#2265-To Andreas Ebert a.O.

(Replying to #2264)

To the highly-honorable man, Herr Andreas Ebert, preacher in Frankfurt on the Oder, in the LOrd his very beloved brother.
Grace and peace in Christ! To many what you write is unbelievable,my dear Andreas,and before you wrote I also thought, as it was told here, that I was hearing a joke or a fable. However, if the matter stands,as you write,I hold that it is a sign,permitted by God, that Satan is a figure of certain Princes who rob and devour but accomplish nothing. This is a jokeful spirit and in his leisure ridicules our confidence so we must first of all earnestly pray for the young girl who must suffer such things for our sake. So also must this spirit in return be despised and ridiculed but not with any sort of cursing or by any earnest things attacked becasue he despises everything in devilish pride. We must prevail in prayer for the maiden and with contempt for the devil and finally, as Christ grants grace, he will cease. It would also be good if the Prince would lessen your burden which is indicated through this sign and by which this malicious spirit, as he here illustrates, confidently and powerfully rules. I request, yes, that you make this public as a worthy matter and you investigate everything certainly so there is not a deception perpetrated here and whether the money pieces or coins which the young girl seizes are those used in the markets. I have been driven about with so many false pretenses,deception,intrigue,lies,artistry etc. previously that it is necessary to proceed not believing everything that everyone except such that I know they do and say.So great is the power of the devil, the evil of the world, the impudence of men today so therfore take great caution that you are not deceived and I also deceived with you. Eperto crede Ruperto (test out the credibility of the rumor?)as the proverb says. Be it well with you in the LOrd and pray for me. Wittenberg on the August 5,1536.

NOTE: Any Latin experts on "Experto crede Ruperto"? I'm wondering in the absence of a
signature here and the address D."N" in the previous letter whether there is any suspicion that it was directed to ML and this is his reply. Not really, I guess.