The above debate was conducted in Femington, Pa., between Brethren J. D. Phillips and W. G. Roberts, on the women teacher, class teaching, and manner of breaking the loaf questions, March 29—April 3, one session each day. Brother Thompson moderated for Brother Roberts and the writer for Brother Phillips.

Since the debate was taken in shorthand, and is to be published in a book, I shall not consume space with arguments here, but shall just state briefly the positions taken by each speaker.

Brother Roberts affirmed on the woman teacher question, taking the position that they may teach in public or "when the whole church be come together in one place." He offered some examples of where women taught, evidently in private, and tried to make it appear that they could teach in public. Brother Phillips clearly showed that all of his references failed him because not one passage taught that the teaching was done "when the whole church be come together in one place," as his proposition obligated him to show, and then clearly showed by 1 Cor. 14:34, 35 and 1 Tim. 2:11, 12, that women are prohibited from teaching at the very time or place mentioned in Roberts’ proposition. Roberts took the position that the prohibitions in the Scriptures on women teaching, applied only to the married women, but when pressed on this, he then said it referred only to the "wives of the inspired prophets," and was not binding on anyone today. He was forced to make this sidestep because he had used Acts 18:26 (Priscilla) and 1 Cor. 11, as examples of women teaching in public, and Brother Phillips showed that these were evidently "married women" and according to Brother Roberts’ own reasoning were not allowed to teach in public. His defeat on this question was apparent to all fair-minded people, undoubtedly.

Brother Phillips affirmed on the class system, showing that all should be taught in one group, by one teacher (male), "when the whole church be come together in one place." This he abundantly established by showing that every example of teaching in public in the New Testament, was in keeping with this rule. He further showed that the Holy Spirit directed the Apostle Paul to lay down this rule in 1 Cor. 14:26—31. Of course, Roberts was unable to overthrow this truth, but he tried desperately, but in vain, to find his classes in the public teaching. He referred to the Savior taking the disciples away from the multitude to teach them, But Phillips ask him for the proof for another teacher teaching the multitude while the Savior was teaching the disciples. Of course, he made no attempt to show it. Roberts then went to Col. 3 and like passages for his classes (?) —"wives," "‘husbands," "children," "parents," "fathers," "servants," "masters," etc. Naturally, we wondered why he didn’t go to 1 Cor. 5, for the "fornicator class," and to Jas. 4:4 for the "adulterers" and "adulteresses" classes, also, to 3 Jno. 9, for the "Diotrephes" class, "who loveth to have the preeminence," for himself, et al. Brother Phillips showed that such passages as he gave would not serve for his practice of dividing the assembly into classes to be taught, since in all of his references there was but one teacher, teaching all the classes so mentioned, hence had no resemblence to the Sunday school or class system of teaching. It was amusing to note the weakness of so strong a man, trying to defend an unscriptural practice.

Brother Phillips affirmed for two nights on the manner of breaking the loaf, showing that Jesus set the example in the institution of the supper by simply breaking off His portion and eating before giving it to the disciples. Then, commanding them, "this do in remembrance of me." He clearly showed that Jesus ate and drank in the Communion, and Roberts admitted that Jesus drank of the cup, but said that did not prove that He ate of the bread. Phillips showed that what the Savior did with the cup, He did with the loaf, for Paul said, After the same manner also He took the cup," or "in like manner," which showed that if he partook of one He partook of the other. Roberts’ weakness here was pitiful. In fact he showed his greatest weakness on this proposition, and admitted that he had not studied it much, nor debated it. An example of his illogical reasoning and weakness is shown in his reference to the fact that Jesus died of a "broken heart," hence the loaf should be broken in two, or near the middle. Brother Phillips asked him if the Savior’s heart was broken (literally) in two in the middle. This is a fair sample of his weakness all the way through on this question.

I would not have it understood that Brother Roberts is weak in ability. He is a splendid speaker, forceful and impressive. He is an old debater, boasting 190 debates, and he knows all the tricks, "cunning craftiness," and art of a professional debater. He is an artful dodger, and can equal any man I ever heard, when it comes to sophistry. He resorted to everything possible to carry his points and to keep up appearance. In this he seems without conscience. It was apparent that the audience many times did not approve of his ugly spirit and unbecoming personal references. Brother Phillips manifested at all times the spirit of a Christian gentleman, confining himself entirely to the discussion of the issues, which was approved by all, it was evident. I think the debate did much good for the truth, especially in the church there. After the mists of ridicule and slang have died away, the truth of God’s word will shine brighter in the minds of sincere and honest men and women, who heard the debate.