought a few more meetings might do good; so I said to him at the close, "Mr. Steel, you preach and I preach. We have a larger audience here than would come to hear either of us preach; I suggest that we continue these meetings weekly till one of us convinces the other or the people stop coming." But Mr. Steel would have no more of it. When I came out, one of Mr. Steel's friends followed me down the street. He wished to know what I thought of the meeting. I said, "There is one thing that I have made up my mind upon, that is, your 'Spirit' will never be Chairman for me any more. If ever I have anything more to do with you people, I shall have some spirit in the chair that will make your man sit down when his time is up."

Chapter VIII
Bible class studies and some errors of the (Plymouth) brethren stated

I HAVE now said enough about the formation of the Church at Carluke and the time which I spent at Braidwood to give some idea of that portion of my life. We left Braidwood and came to Crofthead district about the year 1868. I did not altogether cut my connection with the Church at Carluke. I had been in it from the time it was formed, and they thought that they would still be the better of my help. So I allowed my membership to remain there, and I went there every second Lord's Day. That meant a nine-miles walk each way. The half of it was through moorland, with only a footpath, and in the winter time, at certain places, it was a very rough footpath. I did this for some years, and I think the weather only prevented me once. My wife moved her membership to Crofthead Church, and, as a rule, I went there every second Sunday.

We lived at a moorland mining village a mile from Crofthead. The mines I was connected with were there. I commenced a Bible Class there for young folks, and a number of boys and girls in their teens came to it. I feel inclined to describe that class. I have conducted a good many like it since, and still count it one of the best forms for ordinary young people. We fixed upon a New Testament book, and went right through it. If the chapter was short we took it all, if long we divided it. I did not ask them to commit the lesson to memory, but I asked the next thing to it. I asked them to make themselves so familiar with it that they might answer any plain question put upon any verse in the lesson.

I always committed the lesson to memory, and it was a useful exercise for me to frame a question or questions upon every verse without looking at my book. They, on the other hand, had to answer the questions with closed books. Any words that I thought they might not know the meaning of I asked them to explain. But I never asked for the meaning of a word from any particular person, as I knew that they had not all got dictionaries. I then gave a running explanation of the lesson; and, last of all, I tried to encourage them to ask me about anything concerning the lesson which they wished to know. Some young folks have thanked me for classes like these. But apart from the young folks, these classes have been a great blessing to myself.

When I am dealing with Bible Classes I had better say something about one I took part in at that same place, but some time afterwards. A Presbyterian and one of the "Brethren" came to the place and made themselves useful by arranging cottage meetings and getting sometimes one and sometimes another to address them. They sometimes got me to address their meetings. These two men let me know that they wished to start a Bible Class. They wished to go through the Acts of the Apostles, and they asked if I would help them? I said that I would be pleased to do so. The Bible class was commenced. After we had got some distance into the second chapter, trouble arose. At verse 38, where Peter commands the anxious, "Repent and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost," our friend who belonged to the "Brethren" was inclined to tell us what he thought, but we quietly held him to what was said.

The "Brethren" generally try to get clear of this passage by saying that it was only for the Jews. But the next verse says, "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." It is impossible to confine that passage to the Jews. If you say that the promise in verse 38 is the gift of the Holy Spirit, that depends upon you repenting and being baptised. If you say that it is the remission of sins that is the promise, that also depends upon you repenting and being baptised. Any promise there is in the passage depends upon you obeying these two commands. And the promise upon these conditions is to all that God calls, and therefore not confined to the Jews. The "Brethren" preach salvation by faith alone. If it be by faith alone, repentance has nothing to do with it. But this verse commands all whom God calls to repent. And repentance is commanded before the promise of remission.

This is by no means the only passage in which repentance in order to pardon is commanded on these broad lines. In Luke xxiv. 47 we are informed, "That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." This shows that the repentance in connection with remission of sins which began at Jerusalem had to be extended to all nations. And if repentance and remission of sins have to be preached in all nations, then salvation by faith alone cannot be true in any nation. Salvation by faith is a Bible doctrine; salvation by faith alone is not. Whatever repentance is for in Acts ii. 38, baptism is for the same thing, for they are joined together for the same object.

In the Bible Class we put these facts before our friend who was connected with the "Brethren". He could not get away from the facts, nor could be harmonise them with what he believed.

