VOSTI

Lord Steward of the Household, Lords in Waiting, Lords of the Bedchamber (see BEDCHAMBER, LORDS OF THE, Lords Justices (see JUSTICES, LORDS), the Lord Chief Baron of Exchequer (q. v.), the Lord Chief Justice (see JUSTICE, LORD CHIEF), the Lord Lyon (see LYON KING AT ARMS), the Lord Mayor of London, York, and Dublin (see MAYORS), and the Lords Provost of Edinburgh and Glasgow (see PROThe committee of the Scottish parliament by whom the laws to be proposed were prepared, were called Lords of the Articles. The favoured beneficiaries, who, after the Scottish Reformation, obtained in temporal lordship the benefices formerly heid by bishops and abbots, were called Lords of Erection. Persons to whom rights of regality were granted in Scotland (see REGALITY), were termed Lords of Regality. The representative of the soveen in the General Assembly of the Church of Netland (see ASSEMBLY, GENERAL), is called the Lord High Commissioner. The judges of the Courts of Session and Justiciary in Scotland have the title 'Lord' prefixed to their surname or some territorial designation assumed by them; and throughout the three kingdoms, judges are addressed My Lord' when presiding in court.

LORD ADVOCATE OF SCOTLAND. ADVOCATE.

See

LORD OF THE MANOR, the owner of a manor having copyhold tenants. See MANOR.

LORD ORDINARY. See COURT OF SESSION. LORDS, HOUSE of. See PARLIAMENT. LORD'S-DAY, in point of law, has been made the subject of several statutes. The chief statute in England is the Lord's-day Act, 29 Ch. II. c. 7, which enacted that no tradesman, artificer, workman, or labourer should exercise the worldly labour, business, or work of his ordinary calling upon the Lord's-day (works of necessity and charity only excepted), nor any person should publicly cry, or expose to sale, wares, fruit, herbs, &c.; but nothing in the act was to extend to prohibiting the dressing of meat in families or inns, cook-shops or victualling houses, nor the selling of milk within certain hours. To these exceptions, selling mackerel and baking bread were added subsequently. These statutes have been construed strictly by the courts on the ground that they restrain the liberty of the subject, for, without a statute, ordinary work would be as competent on the Sunday as on any other day. Hence, unless a case comes within the strict letter of the statute, there is no disability. Thus, a horse may be sold on Sunday by one who is not a horse-dealer, for then it is not part of the seller's ordinary calling. So a farmer may hire a servant on that day; indeed, the statute does not apply to farmers, attorneys, surgeons, and those not included in the above statutory description, and therefore those parties can do their work on Sunday as on other days. Irrespective of any statute, it has been the immemorial course of practice in courts of law not to do legal business on Sunday, and not to recognise the service of writs, warrants, &c., of a civil nature, if made on Sunday. Thus, no debtor can be arrested for debt on Sunday, and hence he may walk at large that day, free from molestation of bailiffs. But if any crime has been committed, the party can be arrested on Sunday as well as other days. There is a special provision by statute as to ale-houses, beer-houses, and refreshment-houses being open on Sundays, the general effect of which is only to close these places during church hours. If any game is pursued on Sunday, whether by poachers or not, a penalty is incurred. There is also a statute of 1 Ch. I. prohibiting sports or pastimes of certain descriptions. Except as above mentioned, there is no difference made as to the

validity of acts done on Sunday, though it is an erroneous popular impression that deeds or wills, bills of exchange, &c., dated or executed on Sunday are invalid.

In Scotland, the law varies in some respects from that of England on this matter. There also contracts made on Sunday are not null at common law, but numerous statutes have passed prohibiting contracts, whether made in the course of one's ordinary business or not, and whether made by workmen, artificers, &c., or not. But there is an exception of works of necessity and mercy. It is, however, doubtful how far these old statutes are in desuetude or not, and judges have said they only apply to public not private acts done on Sunday. In Scotland, the rule is acted on, that the enforcement of decrees and warrants, poindings, and other process or diligence in civil matters, are void; but it is otherwise in criminal matters. It is singular that there is no distinct penalty imposed in Scotland, as there is in England and Ireland, by the Game Acts, on persons sporting on Sunday. But Scotland outstrips England and Ireland in the stringency with which public-houses are prohibited from being open on that day. See PUBLIC-HOUSES.

