ANTINOMIANS

The Antinomians derive their name from ἀντὶ , against, νόμος , law, their distinguishing tenet being, that the law is not a rule of life to believers under the gospel. The founder of the Antinomian heresy was John Agricola, a Saxon divine, a contemporary, a countryman, and at first a disciple, of Luther. He was of a restle temper, and wrote against Melancthon; and having obtained a profe orship at Wittemberg, he first taught Antinomianism there, about the year 1535. The Papists, in their disputes with the Protestants of that day, carried the merit of good works to an extravagant length; and this induced some of their opponents, as is too often the case, to run into the opposite extreme. The doctrine of Agricola was in itself obscure, and perhaps represented worse than it really was by Luther, who wrote with acrimony against him, and first styled him and his followers Antinomians—perhaps thereby “intending,” as Dr. Hey conjectures, “to disgrace the notions of Agricola, and make even him ashamed of them.” Agricola stood in his own defence, and complained that opinions were imputed to him which he did not hold. About the same time, Nicholas Amsdorf, bishop of Naumburg in Saxony, fell under the same odious name and imputation, and seems to have been treated more unfairly than even Agricola himself. The bishop died at Magdeburg in 1541, and some say that his followers were called for a time Amsdorfians, after his name. This sect sprung up among the Presbyterians in England, during the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell, who was himself an Antinomian of the worst sort. The supporters of the Popish doctrines deducing a considerable portion of the arguments on which they rested their defence from the doctrines of the old law, Agricola, in the height of his zeal for reformation, was encouraged by the succe of his master, Luther, to attack the very foundation of their arguments, and to deny that any part of the Old Testament was intended as a rule of faith or practice to the disciples of Christ . He is said to have taught that the law ought not to be proposed to the people as a rule of manners, nor used in the Church as a means of instruction; and, of course, that repentance is not to be preached from the Decalogue, but only from the gospel; that the gospel alone is to be inculcated and explained, both in the churches and the schools of learning; and that good works do not promote our salvation, nor evil works hinder it. Some of his followers in England, in the seventeenth century, are said to have expre ly maintained, that as the elect cannot fall from grace, nor forfeit the Divine favour, the wicked actions they commit are not really sinful, nor are they to be considered as instances of their violation of the Divine law; and that, consequently, they have no occasion either to confe their sins, or to seek renewed forgivene . According to them, it is one of the e ential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they cannot do anything displeasing to God , or prohibited by the law. “Let me speak freely to you, and tell you,” says Dr. Tobias Crisp, (who may be styled the primi pilus of the more modern scheme of Antinomianism, and was the great Antinomian opponent of Baxter, Bates, Howe, .,) “that the Lord hath no more to lay to the charge of an elect person, yet in the height of his iniquity, and in the exce of riot, and committing all the abominations that can be committed; I say, even then, when an elect person runs such a course, the Lord hath no more to lay to that person’s charge, than God hath to lay to the charge of a believer: nay, God hath no more to lay to the charge of such a person than he hath to lay to the charge of a saint triumphant in glory. The elect of God, they are the heirs of God; and as they are heirs, so the first being of them puts them into the right of inheritance, and there is no time but such a person is the child of God.” That the justification of sinners is an immanent and eternal act of God, not only preceding all acts of sin, but the existence of the sinner himself, is the opinion of most of those who are styled Antinomians, though some suppose, with Dr. Crisp, that the elect were justified at the time of Christ’s death. In answer to the question, “When did the Lord justify us?” Dr. Crisp says, “He did, from eternity, in respect of obligation; but in respect of execution, he did it when Christ was on the cro ; and in respect of application, he doth it while children are yet unborn.” The other principal doctrines which at present bear the appellation of Antinomian, are said to be as follows: 1. That justification by faith is no more than a manifestation to us of what was done before we had a being. 2. That men ought not to doubt of their faith, or question whether they believe in Christ. 3. That by God’s laying our iniquities upon Christ, and our being imputed righteous through him, he became as completely sinful as we, and we as completely righteous as Christ. 