of Clarendon (see HENRY II.) declared that the bishops should hold their lands as baronies, and attend the king's court. It is probable that the prelates are now summoned to parliament as territorial barons, and it may be that this title by tenure merges all claims founded upon episcopal dignities and supported by ancient usage. The bishops were excluded from parliament during the commonwealth, but were restored by statute. With this single interruption, the bishops have always been present in parliament, and with unquestioned right. The lords spiritual are lords of parliament, though not peers of the realm. When therefore a peer is to be tried, the bishops are entitled to take part in the proceedings, though, in conformity with the canons of the church, which forbid them to vote in capital causes, they are generally absent from the judgment. Being not of noble blood, like the hereditary peers, for a capital offence they are tried by a jury like other commoners.— The lords temporal are divided into dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons. They are the hereditary peers of the realm, ennobled in blood, and subject to loss of their dignities only by attainder or by act of parliament. Since the union with Scotland in 1707, and with Ireland in 1801, 16 Scottish and 28 Irish representative peers have been returned to parliament by the peerages of Scotland and Ireland. They enjoy all the privileges of parliament, and may sit upon the trial of peers. A peer is made so by the royal patent or writ which summons him to parliament, and the dignity is usually made hereditary by limitation to the heirs male of his body, although it is sometimes provided that it may descend to others, as for instance, to his nephew or brother. The power of the crown to create a life peerage raised in 1856 a very important question, and one which was very earnestly debated. On retiring from the bench Sir James Parke (Lord Wensleydale) was created baron of the United Kingdom for and during his life, instead of the usual limitation. Government urged as a reason for granting life peerages, the convenience of adding to the number of law lords in the house, the law lords being peers who have held high judicial office in the kingdom, and who substantially alone determine all judicial causes. It had happened in 1855 that only two law lords, the lord chancellor and Lord St. Leonards, had sat to hear arguments. Upon some of the causes they differed in opinion, and as, upon a familiar maxim in the procedure of the lords, this equality of votes led in each case to affirmance of the decrees brought up from inferior courts, appellants argued that there was virtually no decision, and expressed great discontent. For the remedy of this and other mischiefs the creation of life peerages was proposed. After prolonged discussion, however, the lords decided, if not against the strict legality of the measure, yet against its constitutional expediency. The crown retreated from its position, and Lord Wensleydale received a patent in the usual form. The peers of the realm possess

titles of honor which give them the privileges of rank and precedence; and they are individually the hereditary counsellors of the crown; with the lords spiritual they form, when not assembled in parliament, the permanent council of the sovereign, though they may act in the same capacity when so assembled, as for example in addressing the throne upon matters of foreign or of domestic policy. When sitting in parliament the peers form in conjunction with the lords spiritual a branch of the supreme legislature of the kingdom; and, in the exercise of peculiar functions, they constitute a court of judicature. In its judicial office the house of lords possesses a distinctive character as the highest tribunal of the realm. The lords have an original and exclusive jurisdiction in the trial of peers, and under reference from the crown upon claims of peerage and affairs of honors. By the acts of union they have a like jurisdiction over cases of contested elections, or the rotation of the Scottish or Irish representative peers. They have also a general jurisdiction as the supreme court of appeals from the other courts of the kingdom. These judicial functions the house of lords retains as the representative of the ancient concilium regis, or council of the king. Without going so far back into antiquity as the witenagemote, which was indeed the highest judicial tribunal of the AngloSaxons, and like the house of lords paramount to every other, a closer resemblance to the present order may be found in the institutions of the early Norman kings. William the Conqueror erected a new court, the curia, or aula regis, composed of the high officers of the state, which, when affairs demanded, was increased by the king's chief barons, his tenants in capite. This court transacted all business, civil and criminal, as well as that which concerned revenue or war. This magnum concilium, as Lord Holt calls it, was the same as the present high court of parliament, the house of lords, and had jurisdiction, as just mentioned, both in civil and criminal causes, especially in those relating to great persons and to king's officers of state, and by way of appeal from all other courts; and now the lords possess an appellate jurisdiction as a court of last resort for the correction of errors from inferior tribunals.

