'Neither on the Sacrifice nor the Presence are his views in any way similar to Mr. Keble's': Laudians against Keble

The critique of Keble's handling of the words of earlier English divines continues in The Teaching of the Anglican Divines in the Time of King James I and King Charles I on the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist (1858), by Henry Charles Groves, a clergyman of the Church of Ireland. In turning to those involved in the 1662 revision, Groves highlights how Keble assumes that he is invoking allies. Laudians such as Wren, however, are no such thing, for, as Groves had demonstrated, the view of the Sacrament held by Laud himself was firmly within the Reformed mainstream:

Mr. Keble proceeds ... to prove that the revisers of the Liturgy in 1661 were men likely to favour his views. Of Wren he is quite convinced that he is justly to be regarded as an exponent of Laud's doctrine. And so am I. Laud's doctrine will be found in the extracts under his name; and neither on the Sacrifice nor the Presence are his views in any way similar to Mr. Keble's [a subject addressed in an earlier post on Grove's work].

What, then, of Sparrow?

Bishop Sparrow also must be on Mr. Keble's side, because he says, "It is to be given to the people; for a sin it is not to adore when we receive this Sacrament." And yet Jewell cites the very same words of S. Augustine, and shews how Protestant they are. 

The misuse of this particular quote from Augustine is significant and is highlighted by Groves with regards to a variety of earlier English divines. As Groves points out, there is nothing at all remarkable about Sparrow's use of  Augustine's words. Indeed, when we turn to Sparrow's Rationale, we see that the words are merely used to support kneeling to receive the holy Sacrament, as the restored Black Rubric in 1662 would declare - "a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers":

It is to be given to the people KNEELING. for a sin it is not to adore when we receive this Sacrament, Aug. in Psal. 98

Indeed, for Sparrow to suggest that kneeling to receive the Sacrament was a means of eucharistic adoration in terms of the consecrated elements, would have been to confirm the views of Puritan critics of kneeling at the Sacrament.

When Groves turns to Keble's handling of another reviser, Bishop Nicholson, we see a very illuminating example of how Tractarians could misquote and misuse Caroline divines:

And then at last he has a witness who speaks for himself, and whose words are decisive! "Bishop Nicholson also, of Gloucester, one of the final revisers, writes thus of the holy Eucharist: 'Christ is there under the forms of Bread and Wine, not changed in substance, but in use.'" I confess, when I saw this I was startled. I was tolerably familiar with Bishop Nicholson's two works on the Catechism and the Creed ... But when I turned to the original, I found that Nicholson had fared no better ... The passage cited by Mr. Keble is taken from the place where Nicholson, having given his exposition of the true doctrine of the Eucharist, undertakes to "put the fairest interpretation upon different expressions, and so reconcile exasperated brethren." He first takes up the Lutheran form of expression: "And thus all the words used by divines in the explication of this mystery may receive a candid interpretation, except that of Rome. That Christ is in the Sacrament corporally, substantially, and perhaps consubstantially ... their meaning being no more than that He is there under the forms of Bread and Wine, not changed in substance, but in use; as it is in other relations: as, for example, betwixt a father and son; who though they relate to each other, yet they remain two distinct substances, and the same they were."

In other words, Nicholson's attempt to put a charitable - and Reformed (hence, "in use") - interpretation on Lutheran eucharistic doctrine is misused by Keble for entirely different ends: not to reconcile Lutherans to a Reformed eucharistic theology, but to promote an understanding of the Lord's presence in the sacrament which Nicholson quite clearly did not affirm. This is evident from the summary of his eucharistic doctrine in the Exposition of the Catechism:

The Eucharist is a Sacrament instituted by Christ under 

the elements of bread and wine, to represent, exhibit, and seal the Passion of Christ and the benefits thereof to a worthy communicant.

What makes the misuse of Nicholson's charitable interpretation of Lutheran eucharistic doctrine even more egregious is that Keble and the Tractarians were those who, contrary to the longstanding and consistent Old High approach, had condemned the Jerusalem Bishopric, to be shared with German Lutherans, as co-operating with those they deemed to be "schismatics".