12 ANTHROPOLOGY
the abbey-in-ehief of the order of St. Anthony, which in after ages received vast possessions and privileges. After many disorders, the fraternity fell into decay in the 18th century, and was united in 1775 to the order of Malta, which it enriched by the addition of 42 houses. The Antonians soon repented of having en- tered this union, and reclaimed against it in 1780, but in vain. A single commandery, Hoechst, in Germa- ny, existed until 1803, when the order became entirely extinct. — Helyot, Ordres Religieux, i, 264 ; Landon, s. v.
Anthropolatrae («i'S-pw7ro\«rptti, mwn-worship- pers), a name by which the Apollinarians stigmatized the orthodox, because they maintained that Christ was a perfect man, and had a reasonable soul and body. Apollinarius denied this, maintaining that the divine nature in Christ supplied the place of a rational soul, constituting, in fact, his mind. — Bingham, Or'.g. Ec- cles. bk. i, ch. ii, § 16 ; Farrar, s. v.
Anthropology (avSpionoXoyia, a discourse on man) is that part of scientific theology which treats of man, his nature, relations, etc., as distinguished from theology proper (the doctrine of God) and Christology (the doctrine of Christ). Theological anthropology distinguishes itself from physiological anthropology by viewing man not as a natural being, but in his rela- tion to God. It may be divided into two chief parts : the doctrine of the original condition of man before the fall, and the doctrine of the fall and of sin wh'ch through the fall came into the human race, propagated itself, and took effect in every individual.
It must be admitted that a scientific anthropology is not possible in theology without physiological an- thropology, that is, without a knowledge of the nat- ural organism of man. But physiological anthropol- ogy is only the basis of the theological, and the com- pletest knowledge of'man in an anatomical, physio- logical, and even psychological point of view is un- able to disclose the religious nature of man. All that we may learn of the latter in a psychological way is a view of man in his individualism, as a sample of the race ; but only the history of mankind in connection with the revelations of God can open to us a full look upon his religious nature. It is therefore safe to as- sert that, as theology must be anthropological, thus anthropology must tie theological ; and Harless (pref- ace to his manual of Ethical Theohgy) is right in rec- ommending to theologians not to neglect the physio- logical researches on the nature of man. The question of body and soul (or, according to the Trichotomists, body, soul, and spirit), as well as the question on the origin of the soul (pre-existence, traducianism, and creatianism), belong to theological anthropology only in so far as the)- may contribute to an understanding of man's religious nature. History knows as little of the original condition of man (state of innocence) as natural history knows of paradise. The true proce- dure of the dogmatic theologian will be to comprehend in his own mind the few but grand hints of the Scrip- tures on the subject (image of God), and then by exegetical, historical, and philosophical means, so to elaborate them as to show, behind the figurative ex- pressions, the higher idea of humanity ; for upon the correct comprehension of this idea depends the correct conception of sin, whether it is to be viewed as a mere negation, a natural deficiency, or both as a privation and deprivation, or depravation of human nature.
In Genesis we find the biblical narrative of the origin of sin, and this narrative is reproduced daily in the experience of mankind. Even when the full Augustinian idea of original sin may not be adhered to, the consciousness of an aggregate guilt of the race, in which the individual man has his part, is the true deeply religious view, confirmed both by Scripture and experience. Psychological observations, and the study of the Scriptures, complete and illustrate each other nowhere so fully as in the doctrine of sin. Paul, Au-
ANTHROPOMORPHISM
253
ANTIBAPTISTS
gustine, and Luther spoke from their personal expe- rience as well as from the depths of human nature. The abstract intellect may always lean toward Pela- gianism, but religious experience attests that the in- tellect alone cannot comprehend the depth of sin (Hun- deshagen, Weg zu Christo, i, 136 sq.). — Hagenbach, Encyklopddie,'7th ed., p. 308 sq. See Theology.
Anthropomorphism (from dvQpwirog, a man, and pocxpii, a form), 1. a term used to signify the "rep- resentation of divinity under a human form ;" and the nations or sects who have followed this practice have been sometimes called Anthropomorphites (q. v.). The Egyptians represented deities under human forms, as well as those of animals, and sometimes under a com- bination of the two. The ancient Persians, as Herodo- tus tells us (i, 131), adored the Supreme Being under no visible form of their own creation, but they worshipped on the tops of mountains, and sacrificed to the sun and moon, to earth, fire, water, and the winds. The He- brews were forbidden (Exod. xx, 4, 5) to make any image or the representation of any animated being whatever. The Greeks were essentially anthropomor- phists, and could never separate the idea of superior powers from the representation of them under a hu- man form ; hence, in their mythology and in their arts, each deity had his distinguishing attributes and a char- acteristic human shape. Jews, Christians, and Mo- hammedans revere God as a spirit, and therefore re- ject all representations of Deity in human form.