In respect to the construction of the house for any purpose, legislative or judicial, there is no distinction between the lords temporal and the lords spiritual. The presence of three members, whether spiritual or temporal, who have been duly summoned and sworn, is necessary and sufficient; and when a speaker has been appointed, the house is constituted and may proceed to act either as a branch of the legislature or as a supreme court of judicature. The lord chancellor or lord keeper of the great seal is speaker ex officio, and an ancient order declares it to be "his duty ordinarily to attend the lords' house of parliament." To make provision, however, for his necessary absence, deputy speakers are appointed by commis

sion from the crown, "to officiate from time to time during the royal pleasure in the room and place of the lord chancellor." The office is generally conferred upon the chief justice of the king's bench, or the chief baron of the exchequer. In the absence of both the lord chancellor or keeper and the deputy speakers, the lords themselves select a speaker pro tempore. The person who acts as speaker need not be a member of the house, nor indeed of the peerage. Commoners have often been raised to the office. They may sit as speakers upon the woolsack, for constitutionally that is not within the limits of the house. The lords answer "content" or "not content" in voting, and on an equality of votes the effect is the same as if there were a majority of "not content," for the maxim of the house is: Semper præsumitur pro negante. In conformity to this rule, the question upon appeals or writs of error is upon the reversal and not the affirmance of the decrees of the court below. In its judicial capacity the house of lords is undoubtedly a court of record, though it is not so, says Lord Kenyon, when acting as a legislative body. Though, in matters of a legislative character, all proceedings in the house of lords drop with the session, yet all judicial processes remain in statu quo, notwithstanding the prorogation, or even the dissolution of parliament. Upon all questions before the house in its legislative character, proxies may be and often are used; but by a standing order of the year 1697 no proxies are permitted to be used in any judicial matter. The lords are entitled constitutionally to the assistance of certain high legal functionaries of the realm. The justices of the king's bench and of the common pleas, the barons of the exchequer, the attorney-general, solicitor-general, and king's sergeants are commanded by the writ, under the great seal, which accompanies the patents of their offices, "to give their attendance in parliament, and to treat, confer, and give their advice." These officers were originally summoned as members of the concilium regis ordinarium, who at a very remote period probably gave their votes on judgment. Their duties were anciently of the first importance. No cause was heard without their assistance; they gave opinions and advice upon questions of law and equity, prepared special judgments, and drew up issues when trials at law were directed. But for more than a century and a half the judicial functions of the house of lords have been exercised almost entirely without the assistance or even presence of the judges. They appear very rarely now in the house, and then only when specially summoned. The summons is usually directed to the common law. judges, for they are excluded from the house of commons, while the attorney-general, the solicitor-general, master of the rolls, and king's sergeants are not. This order for the attendance of the judges may issue either upon the proper motion of the house or upon petition of tuitors, if it appear from the character of the

