adoration, in the writings attributed to Alcuinus, nor in those of Amalarius, or Florus Magister. * Rabanus Maurus, in his work

* Amalarius has a chapter "De adoratione Sanctæ Crucis" (Hittorpius, De Cath. Eccles. Divinis Officiis, pp. 108 sqq., Rome, 1591), but nothing on the adoration of the host.

Muratori, indeed, quotes from Amalarius (De Divin. Offic., lib. iii. c. 23): "Perseverant retro stantes inclinati, usque dum dicatur, Sed libera nos a malo" (see Hittorpius, p. 165, Rome, 1591), and then he adds: "Hoc est, adorationem per totum canonem continuabant." (De Rebus Liturg., cap. xix., In Migne, c. 1008, In Lit. R. Vet., c. 234.) But it might with equal force be argued that the adoration of the host is practised in the English Church throughout the Communion service. (See Papers on the Eucharistic Presence, p. 575.)

Indeed Amalarius himself gives his reasons for this inclination, and they have nothing whatever to do with adoration of the Eucharist. He says: "Quod enim sequitur, usque, Per omni sæcula sæculorum, expositio est novissimæ petitionis Dominicæ orationis. . . . Ipsi stant inclinati, donec liberarentur a malo. Hi enim sunt Apostoli, qui magna tribulatione erant oppressi: Antequam audirent Domini resurrectionem non se audebant erigere. Sua inclinatione subdiaconi mæstitiam

These notions of Amalarius are ridiculed by Florus Magister (Advers. Amalarium, cap.ii. § 5, Op., edit. Migne, c. 81), but without a word to suggest the idea that a truer account of these ceremonies could be found in the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ to be adored on the altar.

When therefore Mabillon (In Ord. Rom. Com. § vii., Mus. Itali, tom. ii. p. xlix.), followed by Lambertinus (De Sacr. Mis., sect. i. ch. cclxviii. p. 102, Patav. 1745), says "Hac corporis inclinatione adorabant sacram actionem, et sacra mysteria," we must understand (as in many early writings) the word "adoro" in that wider sense in which alone, I suppose, it can be applied to the "sacra actio." (See Dean Aldrich, Reply to Two Discourses, p. 39.) And even so, his assertion can scarcely be said to be fully supported by the words of Amalarius.

As to what Amalarius says in the preceding chapter (xxii.) of the veneration of the Divine Majesty and the Incarnation (which is relied upon by Le Brun, Expli. Miss., tom. i. p. 232), it obviously has reference likewise to mystical interpretation. Mark the words: " Angelorum concentus, dicendo Sanctus, &c. Majestatem Divinam introducit: Turbarum vero, Domini Incarnationem, dicendo: Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini." And observe that all this is before entering on the Canon. Muratori further quotes from the "Ecloga" which bear the name of Amalarius (c. 1009). But the authenticity of these "Ecloga" is questioned. (See Du Pin, Eccles. Hist., English trans., 1699, vol. vii. p. 159) Moreover in them the adoring of the "Sancta" should much rather, I think, be understood of the highest reverence towards sacred things, as effectual proxies representing the crucified Body and outpoured Blood of Christ, than of Divine adoration addressed to the Person of the Son, as really present under their forms.

+ There is found indeed at the end of the first Book of Rabanus, "De Institutione Clericorum," a certain short chapter added, in which the elevation is spoken of and mystically interpreted. The words are: "Elevatio sacerdotis et diaconi corporis et sanguinis Christi, elevationem ejus ad crucem insinuat pro totius mundi salute." (Hittorpius, p. 279; Rabanani Mauri Opera, edit. Migne, tom. i. c. 324.)

But the genuineness of this fragment is very doubtful. Hittorpius says of it: "Additio quæ sequitur, in duobus quibus nos usi sumus exemplaribus, non erat.' (See also L'Aroque's History of the Eucharist, Walker's translation, p. 103; Dallæus, De Rel. Cult. Obj., p. 237.)

Even if it were genuine, it would but support the statements of Germanus of

"De Institutione Clericorum," and in that "De Sacris Ordinibus," is equally silent. And so is Walafrid Strabo in his book "De Rebus Ecclesiasticis."

Yet in the works of these writers will be found, treated at some length, various parts of the Liturgy in use in their days, not omitting such ceremonial particulars as in after times were embodied in rubrical directions.*

Nor are we dependent entirely on these later writers "de ecclesiasticis officiis" for our acquaintance with the usages of the Christian Church in the celebration of the Lord's Supper.

