164
The Great Controversy 1888
mitted to embrace Lutheranism. This measure passed the Diet, to the
great satisfaction of the popish priests and prelates.
If this edict were enforced, the Reformation could neither be ex-
tended where as yet it had not reached, nor be established on a firm
foundation where it already existed. Liberty of speech would be pro-
hibited. No conversions would be allowed. And to these restrictions
and prohibitions the friends of the Reformation were required at once
to submit. The hopes of the world seemed about to be extinguished.
The re-establishment of the papal worship would inevitably cause a
revival of the ancient abuses; and an occasion would readily be found
for completing the destruction of a work that had already been shaken
by fanaticism and dissension.
As the evangelical party met for consultation, one looked to another
in blank dismay. From one to another passed the inquiry, “What is to be
done?” Mighty issues for the world were at stake. “Should the chiefs
of the Reformation submit, and accept the edict? How easily might the
reformers at this crisis, which was truly a tremendous one, have argued
[200]
themselves into a wrong course! How many plausible pretexts and fair
reasons might they have found for submission! The Lutheran princes
were guaranteed the free exercise of their religion. The same boon
was extended to all those of their subjects who, prior to the passing
of the measure, had embraced the reformed views. Ought not this to
content them? How many perils would submission avoid! On what
unknown hazards and conflicts would opposition launch them! Who
knows what opportunities the future may bring? Let us embrace peace;
let us seize the olive-branch Rome holds out, and close the wounds of
Germany. With arguments like these might the reformers have justified
their adoption of a course which would have assuredly issued in no
long time in the overthrow of their cause.
“Happily they looked at the principle on which this arrangement
was based, and they acted in faith. What was that principle?—It was
the right of Rome to coerce conscience and forbid free inquiry. But
were not themselves and their Protestant subjects to enjoy religious
freedom?—Yes, as a favor, specially stipulated for in the arrangement,
but not as a right. As to all outside that arrangement, the great principle
of authority was to rule; conscience was out of court, Rome was
infallible judge, and must be obeyed. The acceptance of the proposed
arrangement would have been a virtual admission that religious liberty