HARLESS, GOTTLIEB CHRISTOPH ADOLF VON: German Lutheran; b. at Nuremberg Nov. 21, 1806; d. at Munich Sept. 7, 1879. He Student early devoted himself to music and Days. poetry, and was attracted by ancient and German classical literature, espe cially by Jean Paul. But he was indifferent to Christianity, and even felt an aversion to it, and firmly decided never to study theology. In 1823 he entered the University of Erlangen, at first studying philology, and then law. But he was interested in neither science, and finally tried theol ogy. He was not decisively influenced by any of the professors, except perhaps by Winer, and was, indeed, in his spiritual development independent of his teachers. His chief desire was to understand the reasons for the objective power of the Christian religion in the life of the people and the history of the world. He thought the philosophy of Hegel best adapted to the solution of this problem, but later found that even this system did not satisfy his .innermost needs. Thus he was at last led to the philosophy of Spinoza, in whose system he searched for the roots of Hegel's and Schelling's philosophy. For this purpose he removed, in 1826, to the University of Halle, where he was especially attracted by Tholuck's personality. In the midst of these philosophical studies he conceived the plan of studying the whole literature of the ancient philosophers, of the earlier teachers of the Church, of the theologians of the Reformation, and of the later theologians and philosophers from the stand point of human freedom and evil, and to put the results in writing. Although the work was never published, it contributed much to his development. Harless received a further impulse from his study of Pascal's Pens~es, but about this time became con vinced that his heart was not right with God, and that his ways were perverse. He now turned to the confessional writings of the Lutheran Church and, to his surprise, found their contents in con formity with the experience of his faith. The chief attraction in the Lutheran confession was, for him, the doctrine of justification, which hence forth became the central point of his Christianity and theology. In 1828 Harless returned from Halle to Erlangen as privat-docent in theology, and three years later became professor of New Testament exegesis. The appointment was important not only for the

history of the theological faculty at Erlangen, which owed its later conservative tendency and its flour-

ishing condition chiefly to Harless, but Professor for Lutheran orthodox theology in at Erlangen general. In 1836 he became ordinary

and professor, and as such lectured also Leipsic. on Christian ethics, theological ency-

clopedia, and methodology. In 1836 he became preacher of the university. He declined calls to Rostock, Berlin, Dorpat, and Zurich. In 1840 he was appointed delegate of the chamber of states in Munich to defend the rights of the Lutheran Church against the violent measures of the ministry. Harless won great popularity by defending the interests of his church with ability and manliness, but the opposition party succeeded in removing him in 1845 to Baireuth as second councilor of the consistory. In the same year, however, he was appointed professor of theology in Leipsic, where his activity reached its highest development. In Saxony rationalism was still flourishing, but the brilliant personality of Harless and the earnestness and depth of his presentation of Evangelical truth soon conquered it, and his influence upon the students was not less powerful than in Erlangen. In Leipsic he lectured for the first time on dogmatics, and also developed into one of the most powerful and brilliant preachers of his time. Before the, end of two years he was appointed preacher at St.

Nicolai, in addition to his duties as professor.

In 1850 he removed to Dresden as court preacher, reporting councilor in the ministry of public in-

struction, and vice-president of the President state consistory, but two years later of the was called by King Max II. to his

Bavarian native state of Bavaria as president

Consistory. of the supreme consistory. Here the soil had been already prepared for the Lutheran confession. It was only Lohe and his adherents who opposed the existing condition of the State Church, and insisted upon an entire change, or, if this should be impossible, upon separation. Owing to the influence of Harless, however, who was a friend of Lohe from former days, the latter did not altogether separate himself from the State Church. Harless conquered the remaining opposition of rationalism in the congregations by his manly conduct and his personal spirit of reconciliation. A new hymn-book in the spirit of orthodox Lutheranism was soon introduced. The introduction of a new order of church service was more difficult. Here the question of private confession, which was confused with auricular confession, occasioned a new revolt of the opposition, but the organization of the State Church, firmly established under Harless, finally achieved the victory.