There was a meeting of the "Brethren" in Crofthead then but it has been out of existence for many years. And when our friend realised the difficulty he was in, in the Bible Class, he naturally went to the leading man in connection with the Brethren for help. That leading man thought that the best plan would be for him to come over and discuss the subject with me in the presence of the Bible Class. He sent me word to that effect and I raised no objections. I had spoken to the man a few times before, and I could not help but wonder what kind of a discussion it would be. John Mathieson was one of the Brethren, out and out. His education was below the average, so that in him some of their errors became a bit glaring. The debate took place. It was in some respects a ridiculous thing. He often used words in a sense which they never had. I suggested that he might look in the dictionary and satisfy himself that some words had not the meaning which he was applying to them. But he expressed his contempt for dictionaries and all human learning.

The debate was to be confined to the Bible Class, but two men expressed a wish to be present and were permitted. When Mr. Mathieson was seriously talking about the Jews and the Gentiles and the other nations, one of these men smiled, and they were not allowed to come in any more. It was the flesh making light of the things of the Spirit, and that could not be tolerated. Passages which I was sure were against him he would quote to prove his case. He paid no attention to what I said. It was his duty to find out what the Spirit wished him to say next. All that could be done was to keep your case clearly before the Bible Class and let him ramble. If he said anything that looked like having a bearing on the subject I took notice of that and let the rest go.

Though he paid no attention to me, I think he saw that he had not carried the class with him. So he asked for another night. We had ten-minute speeches, but he said that he wished to have half an hour to begin with the next night. He explained that he wished to have the half hour in order to state his proposition; he had never got his proposition properly stated. Mr. Mathieson had no idea what the word proposition meant. We gave him the half-hour, but there was no attempt in that half-hour's rambling to clearly state a proposition. I took ten minutes as against his half-hour, it was enough for my purpose. He was still not satisfied that night that he had convinced the Bible Class, so he asked for another night, but this time he asked for three-quarters of an hour to state his proposition, he had not yet got his proposition properly stated. So we met again. We gave him the three-quarters of an hour to begin with, and we took ten minutes. Mr. Mathieson was ill for two weeks after that, and some people blamed me for it. The Bible Class went on as before. But he who was meeting with the "Brethren" at that time was with us before we got through the Book of Acts. He is still in our fellowship.

John Mathieson's education was below that of many of the "Brethren," but most of them run less or more on his lines. They may not give absurd meanings to as many common words as he did: they may not express their contempt for dictionaries, or talk about the Jews and the Gentiles and the other nations, or gravely talk about discussing a proposition that would take three-quarters of an hour to state - claiming that the Holy Spirit was guiding them to all this nonsense. But though they do not begin at the point that Mr. Mathieson did, they all come to a point where they claim the direct guiding of the Holy Spirit, and beyond that point they act as he acted and treat one pretty much as he treated me. They all, to some extent, claim to be directly guided by the Holy Spirit; it is a question of degree, not of kind.

They all agree that the Holy Spirit presides at their meetings for worship. That being so, every man who takes part in those meetings claims to be directly guided by the Holy Spirit for the time being; and few if any of them would admit that these are the only times at which they are so guided. In so far as they believe that they are guided by the Holy Spirit, they must believe that they are beyond the possibility of mistake, for the Holy Spirit makes no mistakes. If the Holy Spirit guides them, that is all he did to the Apostles. At these times they must consider themselves equal to the Apostles, so far as speaking the truth is concerned, and they sometimes say so. Mr. Mathieson's claims were high, but they were not above that.

Their elders profess to be appointed by the Holy Spirit. This again is a claim to have a message direct from heaven. Mr. Mathieson just made the same claim. Their evangelists too, profess to be appointed by the Holy Spirit, and very largely claim to have the Holy Spirit's guidance as to where they go and what they say. Mr. Mathieson did not go beyond that.

All these claims cannot be true. We have often two and sometimes three or more meetings of Brethren in the same town that will have no fellowship with each other. Who can believe that the Holy Spirit presides over two or three contradictory meetings in the same town? This is just as bad as Mr. Mathieson's contradictory nonsense. We have no wish to doubt the men's honesty, but that there is error is past all doubt. Nor can it be doubted that it is error of a kind that naturally leads men to be puffed up. Where men mistake their own emotions and reflections for operations of the Holy Spirit, each man will be sure of his own; and to whatever extent his neighbour differs from him, he will be compelled to that extent to doubt his neighbour. The workings of our minds are like our faces, there is a general sameness, but each one has got its particular differences. And if each man puts down his own emotions and reflections as the standard, he is bound to some extent to doubt every other man.