case that judicial assistance will be needed.The jurisdiction of the lords upon writs of error is of great antiquity, but that upon appeals from courts of equity is of recent origin. The first instance of an appeal is found in the year 1621. During that century the exercise of this judicature by the lords led to angry and prolonged disputes between the two houses of parliament. The right to exercise it was questioned by some of the first lawyers of the time. Sir Matthew Hale contended that the power of their lordships to examine the judgments of courts of law was derived solely from the commission implied in the royal writ of error, and that the house could not adjudicate upon an appeal without violating the great constitutional maxim which supposes all jurisdiction to be derived immediately and exclusively from the crown. Particularly in the celebrated case of Dr. Sherley against Sir John Fagg, was this question most vigorously contested. The commons were not fairly defeated, yet they finally acquiesced, and since that period no resistance has been made to the lords' claim of power to receive and determine appeals from the equity courts. This triumph of the peers is usually ascribed to the earl of Shaftesbury, who insisted that the lords' power of review extended over all the courts in the kingdom, civil, criminal, and ecclesiastical. But from the last named courts appeals have never been entertained. So orders made on motion or petition in matters of idiocy, lunacy, or bankruptcy cannot be carried up to the lords, but must be presented to the king in council. Appeals lie from all courts of equity in England and Ireland, and in Scotland from the courts of session and from the commission of teinds, composed of the judges of the court of session, and established for "the plantation of kirks and valuation of tithes." The decrees or sentences of her majesty's court of exchequer are also reviewable by the house of lords; but as appeals are competent only upon proceedings which follow the forms of equity practice, and as these are unknown to the Scotch court of exchequer, the mode of relief from this court is by writ of error to parliament and not upon appeal.-The ancient course of proceeding upon error was, says Sir Matthew Hale, either by petition or by writ, both forms however being substantially the same. During 18 months of the session of the long parliament, from May, 1646, to Dec. 1648, 162 writs of error were brought before that body. This fact indicates that this jurisdiction was even then familiar and popular; indeed, the forms of procedure at present do not differ materially from those settled upon three centuries ago. Writs of error to the lords are confined to matters of law. They lie from all judgments of the courts of exchequer chamber in England and Ireland, and from all judgments in common law of the court of exchequer in Scotland; from all such judgments of the courts of queen's bench in England or Ireland as are not intermediately reviewable by the courts of exchequer chamber

of the two countries; from all judgments of the common law or petty bag side of the high court of chancery; and from decisions of the commissioners of error appointed to review the common law proceedings of the London municipal jurisdictions. Sir Matthew Hale says the lords have power to reverse their own judgments; but no example of an exercise of this power can be found within several centuries. In the case of Titus Oates, the lords in 1689 affirmed the rigorous judgment of the court of king's bench. Subsequently they were disposed to recall their decree, and the concurrent action of both houses seems to indicate that an act of parliament, which was then proposed though not carried, is the only means by which a judgment of the lords can be reversed.-Until 1857 divorce in England was of two kinds, judicial and parliamentary. When consanguinity or affinity within the forbidden degrees, physical incapacity or mental imbecility, rendered the parties incapable of making a contract of marriage, the ecclesiastical courts might pronounce the nullity of a presumed marriage, or in other words declare that it had in fact never existed; in cases of conjugal infidelity they might decree a separation or divorce a mensa et thoro; but in neither branch of their jurisdiction of divorce did the courts assume to break the legal bond of marriage. Divorce a vinculo was possible only upon an act of parliament. The jurisdiction in causes of divorce was not indeed exclusively reserved to the upper house, but it formed an important branch of its judicial functions. The divorce act of 1857 (20-21 Victoria, c. 85) introduced important modifications into the English law of divorce, and into the jurisdiction over it both of the ecclesiastical courts and of parliament. The act transfers the power of the ecclesiastical courts in this province to the newly created "Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes," which is empowered in certain prescribed cases to decree an absolute dissolution of marriage. From the decision of this court, upon petition for dissolution, the act permits either party to prosecute an appeal before the house of lords. Cases are now frequently tried in the house of lords, and reports of these cases fill many large volumes. But, in point of fact, the trial or argument proceeds almost always before the "law lords," with a very few other peers who attend for form's sake, and usually take no part in the hearing or decision.

