The countship of Eu dates from the 11th century, and is descended from a side branch of the Norman kings. After the dying out of this branch it came finally into the possession of the St Pols. In 1475 the town and castle were destroyed by Louis XI. to prevent them falling into the hands of the English; but when through marriage the countship passed into the possession of Henry, duke of Guise, he rebuilt the castle in 1581. When the house of Guise was extinguished in 1675, Eu was purchased by the princess of Montpensier, and came thus into the possession of the duke of Maine, whence it passed into that of the duke of Penthièvre, grandfather by the mother's side of Louis Philippe. In 1795 the château was converted into a military hospital, but Louis Philippe commenced its restoration in 1821, and made it his principal summer residence. Here he received Queen Victoria in 1843. It contained a large picture gallery of historical portraits, but in 1852 these were removed to England. From 1852 till the last French revolution the château belonged to Napoleon III. The population of Eu in 1872 was 3835.

Eubcea was believed to have originally formed part of the mainland, and to have been separated from it by an earthquake. This is the less improbable because it lies in the neighbourhood of a line of earthquake movement, and both from Thucydides and Strabo we hear of the northern part of the island being shaken at different periods, and the latter writer speaks of a fountain at. Chalcis being dried up by a similar cause, and a mud volcano formed in the neighbouring plain. Evidences of volcanic action are also trace able in the legends connected with Hercules at Aedepsus and Cenaeum, which here, as at Lemnos and elsewhere in Greece, have that origin. Its northern extremity is separated from the Thessalian coast by a strait, which at one point is not more than a mile and a half in width. From the promontory of Cenaeum southwards for about fifteen miles the depth of the channel is so great that half a mile from the shore no bottom has been found with 220 fathoms of line; the water, however, gradually shoals from this point to Chalcis. In the neighbourhood of that town, both to the north and south, the bays are so confined as readily to explain the story of Agamemnon’s fleet having been detained there by contrary winds. At Chalcis itself the strait, assuming the name of Euripus, contracts to a breadth of not more than 120 feet, and is divided in the middle by a rock, on which now stands a castle. The channel towards Boeotia is spanned by a stone bridge, that towards Chalcis by one of wood; the latter is by far the deeper channel. The extraordinary changes of tide which take place in this passage have been a subject of wonder from classical times to the present day, and are not yet explained. As you stand on the bridge you will see the current running like a river in one direction, and shortly afterwards it will be running with equal velocity in the other. Strabo speaks of them as varying seven times in the day, but it is more accurate to say, with Livy, that they are irregular. They are referred to in several passages of the Attic tragedians. A bridge was first constructed here in the twenty-first year of the Peloponnesian war, when Euboea revolted from Athens; and thus the Bceotians, whose work it was, contrived to make that country “an island to every one but themselves.” Hence Ephorus remarked that nature might almost be said to have made that island part of Boeotia, lhe Bceotians by this means secured a powerful weapon of offence against Athens, being able to impede their supplies of gold and corn from Thrace, of timber from Macedonia, and of horses from Thessaly, for, as has been already said, their traffic from the north used to pass by this way. The name Euripus was corrupted during the Middle Ages into Evripo and Egripo, and in this latter form transferred to the whole island, whence the Venetians, when they occupied the district, altered it to Negroponte^ with reference to the bridge which connected it with the mainland.