This is the tendency with the "Brethren," and it is just because that they are not all strong-willed that there are not even more divisions among them than have taken place. I had conversation with one some time ago who had got to the logical terminus in that direction. He informed me that he used to meet with the "Brethren," but he found that they were all less or more guided by the flesh instead of the Spirit, so he moved out from them all. That same man had discovered that the Apostles had made some mistakes in their teaching. He was at that time standing alone, waiting and praying for further Divine instructions. Why a great many more of them have not got the same length as this man, it is hard to say.

Real inspiration as possessed by the Apostles and Prophets could and did exist in company with the deepest humility and a charity which made them show kindness wherever it was possible, and always kept them from underestimating or misrepresenting any one. The unreal or fancied inspiration of the "Brethren" can exist in company with the spirit of the Pharisee who thanked God that he was not like other men. It does not seem to be any trouble to some of them to sanctimoniously under-rate and misrepresent others, and believe that the Holy Spirit is helping them to do it. But for its actual existence you could hardly believe such a delusion possible.

But I must get on with my story. I have said that we shifted to Crofthead in the year 1868. Though I did not then move my membership from Carluke, I was in close touch with the Church at Crofthead and enjoyed the fellowship of its members. I sometimes visited other churches in the neighbourhood, and had thus the pleasure of extending my acquaintance with our brethren in the district.

After 1872, Law demanded that underground managers must have a certificate. So some time after that I had to pass an examination in order to retain my situation. Taking my certificate did not put me to a great deal of trouble. It was for the most part a brushing-up of subjects which I had looked into before.

Chapter IX
Varied evangelistic work at Slamannan

I WAS at Crofthead some considerable time before what is now known as "The Slamannan District Co-operation of Churches" was formed. That co-operation was formed for the purpose of arranging for an exchange of speakers among the Churches. When that Speaking Plan was put in operation, it still further widened my acquaintance with the Churches of the district.

At a conference in connection with this co-operation of Churches, in the spring of 1875, it was resolved to try and arrange for an evangelist in the district. It was also resolved that I should be asked to become evangelist for the district. For reasons which seemed to me important, I decided to be their evangelist for a year; but I had no intention of staying longer than that. But we do not always get our plans carried out. I never really cut that connection for thirty-six years, and even then I only gave it up because age and failing strength compelled me. I was at many other places during that time, where it was considered best that I should go, but I never severed my connection with the Slamannan District. To other districts or divisions I was said to be "lent."

I made my beginning as an evangelist at Crofthead in March, 1875. I had a pleasant beginning. Charles Abercrombie, evangelist, had come to Crofthead to give a month's labour there. So I had the pleasure of his company for the first month. We had many another spell together, and always enjoyed it.

One of our young men at Crofthead was a member of the Y.M.C.A. The United Presbyterian minister had an assistant, a Mr. McMillan, who took an active part in the Y.M.C.A. On the first or second Sunday that Mr. Abercrombie and I were together something had been said about baptism in the Y.M.C.A. meeting. Our young member and Mr. McMillan did not say the same thing on that subject, with the result that Mr. McMillan challenged the young man to debate the subject. The young man said that he did not consider himself fit for that. Mr. McMillan then gave a challenge to any Baptist in the district. We are generally called Baptists in Crofthead, the challenge was intended to cover us. The young man put it before the elders. They did not think that it should be allowed to pass. The elders put it before the evangelists. Being the younger man of the two, I thought that task should naturally fall to me. That was agreed to, and Mr. McMillan was informed that I was willing to meet him. We met as soon as the thing could be arranged. Again it was baptism as a condition of pardon which was the main contention.

