166
The Great Controversy
infallible judge, and must be obeyed. The acceptance of the proposed
arrangement would have been a virtual admission that religious liberty
ought to be confined to reformed Saxony; and as to all the rest of
Christendom, free inquiry and the profession of the reformed faith
were crimes, and must be visited with the dungeon and the stake. Could
they consent to localize religious liberty? to have it proclaimed that the
Reformation had made its last convert? had subjugated its last acre?
and that wherever Rome bore sway at this hour, there her dominion
was to be perpetuated? Could the Reformers have pleaded that they
were innocent of the blood of those hundreds and thousands who, in
pursuance of this arrangement, would have to yield up their lives in
[201]
popish lands? This would have been to betray, at that supreme hour,
the cause of the gospel and the liberties of Christendom.”—Wylie, b.
9, ch. 15. Rather would they “sacrifice everything, even their states,
their crowns, and their lives.”—D’Aubigne, b. 13, ch. 5.
“Let us reject this decree,” said the princes. “In matters of con-
science the majority has no power.” The deputies declared: “It is to
the decree of 1526 that we are indebted for the peace that the empire
enjoys: its abolition would fill Germany with troubles and divisions.
The Diet is incompetent to do more than preserve religious liberty
until the council meets.”—Ibid., b. 13, ch. 5. To protect liberty of con-
science is the duty of the state, and this is the limit of its authority in
matters of religion. Every secular government that attempts to regulate
or enforce religious observances by civil authority is sacrificing the
very principle for which the evangelical Christian so nobly struggled.
The papists determined to put down what they termed “daring
obstinacy.” They began by endeavoring to cause divisions among
the supporters of the Reformation and to intimidate all who had not
openly declared in its favor. The representatives of the free cities were
at last summoned before the Diet and required to declare whether they
would accede to the terms of the proposition. They pleaded for delay,
but in vain. When brought to the test, nearly one half their number
sided with the Reformers. Those who thus refused to sacrifice liberty
of conscience and the right of individual judgment well knew that
their position marked them for future criticism, condemnation, and
persecution. Said one of the delegates: “We must either deny the word
of God, or—be burnt.”—Ibid., b. 13, ch. 5.