"These tragical furies about ceremonial matters": Rogers and the Lutheran case for conformity and ceremonies

It is, of course, unsurprising that Rogers's targets the Puritans in his discussion of Article XXXIV's teaching that "private judgement" cannot justify a failure to conform to "traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority".  

What might be noted, however, is his use of a Lutheran controversy on this matter.  In a side note to the following extract he references Melanchthon's teaching on adiaphora against Matthias Flacius Illyricus:

Again, there be of the clergy, who, rather than they will use, or observe any rites, ceremonies, or orders, though lawfully ratified, which please them not, will disquiet the whole church, forsake their charges, leave their vocations, raise stirs, and cause divisions in the church; as did many, when it was in Germany about the Rhine, Frankland, and Sueavland [Sauerland], whereby most lamentable effects did ensue; and do the refractory ministers in the church of England at this day; the more is the pity.

The principal author of all these tragical furies about ceremonial matters was Flacius Illyricus, whose preachings were, that rather than ministers should yield unto the servitude of ceremonies, they should abandon their calling, and give over the ministry, to the end, that princes and magistrates, even for fear of uproars and popular tumults, might be forced at the length to set their ministers free from the observation of all ceremonies, more than they were willing to use a themselves.

What is significant here is not Rogers's understanding of the Adiaphoristic Controversy (it certainly was not a straightforward parallel with the Puritan agitation against the Book of Common Prayer) but, rather, his willingness to invoke a Lutheran defence of ceremonies, mindful of the contemporary recognition that Lutheran ceremonial was more advanced than the ceremonies of the Prayer Book.  It is, to say the least, highly unlikely indeed that Puritan consciences would be calmed by the idea of Lutheran ceremonial.

So what was Rogers's purpose in invoking a Lutheran defence of ceremonies?  As mentioned yesterday, Rogers was part of the Conformist project which argued against the devotees of Geneva by pointing to the generous Reformed Catholicism of the Churches of the Reformation, challenging the Puritans for their narrow, impoverished, and divisive understanding of the Reformation.  The Puritan attack on the authorised ceremonies of the Church of England threatened the good order of a Reformed Church, brought disunity and division over duly authorised ceremonies not contrary to Scripture, and by ignoring the witness of the Lutheran churches also threatened the common faith of the churches and commonwealths of the Reformation.  

In invoking Melanchthon and the Lutheran case for conformity in matters of ceremonies, Rogers was demonstrating that English ceremonies - rather than being an oddity of a but 'half-reformed' English Church, out-of-step with the Reformed Churches - both shared similarities with key partners in the Churches of the Reformation and were similarly defended in those Churches on the grounds of "the common order of the Church" (Article XXXIV).  Conformity to the ceremonies required by the Prayer Book and Canons was thoroughly Protestant.  It was the rejection of these ceremonies which hurt both the Reformed Church of England and its partnership with other national Churches of the Reformation.

(The painting is Otto Wagenfeldt's 'The Holy Supper', portraying the administration of the Sacrament in Hamburg, c.1650.)