Let us inquire after the facts. Does the apostle say, Let every one of you lay by himself at the church? or, does he command that his pro-rata donation should be placed in the contribution box of the assembly? We answer: There is not a word to this effect. Nor is this all; the very idea of the text is diametrically opposed to this notion. Before the contrary can be shown to be true, it will be necessary to demonstrate that which is absurd in itself; namely, the proposition that what an individual has voluntarily placed beyond his own reach and control by putting it in a common fund, can, at the same time, be said to be “laid by him in store.” Furthermore, Mr. J. W. Morton, a gentleman who has given the subject mature reflection and careful investigation, by a comparison of the different versions and the original, has demonstrated the fact that, if properly translated, the idea of the passage is simply that, for the purpose of uniformity of action, and to prevent confusion from secular matters when the apostle himself should arrive, each person should lay by himself _at home_ the amount of his charities according to his ability. We give the following from his pen: “The whole question turns upon the meaning of the expression, ‘by him;’ and I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means, ‘in the collection box of the congregation.’ Greenfield, in his lexicon, translates the Greek term, ‘by one’s self; _i. e._, at home.’ Two Latin versions—the Vulgate, and that of Castellio—render it, ‘_apud se_,’ with one’s self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, ‘_chez soi_,’ at his own house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘_bei sich selbst_,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, ‘by hemselven;’ same as German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘_appressio di se_,’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘_en su casa_,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferrara, ‘_para isso_,’ with himself. The Swedish, ‘_nær sig sielf_,’ near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above.”—_Vindication of the True Sabbath_, p. 61. The simple fact is, therefore, that while the text in question yields no proof that Sunday was then regarded as a day of convocation, it was one which might he encumbered with matters which would necessarily call attention to the pecuniary affairs of individual Christians, and so avoid the necessity of their giving thought to such things when Paul himself should arrive; thereby preventing delay on his part, and leaving them free to devote their whole time to the consideration of religious themes. Thus much for 1 Cor. 16:2. ARTICLE VI.