similar in character to those at Pressburg and Cracow and equally resultless. The principal speaker on the national side was Lord Kostka of Postupic, who had already taken part in several similar discussions. The Bohemians again demanded that the Council in which they were to take part should be a truly ecumenical one, to which members of the Greek and the Oriental Churches should be admitted. Sigismund, who was present at Cheb accompanied by many German princes, rejected this proposal, which, indeed, he considered ridiculous[1] The King then suggested that the Hussites should leave to the Council the final decision as to what was true Scriptural doctrine. The Hussites replied that they would die rather than submit unconditionally to the Council, and they also rejected Sigismund’s proposal that an armistice should be concluded which was to last during the time in which the Council continued its deliberations. This concluded the negotiations, and the Bohemian envoys hurriedly returned to Prague, where they cailed on their countrymen to be ready to resist an immediate German invasion.
Sigismund had in August 1430 returned to Germany after an absence of nearly eight years. It was now his duty to superintend the organisation of a new crusade. He did this reluctantly, remembering the failure of previous expeditions, yet it appears that from the time when he had received Prokop at Pressburg he had been planning a new invasion of Bohemia. In February 1431 the German princes began to assemble at Nürnberg, where the long-deferred imperial diet was to meet. The festivities on this occasion were very brilliant, and the German princes attended in large numbers. As soon, however, as the serious deliberation began great difficulties arose. The free so-called “imperial” cities possessed great
- ↑ “Subjunxerunt etiam [the Hussites] quod in hujusmodi concilio totius Christianitatis etiam Indi, Græci, Armeni, schismatici et breviter omnes Christum confitentes interesse deberent et plura alia quæ ad scribendum magis ridiculosa quam utilia forent” (Palacký, Urkundliche Beiträge, Vol. II. pp. 209–214.)