The rivers of Eubcea are few in number and scanty in volume, as is natural in a rocky island, where they have so short a distance to run. In the north-eastern portion the Budorus flows into the Aegean, being formed by two streams which unite their waters in a small plain, and were perhaps the Cereus and Neleus concerning which the story was told that sheep drinking the water of the one became white, of the other black. On the north coast, near Histiaea, is the Callas; and on the western side the Lelantus, near Chalcis, flowing through the plain of the same name. This plain, which intervenes between Chalcis and Eretria, and was a fruitful source of contention to those cities, is the most considerable of the few and small spaces of level ground in the island, and was fertile in corn. Aristotle, when speaking of the aristocratic character of the horse, as requiring fertile soil for its support, and consequently being associated with wealth, instances its use among the Chalcidιans and Eretrians, and in the former of those two states we find a class of nobles called Hippobotae. This rich district was afterwards occupied by Athenian cleruchs. The next largest plain was that of Histiaea, and at the present day this and the neighbourhood of the Budorus (Achmet-Aga) are the two best cultivated parts of Euboea, owing to the exertions of foreign colonists The mountains afford excellent pasturage for sheep and cattle, which were reared in great quantities in ancient times, and seem to have given the island its name; these pastures belonged to the state. The forests are extensive and fine, and are now superintended by Government officials, called δασοφύλακα, in spite or with the connivance of whom the timber is being rapidly destroyed—partly from the merciless way in which it is cut by the proprietors, partly from its being burnt by the shepherds, for the sake of the beautiful grass that springs up after such conflagrations, and partly owing to the goats, whose bite kills all the young growths. In the mountains were several valuable mines of iron and copper; and from Carystus, at the south of the island, came the green and white marble, the modern Cipollmo, which was in great request among the Romans of the imperial period for architectural purposes, and the quaιries of which belonged to the emperor. The scenery of Eubcea is perhaps the most beautiful in Greece, owing to the varied combinations of rock, wood, and water; for from the uplands the sea is almost always in view, either the wide island-studded expanse of the Aegean, or the succession of lakes formed by the Euboic Sea, together with mountains of exquisite outline, while the valleys and maritime plains are clothed either with fruit trees or with plane trees of magnificent growth. On the other hand, no part of Greece is so destitute of interesting remains of antiquity.

Like most of the Greek islands, Eubcea was originally known under other names, such as Macris and Doliche from its shape, and Ellopia and Abantis from the tribes inhabiting it. The races by which it was occupied at an early period were different in the three districts, into which, as we have seen, it was naturally divided. In the northern portion we find the Histiaei and Ellopes, Thessalian races, which probably had passed over from the Pagasaean Gulf. In central Euboea were the Curetes and Abantes, who seem to have come from the neighbouring continent by way of the Euripus; of these the Abantes, after being reinforced by Ionians from Attica, rose to great power, and exercised a sort of supremacy over the whole island, so that in Homer the inhabitants generally are called by that name. The southern part was occupied by the Dryopes, part of which tribe, after having been expelled from their original seats in the south of Thessaly by the Dorians, migrated to this, island, and established themselves in the three cities of Carystus, Dystus, and Styra. The name of the last-men·

tioned place, however, gives evidence of a previous Phoenician settlement, for it is a corruption of Astarte, which is found in the form Astyra at several p laces on the coasts of the Aegean. The Phoenicians were attracted hither, as they were to other points on the shores of Greece, by the purplemussel, which was obtained in the Euboic Sea. The population at the present day is made up of elements not less various, for many of the Greek inhabitants seem from their costumes to have immigrated, partly from the mainland, and partly from other islands; and besides these, the southern portion is occupied by Albanians, who probably have come from Andro3j in the mountain districts nomad Wallach shepherds are found; and at Chalcis there are a certain number of Turkish and Jewish families, who live quietly with the other inhabitants, and are not molested.

