Слике страница

not less anxious that his own words should be rendered incapable of misinterpretation on the other side of the truth?

About a month before his death, while his mental powers were still clear and bright,—even in the midst of his deep anxiety,—finding that one in a high position in the Church had quoted these words in public in a sense at variance with his faith, which he had tried to impress upon others in his various works, he made up his mind that they should be altered in the next, and in all future editions. A form of emendation, thought of by two very dear friends, was suggested humbly and diffidently by one of them, and the Poet, with his usual humility preferring suggestions of others to his own thoughts, expressed his willingness and determination to adopt it; writing about it in these words to a dear friend, (in a letter & dated “Bournemouth, March 6, 1866,") “I have made up my mind that it will be best, when a reprint is called for, to adopt —'s emendation and note, with a few words pointing out that it does but express more directly the true meaning of the present text.” Thus he clearly adopted the emendation, and, as far as he could, made it his own, though not originating with himself. On the 22nd of that same month he was seized with that illness of which he died on the 29th. On his death-bed he spoke frequently about the proposed alteration in “The Christian Year,” and it was the last subject of conversation with his dear wife. He expressed great anxiety that the change of expression should be made, not in a note only but in the text itself, and it was a comfort to him to have made up his own mind in the matter.

Compare the Rhythm of St. Thomas, in the “Paradise of the Christian Soul,” vol. ii. p. 123, with “Devotions for Holy Communion,” p. 106.

& Quoted by Dr. Pusey in a letter on the subject to the Editor of the “Times."


He left by his will the copyright of his works to his dear wife. She, knowing well his wish and determination in the matter, was anxious to carry them out as far as possible. Therefore, feeble as she was in body at the time, but quite clear in mind, as he also had been at the time that he adopted the emendation, she charged the dear ones who were with her up to the last that they should make the proposed change in the Poem. She made her will three days after her husband's death, and in it bequeathed the copyright of his works to her nephew, the Rev. Thomas Keble, Jun., M.A., Incumbent of Bishopsworth, whom also, conjointly with her sister (his mother), she appointed as her executor. He deemed it to be a sacred trust imposed upon him, and enforced by the acceptance of the bequeathed copyright, to carry out strictly the last and earnest wishes of his Uncle and Aunt. To make the change, cost what it might, seemed the simplest and most perfect, if not the only way, of fulfilling his trust; and thus it was done, not by Mr. KEBLE's two executors (who were the Ven. Archdeacon Sir George Prevost, Bart., and the writer of this brief memoir), but by his nephew, who alone has power over the copyright, and who has conscientiously studied to fulfil the dying wish of the departed Poet, and the strict charge of his own Aunt, who had power to do as she liked with the copyright when it was her own. Many regrets have been expressed about the change on various grounds, even by some whose wishes it was painful to resist, still it will be of no great moment to those who object to it, if after a time they are able to procure a reprint of the first edition of “The Christian Year," in which the hymn in question and two others are not inserted.

Any one who wishes to know and understand what was the faith of Mr. KEBLE regarding the Holy Communion, is strongly advised to read and study carefully his work on “Eucharistical Adoration,” first published in 1857, which has now (since the author's death) reached a third edition. There are no doubt many readers of “The Christian Year” who take real delight in the sacred poetry, and (we may hope) gain benefit from the holy thoughts suggested to them by it, who yet differ widely in opinion from the Poet; and many may think (as one has expressed it who did not himself think so) “that on so sacred a subject distinct views are scarcely desirable.” Still there may be some who, not having opportunity of entering deeply into the subject, yet wish to know something about Mr. KEBLE'S views upon the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Communion. For such the following short extracts from his work on “Eucharistical Adoration” may be interesting, though they can only very imperfectly represent his faith :

“The Eucharist is our Saviour coming with these unutterable mysteries of blessing, coming with His glorified Humanity, coming by a peculiar presence of His own divine Person, to impart Himself to each one of us separately, to impart Himself as truly and as entirely as if there were not in the world any but that one to receive Him. And this also, namely, the bringing home of God's gifts to the particular individual person, has ever been felt by that person, in proportion to his faith, as a thrilling call for the most unreserved surrender that he could make of himself, his whole spirit, soul, and body : i.e. of the most unreserved Worship."—(First Edition, p. 4.)