Constantinople, that the elevation of the host was for a commemoration of the lifting up of the Body of Christ on the cross.

Germanus says: "Elatio autem in altum venerandi corporis repræsentat Crucis elationem, et mortem in ea, et ipsam resurrectionem." (Germanus Constant., Theoria Rer. Eccles., In Bibl. Max. Patr., Lugd. 1677, tom. xiii. p. 61.)

So Hugo de Santo Victore: "Post signa Crucis utraque manu elevat sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi, et paulo post deponit: quod significat elevationem corporis Jesu Christi in cruce, et ejusdem in sepulchrum depositionem, unde et calicem corporali palla tegit, quod significat sindonis involutionem." (De Offic. Eccles., lib. ii. cap. xxxviii., Opera, tom. iii. fol. 172, Venice, 1588.)

In this view of the elevation there is nothing to support the teaching of the adoration of the host, or of any similar doctrine. See below, p. 245.

In the "Ordo de Feria VI. Passione Domini" of the "Sacramentarium Gelasianum" in the following rubric: "Istis orationibus suprascriptis expletis, ingrediuntur Diaconi in Sacrarium. Procedunt cum Corpore et Sanguine Domini, quod ante die remansit; et ponunt super altare. Et venit sacerdos ante altare, adorans crucem Domini et osculans. Et dicit: Oremus, et sequitur: Præceptis saltaribus moniti. Et oratio Dominica. Inde, 'Libera nos, Domine, quæsumus. His omnibus expletis adorant omnes sanctam crucem, et communicant." (Muratori, Lit. Rom., tom. i. c. 562.)

This mention of the adoration of the cross makes very observable the omission of all adoration of the host. And this adoration of the cross follows immediately upon the placing of the consecrated elements on the altar, the priest then coming in front of the altar to adore not the host but the cross. And this adoration of the cross is repeated immediately before communicating.

This would little accord with the rationale of the Mass service as now expounded: "Whereas up to the consecration the priest inclined towards the crucifix, he makes his reverence after it to our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament." (Oakley's Ceremonial of the Mass, p. 63, second edition.)

Alluding to the prayer which anciently had place in the Sacramentary of Gregory (see below, Note E), in which the Eucharist is regarded as a "pledge and an image," Soames says: "Hence we can understand sufficiently why this pontiff's liturgical productions, like those of earlier periods, offer no directions for adoring the holy Sacrament. Fond as Gregory was of ritual pomp, who would expect him to enjoin the worship of a pledge and an image?" (Bampton Lectures, p. 371.) And he adds, in a note, "Of this fact anyone may satisfy himself who will consult Menard's Sacramentary of Gregory the Great. No rubric directing the adoration of the Eucharist will be found in that work. Nowhere is this omission more strikingly exemplified than in the rubric relating to the observance of Good Friday (p. 69). Among the ceremonies provided for that solemnity, are the adoration of the cross, and the

Beginning with Justin Martyr* (who gives us a somewhat detailed account of the custom in the second century), we have various notices of such observances as were practised by Christians in the Eucharistic service, and frequent interspersed allusions, in the writings of the Fathers; but among all these we find nothing to lead us to suppose that anything like the adoration of the host, or its elevation for purposes of adoration, was known at all for many centuries in the Christian Church.

receiving of the Eucharist consecrated on the day before, and reserved for the express purpose of administration on that day. There is certainly, therefore, a sufficient opening here for any of those Romish usages which Protestants charge with superstition. Who would have expected, at least who believes in the complete antiquity of Romanism, that these directions for carrying about the consecrated elements should have exhibited no trace of any direction for adoring them?" (Soames, Bampton Lectures, pp. 396, 397.)