It is

LORD'S SUPPER, THE, is one of the sacraments of the Christian religion (see SACRAMENT). so called from its being instituted at supper by Jesus Christ, whom his disciples styled the Lord or Master. It receives also the names of Eucharist and Communion (q. v.). With the exception of the Quakers, all sects of Christians, however different their views as to its nature, agree in celebrating it as one of the most sacred rites of religion. The present article is written from the point of view of those who admit more or less the idea of a historical development of the doctrines connected with the Lord's Supper; the views of Roman Catholics, who hold that the doctrines of their church on the subject were delivered by our Lord and his apostles, and have from the first centuries been taught in substance in the church, will be found under other heads. See MASS; TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

The circumstances of sorrow amid which it was instituted, and its intimate relation to the crowning work of Jesus, his death, had, at the very outset, made a deep impression upon the early church. Not only was the solemnity, in conformity with its original institution, repeated daily in conjunction with the so-called Agapa (q. v.) (lovefeasts), and retained as a separate rite when these feasts were set aside; but from the very first it was believed to possess a peculiar efficacy, and soon ideas of the wonderful and mystical became associated with it. The Lord's Supper was celebrated on every important occasion of life-when entering on marriage, when commemorating departed friends and martyrs, &c.; to those that could not be present at the meeting of the congregation, such as prisoners, sick persons, and children, the indispensable food of heaven was carried by the deacons, and in some churches-those of Africa, for instance the communicants took part of the materials of the feast home with them, that they might welcome the gift of a new day with consecrated food. Heathens also and unworthy persons were excluded from this holy mystery. As early as the 2d c., Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus advance the opinion, that the mere bread and wine became, in the Eucharist, something higher

the earthly, something heavenly-without, however, ceasing to be bread and wine. Though these views were opposed by some eminent individual Christian teachers, such as Origen (died 254), who took a figurative conception of the sacrament, and

depreciated its efficacy; yet both among the people and in the ritual of the church, more particularly after the 4th c., the miraculous or supernatural view of the Lord's Supper gained ground. After the 3d c., the office of presenting the bread and wine came to be confined to the ministers or priests. This practice arose from, and in turn strengthened the notion which was gaining ground, that in this act of presentation by the priest, a sacrifice, similar to that once offered up in the death of Christ, though bloodless, was ever anew presented to God. This still deepened the feeling of mysterious significance and importance with which the rite of the Lord's Supper was viewed, and led to that gradually increasing splendour of celebration which under Gregory the Great (590) took the form of the mass. See MASS. As in Christ two distinct natures, the divine and the human, were wonderfully combined, so in the Eucharist there was a corresponding union of the earthly and the heavenly.

For a long time there was no formal declaration of the mind of the church on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. At length, in the first half of the 9th c., a discussion on the point was raised by the Abbot of Corvei, Paschasius Radbertus, and Ratramnus, a learned monk of the same convent; they exchanged several violent controversial writings De Sanguine et Corpore Domini, and the most distinguished men of the time took part in the discussion. Paschasius maintained that the bread and wine are, in the act of consecration, transformed by the omnipotence of God into that very body of Christ which was once born of Mary, nailed to the cross, and raised from the dead. According to this conception, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the outward form, the taste and the smell; while Ratramnus would only allow that there is some change in the bread and wine themselves, but granted that an actual transformation of their power and efficacy takes place. The greater accordance of the first view with the credulity of the age, its love of the wonderful and magical, as well as with the natural desire for the utmost possible nearness to Christ, in order to be unfailingly saved by him, the interest of the priesthood to add lustre to a rite which enhanced their own office, and the apparently logical character of the inference, that where the power, according to universal admission, was changed, there must be a change also of the substance; the result of all these concurring influences was, that when the views of Ratramnus were in substance revived by Berengarius, Canon of Tours, in opposition to Lanfranc, Bishop of Canterbury, and Cardinal Humbert, the doctrine of Transubstantiation, as it came to be called, triumphed, and was officially approved by the Council of Rome in 1079. In the fourth Lateran Council at Rome, 1215, under Innocent III., Transubstantiation was declared to be an article of faith; and it has continued to be so held by the Roman Catholic Church to the present day. The Greek Catholic Church sanctioned the same view of Transubstantiation at the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672.

The Reformation of the 16th c. again raised the question on the nature of the Eucharist. The Lutheran Church rejected from the first the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, as well as of the mass, i. e., the constant renewal of the sacrifice of Christ, and merely taught that, through the power of God, and in a way not to be explained, the body and blood of Christ are present in, with, and under the unchanged bread and wine. In opposition to this doctrine, it was laid down by Zwingli, that the Lord's Supper is a mere commemoration of the death of Christ, and a profession of belonging to his church, the bread and wine being only symbols: a view which is

adopted in substance by the Socinians, Arminians, and German Catholics. Luther bitterly opposed the symbolical view, especially towards the latter part of his career; Zwingli's doctrine was more repugnant to him than the deeper and more mystic Catholic doctrine. See IMPANATION.

