Firstly, he defends regarding the Lutheran Churches as Reformed and notes their significance for the 1662 Settlement:
If we take for Reformed Churches those which follow the Confession of Augsburg, as I see no reason but we should (the French Reformed Churches do I am sure, as to the points in controversy). If, I say, we take those Churches for Reformed, we shall find amongst them the very same both Government and Worship in every particular, at which some are offended here amongst us (Section I.1).
He goes on to point to the episcopal government of the Church in the Lutheran Kingdoms while also (echoing Laud) including the German use of 'superintendents' as an expression of episcopacy:
There is never a National Church amongst them, but hath Subordination of Pastors. In the Imperial Towns and other Free States ... Superintendents have the power of Ordination, as the Bishops of the Church of England have; and they are accounted for no other then Bishops, though they have but the Latin title of that Office ... And in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, which are the only three Kingdoms, that have embraced the Augustan Confession, they have Bishops and Arch-Bishops, both name and thing, as suiting best with Monarchy (Section I.2).
His compares Lutheran liturgy to the rites and ceremonies of the Book of Common Prayer:
As for the public Worship of God, they have all of them set Forms of Prayer, not one excepted, some differing from ours, some being in a manner the same. They observe Holy days; they have set Times for fasting; they have very magnificent and stately Buildings very richly adorned for their Churches. They sing not only Psalms, but many Hymns and spiritual songs, whereof some were anciently used in the Church, and some are of Luther's own making: And they sing them with Organs and other instruments of Music. They sing Anthems in the same manner that we do. In many places they wear Surplices and other Church-Ornaments. They use the Cross in Baptism; they receive the Communion kneeling. In fine, they have Conformity with us in all Rites of Divine Worship, and yet in all these no Idolatry nor Superstition, according to the judgement of the French Reformed Churches (Section I.3).
He reiterates the place of the Lutheran Churches amongst the Reformed Churches, emphasising that the polity and liturgy of England and the Churches of the Augsburg Confession are "the very same":
... the Confession of Augsburg, which is common to all those Reformed Churches which are called by the name of Luther, or upon any of their particular Confessions, because as I said in the first Section, I take it for granted, that they doe not condemn the Church of England, neither in Her Government nor Public Worship, but that they approve of both, using themselves the very same (Section II.18)
The one hint of criticism of Lutheranism comes in a reference to Calvin:
Calvin being then in very high esteem ... with most Protestants all Europe over, the rigid Lutherans only excepted (Section II.48).
This was reflective of an enduring Conformist, Laudian, and later High Church suspicion of what was regarded as Lutheran eccentricity and innovation concerning consubstantiation and ubiquity. Such doctrinal rigidity was equivalent to Calvinist insistence on defining predestination, unnecessarily unsettling the peace of the Churches.
Durel's passing criticism, however, cannot overshadow his insistence on the pronounced similarities or even shared identity - "the very same" - between the Churches of the Augsburg Confession and the newly-restored Churches of England and Ireland. It emphasises the significance of the enduring Conformist insistence on including the Lutheran Churches within Protestant Christendom, offering a richer and broader vision of Protestantism than that proposed by those whose focus was restricted to Geneva and Dort.
Comments
Post a Comment