ANTINOMIANS (αντί, against, and νό/ios, law), a term first employed by Luther as a designation of the followers of John Agricola, who maintained that the moral law was not binding, as such, upon Christians (see Agricola, J ohannes). In this, as in many other cases, however, the thing existed long before the name. From the 1st century of the Christian era downwards, there have been those who, on one ground or other, denied that the law was of use or obligation under the gospel dispensation, and the term Antinomian is, accordingly, applied with sufficient propriety to many who lived at an earlier date than the sect or school to describe whom Luther invented it. It would seem, from several passages in the New Testament (Rom. iii. 8, 31, vi. 1; Eph. V. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 18, 19), in which the apostles warn their followers against perversions of their doctrine as an excuse for licentiousness, that Antinomianism, in its grosser form, found a place even in the primitive church. It is to be noticed that this first manifestation of the heresy seems to have been due to the same cause as that which operated in the case of Agricola,—a mistaken interpretation of the doctrine of justification by faith. The Gnostic sects, several of whom are classed as Antinomian, seem to have proceeded on the principle, that being spiritual their nature could not be corrupted whatever their moral conduct might be. Gnostic Antinomianism seems; therefore, to have been in this'respect analogous to that of the High Calvinists, some of whom went so far as to maintain that an elect person did not sin -even when he committed actions in themselves wicked. Such were the Antinomians in England during the Protectorate. A doctrine so extreme, and sanctioning so unmistakably an immoral life, is to be carefully ...distinguished from the Antinomianism combated by Luther, which was a matter of theory not necessarily affecting conduct. It is not easy to apprehend or to state with clearness the precise views of Agricola as to the relation between the Christian and the moral law. His own statements were more than once modified or retracted in the course of discussion, and there can be no doubt that Luther made him responsible for opinions which he did not hold. The exaggeration characteristic of all controversies seems to have prevailed ’in this case to an unusual extent on both sides, and neither disputant should always be taken literally at his word, whether he speaks for himself or for his opponent. It was probably a desire to establish Luther’s negation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of good works on some firm ground of principle, that first led Agricola to insist as he did on the essential incompatibihty between the law and the gospel. The law of Moses, he taught, was for the Jews alone, and was not a rule of life to Christians, who might with safety altogether neglect it. On the other hand, he never denied that the Christian was under a moral government, with an adequate sanction, which laid him under obligation to lead a holy life. What he maintained was that the New Testament furnished all that was.necessary for impulse and guidance in the path of Christian duty, hot in the form of positive precepts so much as of principles and motives. Thus explained, the difference between the orthodox and Agricola’s· party reduces itself within a comparatively narrow compass, though, after the fullest explanation, it remains a real difference and a standing subject of controversy.
[592 words — estimated reading time: 4 minutes]
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 necessity 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 necessary 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 expressly 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 confess their sins, or to break them off by repentance. According to them, it is one of the essential and distinctive characters of the elect, that they cannot do any thing which is displeasing to God. Luther, Rutherford, Schlusselburgh, Sedgwick, Gataker, Witsius, Bull, Williams, &c, have written refutations; Crisp, Richardson, Saltmarsh, &c, defences, of the Antinomians; Wigandus, 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 righteousness, or the matter of obedience, we are under the law still, or else,” as he adds, “we are lawless, 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 impossible.” “The sins of the elect were so imputed to Christ, as that though he did not commit them, yet they became actually his transgressions, 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 righteousness 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 confession of sin are not necessary to forgiveness. A believer may certainly conclude before confession, 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.”
[574 words — estimated reading time: 4 minutes]
