IESVIT.
The last Argument, is practise of the Apostles, that is, of the first Christians vnder them, of whom wee reade in the Acts of the Apostles, Erant perseuerantes in Doctri∣na Apostolorum, & communicatione, fractionis Pa∣nis, & Orationibus, speaking of sucred Eucharisticall Bread, the taking whereof was ioyned with Prayer, which [ C] vnto the newly baptised was straight giuen after Bap∣tisme: and yet there is no mention of Wine. So that Pro∣testants, if they will haue these Christians to haue Wine, they must out of their owne liberalitie, by way of interpre∣tation, bestow it vpon them, seeing the words of the Text doe not affoord it them. To this Apostolicall practise, wee may adde the example of Christ, who gaue to his two Dis∣ciples in Emaus, the Sacrament vnder the sole forme of [ D] Bread. That the Bread Christ gaue, was Eucharisticall, and consecrated, the words of the Text insinuate, some learned Fathers affirme, and the miraculous effect of ope∣ning their eyes to know Christ, and their returne to Hie∣rusalem and the Church of the Apostles in all hast, con∣firmes it. That they receiued at the hands of Christ the Sacrament vnder one onely kind of Bread, is euident by the context of the Holy Narration, which saith, That [ E] vpon our Sauiours breaking, and giuing them Bread, they knew him, and bee straight vanished out of their sight. So that here also, if Protestants will haue Wine giuen to these Disciples, they must by the superabundance thereof,