Calvin sought to strike a middle course, which has been substantially followed by the Reformed churches. According to him, the body of Christ is not actually present in the bread and wine, which he also holds to be mere symbols. But the 'faithful' receiver is, at the moment of partaking, brought into union with Christ, through the medium of the Holy Spirit, and receives of that heavenly power (efficacy) which is always emanating from his glorified body in heaven. Melanchthon, in this controversy, was inclined to the views of Calvin; but he thought a union might be effected by adopting the declaration that Christ in the Eucharist is 'truly and really' present (not merely in faith). The endeavours of Melanchthon and his party, by arbitrary alterations of the Augsburg Confession and other means, to effect a public reconciliation, only served to rouse among the partisans of Luther a furious theological storm, and the result was the establishment of the peculiar views of Luther, and the final separation of the Lutheran and Reformed churches.

The whole controversy relates to the mode in which the body and blood of Christ are present in the Lord's Supper; for it was agreed on all hands that they are present in some way. The Reformed theologians argued that presence is a relative term, opposed not to distance, but to absence; and that presence, in this case, does not mean local nearness, but presence in efficacy. Here they parted company both with the Roman Catholic Church and with the Lutherans. They were willing to call this presence 'real' (if they want words,' as Zwingli said), meaning true and efficacious, but they would not admit corporal or essential presence. But while the Reformed churches were at one in holding, that by receiving the body and blood of Christ, is meant, receiving their virtue and efficacy, there is some difference in their way of expressing what that efficacy is. Some said it was their efficacy as broken and shed-i. e., their sacrificial efficacy; others, in addition to this, speak of a mysterious supernatural efficacy flowing from the glorified body of Christ.

With regard to the Reformed churches, it may be remarked that their Confessions on this point were mostly formed for the express purpose of compromise, to avoid a breach with the Lutherans. Hence the language of these Confessions contains more of the mystical element, than the framers of them seem, in other parts of their writings, to favour. And it is remarkable that the Anglican Confessions, which were framed under different circumstances, lean more to the symbolical view of Zwingli than those of any other of the Reformed churches. The Thirty-nine Articles, after laying down that 'to such as with faith receive the same, it is a partaking of the body of Christ,' repudiate the notion of Transubstantiation; and add: The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith.'

The Presbyterian Church of Scotland adopted substantially the views of Calvin. The words of the Westminster Confession are: "That doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called Transubstantiation) by consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant not to scripture alone, but even to

common sense and reason. . . Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Carist being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.'

This variety of dogmatical opinion as to the

Eucharist naturally gave rise to variety in the cerementals of its observance. The Catholic notion of a mysterious transformation, produced the dread of allowing any of the bread and wine to drop, and led to the substitution of wafers (hostia, oblata) for the breaking of bread. The doctrine of the real union,' which declares that in the bread as well as in the wine, in each singly and by itself, Christ entire is present and tasted-a doctrine which was attested by wafers visibly bleeding caused the cup to be gradually withdrawn from the laity and non-officiating priests; this practice was first authoritatively sanctioned at the Council of Constance, 1415. All the Reformed churches restored the cup: in the Greek Church it had never been given. From the same feeling of deep reverence for the Eucharist, the communion of children gradually came, after the 12th e, to be discontinued. The Greek Church alone admits the practice. Grounded on the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the Greek and Roman Catholic Churches hold the elevation of the host' in, victim or sacrifice) to be a symbol of the exaltation of Christ from the state of humiliation; connected with this is the adoration of the host,' and the carrying it about in solemn procession. The use of leavened bread in the Greek Church, and of anleavened in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran, of water mixed with wine in the Roman Catholic and Greek Churches, and of unmixed wine in the Protestant Churches, are trifling differences, mostly owing their origin to accidental circumstances; yet, once magnified into importance by symbolical explanations, they have given occasion to the hottest controversies. The greater part of the Reformed churches agree in breaking the bread and letting the communicants take it with the hand not with the mouth); and this practice is owing to the original tendency of those churches to the symbolical conception of the Eucharist, in which the breaking of the bread and the pouring out of

the wine are essential elements.