I put Acts ii. 38 before him in much the same way in which I put it before the Bible Class and which led to the debate with Mr. Mathieson. I also quoted Acts xii. 16, "And now, why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptised, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." I pointed out that Paul had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ before this, he had also repented, still he was not saved, he was only in an anxious state. He was not commanded to believe or repent for these had already been attended to. But, before peace, came the command to be baptised. This was in keeping with what Jesus had enjoined: "He that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved." I also called attention to Gal. iii. 27: "For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ, have put on Christ," and said that this passage taught that baptism had to do with putting us into Christ, and that no one denied that in Christ we are safe, and out of Him we are not.

Mr. McMillan made scarcely any attempt to move me from the position I took up. He spent most of his time on passages which prove that faith is in order to salvation. We replied that we held faith to be in order to salvation as strongly as he did, but pressed him for a passage which said that salvation was by faith alone. We also put some stress upon the fact that we demanded all before baptism which they pled for in order to pardon. Therefore if they were safe we were safe, and if there was any risk it was on their side, for they were leaving out what was just as clearly commanded as faith was. The debate did us no harm, and our people did not seem to be ashamed of the part I played in it.

A Mr. Halliday from Overtown was at the debate. He was preparing himself for a missionary, and knew a little English and a little Greek, and was very pleased about it and pleased with himself generally. As we went out from the debate we found Mr. Halliday with a number of people round him. He was loudly proclaiming what he would have done with me if I had fallen into his hands, instead of Mr. McMillan's. I passed on, of course, and took no notice. After Mr. Halliday went home he wrote to our elders at Crofthead asking them to arrange for a debate between him and me. They let him know that they did not see their way to do that, but Mr. Anderson would be moving about in one place and another, and they had no doubt that if Mr. Halliday made an attack upon him he would try and defend himself.

Overtown was the next place that I went to after Crofthead. I intended to have some open-air meetings. My first meeting was some little distance from where Mr. Halliday dwelt, but I sent a boy to that place to intimate the meeting so that Mr. Halliday might know about it and come if he felt inclined. He came to the meeting; I gave opportunity for questions at the close of the meeting; but he did not put any. I moved away in company with a few friends. Looking back I saw Mr. Halliday and a few of his friends coming on behind. When we came to the cottage where I had to stay overnight we stopped to talk, and Mr. Halliday and his friends joined us and we entered into conversation. We had, in a very short time, as big an audience as the one I had addressed. I did not find Mr. Halliday a stronger man than Mr. McMillan. Any difference there was lay in the other direction. It was a rambling conversation.

After a while, to my surprise, he asked, "Why have you gone to so many different places?" "Do you not know that?" I asked. "No, I do not." "Then I shall tell you," I replied. "You have run, and I have run after you, and that is why we have got to so many places; if you doubt that, mark the point we have in hands just now, and we shall see which of us is the first to move from it." It fared badly with Mr. Halliday when he was tied up to a point. In a short time, to escape from a fix, he denied a statement he had made. I appealed to the audience as to whether he had made the statement or not. "Never mind the audience," he said, "mind me." "I have very little interest in talking to you for your own sake," I replied. "Why?" he asked. "Because I think that you are hardly worth it, you know a little English and a little Greek and you are puffed up over it; there is more conceit than Christianity about you; there is very little of the soul of a preacher in you, and I have very little interest in talking to you for your own sake."

Just then a friend of Mr. Halliday's who was also preparing himself for a missionary, came forward, with a Bible under his arm - he seemed to have been at a religious meeting. He stepped into the circle and said, "This is a fine meeting; and you are arguing too! This is disgraceful; be quiet, please, and I shall preach." "I have been preaching," I replied. "And though I have been defending what I said, I do not consider that my conduct is disgraceful. If you do not apologise for that remark you will not preach quietly." Mr. Halliday then said, "You could not preach to please that man, he holds that baptism has to do with pardon." "Does he, indeed?" said Mr. Duncan. "I could meet him any time to prove that the Scriptures contain no such dogma." "Well," I said, "I shall try and make my time suit yours." "Oh," he replied, "fix your own time, make your own rules, and appoint your own chairman." So I fixed that we should meet in the open air next evening. I also fixed the length of time for the debate and the length of time for the speeches. I think I fixed for ten-minutes speeches and two hours in all.

So Mr. Geo. Duncan and I met next evening. There was a large meeting. I mentioned that Mr. Duncan had left me free to appoint any man I pleased for chairman, but as I did not wish any favour, I asked the people present to appoint a man that they considered would be fair to both sides.