Harless now became the universally acknowledged leader and faithful mentor of the whole Lutheran Church, and his advice was eagerly sought in all quarters of the world. He presided for a bng time over the missionary board at Leipsic. During the later years he was almost blind from cataract.

His three most important works were written while professor at Erlangen, as his later public activity left him little time for literary work. They are: Commentar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Ephesier


[Page 151]


[Page 152]


[Page 153]


[Page 154]


[Page 155]


[Page 156]


[Page 157]


[Page 158]


[Page 159]


[Page 160]


[Page 161]


[Page 162]


[Page 163]


[Page 164]


[Page 165]


[Page 166]


[Page 167]


[Page 168]


[Page 169]


[Page 170]


[Page 171]


[Page 172]


[Page 173]


[Page 174]


[Page 175]


[Page 176]


County Sligo, Ireland, Nov. 14, 1841. He was educated at St. Patrick's College, Maynooth (18601867), and at the College of the Immaculate Conception, Summerhill, Athlone (1867-69). He was ordained to the priesthood in 1867, and after being classical professor in the College of the Immaculate Conception (1867-69), he was curate at Ballygar, County Galway (1869-71), and at Grange, County Sligo (1871-78). He was then professor in the grammar-school at Elphin (1878-79), and in 1879 became professor of dogmatic theology at Maynooth College. He was appointed prefect of the Dunboyne Establishment, Maynooth, in 1883, and in the following year was consecrated bishop coadjutor of Clonfert. He succeeded to the see in 1896, and in 1903 was elevated to the archdiocese of Tuam. He was a member of the Royal Commission on University Education in Ireland which sat in 1901. He was editor of The Irish Ecclesiastical Record in 1883-84, and has written: Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars (Dublin, 1890); History of Maynooth (1895); Record of Maynooth Centenary (1896); and Life and Writings of St. Patrick (1905).

HEARD, JOHN BICKFORD: Church of England; b. at Dublin, Ireland, Oct. 26, 1828. He was educated at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge (B.A., 1852), and was ordained priest in 1852. He was vicar of Bilton, Yorkshire (1864-68), curate of St. Andrew's, Westminster (1878-80), rector of Woldingham, Surrey (1880-91), and vicar of Queen Charlton (1894-1904). He was also editor of the Religious Tract Society from 1866 to 1873, and Hulsean Lecturer in Cambridge in 1892. His theological standpoint is that of the German mediating school, and in his writings he has sought to develop a Christian psychology in support of theology and to lay stress on Pauline rather than on Augustinian concepts. He has written The History of the Extinction of Paganism in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1852); The Pastor and Parish (London, 1865); The Tripartite Nature of Man (Edinburgh, 1866); National Christianity; or, Caesarism and Clericalism (London, 1877); and Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology Contrasted (Hulsean Lectures; Edinburgh, 1893).

HEART, BIBLICAL USAGE: The Hebrew lebh or lebhabh and the Greek kardia ("heart") are never used in the Bible of animals except in the passages Job xli. 24 and Dan. iv. 16, where the reference is psychological, not physiological. Deut. iv. 11 speaks of the heart of heaven, II Sam. xviii. 14 of the heart of an oak, Ex. xv. 8 and other passages of the heart of the sea, and Matt. xii. 40 of the heart of the earth, all designating the interior parts of the objects. In nearly all passages where the word occurs, however, it is used of man's heart, and generally in the psychological sense as the organ by which he feels, thinks, and wills. The terms lebh, lebhabh, kardia, which never mean "self," as does nephesh, are employed to express the ethical qualities which the Greeks ascribed to the soul.