Although the great divisions of the Christian world have continued as churches to adhere to those doctrines about the Lord's Supper which were fixed and stereotyped in Acts of Council and Articles and Confessions about the time of the Reformation, we are not to suppose that the opinions of individuals within those churches continue equally uniform and fixed. Even Roman Catholic theologians, like Bossuet, have sometimes endeavoured to understand the doctrine of the church in a philosophical sense; and in the Lutheran Church, the greatest variety of canon prevails. Some uphold unmodified the dogmas Luther; others accept them with explanation; Hegel even undertook to ground them on speculative reason. Others, as Schleiermacher, would have recourse to the views of Calvin as a means of reconciliation with the Reformed churches. Even all 'supernatural' theologians do not adhere strictly to the formulas of the church; while rationalism in all its phases tends to the pure symbolism of Zwingli. The Anglican Church is divided on this, as on several kindred topics, into two parties with one, the symbolical view of the rite is predominant; the

other party reprobate this view as 'low,' and maintain an objective mystical presence' of the thing signified, along with the sign. Notwithstanding the higher' doctrine of the Scotch Confession, the tendency in Scotland seems to be more the other way; from the pulpit, the rite is oftener spoken of in its commemorative character, and the signs as means of working upon the mind and feelings subjectively, than as the vehicle of any objective, mystically operating grace.

province of Macerata, in the kingdom of Italy, LORETTO (properly, LORETO), a city of the although of some architectural pretensions, and containing 8000 inhabitants, is chiefly noticeable as the site of the celebrated sanctuary of the Blessed The Santa Casa is reputed to be the house, or a Virgin Mary, called the Santa Casa, or Holy House. portion of the house, in which the Virgin lived in Nazareth, which was the scene of the Annunciation, of the Nativity, and of the residence of our Lord with his mother and Joseph; and which, after the Holy Land had been finally abandoned to the infidel on the failure of the Crusades, is believed to have been miraculously translated, first, in 1291, to Fiume in Dalmatia, and thence, December 10, 1294, to Recanati, whence it was finally transferred to its derived from Laureta, the lady to whom the site present site. Its name (Lat. Domus Lauretana) is belonged. It would be out of place in a work like this to enter into any polemical discussion of this the sanctuary, and although indulgences have been legend. Although numberless pilgrims resort to attached by Julius II., Sixtus V., and Innocent XII. to the pilgrimages, and to the prayers offered at the shrine; yet the truth of the legend is no part of Catholic belief, and Catholics hold themselves free to examine critically its truth, and to admit or to reject it according to the rules of historical evidence. The church of the Santa Casa stands near the centre of the town, in a piazza which possesses other architectural attractions, the chief of which are the governor's palace, built from the designs of Bramante, and a fine bronze statue of Pope Sixtus V. The great central door of the church is surmounted by a splendid bronze statue of the Madonna; and in the interior are three magnificent bronze doors filled with bas-reliefs, representing the principal events of scriptural and ecclesiastical history. The celebrated Holy House stands within. small brick-house, with one door and one window, originally of rude material and construction, but

It is a

now, from the devotion of successive generations, a marvel of art and of costliness. It is entirely cased with white marble, exquisitely sculptured, after Bramante's designs, by Sansovino, Bandinelli, Giovanni Bolognese, and other eminent artists. The subjects of the bas-reliefs are all taken from the history of the Virgin Mary in relation to the mystery of the Incarnation, as the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Nativity, with the exception of three on the eastern side, which are mainly devoted to the legend of the Holy House itself and of its translation. The rest of the interior of the church is rich with bas-reliefs, mosaics, frescoes, paintings, and work is the font, which is a master-piece of art. Of this material, the finest carvings in bronze. The Holy House having been at all times an object of devout veneration, its treasury of votive offerings is one of the richest in the western world. It suffered severely in the French occupation of 1796, but it has since received numerous and most costly accessions. The frescoes of the Treasury of Rome. Chapel are among the finest to be found outside

L'ORIENT, a seaport of France, department of

Morbihan, situated at the confluence of the Scorff and Blavet, in lat. 47° 48' N., and long. 3° 25' W. Pop. 28,412. It is a well-built town, but rather dulllooking. The harbour, dockyard, and arsenal are among the best and largest in France, and the place ranks as a fortress of the third class; but its commerce received a blow at the Revolution in 1789, from which it has never recovered. L. has a communal college, a school of navigation, and another of marine artillery. The inhabitants are engaged chiefly in ship-building and the allied occupations. The only important manufacture is that of hats.

L. owes its origin to the French East India Company, which built an establishment here in 1666, for the purpose of trading to the East (whence the name of the town).

