[1] Whence the name ([Greek: eukaluptos], well-covered) given by
L'Heritier, 1788.
EUCHARIS, in botany, a genus of the natural order Amaryllidaceae,
containing a few species, natives of Columbia. _Eucharis amazonica_ or
_grandiflora_ is the best-known and most generally cultivated species.
It is a bulbous plant with broad stalked leaves, and an erect scape 11/2
to 2 ft. long, bearing an umbel of three to ten large white showy
flowers. The flowers resemble the daffodil in having a prominent central
cup or corona, which is sometimes tinged with green. It is propagated by
removing the offsets, which may be done in spring, potting them singly
in 6-in. pots. It requires good loamy soil, with sand enough to keep the
compost open, and should have a good supply of water and a temperature
of 65 deg. to 70 deg. during the night, with a rise of 8 deg. or 10 deg. in the day.
During summer growth is to be encouraged by repotting, but the plants
should afterwards be slightly rested by removal to a night temperature
of about 60 deg., water being withheld for a time, though they must not go
too long dry, the plant being an evergreen. By the turn of the year they
may again have more heat and more water, and this will probably induce
them to flower. After this is over they may be shifted and grown again
as before; and, as they get large, either be divided to form new plants
or allowed to develop into nobler specimens. With a stock of the smaller
plants to start them in succession, they may be had in flower all the
year round. A few years ago the bulbs of _E. amazonica_ were badly
inflicted with a disease known as the Eucharis mite, and all kinds of
remedies were tried without avail, although steeping in Condy's fluid
appeared to give the best results. The disease appears to have died out
again. Other species of Eucharis now met with in gardens are E_.
Bakeriana_, E_. Mastersii_, _E. Lowii_ and _E. Sanderii_. A remarkable
hybrid was raised a few years ago between _Eucharis_ and the allied
genus _Urceolina_, to which the compound name _Urceocharis_ was given.
EUCHARIST (Gr. [Greek: eucharistia], thanksgiving), in the Christian
Church, one of the ancient names of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper
or Holy Communion. The term [Greek: eucharistia] was at first applied to
the act of thanksgiving associated with the sacrament; later, so early
as the 2nd century, to the objects, e.g. the sacramental bread and wine,
for which thanks were given; and so to the whole celebration. The term
_Mass_, which has the same connotation, is derived from the Lat. _missa_
or _missio_, because the children and catechumens, or unbaptized
believers, were dismissed before the eucharistic rite began. Other names
express various aspects of the rite: Communion (Gr. [Greek: koinonia]),
the fellowship between believers and union with Christ; _Lord's Supper_,
so called from the manner of its institution; _Sacrament_ as a
consecration of material elements; the _Mystery_ (in Eastern churches)
because only the initiated participated; the _Sacrifice_ as a rehearsal
of Christ's passion. In this article the history of the rite is first
traced up to A.D. 200 in documents taken in their chronological order;
differences of early and later usage are then discussed; lastly, the
meaning of the original rite is examined.
St Paul (1 Cor. xi. 17-34) attests that the faithful met regularly in
church, i.e. in religious meetings, to eat the dominical or Lord's
Supper, but that this aim was frustrated by some who ate up their
provisions before others, so that the poor were left hungry while the
rich got drunk; and the meetings were animated less by a spirit of
brotherhood and charity than of division and faction. He directs that,
when they so meet, they shall wait for one another. Those who are too
hungry to wait shall eat at home; and not put to shame those who have no
houses (and presumably not enough food either), by bringing their viands
to church and selfishly eating them apart.
It was therefore not the quantity or quality of the food eaten that
constituted the meal a Lord's Supper; nor even the circumstances that
they ate it "in church," as was assumed by those guilty of the practices
here condemned; but only the pervading sense of brotherhood and love.
The contrast lay between the _Dominical Supper_ or food and drink shared
unselfishly by all with all, and the _private supper_, the feast of
Dives, shamelessly gorged under the eyes of timid and shrinking Lazarus.
By way of enforcing this point Paul repeats the tradition he had
received direct from the Lord, and already handed on to the Corinthians,
of how "the Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed" (not
necessarily the night of Passover) "took bread and having given thanks
brake it and said, This is my body, which is for your sake; this do in
remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying,
This cup is the new covenant through my blood: this do, as oft as ye
drink it, in remembrance of me." Paul adds that this rite commemorated
the Lord's death and was to be continued until he should come again, as
in that age they expected him to do after no long interval: "As often as
ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye do (or ye shall) proclaim the
Lord's death till he come."
The same epistle (x. 17) attests that one loaf only was broken and
distributed: "We who are many, are one loaf (or bread), one body; for we
all partake of the one loaf (or bread)." As a single loaf could not
satisfy the hunger of many, the rehearsal in these meals of Christ's own
action must have been a crowning episode, enhancing their sanctity. The
_Fractio Panis_ probably began, as the drinking of the cup certainly
ended, the supper; the interval being occupied with the common
consumption by the faithful of the provisions they brought. This much is
implied by the words "after supper." If, in any case, all present had
eaten in their homes beforehand, the giving of the cup would immediately
follow on the breaking and eating of the one loaf, but Paul's words
indicate that the common meal within the church was the norm. Those who
ate at home marked themselves out as both greedy and lacking in charity.
