2. The term is also used to denote that figure of speech by which the sacred writers attribute to God parts, actions, and affections which properly belong to man ; as when they speak of the eyes of God, his hand, etc. Anthropomorphism (avSrp(Dw6pop(poc;) differs from anthropopathy (dv9pu)TroTra9t'ic) in this : the first is the attributing to God any thing whatever which, strict- ly speaking, is applicable to man only ; the second is the act of attributing to God passions which belong to man's nature. Instances of both are found in the Scriptures, by which the}' adapt themselves to human modes of speaking, and to the limited capacities of men (see Kliigling, Ueb. d. . I nfhropomorph'smvs d. Bi- bel, Danz. 180G ; Gelpe, Apologie d. unthropomorph. u. anthropopath. Darstellung Gottes, Leips. 1842). These anthropopathies we must, however, interpret in a man- ner suitable to the majesty of the Divine nature. Thus, when the members of a human body are as- cribed to God, we must understand by them those perfections of which such members are in us the in- struments. The eye, for instance, represents God's knowledge and watchful care; the arm his power and strength ; his ear the regard he pays to prayer and to the cry of oppression and misery, etc. Farther, when human affections are attributed to God, we must so interpret them as to imply no imperfection, such as perturbed feeling, in him. When God is said to re- pent, the antecedent, by a frequent figure of speech, is put for the consequent ; and in this case we are to un- derstand an altered mode of proceeding on the part of God, which in man is the effect of repenting.
Anthropomorphitic phrases, generally considered, are such as ascribe to the Deity mixed perfections and human imperfections. These phrases may be divided into three classes, according to which we ascribe to God: 1. Human actions (dv9pioTroiroir)aic) ; 2. Hu- man affections, passions, and sufferings (anthropopa- thy); 3. Human form, human organs, linman members (anthropomorphism). A rational being, who receives impressions through the senses, can form conceptions of the Deity only by a consideration of his own pow- ers and properties (Journal Sac. Lit. 1848, p. 9 sq.). Anthropomorphitic modes of thought are therefore un- avoidable in the religion of mankind ; and although they can furnish no other than corporeal or sensible representations of the Deity, they are nevertheless true and just when we guard against transferring to God qualities pertaining to the human senses. It is,
for instance, a proper expression to assert that God knows all things ; it is improper, that is, tropical or anthropomorphitic, to say that he sees all things. An- thropomorphism is thus a species of accommodation (q. v.), inasmuch as by these representations the Deity, as it were, lowers himself to the comprehension of men. We can only think of God as the archetype of our own spirit, and the idea of God can no longer be retained if we lose sight of this analogy. Anthro- pomorphism must be supplanted by Christianity ; an- thropopathism is not supplanted, but spiritualized and refined. Only what is false must be rejected— that crudeness which transfers to God human passions (jrddif) and defects, for want of recollecting the eleva- tion of the Supreme Being, as well as his relationship to man. Christianity must teach us to distinguish what is owing to the corrupting influence of sin from what constitutes the true analogy between God and man. In heathenism a false anthropopathism pre- vailed, since polytheism presented in its gods the apotheosis of human qualities, not only of virtues, but of vices, and withal a deification of the power mani- fested in Nature. Among the common, carnally-mind- ed Jews there was a corresponding crudeness in their views of the Divine attributes ; for omnipotence was represented as unlimited caprice, and punitive justice as perfectly analogous to human wrath. McCosh re- marks that "of all systems, Pantheism is the most apt, in our times, to land in Anthropomorphism. For, if God and his works be one, then we shall be led to look on humanity as the highest manifestation of the divinity, and the natural devoutness of the heart will find vent in hero-worship, or the foolish raving about great men, which has been so common among the em- inent literary men of the age now passing away, the issue of the Pantheism which rose like a vapor in Ger- man}', and came over like a fog into Britain and Amer- ica" (Intuitions of the Mind, pt. iii, § 5). See Seiler, Bibl. Hermeneutik, p. 56 ; Penny Cyclopedia, s. v. ; Home, Introduction, i, 362; Xeander, Hist, of Dogmas, i, 102 sq. ; Tappe, De Anthropopatica (Dorp. 1815).
Anthropomorphites [ see Anthropomor- phism], a sect of ancient heretics, who were so de- nominated because they understood every thing spoken in Scripture in a literal sense, and particular- ly that passage of Genesis in which it is said "God made man after his own image." Hence they main- tained that God had a human shape (see Fremling, De Anthropomorphitis, Lund. 1787). They were also called Audiani, from Audius, a Syrian who origi- nated their sect. The orthodox bishops prevailed on the emperor to banish Audius to Syria, where he la- bored for the propagation of Christianity among the Goths, built convents, and instituted several bishops, and died about 372. In consequence of repeated per- secutions, the sect ceased to exist toward the close of the 5th century. Origen wrote against certain monks in Egypt who were Anthropomorphites; but whether they inherited their views from Audius, or professed them independently of him, is still doubtful. An- thropomorphites appeared again in the 10th century, and in the 17th under Paul Felgenhauer (q. v.). " An- thropomorphism has been recently revived by the Mormons. In Elder Moffat's Latter-Day Saint/ Cate- chism, God is described as an intelligent material per- sonage, possessing body, parts, and passions, and un- able to 'occupy two distinct places at once'" (Wil- liams, Note to Browne on 39 Articles, p. 19). — Neander, Ch. Hist, ii, 690. 705-6 ; Landon, s. v.