The history of the island is for the most part that of its two principal cities, Chalcis and Eretria, the latter of which was situated about 15 miles S.E. of the former, and was also on the shore of the Euboic Sea. The neighbourhood of the fertile Lelantian plain, and their proximity to the place of passage to the mainland, were evidently the causes of the choice of site, as well as of their prosperity. Both cities were Ionian settlements from Attica, and their importance in early times is shown by their numerous colonies in Magna Graecia and Sicily, and such as Cumae, Rhegium, and Naxos, and on the coast of Macedonia, the projecting portion of which, with its three peninsulas, hence obtained the name of Chalcidice. In this way they opened new trade routes to the Greeks, and extended the field of civilization. How great their commerce was is shown by the fact that the Euboic scale of weights and measures was in use at Athens and among the Ionic cities generally. They were rival cities, and at first appear to have been e ∣ually powerful; one of the earliest of the sea-fights mentioned in Greek history took place between them, and in this we are told that many of the other Greek states took part. It was in consequence of the aid which the people of Miletus lent to the Eretrians on this occasion that Eretria sent five ships to aid the Iomans in their revolt against the Persians; and owing to this, that city was the first place in Greece Proper to be attacked by Datis and Artaphernes in 490 b.c. It was utterly ruined on that occasion, and its inhabitants were transported to Persia. Though it was restored after the battle of Marathon, on a site at a little distance from its original position, it never regaiued its former eminence, but it was still the second city in the island. From this time its neighbour Chalcis, which, though it suffered from a lack of good water, was, as Strabo says, the natural capital from its commanding the Euripus, held an undisputed supremacy. Already, however, this city had suffered from the growing power of Athens. In the year 506, when the Chalcidians joined with the Boeotians and the Spartan king Cleomenes in a league against that state, they were totally defeated by the Athenians, who established 4000 Attic colonists on their lands, and seem to have reduced the whole island to a condition of dependence. Again, in 446, when Euboea endeavoured to throw off the yoke, it was once more reduced by Pericles, and a new body of settlers was planted at Histi<ea in the north of the island, after the inhabitants of that toλvn had been expelled. This event is referred to by Aristophanes in the Clouds (212), where the old farmer, on being shown Euboea on the map “lying outstretched in all its length,” remarks,—“I know; we laid it prostrate under Pericles.” The Athenians fully recognized its importance to them, both as supplying them with corn and cattle, as securing their commerce, and as guaranteeing them against piracy, for its proximity to the coast of Attica rendeκed it extremely dangerous to them when in other hands, so that Demosthenes, in the De Corona, speaks of a time when the pirates that made it their headquarters so infested the neighbouring sea as to prevent all navigation. But in the 21st year of the Peloponnesian war the island succeeded in regaining its independence. After this, we find it taking sides with one or other of the leading states, until, after the battle of Chaeronea, it passed into the hands of Philip, and finally into those of the Romans. By the great Demetrius Poliorcetes, Chalcis was called one of the three fetters of Greece, Demetrias on the Gulf of Pagasa* and Corinth being the other two.

In modern history Euboea or Negropont comes once more prominently into notice at the time of the fourth crusade. In the partition of the Eastern empire by the Latins which followed that event, the island was divided into three fiefs, the occupants of which ere long found it expedient to place themselves under the protection of the Venetian republic, which thenceforward became the sovereign power in the country. For more than two centuries and a half during which they remained in possession, it was one of the most valuable of their dependencies, and the lion of St Mark may still be seen, both over the sea gate of Chalcis (Negropont), and in other parts of the town. At length in 1470, after a valiant defence, this well-fortified city wa·r wrested from them by Mohammed IL, and the whole island fell into the hands of the Turks. One desperate attempt to regain it was made by Morosini in 1688, when the city was besieged by land and sea for three months; but owing to the strength of the place, and the disease which thinned their ranks, the assailants were forced to withdraw. At the conclusion of the Greek War of Independence, in 1830, the island was delivered from the Turkish sway, and constituted a part of the newly established Greek state. The present population of Chalcis is about 5000 souls. (h. f. t.)

For further details see Bentley, On the Characters, Properties, ancl Uses of Eucalyptus Globulus and other species of Eucalyptus 1874 · The Year Book of Pharmacy, 1874, pp. 29-31, and E. Cosson,’ “Note sur l’acclimatation de ΓEucalyptus Globulus,” in Bullet, de la Soc. de Geoyr., vi. sér., t. 9, p. 641, where numerous references to works on the subject will be found; R. Bartholow, Practical Treatise on Materia Medica, 1877; Planchon, “L’Eucalyptus Globulus au point de vue botanique, &c.,” in Rev. des Deux Mondes, ⅛ For a fi ≡ πre > see βentle y an,i Trimen, Medical Plants, tab. 109.

“As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and having given thanks, blessed and brake it, and give it to His disciples, and said ‘ Take, eat; this is My Body which is being given for you. Do this for a memorial of Me.’ In the same manner also He took the cup after they had supped, and having given thanks, gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink ye all of this: for this is My Blood of the new covenant' —or ‘ the new covenant in My Blood ’—‘ which is being shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins. Do this as often as you drink, for a memorial of Me.’”

