"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 quâ non."
Nos. 2 and 3 interposed with a protest; they thought it "legal" to introduce the phrase sine quâ non; it was introducing conditions. Justification was unconditional.
"But is not faith a condition?" asked Charles.