Part 17 (1/2)
”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 must come from the heart. We believe with the heart, we love from the heart, we obey with the heart; not because we are obliged, but because we have a new nature.”
”Is there no obligation to obey?” said Charles, surprised.
”No obligation to the regenerate,” answered No. 3; ”they are above obligation; they are in a new state.”
”But surely Christians are under a law,” said Charles.
”Certainly not,” said No. 2; ”the law is done away in Christ.”
”Take care,” said No. 1; ”that borders on Antinomianism.”
”Not at all,” said Freeborn; ”an Antinomian actually holds that he may break the law: a spiritual believer only holds that he is not bound to keep it.”