_Ans._ It is true, they were assembled together upon the same day at even, being the first day of the week, with the door shut; and the cause is laid down why they were so, namely, for fear of the Jews. Some of the disciples, as I said before, kept the Sabbath the day before, and I think we can not reasonably imagine but that those did who were together on the first day, for they did frequently correspond together, that is manifest. But what doth their being together on the first day evening, and Christ's appearing to them, prove for the observation of the first day, more than his appearing to them eight days after, and appearing to them the third time early in the morning when they were fishing, (John 21:4, 5,) for the observation of those days? It was necessary that Christ should appear to his disciples on the first day of the week, that his word might be fulfilled of his rising the third day, so that they might boldly witness the same. _Obj._ But the disciples came together on the first day of the week, and did break bread, and Paul preached unto them. Acts 20. _Ans._ This is all the meeting or preaching that ever we find held upon the first day, except the disciples being together for fear of the Jews, mentioned before, at evening. So this seemed to be, because when they came together Paul preached with them, continuing his speech until midnight. It is not likely, then, that they observed the day and came together in the morning, seeing he continued his speech so long. And, as we have the cause of the disciples being together with their doors shut, so we have the cause of this meeting. Paul was ready to depart on the morrow upon an extraordinary occasion, and he had many things to communicate to them, as appears by his discoursing with them till midnight, and talking till break of day. But that which makes the objectors lay such stress upon this text, is because the disciples came together to break bread, which they judge to be the Lord's Supper. Suppose it were so, what doth this make for the observation of the first day, more than Christ's first instituting the Supper upon the fifth day of the week, (as is generally conceived,) doth make for the observation of it? But we have no proof that this was the Supper of the Lord that they came to partake of, but it seems to be such breaking of bread as the margin of some Bibles refers to. Acts 2:46. _They continued daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, and did eat their meat with gladness of heart._ So in Luke 24:30, 35. And it is explained what kind of breaking of bread it was, where it is said, when he was risen up again, and had broken bread and eaten, and talked a good while, till break of day, he departed. Here is eating and talking; it is not solemnized as the Lord's Supper. Some would have this common breaking of bread, and the other in verse 7, to be the Lord's Supper; but it is very unlikely that there should be two sorts of breaking of bread at