The first subject for remark is the connexion of the Eucharist with the Paschal celebration. In the Paschal Supper the flesh of a lamb was solemnly eaten in remembrance of the preservation of the Israelites, by means of the blood of a lamb, from the destruction brought upon tho Egyptians, and of the consequent emancipation of the nation from slavery to Pharaoh. In the Eucharist the same act, that of eating, assumes a similar commemorative force. The broken bread, declared by Christ to be a symbol of His crucified Body, taken and eaten, together with the drinking of the wine, declared to be a symbol of His shed Blood, becomes, in virtue of His institution, a memorial of His sacrifice as the Lamb of God who, by His death, has taken away the sin of the world, delivering man from the wrath of God, and setting him free from the slavery of evil. In this, however, the Eucharist transcends the passover which was its type, that the one was a bare commemoration, the other unites with it an actual participation jn the spiritual blessings thus commemorated. However much various sections of the church have differed as to the mode and the degree in which these blessings are conveyed, and the exact relation borne by the bread and wine to the Body and Blood of our Lord, there has been a substantial agreement as to the fact that the fruits of the sacrifice of Christ are in the Eucharist in a special manner imparted to the souls of worthy recipients. <

So much we may learn as to the nature of the rite from the occasion of its first institution. An examination of the mode of its institution by Christ will show what ceremonial actions may be regarded as essential to the truth of its symbolical character. These are—(1) the benediction and consecration, i.e., the setting apart from profane uses, by solemn prayer and thanksgiving, of bread and wine; (2) the fraction or breaking of the bread and the pouring out of the wine into the cup; (3) the delivery and distribution of the “elements”—as the bread and wine are termed—to the communicants; (4) the declaration accompanying this distribution, that these elements both symbolize the sacrifice of Christ’s death, and also convey to the faithful partaker the benefits of that sacrifice; and (5) the actual partaking of these elements by the acts of eating and drinking. These several actions are all included in Christ’s command, “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

The various names by which this holy rite has been designated, each expressing one view of its manifold nature, will help us towards a comprehension of its meaning and purpose.

1. The term Eucharist, though not found in this sense in Holy Scripture, came into use in the earliest times, and found such acceptance that it became the most frequent designation of the Lord’s Supper both in the Western and the Eastern Church. It first appears in the letters ascribed to Ignatius, 107 A.τ>. (Epist. ad Philad., c. iv.; ad Smym., c. vi.), and is used by Irenaeus, who says that after consecration “it is no longer common bread, but eucharist” (lib. iv. c. 18, § 5). Justin Martyr, 140 A.υ., after describing the sacred meal, says, “This partaking is called by us the Eucharist” (Apolog., i. c. 66). Origen also speaks of “the bread called Eucharist” (Contr. Cels., lib. viii. § 57). The term is also continually found in this sense in Tertullian, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Cyprian. Eucharist, ∈υχαpι<rriα, signifies “thanksgiving,” and its use for the sacramental feast is derived from the thanksgiving of our Lord at the institution of the rite (εΰχαρισττ/σας ∈κλασev). The elements over which thanks had been offered readily assumed the name of the act of thanksgiving, and so the word eucharistia came to be simply equivalent to the sacramental bread and wine, and was sometimes restricted to the bread alone. “In the earliest liturgies thanksgiving was, next to the reception, the chief part of the celebration, a circumstance which without doubt served greatly to promote the general adoption of the name” (Scudamore, Notitia Eucharistica, p. 8). It is thus St Chrysostom explains the term: “The awful mysteries, laden with mighty salvation, which are celebrated at every communion, .... are called Eucharist, because they are the commemoration of many benefits, and by all means they work upon us to be thankful” (Homil. xxv. in Matt., §3).

2. Another familiar name is the Communion, or the Holy Communion. This is derived from the words of St Paul, 1 Cor. X. 16, 17. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion (κοινωνία) of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, the many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.” The general use of this term is not so early as of the word “eucharist,” but it is found in Irenaeus, 167 a.d., who speaks of slaves who have heard from their masters that “the divine communion is the body and blood of Christ” (Eragm., xiii.), and it is used by Hilary, Basil, and Chrysostom. St Paul’s words show that the leading idea contained in this name is, that by means of this sacrament all faithful recipients become partakers of the body ’and blood of Christ, and receive a communication of the blessings of His sacrifice. But they also express another fundamental truth, expressed in the Apostles’ Creed as “the communion of saints,” viz., the communion or fellowship which all Christians have with one another, as members of one body, sharers in one life, of which the joint participation of this sacrament is an outward symbol and pledge. “By this sacrament is signified and sealed that union which is among our Saviour’s true disciples communicating therein; their being together united in consent of mind and unity of faith, in mutual good will and affection, in hope and tendency to the same blessed end, in spiritual brotherhood and society; especially on account of this communion with Christ, which most closely ties them one to another; they, partaking of this one individual food, become translated, as it were, into one body and substance” (Barrow, Doctrine of the Sacraments, vol. v. p. 602, ed. 1818). To establish this union is declared by Christ to be one great purpose of His incarnation and death and high priestly intercession (John xvii, 22-23). And the Eucharist by its symbolism sets forth the truth that the only way of thus uniting men to each other is by first uniting them to Christ. They must be one with Him before they can be one with each other in Him. “The union of mankind, but a union begun and subsisting only in Christ, is what the Lord⅛ Supper sacramentally expresses” (Ecce Homo, p. 175). Participation in the Eucharist being thus the chief outward sign and pledge of communion and fellowship with the church, admission to this sacrament was practically identified with a recognition of a claim to membership in the church, while to be repelled from it amounted to exclusion from the Christian body, such exclusion receiving the name of excommunication.