The debate with Mr. Duncan was in a large measure a repetition of the debate with Mr. McMillan. I gave much the same proof, and, like Mr. McMillan, Mr. Duncan kept clear of my ground and quoted passages about faith. I pressed the difference between faith and faith alone. By faith Noah built an Ark, but not by faith alone. By faith Abraham went to Canaan, but not by faith alone. By faith he offered up Isaac, but not by faith alone. By faith the walls of Jericho fell, but not by faith alone. I followed Mr. Duncan to all the passages he quoted, showing that I believed them and that they were no trouble to me. And in almost every speech I turned upon him, asking him to explain to the people how he could get over the passages which I had advanced in proof of my position; or how he could harmonise these passages with his faith-alone theory.

It was not hard work holding my ground against Mr. Duncan. I preached there many a time after that, but I was allowed to do so in peace. One man thanked me very heartily for what I had done. He said, "You seem to have taken the measure of these two men. They were getting far too conceited, but I think that they will allow the next stranger to pass." I had not been two months an evangelist, and this was my second public debate. That did not look as if I was going to have a quiet time of it. Some think that it is a sin to debate. There is something wrong with the man who loves it for its own sake. But if it be a sin to contend for the truth of God, the New Testament is not a good book.

When I became an evangelist, we had seven children alive and there had been two deaths. None of the seven were working, but the eldest girl was then a considerable help to her mother, and that was much needed, for Mrs. Anderson was not strong. Considering the family and the state of Mrs. Anderson's health, I could not have accepted evangelistic work where I could not have had a run home once a week. I was generally at home on Saturday evening. I could walk to most of the churches in the district on Sunday morning - a ten-mile walk was not a great thing for me then.

My getting home at the week-end was also a good thing for myself in another way. Bro. John Brown, now of Glasgow, was then at Crofthead (his native village). He was a help to me. I am perhaps safe in saying that we helped each other. We used, as a rule, to mark off a task for mutual study, and met to talk over it on the Saturday evening. It is questionable if I would have got to know the little I did about Greek but for John Brown's company and help. My knowledge in that line was not great, to be sure, but it was often useful. Apart from its usefulness to me in my own study, it was often useful in another way. I have met a good many men who have tried to hide themselves in Greek when our English translation would not cover them. I had often sufficient knowledge to deprive them of that shelter.

Up to this point in my life it has not been hard to make selections of some kind from it. Now that I am fairly entered upon my evangelistic life I have a much harder task in hand. I was often at two or more churches each week with a number of meetings each week. I shall still keep to extracts from my life, but I shall not trouble myself much to always keep them in chronological order. It may be best sometimes to say all at once what I am going to say about a Church in the district though years may lie between the first and last incidents mentioned.

Early in my evangelistic life I spent a good deal of time at Slamannan. Though not staying there the whole week, I was generally there every week. It was a good place for outside meetings in the summer time. Though there was no big town you could be at a different mining village every night for a week and all these within easy reach of Slamannan. About the time I began to go there, there was considerable religious interest round Slamannan, and the church grew rapidly. How much of that was due to my influence I cannot say. The Church was active, and I was seldom the only speaker at an outside meeting.

I have never measured my usefulness by the numbers added to a Church while I was there. In almost every case where a person is turned from sin to the service of God there are quite a number of causes leading up to that result. And the one who is the means of getting the person to decide for Christ has often far less to do with that conversion than some others. If I do my best as in the sight of God for the spread and defence of the Gospel, I am sure of the Master's "Well done," if I should lead no one to decision. Of course it is more pleasant to reap than to sow, but it is faithful work that is sure of the final reward.

I have helped the Church in Slamannan in many a sowing and many a reaping time since then, but I hardly feel inclined to linger over ordinary earnest Gospel work. How many hours I have spent, hand over head, in house-to-house visitation and private instruction in and about Slamannan since I became an evangelist, I cannot tell, and am not sure but my private instruction has been greater than my public effort. Wherever I went the brethren could make free with me, and in whatever way I could help them knew that I was willing to do it. If they had trouble about the meaning of a passage, they approached me quite freely to see if I could help them. If one was anxious and they thought I could help him, they introduced me to him. Or if any one was opposed, but willing for conversation, they in the same way took me to him.

