authority of the Pope extending over all men tends to disturb the minds of the children in the schools:  they are taught at an early age to obey the Viceregent of God in preference to obeying the Emperor and the State.  In the higher schools this is done by the clergy that is commissioned to teach in such schools.” (p. 7.) Again:  “The Roman order of the Jesuits is not only spread like a net over all countries, but it sinks its roots into every age, sex, estate, and loosens and forces apart the ligaments of civil institutions.” (p. 8.)

Luther’s views on human free will are brought forward once more to show that his teaching necessarily is hostile to liberty.  Luther’s famous reply to Erasmus On the Bondage of the Will is made to do yeoman’s service in this respect.  What Luther has declared regarding the sovereignty of God’s rulership over men, regarding the relation of God also to the evil existing in this world, regarding the absence of chance in the affairs of men, regarding man’s utter helplessness over and against the supreme will of God, is cited to prove that Luther’s teaching leads, not to liberty, but either to recklessness or despair.  Luther’s views on “the captive, or enslaved, will” are declared to be the most degrading and demoralizing teaching that men have been offered during the last centuries.  Luther’s famous illustration, viz., that man is like a horse which either God or the devil rides, has prompted the following remarks of one of Luther’s most recent critics:  “This parable summarizes the whole of Luther’s teaching on the vital and all-important subject of man’s free will. . . .  All who are honest and fearless of consequences must admit in frankest terms that Luther’s teaching on free will, as expounded in his book, and explicitly making God the author of man’s evil thoughts and deeds, cannot but lend a mighty force to the passions and justify the grossest violations of the moral law.  Indeed, the enemy of souls, as Anderson remarks, ’could not inspire a doctrine more likely to effect his wicked designs than Luther’s teaching oil the enslavement of the human will.’” There is a dogmatic reason for this excoriation of Luther:  Rome’s teaching of righteousness by works and human merit.  The same author says, in immediate connection with the foregoing:  “Likening man to a ’beast of burden,’ does Luther not maintain that man is utterly powerless ’by reason of his fallen nature’ to lead a godly life, and merit by the practise of virtue the rewards of eternal happiness?  Does he not say:  ‘It is written in the hearts of men that there is no freedom of will,’ that ‘all takes place in accordance with inexorable necessity,’ and that, even ‘were free will offered him, he should not care to have it’?  But does not all this contradict the Spirit of God when, speaking in the Book of Ecclesiasticus, He says:  ’Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him’?”