684 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 1580.
made great progress. The threatening invasion of the Turks, and the quarrel of the Emperor with the Pope, favored the Protestant cause, and inclined the Roman Catholic majority to forbearance.
The Diet came with the consent of Ferdinand to the unanimous conclusion, Aug. 27, that a general or national council should be convened for the settlement of the church question, and that in the mean time, in matters concerning the Edict of Worms, “every State shall so live, rule, and believe as it may hope and trust to answer before God and his imperial Majesty.” 1
This important action was not meant to annul the Edict of Worms, and to be a permanent law of religious liberty, which gave to each member of the Diet the right to act as he pleased.? It was no legal basis of territorial self-government, and no law at all. It was, as indicated by the terms, only an armistice, or temporary suspension of the Edict of Worms till the meeting of a general council, and within the limits of obedience to the Catholic Emperor who had no idea of granting religious liberty, or even toleration, to Protestants.
But in its practical effect the resolution of 1526 went far
1 “ Demnach haben wir uns jetzt einmiithiglich verglichen und vereiniget, mittlerzeit des Concilii, oder aber Nationalversammlung, nichtsdestoweniger mit unsern Unterthanen, ein jeglicher in Sachen so das Edict durch kaiserl. Majestat auf dem Reichstag zu Worms gehalten, ausgangen, belangen mochten, fiir sich also zu leben, zu regieren und zu halten, wie ein jeder solches gegen Gott und kaiserliche Majestat hoffet und vertraut zu verantworten.’’ See the Reichsabschied (recess) in Walch, XVI. 266, and in Gieseler, III. I. 223 (Germ. ed.; IV. 126 Am. ed.). The acts are now published in full by Friedensburg.
2 This was the view heretofore taken by most Protestant historians, e.g., by Kurtz (II. 31, ed. 9th), who calls the recess ‘‘ die reichsgesetzliche Legitimation der Territorialverfassung,’’ and by Fisher (Hist. of the Christ. Ch., p. 304): ‘* This act gave the Lutheran movement a legal existence.”? The correct view is stated by Janssen (III. 51): ‘‘ Der Speierer Abschied bildet keineswegs eine positive Rechtsgrundlage, wohl aber den Ausgangspunkt fir die Ausbildung neuer Landeskirchen.’? Kluckhohn, Friedensburg, and his reviewer, Kawerau (in the ‘‘ Theol. Literaturzeitung,’’ Dec. 8, 1887), arrive at the same conclusion.
§ 112. THE FIRST DIET OF SPEIER. 685
beyond its intention. It was a great help to the cause of Protestantism, especially as the council which the Diet contemplated, and which the Emperor himself repeatedly urged upon the Pope, was postponed for twenty years. In the mean time the Protestant princes, notably Philip of Hesse at the Synod of Homberg (Oct. 20, 1526), and the Elector of Saxony, interpreted the decree according to their wishes, and made the best use of the temporary privilege of independent action, regardless of its limitations or the views of the Emperor. Luther himself understood the Diet of Speier as having given him a temporary acquittal of heresy.}
At all events, from this time dates the exercise of territorial sovereignty, and the establishment of separate State churches in Germany. And as that country is divided into a number of sovereign States, there are there as many Protestant church organizations as Protestant States, according to the maxim that the ruler of the territory is the ruler of religion within its bounds (ewus regio, eyus religio).
Every Protestant sovereign hereafter claimed and exercised the so-called jus reformandi religionem, and decided the church question according to his own faith and that of the majority of his subjects. Saxony, Hesse, Prussia, Anhalt, Lineburg, East-Friesland, Schleswig-Holstein, Silesia, and the cities of Nurnberg, Augsburg, Frankfurt, Ulm, Strassburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Liibeck, adopted the Reformation.
1 He alludes to it in a polemical tract against Duke George of Saxony from the year 1529 as follows: ‘‘ Auch so bin ich auf dem Reichstage zu Speir durch ein Offentlichs kaiserlichs Reichsdecret wiederumb befreiet, oder zum wenigsten befristet [freed at least for a season], dass man mich nicht kann einen Ketzer schelten ; weil daselbst beschlossen ist von Allen eintrdachtiglich, dass ein jeglicher solle und miige glauben, wie ers wisse gegen Gott und kaiserliche Majestat zu verantworten ; und ich billig daraus als die Ungehorsamen dem Reich und Aufriihrischen beklagen mocht alle die, so mich einen Ketzer schelten. Hat das Gebot zu Worms gegolten, da ich verdampt ward ohn Bewilligung der besten und hohesten Stdinde des Reichs: warumb sollt mir denn das Gebot zu Speir nicht auch gelten, welchs eintrachtlich durch alle Stdinde des Reichs beschlossen und angenommen ist.’? ἘΠ). ed., vol. VIII. p. 14.