[520] Ib., 19, p. 73=22, p. 228.
[521] Ib.
[522] Ib., p. 75=230 f.
[523] Ib., 74 ff.=229 ff.
[524] Ib., p. 72=228.
[525] Cp. for instance above, p. 44 f.
[526] Cp. above, p. 45, and “Werke,” Erl. ed., 14², p. 87.
[527] On Luther’s attitude towards such punishment cp. his letter to Margrave George of Brandenburg (Sep. 14, 1531), “Briefe,” ed. De Wette, 4, p. 308 (“Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 103).
[528] Kawerau in the “Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen,” 1888, 1, p. 113 f., in his review of Joh. Gottschick, “Luthers Anschauungen vom christl. Gottesdienst,” Freiburg, 1887: “In practice Luther helped to further a worship which, though easily to be explained, constituted nevertheless a questionable concession to the needs of the moment; for he vindicates the purely pedagogic character of worship and ascribes it to the need of educating backward Christians or of making real Christians of them.” Kawerau speaks of this as “an object which, on every side, spells serious injury to worship itself.” Gottschick had proved convincingly (p. 19 f.) that “such a conception of worship was on every point at variance with Luther’s own principles concerning the priestly character of the congregation and the relation of prayer to faith.” In this view Gottschick would find himself “in complete harmony with all eminent liturgical writers at the present day.”
[529] J. Gottschick (see above, n. 1), in concluding, charges Luther’s reform of divine worship with being merely an adaptation of the Roman Mass, absolutely worthless for Lutherans, adopted out of too great consideration for the weak; this form of worship, utterly at variance with his own liturgical principles, was not to be regarded as a real Lutheran liturgy.