4. That believers need not fear either their own sins or the sins of others, since neither can do them any injury. 5. That the new covenant is not made properly with us, but with Christ for us; and that this covenant is all of it a promise, having no conditions for us to perform; for faith, repentance, and obedience, are not conditions on our part, but on Christ’s; and that he repented, believed, and obeyed for us. 6. That sanctification is not a proper evidence of justification—that our righteousne is nothing but the imputation of the righteousne of Christ—that a believer has no holine in himself, but in Christ only; and that the very moment he is justified, he is wholly sanctified, and he is neither more nor le holy from that hour to the day of his death. Justification by a faith not nece arily productive of good works, and righteousne imputed to such a faith, are the doctrines by which the members of this denomination are chiefly distinguished. While the Socinian Unitarians place the whole of their religion in morality, in disregard of Christian faith, the Antinomians rely so on faith as to undervalue morality. Their doctrines at least have too much that appearance. In short, according to Dr. Williams, Dr. Crisp’s scheme is briefly this: “That by God’s mere electing decree all saving ble ings are by Divine obligation made ours, and nothing more is needful to our title to these ble ings: that on the cro all the sins of the elect were transferred to Christ, and ceased ever after to be their sins: that at the first moment of conception a title to all those decreed ble ings is personally applied to the elect, and they are invested actually therein. Hence the elect have nothing to do, in order to have an interest in any of those ble ings, nor ought they to intend the least good to themselves in what they do: sin can do them no harm because it is none of theirs; nor can God afflict them for any sin.” And all the rest of his opinions “follow in a chain,” adds Dr. W., “to the dethroning of Christ, enervating his laws and pleadings, obstructing the great design of redemption, opposing the very scope of the gospel, and the ministry of Christ and his prophets and apostles.”— Adams. High Calvin ism, or Antinomianism, absolutely withers and destroys the consciousne of human responsibility. It confounds moral with natural impotency, forgetting that the former is a crime, the latter only a misfortune; and thus treats the man dead in trespa es and sins, as if he were already in his grave. It prophesies smooth things to the sinner going on in his transgre ions, and soothes to slumber and the repose of death the souls of such as are at ease in Zion. It a umes that, because men can neither believe, repent, nor pray acceptably, unle aided by the grace of God, it is usele to call upon them to do so. It maintains that the gospel is only intended for elect sinners, and therefore it ought to be preached to none but such. In defiance, therefore, of the command of God, it refuses to preach the glad tidings of mercy to every sinner. In opposition to Scripture, and to every rational consideration, it contends that it is not man’s duty to believe the truth of God—justifying the obvious inference, that it is not a sin to reject it. In short, its whole tendency is to produce an impre ion on the sinner’s mind, that if he is not saved it is not his fault, but God’s; that if he is condemned, it is more for the glory of the Divine Sovereignty, than as the punishment of his guilt. So far from regarding the moral cure of human nature as the great object and design of the gospel, Antinomianism does not take it in at all, but as it exists in Christ, and becomes ours by a figure of speech. It regards the grace and the pardon as everything—the spiritual design or effect as nothing. Hence its opposition to progre ive and its zeal for imputed sanctification: the former is intelligible and tangible, but the latter a mere figment of the imagination. Hence its delight in expatiating on the eternity of the Divine decrees, which it does not understand, but which serve to amuse and to deceive; and its dislike to all the sober realities of God’s present dealings and commands. It exults in the contemplation of a Christ who is a kind of concretion of all the moral attributes of his people; to the overlooking of that Christ who is the Head of all that in heaven and on earth bear his likene . It boasts in the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, while it believes in no saint but one, that is, Jesus, and neglects to persevere.— Orme’s Life of Baxter , vol. ii. p. 311. ANTI-PÆDO BAPTISTS. (From ἀντὶ , against, παῖς , child, βάπτισμα , baptism.) Persons who are opposed to the baptism of infants. In this country, this sect arrogate to themselves the title of Baptists par excellence , as though no other body of Christians baptized: just as the Socinians extenuate their heresy by calling themselves Unitarians : thereby insinuating that those who hold the mystery of the Holy Trinity do not believe in one God . (See Anabaptists , Baptism .)