LORD'S SUPPER, a sacrament instituted by Christ on the night before his death. Some denominations, as the Paulicians in the ancient church, and the society of Friends in modern times, have denied that it was the intention of Christ to make this a religious institution for future times; but the vast majority of Christians from the earliest period of the church have regarded it as an ordinance or sacrament instituted by Christ, and celebrated as such. Some denominations (Roman Catholics, the eastern churches, and Lutherans) believe that in it Christ as God-man is really present and communicates

himself to the receiver; others (the Calvinists), denying the real presence of Christ in the elements, yet believe that there is in it a real communication of Christ with the believer; others again, that it is essentially a commemorative institution in remembrance of the sufferings and death of Christ. This last view prevails among most Protestant churches. The name Lord's supper is scriptural, being taken from 1 Cor. xi. 20. Other biblical names are "the Lord's table” and "the Lord's cup" (1 Cor. x. 21). Many other terms were early introduced in the church, of which "communion" (borrowed from 1 Cor. x. 16) and "eucharist" (Gr. euxapistia, thanksgiving) are the most common. The most important passages for determining the doctrine of the Bible respecting the Lord's supper are the accounts which the evangelists Matthew (xxvi. 26-29), Mark (xiv. 22–25), and Luke (xxii. 1939), and the apostle Paul (1 Cor. xi. 24-26), give of Christ's last supper with his disciples. All four say in substance that "Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said: Take, eat; this is my body;" and that he "took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the new testament." Matthew has after "my blood of the new testament" the additional words: "which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Luke and Paul have also the words: "this do in remembrance of me." Paul warns the Corinthians (1 Cor. x. 16-21) that they cannot partake of the Lord's table and at the same time eat of the pagan sacrifices, because "the things which the gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God;" and in another place of the same epistle (xi. 27-29), that "whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," and "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." There are many other passages in the New Testament which some interpreters refer to the Lord's supper, but none of them as explicit as those mentioned above.-The words of the Bible were early interpreted in different ways. In the earliest periods of the church there were sects which felt at liberty to change the elements, and to take water instead of wine, and cheese instead of, or in addition to, bread. Many of the words of the early fathers concerning the Lord's supper are capable of various interpretations, and have been claimed by various parties for the confirmation of their views. But it is generally admitted that the celebration of the Lord's supper in the early church was a general usage, and was regarded by many fathers not only as something very solemn, but as something highly mysterious. Ignatius, Justin, and Irenæus laid great stress on the mysterious connection existing between the Logos and the elements. Other fathers spoke of the elements as the symbols of the body and blood of Christ; thus Tertullian and Cyprian, both of whom, however, occasionally call the Lord's supper the body and

blood of Christ. It was especially the Alexandrian school (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, &c.) that advocated the symbolical aspect, and even opposed those who made no distinction between the external sign and the thing itself. The church writers became more explicit on the subject of the Lord's supper when after the 3d century the liturgical part of divine service was more developed. Chrysostom called it an "awful mystery." Some of the fathers spoke of "a real union" of the communicants with Christ; others of "a real change" from the visible elements into the body and blood of Christ. The idea that the Lord's supper was also a sacrifice, offered by man, and especially by the priest, was propounded as early as the end of the 2d century. The first great eucharistic controversy was called forth by a book of Paschasius Radbertus in 831 (De Corpore et Sanguine Domini), in which he advanced the doctrine that the substance of the consecrated bread and wine in the eucharist was changed into the very body of Christ which was born of the Virgin. This was declared to be an act of creation by almighty power, though invisible to any but an eye of faith. He was especially opposed by Ratramnus, a monk of Corbie, who adhered to the view that in the Lord's supper there is a communion of the earthly with the heavenly. The controversy was brought before the highest ecclesiastical authorities, when Berengarius, archdeacon of Angers, maintained that there was a change in the sacramental elements only in a figurative sense. He contended that not the earthly elements themselves, but their influences, were changed by their connection with Christ in heaven, who was to be received not by the mouth but by the heart. These views were in particular expressed in a letter to Lanfranc, afterward archbishop of Canterbury, who asserted that the body of Christ in heaven remained entirely unaffected by the change in the elements on earth. Several synods in succession, between 1050 and 1079, condemned the views of Berengarius. At the synod of Rome in 1059 Berengarius consented to subscribe to a confession in which, in very strong expressions, a bodily participation in the flesh and blood of Christ was asserted. He recalled this confession, and resumed the controversy, but in 1079 consented to a still more decided declaration. The term "transubstantiation" was used in the 12th century by Hildebert of Tours, and was soon generally adopted as best expressing the general belief of the church. Similar expressions, as 66 transition," had been used before. The 4th council of Lateran, in 1215, declared transubstantiation an article of faith, and in 1267 a special holy day (Corpus Christi) was instituted, to give annually a public exhibition of the belief of the church. Already a considerable time before, it had become customary in the Latin church to give to the laity the Lord's supper only under the form of the bread, though, as the church declared, solely from reasons of exVOL. X.-42

