"We vary little from them": an early 18th century High Church view of Lutheranism

William Dawes, Archbishop of York 1714-24, Tory Hanoverian and High Churchman, was author of An Exact Account of King George's Religion (1715), a defence of George I's Lutheranism.  As such, it provides an interesting insight into early 18th century High Church attitudes towards the Lutheran churches.  

Dawes begins by praising Luther, while noting how Anglicans "differ from him in some points" - a qualification which can be heard a few times in the tract - before turning to emphasise the doctrinal and liturgical similarities between Lutheranism and Anglicanism:

this Great and Good Man, to whom notwithstanding we of the Church of England Established by Law differ from him in some points, to we owe Deliverance from our blind Obedience to the Church of Rome; it will not be amiss to take View of the Liturgy that is us'd by his Followers, in order to make appear that there is not such a wide distance between the Doctrines professed by them, and the Rules for down for the Celebrating Divine Service in our Book of Common Prayer.

Turning to the two Sacraments, Dawes points to Lutherans and Anglicans using the same forms and ceremonies, albeit with an acknowledgement that the Lutheran insistence on Consubstantiation was a point of difference (a reminder that High Church Eucharistic theology belonged to the Reformed family):

They likewise have Collects and Epistles after the same manner as they are in use with us, and Receive the Eucharist and Blessed Sacrament kneeling, and making use of the same Form as in our Liturgy, but differ from us in holding the the Doctrine of Consubstantiation. Their Method of Baptizing with Water and the Sign of the Cross is also the same ours. 

Dawes follows this recognition of shared rites and ceremonies with a further qualification, noting that Lutherans "are not only more abundant in their at Ceremonies, but in the Pomp and Splendour of their Churches".  This, however, he regards not primarily as a difficulty for Anglicans but for Non-conformists making claims that the Hanoverian dynasty will favour them:

the Lutheran Religion, so far differs from the Presbyterians, & the Persuasions of other Sectaries and the Dissenters from the Established Church, that it carries matters much higher than her.

He concludes by restating the liturgical and doctrinal similarities between Anglicans and Lutherans, embodied in the Hanoverian dynasty:

since we vary very little from them in the Exercise of our Publick Devotion, 'tis hoped such as have entertain'd Notions of Persons of this persuasion [i.e. George I favouring Non-conformists] will see their Error and be convinced that since the Subjects of Hanover and we are under one Head, and hold many of the same Doctrines, we shall live together as Brethren that are at Unity among ourselves.

There is much here which reflects earlier Conformist, Laudian, and Restoration thinking on the importance of Lutheranism as an expression of Protestantism sharing many features in common with Anglicanism.  The fact that this understanding was perpetuated by the High Church tradition into the early 18th century exemplifies the continuity which would lead to Horsley at the opening of the 19th century making similar assertions.  Such openness to Lutheranism was, in other words, an enduring characteristic of the Laudian and High Church traditions.