representative of Agobard, he held a council at Lyons and discoursed to the members for three days
upon the ecclesiastical offices, as explained in his work mentioned below. The majority approved,
but Florus of Lyons did not, and sent two letters to the council at Diedenhofen, calling attention to
Amalarius insistence upon the use of the Roman order and his dangerous teaching: that there was
a threefold body of Christ, (1) the body which he had assumed, (2) the body which he has in us so
long as we live, (3) the body which is in the dead. Hence the host must be divided into three parts,
one of which is put in the cup, one on the paten and one on the altar, corresponding to these three
forms respectively. Farther he was charged with teaching that the bread of the Eucharist stood for
the body, the wine for the soul of Christ, the chalice for his sepulchre, the celebrant for Joseph of
Arimathea, the archdeacon for Nicodemus, the deacons for the apostles, the sub-deacons for the
women at the sepulchre. But the council had business in hand of too pressing a character to admit
of their investigating these charges. Not discouraged, Florus sent a similar letter to the council of
Quiercy (838), and by this council the work of Amalarius was censured.^1164
His writings embrace (1) Rules for the canonical life,^1165 already referred to. It treats of the
duties of ecclesiastics of all grades.
(2) Four books upon The ecclesiastical offices.^1166 It was written by request of Louis the
Pious, to whom it is dedicated, and was completed about 820. In order to make it better, Amalarius
pursued special investigations in Tours, at the monastery of Corbie, and even went to Rome. In
827 he brought out a second and greatly improved edition. In its present shape the work is important
for the study of liturgics, since it describes minutely the exact order of service as it was observed
in the Roman church in the ninth century. If Amalarius had been content to have given merely
information it would have been better for his reputation. As it was he attempted to give the reasons
and the meanings of each part of the service, and of each article in any way connected with the
service, and hence was led into wild and often ridiculous theorizing and allegorizing. Thus the
priest’s alb signifies the subduing of the passions, his shoes, upright walking; his cope, good works;
his surplice, readiness to serve his neighbors; his handkerchief, good thoughts, etc.
(3) On the order of the anthems,^1167 i.e. in the Roman service. It is a compilation of the
antiphones of the Roman and French. churches.
(4) Eclogues on the office of the Mass,^1168 meaning again the Roman mass. This insistence
upon the Roman order was directed against Archbishop Agobard of Lyons, who had not only not
adopted the Roman order, but had expurgated the liturgy of his church of everything which in his
judgment savored of false doctrine or which was undignified in liturgical expression.
(5) Epistles.^1169 The first letter, addressed to Jeremiah, archbishop of Sens, on the question
whether one should write Jhesus or Jesus. The second is Jeremiah’s reply, deciding in favor of
Jhesus. In the third, Amalarius asks Jonas of Orleans whether one should use I H C or I H S as a
contraction of Jesus. Jonas favored I H S. The fourth is on the Eucharist. Rantgarius is his
correspondent. Amalarius maintains the Real Presence. He says the first cup at supper signified the
(^1164) See Florus’ letters in Migne, Tom. CXIX. col. 71-96.
(^1165) Regula canonicorum, in Migne, CV. col. 815-934.
(^1166) De ecclesiasticis officiis libri quatuor, ibid. col. 985-1242.
(^1167) Liber de ordine antiphonarii, ibid. col. 1243-1316.
(^1168) Eclogae de officio missae ibid. col. 1315-1832.
(^1169) Epistolae, ibid. l333-1340.