Therefore I would be glad to find this word priests becoming as common as it is for us to be called Christians. For it is all one thing—priest, baptized, Christian. As little as I would suffer that those who are anointed and shorn should be called Christians and the baptized, [1.] so little would I endure that they only should be regarded as priests. Yet they have arrogated the name entirely to themselves. So too they have named the church which the pope and his cardinals rule. But Scripture refutes this. Therefore mark well, that you may know how to establish the distinction as to how God names us priests, and how men call themselves such. For we must yet again state this word priest [2.] should become as common as the word Christian. For to be a Priest belongs not to an office that is external, it is only such an office that is administered before God.
I think that the archaic definition 2 of suffer applies here. Then does [1.] mean that although Martin Luther only tolerates little of 'those ... called Christians and the baptized', he would tolerate even less that such people
be regarded as priests ?
I question my guess for [1.] because the modal verb should in [2.] implies the opposite: these sham priests should become Christians? What did I misinterpret?