o know that, with regard to his means and possessions, he has
the right of using, of doing, and of forbearing to do according to his
free will; although also even this is directed by the free will of God
alone whithersoever it pleases Him. But with respect to God, or in
things pertaining to salvation or damnation, he has no free will, but is
the captive, subject, and servant, either of the will of God or of the
will of Satan." (E. 160; St. L. 1722.) "Perhaps you might properly
attribute some will (_aliquod arbitrium_) to man, but to attribute free
will to him in divine things is too much, since in the judgment of all
who hear it the term 'free will' is properly applied to that which can
do and does with respect to God whatsoever it pleases, without being
hindered by any law or authority. You would not call a slave free who
acts under the authority of his master. With how much less propriety do
we call men or angels truly free, who, to say nothing of sin and death,
live under the most complete authority of God, unable to subsist for a
moment by their own power." (E. 189; St. L. 1756.)

Lost liberty, says Luther, is no liberty, just as lost health is no
health. We read: "When it has been conceded and settled that free will,
having lost its freedom, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power to
will anything good, I can conceive nothing else from these expressions
than that free will is an empty word, with the substance lost. My
grammar calls a lost liberty no liberty. But to attribute the title of
liberty to that which has no liberty is to attribute an empty name. If
here I go astray, let who can correct me; if my words are obscure and
ambiguous, let who can make them plain and definite. I cannot call
health that is lost health. If I should ascribe it to a sick man, I
believe to have ascribed to him nothing but an empty name. But away with
monstrous words! For who can tolerate that abuse of speech by which we
affirm that man has free will, and in the same breath assert that he,
having lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and can will nothing
good? It conflicts with common sense, and utterly destroys the use of
speech. The _Diatribe_ is rather to be accused of blurting out its words
as if it were asleep, and giving no heed to those of others. It does not
consider, I say, what it means, and what it all includes, if I declare:
Man has lost his liberty, is compelled to serve sin, and has no power to
will anything good