*

"Those most ancient writers, Justin Martyr, the author of the Apostolic Constitutions, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who acquaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist, which was generally then one constant part of their public worship; they give no account of any adoration given to the sacrament, or to the consecrated elements, though they are very particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use, the kiss of charity, in token of their mutual love and reconciliation; this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the sacrament. In St. Cyril's time, the first thing was the bringing of water by the deacon, and the priests washing their hands in it, to denote that purity with which they were to compass God's altar; and then the deacon spoke to the people, to give the holy kiss; then bread was brought to the bishop or priest, to which the people joined their Amen, the deacons gave everyone present of the blessed bread, and wine, and water; and to those that were not present, they carried it home. This,' says Justin Martyr, 'we account not common bread, or common drink, but the Body and Blood of Christ, the blessed food, by which our flesh and blood is nourished, that being turned into it,'-which could not be said of Christ's natural Body; nor is there the least mention of any worship given to that, as there present, or to any of the blessed elements. The others are longer and much later, and speak of the particular prayers and thanksgivings that were then used by the Church of the Sursum Corda, Lift up your heart, which St. Cyril says followed after the kiss of charity; of the Sancta Sanctis, Things holy belong to those that are holy; then they describe how they came to communicate, how they held their hand when they received the elements, how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the ground; but among all these most minute and particular descriptions of their way and manner of receiving the sacrament, no account is there of their adoring it, which surely there would have been had there been any such in the Primitive Church, as now in the Roman." (Prebendary Payne, Discourse on the Adoration of the Host in Gibson's Preservative, vol. x. pp. 139-141, London, 1848.)

"Ex Indiis et Japonibus in Europam per Jesuitas invecta illa Eucharistiæ glorificanda formula ita apud multos, præsertim Hispanos, invaluit, ut nihil nunc sit in omni eorum sermone crebrius. Jam si idem fuisset primi Christianismi sensus atque usus, extarent itidem in veris primæ antiquitatis monumentis aliquæ piorum illius memoriæ preces et gratiarum actiones ad sacramentum Eucharisticum directæ. At nullas extare videmus. Multas confessorum et martyrum veterum preces et gratiarum actiones in superiori disputationis parte attulimus, plures piorum ejusdem ævi infra opportunius ubi de Sanctorum cultu dicemus allaturi sumus. Omnes ad Deum

NOTE C (p. 14).

On Elevation, and its Relation to Eucharistic Worship.

Ir must by no means be supposed that the elevation of the host, whenever it began to be practised, implied of necessity anything like an intention of demanding from the people the adoration of a Presence of Christ under its form.

Neither may it be thought that the practice of prostration, or other excessive signs of reverence, are any sufficient evidence of an intent to give Divine worship to any present object.*

If no other proof of this were forthcoming, it would suffice to point to the fact of the Eastern elevation of the Gospel, and the signs of

directæ sunt; nulla plane ad sacramentum. Illam vero nunc apud Latinos frequentissimam, dooλoyíav, Laus sanctissimo sacramento, non modo in vetustissimis Christianorum libris non extare; sed ne sequentium quidem ad nostram pœne memoriam sæculorum monumentis uspiam inveniri, ipsi in fallor, Jesuitæ confitebuntur, suamque hanc propriam esse laudem agnoscent, quod omnium mortalium primi tradiderint, quæ vera ac legitima sit glorificandi sacramenti ratio, ac formula. Etiam qui ante eos Eucharistiam adoraverant, hoc tametsi claro ac necessario adorationis (ut sic dicam) consectario abstinuerant tamen, pudore credo, deterriti, ne Deum de eo loco pellere viderentur, qui ejus apud omnes pios, et Judæos primum; et deinceps etiam Christianos semper proprius in omni retro ecclesia fuerat. Cæteros mitto. Primis quidem tribus Christianismi sæculis, de quorum traditione nunc disputamus, nullam hujus glorificationis formulam, nullas ad sacramentum directas preces, aut gratiarum actiones occurrere, certum clarumque est; unde illud porro quod concludebamus, sequitur, illum Eucharistiæ divinum cultum, ex quo omnis hæc tum glorificandi, tum precandi sacramenti consuetudo apud Latinos profluxit, nondum fuisse toto illo tempore apud Christianos cognitum aut factitatum." (Dallæus, De Cultus Religiosi Objecto, pp. 288, 289.).

The words which are quoted as from Gregory I. go to show, that according to the theory by which image-worship was supported, prostration before a visible object may mean only adoration of an object called to mind thereby: "Et nos quidem non quasi ante Divinitatem, ante illam prosternimur, sed illum adoramus, quem per imaginem, aut natum, aut passum, sed et in throno sedentem recordamur." This language, however, is probably not Gregory's. (See James's "Corruption of S. Councils and Fathers," p. 144, London, 1843.)

This is still the theory on which image-worship seems to rest. (See Concil. Trid. Sess. xxv.) If then the elements solemnly carried in to be consecrated may so far only be regarded as signs of Christ, that they may avail to call Him to mind, I scarcely see why Romish divines, on their own theory, may not consistently allow the prostration of the Easterns at the Greater Entrance to be altogether freed from the charge of idolatry.

