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. [156] Nec catholicos a libero religionis exercitio impediri debere, neque cuiquam ex his licere Lutheranismum amplecti.--(Seckend. ii. p. 127.) [Sidenote: 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] [157] Sleidan, i. p. 261. 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.