[500] Cp. Enders, “Luthers Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 73 n.
[501] June 26, 1533, to Schnabel, “Briefwechsel,” 9, p. 316.
[502] Ib., p. 68.
[503] Below, xxxv., 2.
[504] To what extent the Elector was following the example of his Catholic ancestors in Church matters is shown by K. Pallas, “Entstehung des landesherrlichen Kirchenregiments in Kursachsen” (“N. Mitteilungen aus dem Gebiet historisch-antiquarischer Forschung”), 24, 2.
[505] To Luther, Nov. 26, 1526, “Briefwechsel,” 5, p. 408.
[506] Proofs of this will be given below when we deal with Luther’s attitude towards State government of the Church. So ineffectual was Luther’s reserve and even his formal protest, that Carl Holl (above, p. 134, n. 4) remarks (p. 59): “These exertions on Luther’s part were of small avail. Facts proved stronger than his theories. Once the Visitation had been made in the Elector’s name, then, in spite of all that might be said, he could not fail to appear as the one to whom the oversight of spiritual matters belonged. It must have been fairly difficult for the Electoral Chancery to make the distinction between the Elector speaking as a brother to other Christians and as a ruler to his subjects. It was certainly much easier to treat everything on the same lines.” Cp. W. Friedensburg, above, vol. ii., p. 333, n. 2.
[507] Cp. vol. ii., p. 319 ff.
[508] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 2 sqq.
[509] Ib., Weim. ed., 19, p. 70 ff.; Erl. ed., 22, p. 227 ff.