Let me give an example or two. Many years ago in the village of Drumclair (the village where the Slamannan Church was formed, in the year 1859, through the instrumentality of Charles Abercrombie, who was schoolmaster there at that time), I was going to address an outside meeting, and was there so early that I might have some conversation with friends before the meeting. As I went forward one of our members came to me and said, "There is a man come to stay here, he calls himself a Latter-day Saint. I have had some talk with him, but I do not understand him, and do not know how to talk to him. I asked him and he is willing that you should call upon him. But I want to go with you to hear what is said."

So he took me to the house and introduced me. The good man of the house said, "I suppose you do not believe in my religion?" "You are right," I said, "I do not." "What part of it do you doubt?" "I doubt the whole thing," I replied. "You cannot do that," he said, "for there is a great part of it in the Bible." "Yes," I replied, "but we had the Bible before Joseph Smith was born, and what we have in the Bible we do not require to thank Joseph Smith for. It is the Latter-day Saint religion that I doubt, and I doubt it altogether. I doubt that Joseph Smith was a prophet, I doubt that he saw that Angel, I doubt that there were any gold plates, I doubt that Joseph got any revelation, or that he even worked a miracle, I doubt that you have any apostles or prophets, or that any of you ever worked a miracle. You lay hands on people's heads to give gifts, but I doubt if any person's head was ever the better of your hands. I doubt the whole thing. But I am always open to conviction, and if you or any of your friends will work the miracle or in any way give me positive proof of your high pretensions, I shall change my mind."

When we pressed him for positive proof of their pretensions he had not much to say, and after a short conversation we left. After we came out, the friend who took me there said, "I understand the thing better now; I did not know where to begin."

Take another example. The Christadelphians made some stir at Slamannan at one time. Our people there knew very little about them. One of our members and a Christadelphian got into conversation about the constitution of man. The Christadelphians deny that you have a soul as the word "soul" is generally understood. With them the body and its attributes make up the whole man. When you die the body is the only individual thing of you which remains in existence. It is not a question of the soul going to sleep when you die, it is a question of you not having a soul anywhere, asleep or awake. Our friend who was talking with the Christadelphian did not know how to meet his arguments. And the Christadelphian said to him, "Now you need not think that it is because you do not understand the subject that you cannot confute my arguments. None of your men could do any better than you have done. Mr. Anderson knows no more about this subject than you do." "I shall find out if that be true," our friend said, "If you will allow me, the next time that Mr. Anderson comes to Slamannan, I shall bring him down to your house."

That was agreed to, and on my next visit I was not an hour in the village till I was in the house of the Christadelphian. He opened the conversation by asking, "Do you believe that a man is two men?" I replied, "I believe that man is a double being, and sometimes one part of him is called the man, and sometimes the other part of him is called the man, and sometimes both together are called the man." "The Scriptures do not prove that," he said.

"We shall see," I replied. "Turn with me to Luke xvi. 19-31, the story of the rich man and Lazarus." "That is a parable," he said. "If it be a parable," I said, "I confess that I do not know what it is a parable about. If it is not a story telling what may happen to two men in Hades and out of it, I do not know what it means. But it makes no matter to what you and I are talking about just now, whether it is a parable or not. It is the use of the word 'man' in that story that I am going to call your attention to. Now words have their meaning, even in the story of a parable. Sower means sower, and seed means seed, in the story of the parable of the sower, just the same as anywhere else. Now look at the word 'man' in the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The rich man fared sumptuously every day. Man here, you must admit, means the whole being. 'The rich man died, and was buried.' What does 'man' mean her where they are said to bury him? We bury nothing but the body, and 'man' here means body, and nothing but body. But the next verse says that 'In Hades he lifted up his eyes being in torments.' What does 'man' mean here? What was in torments? The dead body in the grave? No, indeed, that story will not suit. Here 'man' means the soul, and nothing but the soul."

He tried to get away from this, but I held him to it, claiming that I had proved what I said, that the word "man" might mean the whole being, or the body only, or the soul only; and we must keep our eyes open to see which of these three meanings it has in any particular passage. I had some further conversation with my friend after we left the house of the Christadelphian, and he was soon able to hold his own on that subject.