“Now the gift in the Holy Eucharist is Christ Himself—all good gifts in one ; and that in an immense, inconceivable degree. And how can we conceive even Power Almighty to bring it more closely and more directly home to each one of us, than when His Word commands and His Spirit enables us to receive Him as


it were spiritual meat and drink? entering into and penetrating thoroughly the whole being of the renewed man.”—(p. 7.)

“Is the PERSON of Christ, God and Man, present in the Holy Eucharist by this transcendental Presence of His Body and Blood? The affirmative seems distinctly proved by His own words in the same discourse ; in that He more than once interchanges the first personal pronoun, I, Me, &c., with the phrases, 'This bread, My flesh” &c.<p. 63.)

“Where His Flesh and Blood are, there is He, by a peculiar and personal Presence of His holy Humanity.” [Then quoting St. Ambrose.] “The Lord Jesus Himself cries out, “ This is My Body.' Before benediction by the heavenly words, it is named by the name of another kind of thing; after consecration it is signified to be a Body. He Himself calls it ‘His own Blood.' Before consecration it is called something else ; after consecration its style and title is Blood. And thou sayest, Amen ; that is, it is true. What the mouth speaketh, let the mind inwardly confess; what the discourse utters, the same let the heart feel.”—(p. 65.)

“ The man Christ Jesus, according to the Catechism, is thus virtually present, as the true Consecrator, in our Eucharist. Still more distinctly are we there instructed concerning the real Presence of His Body and Blood in that Sacrament, to be first our Oblation, and then our spiritual Food. Combining the several statements, they amount to this: the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, in that it is a sacrament, has always in it two parts, whereof the inward and spiritual part is the Body and Blood of Christ ;-and it has two purposes: 1. to be a continual remembrance, or memory, or memorial before God as well as man, not a repetition or continuance, of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ; 2. to be verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful for the strengthening and refreshing of our souls, as our bodies are strengthened and refreshed by bread and wine. I cannot understand these statements to imply less than a real and substantial Presence of Christ by the Presence of His Body and Blood; nor can I imagine any one believing Him so present, and not acknowledging the same by special adoration. ... . He comes to be feasted on, not sacrificed only; as a Peace-offering to apply His own merits, not as a proper Sin-offering, as when on the Cross He merited all for us ; and therefore He yields His Body and Blood, i.e. Himself, to be partaken of by us sinners. As partakers of the altar, we are permitted to eat of the sacrifice ; which

; sacrifice in this case is that Man who is the Most High God.”—(pp. 74, 75.)

“In the East we have, about the middle of the fifth century, the testimony of Theodoret, published, as is supposed, a few years before the Council of Chalcedon, principally to counteract the heresy then arising, which denied the continuance of Christ's human nature. The passage is well known, being constantly and unanswerably cited as a testimony against the dogma of Transubstantiation, and for that of the Real Objective Presence.

“The heretic alleges, that as, by consent of Christians, the symbols of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the priest's invocation, but after it are changed and become another, so the Lord's Body since His Ascension is changed into the substance of the Deity. The reply is, ‘Nay; for it is untrue that after consecration the mystical symbols depart out of their proper nature ; remaining as they do in their former substance, and figure, and form, and being visible and tangible, just as they were before. But the inward sense perceives them as being simply what they have become, and so they are the object of faith, and are adored, as being those very things which they are believed to be.”—(p. 107.)

“There is no need here to go into the history of Transubstantiation; the introduction of which, erroneously supposed the only alternative with an indevout rationalism, has proved undoubtedly, if not the origin, at least the main aggravation of all our present difficulties on the subject of Holy Communion.”—(p. 121.)

“Theodoret, as against Transubstantiation, declaring that 'the mystical symbols in no wise depart from their proper nature; for they remain in their former substance, and figure, and kind, and are visible and tangible, just as they were before ;' St. Augustine, as against Carnal Presence, pointing to our Lord's cautionary words:


« ПретходнаНастави »