Keble: the High Church parson at Communion
The truth is, if one may venture to say it of one so wise, holy, and venerable, that on this subject, as on the Apostolical Succession, and some others, Hooker was biassed by his respect for Calvin and some of his school, in whose opinions he had been educated, and by sympathy with the most suffering portion of the foreign Reformers, so as instinctively and unconsciously to hide his eyes from the unquestionable consent of antiquity, and to make allowances which, logically carried out, would lead to conclusions such as the ancient Church never could have endured.
In light of this rejection of Old High Church teaching, can it really be suggested that Keble was a High Church parson at the Communion? It can because while Keble's eucharistic doctrine changed, his liturgical practice and sacramental piety were unchanged.
Towards the close of On Eucharistical Adoration, Towards the conclusion, Keble returns to "a mere question of posture", affirming "the full right of every particular or national Church to choose among the several postures of adoration, and to forbid the use of either or all of them on this or that particular occasion, when it might cause scandal or confusion". Thus affirming the native piety of the English Church and its desire to avoid ceremonies which "cause scandal or confusion", Keble goes on to to define what he means by 'eucharistical adoration': he is referring to interior devotion, "adoration of the heart". He is not referring to the meaning given to the term by later Ritualists and advanced Anglo-catholics - elevation, genuflections, Benediction.
There is only one physical act of adoration that Keble commends for "English Churchmen" - kneeling to receive Holy Communion, a "posture of adoration":
Coming worthily, we are therein " partakers of Christ," — of Christ present in His human nature by the presence of His Body and Blood, — a Presence hidden from us, but certified by the consecrated bread and wine which we do see. All who believe this — and this surely is no more than the Catechism plainly teaches us all, — must they not of course feel, that in kneeling down to receive the Holy Communion, they are in fact kneeling to Him who is come to give Him- self to them ; kneeling to His Person, to His human nature, to His Body and Blood; as truly, verily, and indeed, as if they had been kneeling on Calvary itself, at the foot Oi the real Cross?
The only physical act of adoration proposed by Keeble is that required by the Book of Common Prayer. In other words, Keble's understanding of eucharistical adoration required no liturgical alterations to the Book of Common Prayer, no extra-liturgical devotions, no devotions borrowed from the Roman tradition. What did this mean for the eucharistic practice of the Anglican tradition, and for the parishioners of Hursley? It meant the Holy Communion being administered as was the norm within the High Church tradition - according to the Book of Common Prayer, with strict adherence to the rubrics. It meant Keble wearing surplice, hood and tippet, and standing at the north-end (Pusey did not adopt the eastward position until 1871).
Keble was indeed giving voice to a eucharistic theology that was significantly different in its account of the Lord's presence in the Sacrament to that given by the High Church tradition. He was not, however, proposing any new eucharistic practice, in liturgical or devotional terms. Holy Communion in the parish of Hursley in 1857 would have looked and sounded like the administration of the Sacrament in most parishes of the High Church tradition elsewhere in 1857 and over the previous century. It would have looked and sounded very different indeed to the liturgy in Ritualist and advanced Anglo-catholic parishes in 1877 and 1907.
As for Keble's sacramental piety, we get a good insight into this in his sermons. (The sermons quoted here are from Sermons for the Christian Year: Lent to Passiontide, 1875 and Sermons for the Christian Year: The Sundays after Trinity, 1878). This description of the Sacrament, for example, is no different from what was routinely heard in pre-1833 High Church sermons (compare, for example, words of Richard Warner and George D'Oyly):
Every time we draw near to the Holy Communion, we see, by faith, the Cross of Christ, His Body broken and His Blood poured out, to redeem us from eternal death.
The pastoral focus of pre-1833 High Church preaching on the Sacrament was also repeated by Keble:
Mind, I say, worthy Communion. That word "worthy" gathers up all into a point. If that be right, all is right: without it, there is no promise of life.
The same placing of Holy Communion in the context of the grace bestowed in Baptism and Confirmation was also evident:
He will give thee more and more: rejoice and be thankful for what thou hast received, for the grace of Holy Baptism, and He will help thee to rejoice more and more for the grace of Confirmation and Holy Communion. This was His invitation to us all, from the Font even until now.
While exhortation to frequent reception - as prior to 1833 - was obviously present in Keble's sermons, so too was a recognition of older and enduring sacramental patterns:
And in about a month's time a certain number of us will come together, testifying this our forgiveness in the most solemn way: we shall, if it please God, take the holy Sacrament upon it ...;
we may set about the work of Lent, which is repentance, and approach nearer and nearer to the end of Lent, i.e., a happy Communion at Easter ...;
it puts me in mind of a Christian husbandman, beginning the season of harvest by worthily receiving the Holy Communion.
Previous generations of High Church parsons would also have recognised Keble's account of the meaning of the Ante-Communion:
the Church ... has not only enjoined all her children to communicate at least three times a year, but also encourages, wherever it may be, Communion on every Lord's day; and to put us in mind of that sacred duty, appoints certain portions of the holy service to be said at the Lord's Table, even when the Sacrament is not administered.
The comfort of the Sacrament - another staple of old High Church preaching - was similarly to be found in Keble:
How is it that any Christian man can be comfortable or think himself safe, who is not in the way of coming to Church as punctually as he can, not only to give testimony of his faith, not only to keep up outward communion with his brethren, but for the inward health and safety of his own soul; to pour into his gracious Lord's ear, by true confession, the sad history of the week, its sins and its cares; and to receive through His authorized ministers, and that most of all in the blessed Sacrament of Communion, absolution and remission of the sins, and comfort in the sorrows.
Finally, as with Old High Church piety, Keble delighted in a much beloved unique characteristic of the Prayer Book Communion, the Comfortable Words:
Did ever any of you observe, my brethren, the abundant and most wholesome comfort to be had from this one short word 'All', in many of the great sayings of Holy Scripture? I make no question but many of us have felt this without exactly knowing how, or distinctly saying it to themselves, e. g. in the sentences following the penitential part of the Holy Communion office, "Come unto Me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden".
In other words, it is very difficult indeed to identify how Keble's sacramental piety - as expressed in his sermons - was influenced by his adoption of a eucharistic theology which rejected Old High Church virtualism and receptionism. Keble's sacramental piety, like his liturgical practice, remained identifiably and traditionally High Church. In terms of his sacramental piety and liturgical practice, the greatest contrast by far was not with his High Church predecessors but with his Ritualist successors. Keble remained the High Church parson at Communion.
Comments
Post a Comment