A funny thing happened recently in Speegleville. There is a little church in town which claim not to believe in "uninspired" literature. In a recent meeting the preacher felt the urge to preach on the subject. To be sure he had every reason to believe it would not do any good, but it seems he was looking for an opportunity to meet our young preacher in debate. Unfortunately for his argument against human literature he used Phil. 3:16: In this verse Paul says, "Only whereunto we have attained by that same rule let us walk." His argument was that Christians are to walk by the same "rule," and that the use of inspired literature prevents this. Judging from the amount of noise made it was an exceptional argument. His argument runs about this way: God has given us a rule, that rule is inspired, by that rule we are to walk, and for that reason there is no place in the service of a Christian for uninspired literature. Yet he seemed totally unconscious of the fact that the word "rule" in his proof text is uninspired literature. Paul did not use the word "rule" at all, it was supplied by the translators. So, in order to prove the Christians should not use human literature in their services he falls upon an argument, the very heart of which is based upon the very thing he is fighting.

But the trouble with the Bills criticism is the "unfortunate" thing you will find in all that can be said from the Bible in favor of their Sunday school "human literature"—there is nothing to it. But these miserable cowards "deceive the people."

The word "rule," meaning (1) a rule of conduct, Phil. 3:16; (2) a limit or sphere of duty, 2 Cor. 10:13; 15:16 (p. 51, Berry) is not supplied by the translators." The Greek is kanon, and this is the word translated "rule" in the text. And if Bills has the truth at heart in the matter, he will have the F. F. correct ignorant blunder, if it is not something worse than ignorance.