I feel inclined to give another sample of my work in private conversation at Slamannan, and though I might write a large book about that kind of work in connection with this Church, this instance will have to do. An old miner, who was done for working, lived in the village of Drumclair. I spoke to him sometimes in passing, and I saw him often at outside meetings there, but I had not an intimate acquaintance with him. At that time when I went to Slamannan I lodged with a Mrs. Geo. Kerr who lived in Drumclair. When I arrived one day she informed me that old John Wotherspoon was very ill, she was afraid that he would not get better. And added, "I have also a fear that he is not thinking seriously about it." She also let me know that a certain religious man had called and tried to get John to talk about religion, but John just put him off.

For example, she said that man asked him, "John, have you any hope for the future?" John said, "Well, not very much; you see when I used to cough I got something up, but now I cannot get anything up, and if that continues I have not much hope for the future." Sister Kerr said when she told me, "John can do a thing like that fine." I said that it was a pity that he was not taking it more to heart than that.

When I heard of the reception that man had got, I did not think of calling. But when I went back next week Mrs. Kerr informed me that old John had sent for me, saying that he wished to see me. So I called as soon as I could. I found him very weak, but with all his wits about him. Though speaking low he spoke clearly. I had not said much to him, when he asked very pointedly, "Mr. Anderson, what is your honest opinion about a case like mine?" "Well, John," I said, "I have not a very hopeful opinion about a case like yours. You have put off this great question till the last, and now you are likely thinking about it because you must, and the chances are that if God restored you to a fair measure of health you would just live your old life again." He said, "It is, of course, possible that if I were raised up, I would live my old life again, but it is also possible that I am honest and in earnest about this matter, and I wish you to talk to me on the ground that I am honest and in earnest, and if you cannot do that, this conversation must stop."

The old man seemed to be very much in earnest, and I liked the pointed way in which he spoke. It gave me a better chance of knowing just where he was, and I had a desire to know that in the first place. So I proceeded and said, "You know, John, that you have lived a very wicked life, you have lived in neglect of religion so far as I know." "I know," he said, "that I have not lived a good life, but you seem to be comparing me with others, and I do not think that I any worse than some in the village who get a better name than I do." "I hope that you are not trying to whitewash yourself, John." "I am not," he said, "but if I think you are making me worse than I am I have a right to speak. I wish to be made neither better nor worse than I am." "But you say that you do not consider yourself any worse than some who get a better name. Would you explain what you mean?" "Yes," he replied, "you have often preached outside at the end of this row, and I have often heard you, and I am sure that what you preach is in the Bible, that is why I have sent for you rather than any one else. After you stopped preaching and went away, we often talked among ourselves. Some people who profess to be religious and go to church, sometimes made light of or sneered at what you had said after you were gone. Now, Mr. Anderson, I never was wicked enough to do that at my worst. I never dared to make light of what the Bible taught. If God puts any stress upon His own word, and if these people get to heaven, I think that I have quite a good chance."

I had now some idea where John was standing, and set about talking to him. I said, "There is not much in the Bible about cases like yours. You would think to read some religious books and tracts that the chief aim of the Gospel is to convert people upon their death-bed. That is not so. Christianity is designed to make the world better, turning men and women to serve God while they have health and strength to do so. Still there can be no question about God's great mercy. Had God not been a loving God, He would never have sent Christ to die for us. And if Christ had not loved us, He would not have died for us. Christ showed His love to sinners by taking a thief to Paradise with Him, who was nearer his end than you seem to be before he repented, John. You are not able to accept the Gospel in the ordinary appointed way, but God who made the laws has the power to make exceptions where He sees fit, but that is His place, not mine. It is mine to preach the rule, His to make the exception. But I have little doubt that He will do so in exceptional circumstances. It is hard for me to think that God will demand obedience where obedience is impossible. Where there is no ability I cannot think of God enforcing responsibility. But should God enable you, John, He will expect your obedience. This is my opinion, a very strong opinion, to be sure, but still just my opinion."

John never rallied. He lived for some weeks, but he did not get about again. As long as he could talk, the conversations I had with him were very interesting. Near the end, when he was past speaking, and I was not sure whether he was conscious, when I sat by his bedside and began to read the Scriptures, his thin, wasted hand would move up and pull down his nightcap and he lay with his head uncovered while I read and engaged in prayer. Should I safely reach the better land I shall not be surprised if I meet John Wotherspoon there.

(return to text index)      Continue to next page