3. Another designation of this sacrament, derived from Holy Scripture, is the Lord’s Supper. It is so called by St Paul himself, who when speaking of its unworthy reception, says, “When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper,” 1 Cor. xi. 20. The special appropriateness of this name, taking us back to the time and place of its first institution by Christ, “the same night that He was betrayed,” secured for it an early and wide reception, and we find Chrysostom and Augustine employing it as a familiar term. “He gave the supper consecrated by His own hands to the disciples. We have not sat down at that feast, and yet by faith we daily eat the same supper” (August., Serm. cxii., c. 4). The name “supper” indicates also the original idea of the sacred rite as a common meal, “the most natural and universal way of expressing, maintaining, and, as it were, ratifying” corporate union. “The meal consists of bread and wine, the simplest and most universal elements of food; and when men of different nations or degrees sit and kneel together, and receive, as from the hand of God, this simple repast, they are reminded in the most forcible manner of their common human wants, and their common character as pensioners on the bounty of the universal Father” (Ecce Homo, pp. 173, 174). And thus this designation guards against a common but dangerous misconception of the sacrament. A “supper” is something tobe partaken of, not to be worshipped. Bread and wine are viands to be eaten and drunk, not to be adored. That on which they are placed is a table, round which the guests gather as for a common meal, not, except in a secondary and derived sense, an altar.

4. The term “oblation” or “offering” (προσφορά) was originally applied to each of the various offerings made by the faithful at the celebration of the Eucharist, e.g., the oblation of alms in kind or money for the poor, gifts for the support of the clergy, and the maintenance of the fabric of the church and its services; the special oblation of bread and wine for the purpose of the celebration; and the spiritual oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ in the eucharistie commemoration. Gradually its reference became narrowed. We notice the process of restriction in the writings of Cyprian, 250 a.t>., and find it established by the time of Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 a.d. Henceforward, “the oblation” signifies the commemoration of the self-oblation of Christ on the cross. “To attain to the oblation” or to “partake of the holy oblation” meant to receive, and to impart “the oblation” was to administer the blessed sacrament.” In the liturgy of the Church of England the word “oblation” is only used of the “alms” and other offerings of the congregation (with a special reference to the presentation of the elements of bread and wine), and of the actual death of Christ as “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world,” while the idea is also extended to the spiritual oblation of themselves by the faithful communicants in the words—“Here we offer and present ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable sacrifice.”

5. From “oblation” we are naturally led to the consideration of the term Sacrifice, which from primitive times has been applied to the Eucharist. The original reference of this term, as of the term “oblation,” was to the bread and wine and other thank-offerings presented at the celebration. But its application was gradually extended so as to embrace the whole rite, and especially the central act, the presentation of the elements to God as a memorial of the sacrifice of the death of Christ. In this sense the Eucharist is spoken of from the time of Tertullian downwards, as “a commemorative sacrifice,” ∕.e., a rite, instituted by Christ himself, in which the church commemorates and pleads before the Father the one all-sufficient sacrifice made by His Son on the cross. This is no fresh immolation of the body of Christ, but a representation of that sacrifice which was once for all accomplished on Calvary, by which, according to St Paul’s words (1 Cor. xi. 26), we “do show” or “proclaim” (καταγγeλλeτe) “the Lord’s death till He come.” The true sense in which the Eucharist may be called a sacrifice is clearly set forth in the following passage from the learned and pious Bishop Beveridge :—