LO'RIMER (Fr. lormier, from Lat. lorum, a thong), a maker of bits, spurs, stirrup-irons, metal mountings for saddles and bridles, and generally of all articles of horse-furniture. In London, the lorimers, who had previously formed part of another guild, were incorporated by letters-patent in 1712; in the Scottish burghs, they have been comprehended as a branch of the corporation of Hammermen. Cutlers, locksmiths, and brass-founders have been considered as in the exercise of branches of the lorimer art, and therefore bound to enter with the corporation. The Court of Session, in 1830, held it to be a violation of the exclusive privileges of the lorimer craft to manufacture bits, stirrup-irons, and other metallic articles of horse-furniture, with a view to silver-plating them before selling.

LO'RIS, a genus of Lemurida, differing from the true lemurs in having a round head and short muzzle, very large eyes, and no tail. The two species known are both natives of the East Indies. The largest species, L. tardigradus, is not so large as a cat; the other, L. gracilis, is much smaller.

Loris (L. gracilis).

They are nocturnal animals, and spend the day generally sleeping attached to a branch, which they grasp firmly with all their four hands, the body rolled up into a ball, and the head hidden among the legs. Their fur is rich and soft. Their motions are slow, and they advance stealthily and noiselessly on the insects and birds on which they prey. They feed, however, partly on fruits and other vegetable food; in confinement, they readily eat rice and milk, and are very fond of eggs.

LORRAINE, originally a portion of the German empire. Its history dates from 855, when Lotharius II. obtained (see CARLOVINGIANS) the lands between

the Scheldt, Rhine, Meuse, and Saône, called the Kingdom of Lotharius (Lotharii Regnum), or Lotharingia, or Lorraine. The district now known as Rhenish Prussia was separated from L. in the 10th c., and the remainder was divided in 1044 into two duchies, Upper and Lower Lorraine. The latter, after many vicissitudes, came into the possession of Austria, and now forms one half of the kingdom of Belgium, and the provinces of Brabant and Gelderland, in Holland. Upper L. continued to be governed by its own dukes till 1736, when it was given to Stanislas, ex-king of Poland, and on his death in 1766 was united to France, forming the province of Lorraine. It is now subdivided into the departments of the Meuse, Moselle, Meurthe, Vosges, and some of the cantons of the Lower Rhine. The inhabitants are of German origin, but speak the French language, with the exception of the district lying between Metz and the Vosges, which is called German Lorraine.

LORRAINE, CLAUDE. See CLAUDE LORRAINE. LORY (Lorius), a genus of birds of the parrot family (Psittacidae), natives chiefly of the south-east of Asia and the Eastern Archipelago. They have a dense soft plumage, exhibiting the most rich and mellow colours; the tail is rounded or graduated, generally not long; the bill is feebler than in many of the parrots, and the upper mandible much arched. They are very active and lively, even in confinement, and are also of very gentle and affectionate disposition. Red, scarlet, crimson, and yellow are the prevailing colours of their plumage; but the name L. is often extended to some Australian birds of the same family, in which much more of a green colour appears, and which have a stronger bill and feed much on the softest and most juicy fruits; the a much less gentle disposition. The true lories Australian birds so called are very troublesome as robbers of the fields of ripening maize.

LOSSI'NI (Ger. Lussin), an island in the Gulf of Quarnero, Adriatic Sea, forming part of the Austrian Küstenland, lies immediately south-west of Cherso (q. v.). Length, 21 miles; breadth, from 1 to 3 miles. The principal place on the island is L. Piccolo, or Little L., with 7100 inhabitants, a fine harbour, and an active trade.

LOST PROPERTY. In point of law, the finder of lost property is entitled to keep it until the owner is found; but there are certain circumstances in which the keeping of it will be construed by a jury to amount to larceny. The rule which seems to be laid down in recent cases in England which have been fully discussed, is, that if the finder find the property in such circumstances that he either knows the owner, or has ready means of discovering him, then the taking of the property with intent to keep it will be larceny. If, for example, a servant find a sovereign in her master's house, and keep it, that would be larceny. So it was held to be larceny where the prompter on the stage of a theatre picked up a £50 note which had been dropped by one of the actors. On the other hand, if there be no reasonable probability of ever discovering the true owner, then there is no larceny. The all important point of time for the jury to inquire into is, when the finder picked up the article; for if, on examination, he did not then ascertaining, he will not become guilty merely because he afterwards, on hearing of the owner, nevertheless keeps it." It has also been decided that the mere keeping of a lost article, in hopes of getting a reward for giving it up, and though the owner be known, does not amount to larceny. There is also no obligation on the finder of lost

know who the owner was, nor had the means of