pediency. The council of Basel expressly confirmed the doctrine that Christ exists wholly in either of the elements (for which doctrine the theologians used the term "concomitance"). Abbot Rupertus Quotiensis, in the 12th century, had advanced the doctrine of the union of the body and blood of Christ with the bread (impanation), and was followed by several theologians, even after the definition of the dogma of transubstantiation by the Lateran council. Wycliffe opposed both transubstantiation and impanation, and, with Berengarius, believed in a change from an inferior into a superior. The Greek church, when it separated from the Latin, also believed in a change of the elements into the body and blood of Christ; and in the efforts for a union of the two churches, the question of leavened or unleavened bread was the only point of difference with regard to the Lord's supper. With the reformation of the 16th century the controversy respecting this doctrine began anew. The reformers agreed in rejecting the mass and transubstantiation, and demanded, as the Hussites had done before them, that the sacrament should be given to the laity under both forms. But they differed among themselves concerning the words of institution and the essence of the sacrament. Luther maintained the real and substantial presence of the body and blood of Christ, taking place, not by a transmutation of the external elements, but by a supernatural, though inconceivable, union (unio sacramentalis) of the body and blood of Christ with the consecrated bread and wine. Christ is present, according to the words of the larger catechism of Luther, in and under the bread, and is received not only by the good, but also by the wicked. In connection with his doctrine of the Lord's supper Luther maintained the ubiquity of the body of Christ. The objective effect of the Lord's supper, according to Luther, is the remission of sins; the subjective consists in the confirmation of the regeneration which commenced in baptism. Zwingli regarded the bread and wine only as momentous signs of remembrance of the body and blood of Christ, which are in heaven. The effect, in his opinion, consists in a confirmation of our faith in the redemption of mankind through the death of Christ. He explained the "is" in the phrase "this is my body" in a figurative sense, as synonymous with "signifies." Ecolampadius differed from Zwingli only in the grammatical construction of the words of institution, taking, not the word "is," but the whole phrase, and in particular the words "my body," in a figurative sense. Calvin agreed with Zwingli in taking bread and wine only as external signs, but with Luther he believed in a real though only spiritual participation of the body and blood of Christ. This participation does not consist in the infusion of a divine substance, but in a spiritual, animating power which from the glorified body of Christ streams over into our souls. As the glorified body of Christ is now only in heaven, the soul, in order to partake of it, must be elevated in a mysterious