“The sacrifice that is most proper and peculiar to the gospel is the sacrament of our Lord’s Supper, instituted by our Lord himself, to succeed all the bloody sacrifices of the Mosaic law. For though we cannot say, as some absurdly do, that this is such a sacrifice whereby Christ is again offered up to God both for the living and the dead, yet it may as properly be called a sacrifice as any that was ever offered, except that which was offered by Christ himself,—for His, indeed, was the only true expiatory sacrifice that ever was offered. Those under the law were only types of His, and were called sacrifices only upon that account, because they typified and represented that which He was to offer for the sins of the world. And therefore the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood may as well be called by that name, as they were. They were typical, and this is a commemorative sacrifice. They foreshowed the death of Christ to come; this shows His death already past This is pro perly our Christian sacrifice, which neither Jew nor Gentile can have any share in (Heb. xiii. 10). We have an altar where we partake of the great sacrifice which the eternal Son of God offered up for the sins of the whole world, and ours among the rest.”— {Sermon viii. vol. i. p. 50; Libr. Aηgl. Cαlh. Theol.)

6. Finally, we have the names, the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of the Altar. This is not the place to speak of the origin and meaning of the word sacrament as an ecclesiastical term. Suffice it to say that the word “sacrament,” when applied to the Eucharist, is used in its derived sense as an outward and visible symbol of some inward and spiritual truth, or work of grace,—in the same sense in which Augustine says of the bread and cup that they are “therefore called sacraments, because in them one thing is seen, another understood” {Serm. cclxxi.).

M'e must not altogether pass over the word wms·i, “missa, by which the Eucharist is commonly known in the Roman church. Unlike the other designations of which we have been speaking, this has no essential connexion with the eucharistie rite,—“missa,” originally meaning nothing more than the dismissal of a congregation. “Ite, missa est, is the formula with which the Roman eucharistie service concludes. “By degrees,” writes Waterland, “it came to be used for an assembly and for church service. From signifying a church service in general, it came at length to denote the communion service in particular, and so that most emphatically came to be called the mass” {Of the Institution of the Holy Communion, ch. 1). This name is not found in Holy Scripture; it was unknown to the first ages of the church; the earliest known example of its use is in Ambrose {Epist. 20 [33], §4, ad Marcellin.) “missam facere coepi,” and it is unmeaning and inappropriate as a name of the sacrament to which it has accidentally attached itself, and it has been therefore wisely disused by the reformed church {cf. Scudamore, u.s., p. 3)

We now proceed to speak of the mode and time of the celebration of the Eucharist. It is evident from St Paul’s words and practice (1 Cor. xi. 17-34; Acts xx. 7) that in the apostolic church the administration took place, after our Lord’s pattern, in the evening, and in close connexion with an ordinary meal. The disorders referred to by the apostle, which indicated the danger of this connexion, before long caused a separation of the religious from the ordinary meal, and invested the Eucharist with a character of special sacredness. The time of celebration, we learn from the notices in the earlier fathers, was either after nightfall or before daybreak, these times being selected so as to avoid attracting the attention of their heathen neighbours. Pliny, in his well-known letter to Trajan, 104 a.d., speaks of the Christians in Bithynia coming together on a set day before it was light, “to sing to Christ as God, and bind themselves by a sacrament {sacramento) to commit no crime.” Tertullian also speaks of the reception of “the sacrament of the Eucharist in assemblies even before dawn.” {De Cor. Mil., c. iii.) The evening celebration lingered on for a while, but it was gradually given up, and entirely ceased by the 4th century, except on some special days, such as the eves of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. The earliest account of the celebration of the Eucharist, that of Justin Martyr, c. 140 -A.d., shows the extreme simplicity of the rite at that time. The day of administration was Sunday. It took place at the conclusion of the common prayer, and was preceded by the kiss of peace. The celebrant was “the president of the brethren” (ό προεστών των αδελφών). The materials of the sacrament were “bread and a cup of wine mixed with water.” After prayer and praise offered by the president, to which the congregation responded “amen,” the “deacons” gave to each one present, “to partake of the bread, and wine mixed with water, over which the thanksgiving had been pronounced” (∈υ^αpισ0evτos, “consecrated as an eucharist”), and carried away a portion to those who were absent from the rite. This food, he concludes, is “called by us the Eucharist” {Apoloy., i. c. 65-67). St Cyril of Jerusalem furnishes us with a detailed description of the eucharistie celebration in the middle of the 4th century {c. 347 a.d.). By this time the ritual had become fixed, and of a somewhat elaborate character. The ceremonial commenced with the celebrant and presbyters washing their hands. This was followed by the kiss of peace, the “Sursum Cordaf the “ Vere Dignum,” the “Ämrfws,” the “Epiclesisf or invocation to the Holy Spirit to sanctify the elements lying on the Holy Table, the Prayer for all conditions of men, and the Commemoration of the departed. These were succeeded —forming the point of transition to the more distinctly sacramental portion of the service—by the Lord’s Prayer, the ii Sancta Sanctis” (corresponding to the “fencing the table” of the Presbyterian Church), the Unus Sanctus, &c., and Communion. The minute directions Cyril gives as to the manual actions in communicating, and the application of the consecrated elements to the eyes and other organs of sense, indicate a wide departure from primitive simplicity, and a growing tendency to regard the eucharist as a religious charm {Catech., xxiii.; My-stagog., v.). The account of the ritual presented by St Chrysostom (2 Cor., Homil. χviii.) corresponds in all essential points with that given by Cyril, and we gather from the writings of St Augustine that the canon of the North African churches differed little from it. We may conclude, therefore, that by the middle of the 4th century the eucharistie ritual was established with an essential uniformity in all parts of the Catholic Church, and in a form corresponding in its chief outlines with the canon of the extant primitive liturgies. Of these liturgies the most...

