The Roman party now quickened their proceedings: their plan was simple but energetic. It was necessary to put down the religious liberty that had existed for more than three years, and for that purpose they must abrogate the decree of 1526, and revive that of 1521.
On the 15th March the imperial commissaries announced to the diet that the last resolution of Spire, which left each state free to act in conformity with the inspirations of its conscience, having given rise to great disorders, the Emperor had annulled it by virtue of his supreme power. This arbitrary act, and which had no precedent in the Empire, as well as the despotic tone with which it was accompanied, filled the evangelical Christians with indignation and alarm. "Christ," exclaimed Sturm, "has again fallen into the hands of Caiaphas and Pilate."[152]
RESOLUTIONS OF THE DIET.
A commission was charged to examine the imperial proposition. The Archbishop of Salzburg, Faber, and Eck, that is to say, the most violent enemies of the Reformation, were among its members. "The Turks are better than the Lutherans," said Faber, "for the Turks observe fast-days and the Lutherans violate them.[153] If we must choose between the Holy Scriptures of God and the old errors of the Church, we should reject the former."[154] "Every day in full assembly Faber casts some new stone against the Gospellers," says Melancthon.[155] "Oh, what an Iliad I should have to compose," added he, "if I were to report all these blasphemies!"
The priests called for the execution of the Edict of Worms, 1521, and the evangelical members of the commission, among whom were the Elector of Saxony and Sturm, demanded on the contrary the maintenance of the Edict of Spire, 1526. The latter thus remained within the bounds of legality, whilst their adversaries were driven to coups d'état. In fact, a new order of things having been legally established in the Empire, no one could infringe it; and if the diet presumed to destroy by force what had been constitutionally established three years before, the evangelical states had the right of opposing it. The majority of the commission felt that the re-establishment of the ancient order of things would be a revolution no less complete than the Reformation itself. How could they subject anew to Rome and to her clergy those nations in whose bosom the Word of God had been so richly spread abroad? For this reason, equally rejecting the demands of the priests and of the Evangelicals, the majority came to a resolution on the 24th March that every religious innovation should continue to be interdicted in the places where the Edict of Worms had been carried out; and that in those where the people had deviated from it, and where they could not conform to it without danger of revolt, they should at least effect no new reform, they should touch upon no controverted point, they should not oppose the celebration of the Mass, they should permit no Roman catholic to embrace Lutheranism,[156] they should not decline the Episcopal jurisdiction, and should tolerate no Anabaptists or Sacramentarians. The status-quo and no proselytism—such were the essentials of this resolution.
THE REFORMATION IN DANGER.
The majority no longer voted as in 1526: the wind had turned against the Gospel. Accordingly this proposition, after having been delayed a few days by the festival of Easter, was laid before the diet on the 6th April, and passed on the 7th.[157]
If it became a law, the Reformation could neither be extended into those places where as yet it was unknown, nor be established on solid foundations in those where it already existed. The re-establishment of the Romish hierarchy, stipulated in the proposition, would infallibly bring back the ancient abuses; and the least deviation from so vexatious an ordinance would easily furnish the Romanists with a pretext for completing the destruction of a work already so violently shaken.
The Elector, the Landgrave, the Margrave of Brandenburg, the Prince of Anhalt, and the Chancellor of Luneburg on one side, and the deputies for the cities on the other, consulted together. An entirely new order of things was to proceed from this council. If they had been animated by selfishness, they would perhaps have accepted this decree. In fact they were left free, in appearance at least, to profess their faith: ought they to demand more? could they do so? Were they bound to constitute themselves the champions of liberty of conscience in all the world? Never, perhaps, had there been a more critical situation; but these noble-minded men came victorious out of the trial. What! should they legalize by anticipation the scaffold and the torture! Should they oppose the Holy Ghost in its work of converting souls to Christ! Should they forget their Master's command: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature?" If one of the states of the empire desired some day to follow their example and be reformed, should they take away its power of doing so? Having themselves entered the kingdom of heaven, should they shut the door after them? No! rather endure everything, sacrifice everything, even their states, their crowns, and their lives!
DECISION OF THE PRINCES.