Page:EB1911 - Volume 09.djvu/909

Rh above) constitute in themselves an express prohibition of reservation, strong as their evidence may be as to the practice and feeling of the time. The words are the common property of an earlier age which saw nothing objectionable in reservation for the sick. (4) It has indeed been contended (by Bishop Wordsworth of Salisbury) that reservation was not actually, though tacitly, continued under the second Prayer-Book of Edward VI., since that book orders that the curate shall “minister,” and not “celebrate,” the communion in the sick person’s house. But such a tacit sanction on the part of the compilers of the second Prayer-Book is in the highest degree improbable, in view of their known opinions on the subject; and an examination of contemporary writings hardly justifies the contention that the two words are so carefully used as the argument would demand. Anyhow, as the bishop notes, this could not be the case with the Prayer-Book of 1661, where the word is “celebrate.” (5) The Elizabethan Act of Uniformity contained a provision that at the universities the public services, with the exception of the Eucharist, might be in a language other than English; and in 1560 there appeared a Latin version of the Prayer-Book, issued under royal letters patent, in which there was a rubric prefixed to the Order for the Communion of the Sick, based on that in the first Prayer-Book of Edward VI. (see above), and providing that the Eucharist should be reserved for the sick person if there had been a celebration on the same day. But although the book in question was issued under letters patent, it is not really a translation of the Elizabethan book at all, but simply a reshaping of Aless’s clever and inaccurate translation of Edward VI.’s first book. In the rubric in question words are altered here and there in a way which shows that its reappearance can hardly be a mere printer’s error; but in any case its importance is very slight, for the Act of Uniformity specially provides that the English service alone is to be used for the Eucharist. (6) It has been pointed out that reservation for the sick prevails in the Scottish Episcopal Church, the doctrinal standards of which correspond with those of the Church of England. But it must be remembered that the Scottish Episcopal Church has an additional order of its own for the Holy Communion, and that consequently its clergy are not restricted to the services in the Book of Common Prayer. Moreover, the practice of reservation which has prevailed in Scotland for over 150 years would appear to have arisen out of the special circumstances of that church during the 18th century, and not to have prevailed continuously from earlier times. (7) Certain of the divines who took part in the framing of the Prayer-Book of 1661 seem to speak of the practice as though it actually prevailed in their day. But Bishop Sparrow’s words on the subject (Rationale, p. 349) are not free from difficulty on any hypothesis, and Thorndike (Works, v. 578, Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology) writes in such a style that it is often hard to tell whether he is describing the actual practice of his day or that which in his view it ought to be. (8) There appears to be more evidence than is commonly supposed to show that a practice analogous to that of Justin Martyr’s day has been adopted from time to time in England, viz. that of conveying the sacred elements to the houses of the sick during, or directly after, the celebration in church. And in 1899 this practice received the sanction of Dr Westcott, then bishop of Durham. (9) On the other hand, the words of the oath taken by the clergy under the 36th of the Canons of 1604 are to the effect that they will use the form prescribed in the Prayer-Book and none other, except so far as shall be otherwise ordered by lawful authority; and the Prayer-Book does not even mention the reservation of the Eucharist, whilst the Articles mention it only in the way of depreciation.

The matter has become one of no little practical importance owing to modern developments of English Church life. On the one hand, it is widely felt that neither the form for the Communion of the Sick, nor yet the teaching with regard to spiritual communion in the third rubric at the end of that service, is sufficient to meet all the cases that arise or may arise. On the other hand, it is probable that in many cases the desire for reservation has arisen, in part at least, from a wish for something analogous to the Roman Catholic customs of exposition and benediction; and the chief objection to any formal practice of reservation, on the part of many who otherwise would not be opposed to it, is doubtless to be found in this fact. But however that may be, the practice of reservation of the Eucharist, either in the open church or in private, has become not uncommon in recent days.

The question of the legality of reservation was brought before the two archbishops in 1899, under circumstances analogous to those in the Lambeth Hearing on (q.v.). The parties concerned were three clergymen, who appealed from the direction of their respective diocesans, the bishops of St Albans and Peterborough and the archbishop of York: in the two former cases the archbishop (Temple) of Canterbury was the principal and the archbishop of York (Maclagan) the assessor, whilst in the latter case the functions were reversed. The hearing extended from 17th to 20th July; counsel were heard on both sides, evidence was given in support of the appeals by two of the clergy concerned and by several other witnesses, lay and clerical, and the whole matter was gone into with no little fulness. The archbishops gave their decision on the 1st of May 1900 in two separate judgments, to the effect that, in Dr Temple’s words, “the Church of England does not at present allow reservation in any form, and that those who think that it ought to be allowed, though perfectly justified in endeavouring to get the proper authorities to alter the law, are not justified in practising reservation until the law has been so altered.” The archbishop of York also laid stress upon the fact that the difficulties in the way of the communion of the sick, when they are really ready for communion, are not so great as has sometimes been suggested.

See W. E. Scudamore, Notitia eucharistica (2nd ed., London, 1876); and art. “Reservation” in Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, vol. ii. (London, 1893); Guardian newspaper, July 19 and 26, 1899, and May 2, 1900; The Archbishops of Canterbury and York on Reservation of the Sacrament (London, 1900); J. S. Franey, Mr Dibdin’s Speech on Reservation, and some of the Evidence (London, 1899); F. C. Eeles, Reservation of the Holy Eucharist in the Scottish Church (Aberdeen, 1899); Bishop J. Wordsworth, Further Considerations on Public Worship (Salisbury, 1901).

EUCHRE, a game of cards. The name is supposed by some to be a corruption of écarté, to which game it bears some resemblance; others connect it with the Ger. Juchs or Jux, a joke, owing to the presence in the pack, or “deck,” of a special card called “the joker”; but neither derivation is quite satisfactory. The “deck” consists of 32 cards, all cards between the seven and ace being rejected from an ordinary pack. Sometimes the sevens and eights are rejected as well. The “joker” is the best card, i.e. the highest trump. Second in value is the “right bower” (from Dutch boer, farmer, the name of the knave), or knave of trumps; third is the “left bower,” the knave of the other suit of the same colour as the right bower, also a trump: then follow ace, king, queen, &c., in order. Thus if spades are trumps the order is (1) the joker, (2) knave of spades, (3) knave of clubs, (4) ace of spades, &c. The joker, however, is not always used. When it is, the game is called “railroad” euchre. In suits not trumps the cards rank as at whist. Euchre can be played by two, three or four persons. In the cut for deal, the highest card deals, the knave being the highest and the ace the next best card. The dealer gives five cards to each person, two each and then three each, or vice versa: when all have received their cards the next card in the pack is turned up for trumps.

Two-handed Euchre.—If the non-dealer, who looks at his cards first, is satisfied, he says “I order it up,” i.e. he elects to play with his hand as it stands and with the trump suit as turned up. The dealer then rejects one card, which is put face downwards at the bottom of the pack, and takes the trump card into his hand. If, however, the non-dealer is not satisfied with his original hand, he says “I pass,” on which the dealer can either “adopt,” or “take it up,” the suit turned up, and proceed as before, or he can pass, turning down the trump card to show that he passes. If both players pass, the non-dealer can make any other suit trumps, by saying “I make it spades,” for example, or he can pass again, when the dealer can either make another suit trumps or pass. If both players pass, the hand is at an end. If the trump card is black and either player makes the other black suit trumps, he “makes it next”; if he makes