Two-handed Euchre.— The non-dealer looks at his hand and decides whether he will play it. If content, i.e., if he thinks he can win three tricks, he says “order it up.” The dealer then puts out from his hand any card he pleases, face downwards, and is entitled to take the trump card into his hand; but the card is generally left on the pack until wanted in the course of play. If the non-dealer is not content, he says “pass.” The dealer then has the option of taking up the trump as before, or of passing also. If the trump is ordered up or taken up the play of the hand commences; if both pass, the dealer places the trump card face upwards under the pack, called turning it down. The non-dealer has then the option of making it, i.e., of naming any suit, except the one turned up, saying, “make it spades,” or any suit he prefers, and that suit becomes trumps, or of passing again, saying, “pass again.” If he makes it, the play begins; if he passes again, the dealer has similarly the option of making it. ∏ both pass a second time the hand is thrown up, and the other player deals When the turn up is red and the trump is made red it is called making it next; the same if black is made black. If the trump is made of a different colour from the turn up, it is called crossing the suit. If the hand is played, the non-dealer leads; the dealer plays to the card led. He must follow suit if able, otherwise he may play any card he pleases. If the left bower is led a trump must be played to it. The highest card of the suit led wins the trick; trumps win other suits. The winner of the trick leads to the next. If the player who orders up, takes up, or makes the trump, wins five tricks, he scores two, called a march·, if he makes three or four tricks he scores one, called the point. If he fails to make three tricks he is euchred, and his opponent scores two. The game is five up. By agreement, a player who makes more than five may carry the surplus (called a lap) to the next game. Also it is sometimes agreed that a love game (or lurch) shall count double. The game may be reckoned without reference to the adverse score; or it may be played with points, that is, the winner receives from the loser as many points as he wants of game.

Three-handed or Cut-throat Euchre.— The option of playing or passing goes to each in rotation, beginning with the player to the dealer’s left. Three cards, one from each hand, constitute a trick. The player who orders* up, takes up, or makes the trump plays against the other two, except at independent euchre, when each plays for himself. If the attacking player is euchred, he is set back two points. Thus if he is love, and is euchred, he has seven points to make instead of five.

Four-handed Euchre is generally played with partners, who are cut for and sit opposite each other as at whist. If the first hand passes, the second may say “I assist,” wlιich means that the dealer (his partner) is to take up the trump.

The haud is thou played as at whist, four cards constituting a trick. The eldest hand has the next deal. If a player has a very strong hand he may play alone single-handed against the two adversaries. His partner cannot object. A player can declare to play alone when he or his partner orders up, or when his partner assists, or when he makes the trump, or (if dealer) when he takes up the trump, but not when the adversary orders up, assists, or makes the trump. If the lone player wins a march he scores four, if he wins three or four tricks he scores one; if he fails to win three tricks the opponents score two.

