ANTI-LIBANUS

The Greeks give this name to that chain of mountains east of Libanus, which, properly speaking, forms, together with Libanus, but one ridge of mountains, extending from north to south, and afterward from south to north, in the shape almost of a horse shoe, for the space of about fourscore leagues. The western part of these mountains was called Libanus; the eastern was called Anti lib an us; the former reached along the Mediterranean, from Sidon, almost to Arada, or Symira. The Hebrew text never mentions Anti lib an us; but uses the general name Libanus: and the coins struck at Laodicea and Hierapolis, have the inscription, “cities of Libanus,” though they belong rather to Anti lib an us. The Septuagint, on the contrary, puts Anti lib an us often instead of Libanus. The valley which separates Libanus from Anti lib an us is very fruitful: it was formerly, on the side of Syria, inclosed with a wall, whereof there are now no traces. Strabo says, that the name of Cœlo-Syria, or “the hollow Syria,” belongs principally to the valley between Libanus and Anti lib an us. ANTINOMIANS are those who maintain that the law is of no use or obligation under the Gospel dispensation, or who hold doctrines that clearly supersede the nece ity of good works and a virtuous life. The Antinomians took their origin from John Agricola, about the year 1538, who taught that the law was in no wise nece ary under the Gospel; that good works do not promote our salvation, nor ill ones hinder it; that repentance is not to be preached from the decalogue, but only from the Gospel. This sect sprung up in England during the protectorate of Oliver Cromwell; and extended their system of libertinism much farther than Agricola, the disciple of Luther. Some of their teachers 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 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 break them off by repentance. According to them, it is one of the e ential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they cannot do any thing which is displeasing to God. Luther, Rutherford, Schlu elburgh, Sedgwick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, Williams, , have written refutations; Crisp, Richardson, Salt marsh, , defences, of the Antinomians; Wig and us, a comparison between ancient and modern Antinomians. The doctrine of Agricola was in itself obscure, and is thought to have been represented worse than it really was by Luther, who wrote against him with acrimony, and first styled him and his followers Antinomians. Agricola, in defending himself, complained that opinions were imputed to him which he did not hold. The writings of Dr. Crisp in the seventeenth century are considered as highly favourable to Antinomianism, though he acknowledges that, “in respect of the rules of righteousne , or the matter of obedience, we are under the law still, or else,” as he adds, “we are lawle , to live every man as seems good in his own eyes, which no true Christian dares so much as think of.” The following sentiments, however, among others, are taught in his sermons: “The law is cruel and tyrannical, requiring what is naturally impo ible.” “The sins of the elect were so imputed to Christ, as that though he did not commit them, yet they became actually his transgre ions, and ceased to be theirs.” “The feelings of conscience, which tell them that sin is theirs, arise from a want of knowing the truth.” “It is but the voice of a lying spirit in the hearts of believers, that saith they have yet sin wasting their consciences, and lying as a burden too heavy for them to bear.” “Christ’s righteousne is so imputed to the elect, that they, ceasing to be sinners, are as righteous as he was, and all that he was.” “An elect person is not in a condemned state while an unbeliever; and should he happen to die before God call him to believe, he would not be lost.” “Repentance and confe ion of sin are not nece ary to forgivene . A believer may certainly conclude before confe ion, yea, as soon as he hath committed sin, the interest he hath in Christ, and the love of Christ embracing him.” These dangerous sentiments, and others of a similar bearing, have been fully answered by many writers; but by none more ably than by the Rev. John Fletcher, in his “Checks to Antinomianism.”