said No. 1; "it may be true in a
certain sense, but it throws stumbling-blocks in the way of seekers.
Luther could not have meant what you say, I am convinced. Justifying
faith is always accompanied by love."

"That is what I thought," said Charles.

"That is the Romish doctrine all over," said No. 2; "it is the doctrine
of Bull and Taylor."

"Luther calls it, '_venenum infernale_,'" said Freeborn.

"It is just what the Puseyites preach at present," said No. 3.

"On the contrary," said No. 1, "it is the doctrine of Melancthon. Look
here," he continued, taking his pocketbook out of his pocket, "I have
got his words down as Shuffleton quoted them in the Divinity-school the
other day: '_Fides significat fiduciam; in fiducida_ inest _dilectio;
ergo etiam dilectione sumus justi_.'"

Three of the party cried "Impossible!" The paper was handed round in
solemn silence.

"Calvin said the same," said No. 1 triumphantly.

"I think," said No. 4, in a slow, smooth, sustained voice, which
contrasted with the animation which had suddenly inspired the
conversation, "that the con-tro-ver-sy, ahem, may be easily arranged. It
is a question of words between Luther and Melancthon. Luther says, ahem,
'faith is _without_ love,' meaning, 'faith without love justifies.'
Melancthon, on the other hand, says, ahem, 'faith is _with_ love,'
meaning, 'faith justifies with love.' Now both are true: for, ahem,
faith-without-love _justifies_, yet faith justifies _not-without-love_."

There was a pause, while both parties digested this explanation.

"On the contrary," he added, "it is the Romish doctrine that
faith-with-love justifies."

Freeborn expressed his dissent; he thought this the doctrine of
Melancthon which Luther condemned.

"You mean," said Charles, "that justification is given to faith _with_
love, not to faith _and_ love."

"You have expressed my meaning," said No. 4.

"And what is considered the difference between _with_ and _and_?" asked
Charles.

No. 4 replied without hesitation, "Faith is the _instrument_, love the
_sine qua non_."

Nos. 2 and 3 interposed with a protest; they thought it "legal" to
introduce the phrase _sine qua non_; it was introducing _conditions_.
Justification was unconditional.

"But is not faith a condition?" asked Charles.

"Certainly not," said Freeborn; "'condition' is a legal word. How can
salvation be free and full, if it is conditional?"

"There are no conditions," said No. 3; "all m