There is no demand that they should come fasting, or Paul could not
recommend in (xi. 34) that those who were too hungry to wait until all
the brethren were assembled in church, should eat at home and
beforehand.
Mark xiv. 22-25, Matt. xxvi. 26-29, Luke xxii. 14-20, are, in order of
time, our next accounts, Mark representing the oldest tradition. They
all in substance repeat Paul's account; but identify the night on which
Jesus was betrayed with that of the Pascha. In Matthew and Mark, Jesus
says of the bread "Take ye it, this is my body," omitting the idea of
sacrifice imported by Paul's addition "which is for you"; but in them
Jesus enunciates the same idea when he says of the cup: "This is my
blood of the covenant which is poured out for many," Matthew adding "for
the remission of sins," a phrase which savours of Heb. ix. 22: "apart
from the shedding of blood there is no remission." It is a later
addition, and so may be the words "which is poured out for many." But
the words which follow have an antique ring: "Amen, I say unto you, I
will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink
it new in the kingdom of God." For here Jesus affirms his conviction, in
view of his impending death, which unlike his disciples he foresaw,
that, when the kingdom of God is instituted on earth, he will take his
place in it. But this is the last time he will sit down upon earth with
his disciples at the table of the millenarist hope. These sources do not
hint that the Last Supper is to be repeated by Christ's followers until
the advent of the kingdom. Luke's account is too much interpolated from
Paul, and the texts of his oldest MSS. too discrepant, for us to rely on
it except so far as it supports the other gospels. It emphasizes the
fact that the Last Supper was the Pascha. "With desire have I desired to
eat this Passover, before I suffer"; and places the bread after the
wine, unless indeed the Pauline interpolation comprises the whole of
verse 19.
The fourth gospel, written perhaps A.D. 90-100, sublimates the rite, in
harmony with its general treatment of the life of Jesus: "I am the
living bread which cometh down out of heaven, that a man may eat thereof
and not die" (John vi. 51). As in 1 Cor. x. the flesh of Christ is
contrasted with the manna which saved not the Jews from death, so here
the latter ask: "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" and Jesus
answers: "Amen, Amen I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, ye have not life in yourselves.... He that
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me and I in him." In an
earlier passage, again in reference to the manna, Jesus is called "the
bread of God, which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the
world." They ask: "Lord, ever more give us this bread," and he answers:
"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he
that believeth on me shall never thirst." This writer's thought is
coloured by the older speculations of Philo, who in metaphor called the
Logos the heavenly bread and food, the cupbearer and cup of God; and he
seems even to protest against a literal interpretation of the words of
institution, since he not only pointedly omits them in his account of
the Last Supper, but in v. 63 of this chapter writes: "It is the Spirit
that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the _words_ that I have
spoken unto you are spirit and are life."
In Acts ii. 46 we read that, "the faithful continued steadfastly with
one accord in the temple"; at the same time "breaking bread at home they
partook of food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God."
All such repasts must have been sacred, but we do not know if they
included the Eucharistic rite. The care taken in the selecting and
ordaining of the seven deacons argues a religious character for the
common meals, which they were to serve. Their main duty was to look
after the duty of the Hellenistic widows, but inasmuch as meats
strangled or consecrated to idols were forbidden, it probably devolved
on the deacons to take care that such were not introduced at these
common meals. The Essenes, similarly, appointed houses all over
Palestine where they could safely eat, and priests of their own to
prepare their food. Some Christians escaped the difficulties of their
position by eating no meat at all. "He that is weak," says Paul (Rom.
xiv. 1), "eateth herbs"; that is, becomes a vegetarian. Rather than
scandalize weaker brethren, Paul was willing to eat herbs the rest of
his life.
The travel-document in Acts often refers to the solemn breaking of
bread. Thus Paul in xxvii. 35, having invited the ship's company of 276
persons to partake of food, took bread, gave thanks to God in the
presence of all, and brake it and began to eat. The rest on board then
began to be of good cheer, and themselves also took food. Here it is not
implied that Paul shared his food except with his co-believers, but he
ate before them all. Whether he repeated the words of institution we
cannot say.
In Acts xx. 7 the faithful of Troas gather together to break bread "on
the first day of the week" after sunset. After a discourse Paul, who was
leaving them the next morning, broke bread and ate. This was surely such
a meeting as we read of in 1 Cor. x., and was held on Sunday by night;
but long before dawn, since after it Paul "talked with them a long
while, even till break of day." In 1 Cor. xvi. 1 Paul bids the
Corinthians, as he had bidden the churches of Galatia, lay up in store
on the first of the week, each one of them, money for the poor saints of
Jerusalem. This is the first notice of Sunday Eucharistic collections of
alms for the poor.
Here seems to belong in the order of development the Cathar Eucharist
(see CATHARS). The Cathars used only the Lord's prayer in consecrating
the bread and used water for wine.
The next document in chronological order is the so-called Teaching of
the Apostles (A.D. 90-110). This assigns prayers and rubrics for the
celebration of the Eucharist:--