Of course, the soundness of the theory is quite another question. So is its relation to the Second Commandment.

+ Of the Eastern elevation Cardinal Bona writes: "Habet exemplum in veteri Testamento hæc hostiæ elevatio: nam passim legimus partem victimæ a sacerdotibus

excessive veneration, amounting sometimes to prostration,* which are exhibited at its entrance.

But, in fact, we have abundant evidence that other causes were formerly assigned for the elevation of the sacramental Body of Christ; and that excessivet reverence, with every outward sign, at least, of elevatam coram Domino." (Rerum Liturgicarum, lib. ii. cap. xiii., Opera, p. 349, Antw. 1723.)

"Elevata est Eucharistia. Ergo adorata. Perpetuæ nugæ. Nonne enim elevatio in lege usitatissima inter sacrificandum?" (Chamier, Panstratia Cath., De Euch., lib. vii. cap. ii. § xvi. tom. iv. p. 166.)

"Elevationem legis; etiam Evangelii in Chrysostomi [liturgiâ]: et quidem ita, ut τὸ ὑψοῦν, quomodo sit accipiendum facile doceat, εἰσέρχεται ὁ διάκονος εἰς τὸ μέσον, καὶ στὰς ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ἱερέως ἀνυψοί μικρὸν τὰς χεῖρας, καὶ δεικνύων τὸ ἅγιον εὐαγγέλιον, λέγει ἐκφώνως, Σοφία ὀρθὴ. (Ibid., § xliii. p. 168.)

"The deacon having received the book of the Gospel from the hands of the priest, holding it on high, that the people may the better see it, goes out at the north door of the chancel.' (Smith's Account of the Greek Church, 1680, p. 130.)

Ὁ Διάκονος εἰπὼν τὸ, ̓Αμὴν, καὶ προσκυνήσας μετ ̓ εὐλαβείας τὸ ἅγιον Evayyeλov, aipei auró. (Rubric of St. Chrysostom's Liturgy. See Neale's Liturgies, Gr., p. 123: see also p. 120. See also Fortescue's Armenian Church, p. 154.)

So also in the Roman Church, according to the "Ordo Romanus," the Book of the Gospel was "lift up by the hands of the deacon, and carried on his right shoulder." (See Morton on the Eucharist, p. 513.)

In the Clementinarum Liber V. tit. iv. cap. iii. is a condemnation of the Biguardi and Beguinæ for asserting "quod in elevatione corporis Jesu Christi non debent assurgere, nec eidem reverentiam exhibere." And the gloss on this alleges "Nam etiam cum evangelium legitur, curvari debemus." (Clementina, Antwerp, 1572, c. 297.)

"The copies [of St. Chrysostom's Liturgy] are very different; for in that amongst the works of St. Chrysostom there is no mention made of adoring but once, when the Gospel is carried, and when 'tis lifted up; because then the choir saith, Come, let us worship and kneel down before Jesus Christ; excepting that the priest and deacon bow the head, in several places of the Liturgy, before and after the consecration, and that the people are once warned to bow the head to give thanks unto God. Cassander represents another unto us in his Liturgies, of the version of Leo Tuscus, wherein there is no mention of adoration; but is not so of two others which we have, one in the Library of the Holy Fathers, and the other in the Ritual of the Greeks by James Goar, of the order of Preaching Friars, for in both these there is frequent mention made of adoring. It is true these sorts of adorations are there practised before the consecration and after, which plainly showeth they were addressed unto God, and unto Jesus Christ, because the Bread and Wine by the doctrine itself of the Church of Rome, are not to be adored until after consecration. The thing will appear yet plainer, if we consider the prayers which be there made when they dispose themselves unto the Communion. Lord Jesus (saith the priest), behold us from thy holy habitation, and from the Throne of thy Glory, and come sanctifie us, thou who art in the Heavens sitting with thy Father, and art here present with us in an invisible manner, be pleased to give us by thy powerful hand, thy pure and unspotted Body, and thy precious Blood; and by us unto all the people." (L'Aroque's History of Eucharist, Walker's translation, pp. 558, 559.)

* See Romanoff's Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, pp. 46, 49, 50; Neale's Tetralogia Lit. p. 227.

+ Arcudius writes: "Populus... in Russiâ prosternit se, terram fronte percutit ac veluti præsentem in ea oblatione cœlorum Regem alloquitur, et adorat. Sic enim communiter populus credit. Quem divinum cultum, huic rei minime debitum, Græci