Page:Luther's correspondence and other contemporary letters 1507-1521.djvu/376

 dean of the faculty, and rector during the winter-semester, 1520-1. In November, 1524, he was made president of Adrian VI/s College. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, and de Jongh, 165-7.

I do not think it necessary to admonish you of your duty, of which a part is not only to keep from hurting others your- self, but to prevent anyone doing an injury to another. The many things which Nicholas Edmond, either at your command or at the Pope's, said against Luther, do not, I think, pertain to me ; but what he did beyond all command and contrary to the will of the Pope, who wishes even those who have hith- erto followed Luther dealt with gently, and that none others should be involved, this, I say, which he did in attacking me falsely and undeservedly, pertains to your authority and juris- diction. You should silence this man of peevish tongue, espe- cially as he is a bad example and injurious both to the order of theologians and to this university. . . . On October 9, in the church of St. Peter, while preaching on charity, as I happened to be present, he suddenly and ignobly turned his sermon against me, and said that I favored Luther, although from the beginning I have always said with perfect truth that I had no commerce with Luther except what one Christian might have with another. . . . From the taste of his works which I have had, I liked his gifts, by which I conjectured he might have been a chosen vessel for Christ had he wished to use his gifts for Christ's glory. As there were many fierce sermons against him and many false charges I preferred that, if in error, he should rather be corrected than put to death; if that is to favor Luther, I frankly confess that I favor him, as I think the Pope does, and you all do if only you are true theologians and Christians. . . . Egmond even said that I defended Luther, because in my letter to the Cardinal of Mayence I spoke of the Carmelite who blamed Luther for saying that some mortal sins should not be confessed, al- though he did not understand Luther's meaning. . . . Surely if it is pious to refute Luther it is necessary to understand him. . . . [Follows a long apology for this and for the letter to Luther.]. ..

I do not think that you approve of those who have hitherto written against Luther, of whom the first was Prierias, the

�� �