'Chaotic license': a late 19th century Old High critique of Ritualism

One phase, however, of this movement there is, which cannot justly be accused of tending to Romanism; it is one which in the Church of Rome would not be tolerated for an instant: it is the liberty which is now claimed for each individual priest to carry out his own idea of what is Catholic in doctrine or ritual, without the slightest regard either to the written law or the living authorities of his own Church The calmness with which this demand is made for what is termed the right of the Catholic priesthood, but which is simply a license never so much as heard of before in any Church in Christendom, would be almost ludicrous were it not most seriously mischievous.

In his 1872 primary visitation charge, William Connor Magee, Bishop of Peterborough, gave voice to one of the most consistent Old High critiques of Ritualism: the rejection of the due order of the Church of England. As Nockles notes in his classic study, the Old High tradition in the opening decades of the 19th century "strove to enforce rubrical observance", and did so with considerable success. It was this which was entirely overthrown by the Ritualists. Again, Nockles:

For old High Churchmen, Ritualism represented no less a breach of Anglican rubrical order than had earlier Evangelical irregularities. By the late 1850s old High Churchmen feared that Ritualist excesses were discrediting the liturgical and rubrical renewal which they themselves had inspired - a renewal, they insisted, which had made progress even among Low Churchmen and could have acted as a bond of union within the Church.

In place of order and uniformity, the Ritualists brought disorder and, as Magee emphasised, an "almost ludicrous" view of liturgical license:

A youthful priest — let us suppose — who has but recently passed an examination for Holy Orders, in which he may not perhaps have displayed any very profound acquaintance with Theology or Church history, finds himself the fortunate possessor of a living, into which he has been inducted on the express condition that he "assents to, and will use the form prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer and none other, except so far as it may be ordered by lawful authority." No sooner has he been duly inducted, than he proceeds to set up in his Church the Roman Mass in all its minutest details, of which lights, vestments, and incense are but a small part; he duly performs all the genuflexions, crossings, and prostrations prescribed in the last edition of his 'Directorium,' or his 'Ritual for the Altar,' adding to these from time to time, such "beautiful symbolisms," as may either occur to his own mind, or may have been recommended by some correspondent in his Church newspaper, as the last "correct thing " in Ritualism. 

Here we see how the Old High tradition was appalled at the Ritualists undermining and rejecting the fundamental liturgical order of the Church of England, as expressed in a cleric's solemn assent to the Prayer Book. The reference to Directorium Anglicanum, first published in 1858, makes clear that Magee was not referring to the wearing of a stole over the surplice or perhaps even the eastward position: the modest ritual which appeared in many English parish churches in the second half of the 19th century. His concern, rather, was with ritual which sought not to cohere with the Prayer Book rites but with Ritualism determined to bring those rites into conformity with pre-Reformation and Tridentine usage.

What, then, of how laity and bishop might respond to a young Ritualist priest, determined on imposing the ceremonies of Directorium Anglicanum?

His parishioners, naturally indignant at this deliberate Romanising of their Church and their Services — in which they, perhaps, not altogether erroneously, believe that they have some rights, legal and ecclesiastical — remonstrate with him. He informs them in reply, that he is a priest of the Holy Catholic Church, and that as such, it is his privilege to teach and direct them in all things, and their privilege to obey him. They complain to the Bishop, who, on writing to the Incumbent to inquire into the truth of their complaints, receives in reply the information that all that has been complained of is quite true ; that the writer does not intend to alter his proceedings in the very least particular, whatever his Bishop may say to the contrary; that as to his promise "reverently to obey his Ordinary," that only means, that he is to obey such directions as the Bishop can enforce in a Court of Law; and that, at any rate, whatever obedience over and above this he might be disposed to pay to a really "Catholic-minded" and "properly appointed Bishop," he cannot possibly pay to one who is only "the nominee of the Prime Minister," and has neither "the learning nor the piety," nor "the Catholic sympathies" which alone would justify the obedience of a truly Catholic priest. 

The rights of the laity - traditionally valued by the Church of England - disregarded, and the authority of the bishop rejected: all on the grounds of a wildly excessive claim to priestly authority, entirely independent of canons, law, and episcopal order. 

At the heart of Ritualism, therefore, was an express rejection of the solemn vow given to use only the Book of Common Prayer, its rites and ceremonies, on the basis of a radical understanding of private judgement:

should, what he is doing be a clear violation of some Rubric, the purport of which has never been so much as questioned, the answer is still forthcoming, that the Rubrics being only those of a local church, he must decline to obey them, until they can be proved to him not to be opposed to the only law he acknowledges, viz., that of the Church Catholic of which he is a priest — a condition, which, as he is himself to be the sole judge of the sufficiency of the proof, does not, certainly, much restrain his liberty of action, and which amounts, in plain English, to the declaration, that he means to do precisely what he pleases, and that for him, the promise — "I will use the form prescribed in the Book of Common-Prayer, and none other" — means, "I will not use that form, and I will use any other that may commend itself to my judgment, or strike my fancy." 

Here, as Magee goes on to declare, was a "most extraordinary theory of the absolute independence of the Presbyterate of our Church". It was, in other words, a rejection of the very episcopal order which bound the Church of England together "in unity and godly love". Even when that unity had been strained during the 'Rage of Party' in the early 18th century, during the Bangorian Controversy,  in the face of later 18th century revivalism, and amidst the tensions between Whig and Tory in the Age of Reform, canonical obedience within episcopal order ensured that uniformity in common prayer was secured, not confusing the witness of the Church of England, its presence in communal and national life, or the faith and witness of laity in the pews. 

In addition to profoundly disordering the uniformity of common prayer, Ritualism also - as Magee demonstrated - displaced two sets of rights fundamental to the well-being of the Church of England: the rights of the laity and those of the episcopacy. The "most extraordinary theory of the absolute independence of the Presbyterate of our Church" promoted by the Ritualists disordered the patchwork of rights - of laity, parson, and bishop - which contributed significantly to the life, well-being, and order of the Church of England. This patchwork of rights brought a balance to the ecclesiastical constitution and helped in a perhaps intangible but vitally important manner to define an Anglican ethos. 

Magee's anger and despair at the innovations and excesses of Ritualism indicate that we was very much aware of what was at stake in the controversy provoked by the Ritualists. What is more, he is a significant reminder that the Old High tradition was very much alive and active in this latter part of the 19th century, cherishing and seeking to protect that which defined Anglicanism.