It was,

"host" from the Latin hostia, offering. On one side of it symbolic signs are stamped; since the 13th century, a crucifix with the letters I. N. R. I. (Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judæorum). The Lutherans retained the wafer, but the Reformed and other Protestant denominations declared themselves against it, and took again common bread, and most of them also reintroduced the custom of breaking it. What kind of wine Christ used at the passover has not been determined with full certainty. The church, from the earliest time, considered the color of wine unessential, but white wine was soon generally preferred, as it is still with a majority of the Christian churches. The custom of mingling water with wine is said to have been introduced by Pope Alexander I.; it was expressly enacted in the 12th century, by Clement III., and regarded as a symbol of the blood and water which streamed from Christ's side on the cross. The Roman Catholic church mingles water with wine once before the consecration; the Greek church twice, cold water before, and warm water after the consecration. The Armenian and Protestant churches take unmixed wine.It is admitted by all that in the primitive church the Lord's supper was always celebrated under the two forms of the bread and the cup, and that sects, like the Manichæans, who rejected the wine, were strongly censured. however, an early custom to carry to sick persons merely the bread dipped in wine. In the 13th century Robert Pulleyn, of Oxford, declared it a good custom to give to the laity the bread only, to avoid the danger of spilling any of the wine. This view was very soon adopted by all the scholastics, who maintained that Christ was wholly present under either form, and that one form was sufficient for a valid celebration of the Lord's supper. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura especially recommended the universal introduction of the communion under one form, and this soon became the practice of the entire church. All the sects and reformers of the middle ages, as the Waldenses, Huss, Wycliffe, and Savonarola, protested against this withholding of the cup from the laity. The Protestant churches agreed in regarding the use of both forms as essential for the celebration of the ordinance. The practice of the Roman Catholic church was confirmed by the council of Trent in 1563, and has always since been adhered to by the church. Only those portions of the eastern churches which have acknowledged the supreme jurisdiction of the pope (United Greeks, Armenians, Copts, &c.) have been permitted to retain the communion under both forms, and the same was offered to the Protestants in the attempts to effect a corporative union between them and the Roman Catholic church. In the ancient church bread and wine were consecrated by the bishops and presbyters and distributed by the deacons. In what this consecration consisted is, like the essence of the Lord's supper itself, a subject of controversy among the various Christian denominations. The Roman Catholic

manner, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, to heaven, where it receives the body of Christ not with the mouth, but by faith. Unbelievers do not receive the body of Christ, but only the sign to their own damnation. When, in the 2d half of the 16th century, some Lutheran theologians inclined, after the example of Melanchthon, to the doctrines of Calvin, the CryptoCalvinistic controversy arose in the electorate of Saxony; it ended with the banishment of the Crypto-Calvinists. Most of the other Protestant denominations which arose in and after the 16th century adopted the views of Zwingli, while the society of Friends rejected the Lord's supper altogether as a Jewish ceremony, which Christ had observed like many other ceremonies, but which was not instituted and had no signification for spiritual Christians. The modern German theology of the United Evangelical church aims generally at a compromise between the views of Luther and Calvin, emphasizing real, objective communication of Christ to the worthy receiver, but dropping Luther's doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ's body. In the Lutheran church and the Protestant Episcopal church eucharistic controversies have often occurred, as one party in each church still lays great stress on the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Lord's supper, while another party strenuously opposes it. Those divines of the Lutheran church who adhere to Luther's views concerning the real presence, are generally opposed to an admission of members of the Calvinistic or Zwinglian confessions to the celebration of the Lord's supper in Lutheran churches, and, still more, to Lutherans receiving the sacrament in Calvinistic or Zwinglian churches. A similar question (open or close communion) is agitated in the Baptist churches (see BAPTISTS), where one party_maintains that none can be admitted to the Lord's supper save those who have been baptized (immersed) on a personal profession of their faith in Christ, while others admit all evangelical Christians.-The elements used at the Lord's supper are generally bread and wine. Christ, when celebrating the passover with his disciples, used unleavened wheaten bread. The apostolic church took the leavened bread which Christians used to bring with them for offerings. When these offerings ceased together with the agapæ, the Greek church retained the leavened bread, while in the Latin church since the 8th century unleavened bread has been used. At the separation of the Greek church from the Latin, the use of unleavened bread by the latter formed one of the principal charges of unsound doctrines brought against them by the Greeks, and proved afterward one of the greatest obstacles to a reunion of the two churches. The council of Florence, in 1439, which attempted this reunion, determined that either leavened or unleavened bread might be used; but the eastern church soon rejected this compromise together with the union of the churches. The Latin church gave to the bread the form of a wafer, which received the name