Hints. —1. The chances are that the dealer has one trump in hand; if you order up, you must expect to meet two trumps. Therefore, you should not order up unless your hand gives you a two to one chance of winning three tricks against two trumps, and your cards are such that you would have a worse chance if you made the trump. If strong in trumps and equally strong in another suit, it is always right to pass. Also, if you have the point certain, whether you make the trump or not, you should pass, in hopes the dealer may take up the trump.

2. If you pass and the dealer turns it down, you should not make the trump unless you have a two to one chance of winning three tricks against one trump.

3. If you hold good cards in two suits of different colours, and you make the trump, you should make it next. For, the dealer having turned it down in one colour, is less likely to hold a bower of that colour than of the other. At the four-handed game the non dealer and his partner should also avoid crossing the suit. But if the dealer’s partner makes the trump, he should not hesitate to cross the suit, as the dealer, having turned it down, has probably no bower in that suit.

4. At four-handed euchre, the eldest hand should be very strong to order it up; but the second player should assist if he has something more than one trick, e.g., an ace and a trump, or two aces. If, however, he is strong in the non-trump suits, he should not assist unless he can be pretty sure of making two tricks. The third hand should be cautious of ordering up, as his partner, having passed, must be weak. This applies with still more force to taking up by the dealer, as his partner, not having assisted, must be very weak. To take up the dealer should be pretty sure of two tricks, aud have a chance of a third.

5. If the dealer takes up the trump he should keep two. cards of a suit, unless his single card is an ace. Thus, with queen, seven of one suit and king single of another, the king should be discarded.

6. Lead from a guarded suit unless in fear of losing a march, when lead your highest single card. Lead from a sequence of three trumps. At four-handed euchre always lead a trump with three. Also lead a trump if you have made it next; if your left hand adversary has assisted (unless a bower is turned up); and if your

I>artner ordersup, assists, takes up, or makes the trump. Further, ea<l a trump if you have lost two tricks and won the third, unless your partner has dealt and still has the turn up in hand.

7. As a rule make tricks when able. Passing or finessing is seldom good play.

8. If your partner orders up, assists, takes up, or makes the trump, trump the trick whenever you can.

9. In discarding during the play, as a rule, keep a guarded card in preference to a single one, except a single ace.

10. If the adversary is at three do not order up unless you have very good cards. If the adversary is at four take up the trump on a light hand.

11. At four-handed euchre, if the dealer is one or two, and the eldest hand four, he should order up, unless he has one certain trick, in order to prevent the opponent from playing alone. This position is called the bridge.

12. At four-all, if the eldest hand or third hand has a trick and the chance of a second, and such cards that he would be no better off if he made the trump, he should order it up.

13. The eldest hand, and next to him the dealer, may play alone on weaker hands than the other players. The leader, with a lone hand, should lead his winning trumps; if two tricks are thus made, and the leader has a losing trump, he should then lead his best card out of trumps. When playing against a lone hand, lead an ace. If you have not one, lead your highest card out of trumps, except with a guarded king and another suit, when lead the latter. Also, keep cards of the suits your partner discards, but do not throw an ace, even if your partner keeps your ace suit.

Laws of Euchre.— Dealing.— 1. If the dealer gives too many or too few cards to any player, or if he turns up two cards, it is a misdeal, and the next player deals. 2. If the dealer exposes a card, or if there is a faced card in the pack, there must be a fresh deal. Playing.— 3. Any one playing with the wrong number of cards can score nothing that hand. The same if, when the trump is ordered up, the dealer omits to discard before he or his partner plays. 4. When more than two play, exposed cards can be called. Also a card led out of turn may be called, or a suit from the side offending at their next lead. 5. A player not following suit when able may correct his mistake before the trick is turned and quitted or he or his partner plays to the next trick, the card played in error being an exposed card. If the error is not corrected a revoke is established. A player revoking is euchred, and cannot score anything that hand. G. A player making the trump must abide by the suit first named. 7. If, after the trump is turned, a player reminds his partner that they are at the point of the bridge, the latter loses the right to order up. 8. Each player has a right to see the last trick.