[1463] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 62, p. 50, Table-Talk, in connection with some words reported to have been uttered by Andreas Proles, which, however, were certainly meant by him in a different sense.
[1464] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 7, p. 632; Erl. ed., 27, p. 235.
[1465] Ibid., 23, p. 69=30, p. 19 f.
[1466] “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 441. Here he says in his “Contra regem Angliæ”: “De doctrina cognoscere et iudicare pertinet ad omnes et singulos Christianos et ita pertinet, ut anathema sit, qui hoc ius uno pilo læserit.... Nunc autem (Christus) non solum ius, sed præceptum, iudicandi statuit, ut hæc sola auctoritas satis esse queat adversus omnium pontificum, omnium patrum, omnium conciliorum, omnium scholarum sententias.... Huic subscribunt ferme omnes omnium prophetarum syllabæ.... Habet hic Henricus noster aut ullus impurus Thomista, quod istis obganniat? Nonne obstruximus os loquentium iniqua?”
[1467] Köstlin, “Luther’s Theol.,” 1², p. 379.
[1468] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, p. 298.
[1469] Ibid., Weim. ed., 2, p. 429 f.; “Opp. lat. var.,” 3, p. 287.
[1470] “Werke,” Weim. ed., 10, 2, p. 23; Erl. ed., 28, pp. 298, 299. Cp. above, p. 397, n. 1, also pp. 398 and 400, on the “iudicium interius.”
[1471] The last words are from Scheel. See above, p. 392, n. 2, p. 76.
[1472] Cp. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 28, p. 580 ff.; Erl. ed., 36, p. 234 f.; 52, p. 392.