As an organ of the body the heart is the seat of life, and is concerned in the receipt of impressions and the issuance of expressions of personal life. Strengthening and revival which come from the partaking of food bring strength and comfort to the heart (Gen. xviii. 5; Judges xix. 5, 8), and excess affects the heart unfavorably (Luke xxi. 34). Indeed, the heart is the center of personal life in all its relations (Prov. iv. 23); consequently, up to a certain limit, kardia, psyche, and pneuma, "spirit," may be used as synonyms, and the reception of joy, sorrow, emotion, alarm is ascribed to the heart (e.g., Prov. xii. 25) or to the soul (Gen. x11. 8). The unstable man is called dipsychos, "double-minded," and to him is given a double heart (Ecclus. i. 28). The heart is to be purified (James iv. 8), so is the soul (I Pet. i. 22), just as depression is ascribed to the soul in Pa. xlii. 5, and to the heart in Pa. lxii. 8. But each of these terms has its peculiarities of usage. Man is said to lose his soul, never his heart. Where the two are bound together in some action, especially if that be religious, as in the case of lovingGod, it is not a mere heaping together of synonyms, but the expression of action involving the entire personality. Nabal's heart is said to have died (I Sam. xxv. 37), though his actual death did not occur till ten days afterward (verse 38). So one may speak of the heart of the soul, but never of the soul of the heart, since the psyche is the subject of life while the kardia is only an organ.

The relations and distinctions between heart and spirit recall those between spirit and soul. The soul is what it is through the spirit which exists in it as the life-principle, so that within certain bounds each may stand for the other (see SOUL AND SPIRIT). Since the personal life is limited by the spirit and is mediated through the heart, the activities of the spirit are sought in the heart, and to it then may be ascribed the properties of the spirit, and spirit and heart may be paralleled (Ps. xxxiv. 18). While Acts xix. 21 ascribes purpose to the soul, II Cor. ix. 7 ascribes it to the heart. On the other hand, serving God in the spirit (Rom. i. 9) is not quite the same as serving him with the heart. Exchange between spirit and heart is excluded when the heart appears as the place of that activity of the spirit the result of which is conscience (I Sam. xxiv. 5). Heart and flesh are differentiated so that sin is ascribed to the heart, though both are united in Ezek. xliv. 7. Delitzach finds in Ps. xvi. 9 an Old Testament trichotomy, but really in the first clause heart and soul are united to express as strongly as possible the inner exultation. Heart is in distinction from soul the place where the whole personal life is concentrated, where is concealed the personal individual essence, and whence proceed the evidences of personal character in good or evil (Matt. xv. 8). With the heart man approaches God and Christ rests in him, possesses him, so that he lives and dwells in man (Eph. iii. 17; Gal. ii. 20). Similarly, estrangement from God is of the heart (Eph. iv. 18; Isa. i. 5). In like manner the individual character is expressed in terms of the heart in respect to purity, humility, uncircumcision, unrighteousness, and the like. God himself is called mighty in heart (Job xxxvi. 5), and he who seeks God and in faith relies upon him is called strong in heart (Ps. lxxviii. 8).

The heart is the treasury of good and evil (Matt. xii. 34-35); it is the organ for the reception of


God's word and of the gift of the Holy Spirit (Matt. xiii. 19). But if it is the seat of God's activ ity and of that of his word and spirit, so is it of Satan's activity (John xiii. 2), and it resists God and becomes hardened (Acts xxviii. 27). Similarly, out of it proceeds love for God and man. It is the organ of faith or unfaith (Roe. x. 9), of decision (Acts v. 4), and of thought (Isa. x. 7). In this sense Johannean and Pauline usage equates nous and dianoia; since the nous as the organ of the spirit is also a function of the heart, it is conceivable that the apostle opposes nous to sarx, "flesh" (Roe. vii. 25), because for his purpose the opposition between sarx and kardia seemed too inclusive. In the heart of man through his conscience is written the work of the law (Roe. ii. 15), and God has placed eternity in the heart (Eccles. iii. 11). But the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth (Gem. viii. 21), and whatever makes man impure proceeds from his heart (Mark vii. 21). Here resides that double personality (Rom. vii.) by which man is either senseless (Roe. i. 21) or impenitent (Roe. ii. 5) or uncircumcised in heart (Acts vii. 51), or, on the other side, is honest and good (Luke viii. 15). (H. CREMER)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: F. Delitasoh, System der biblischen Psychologie, Leipsic, 1881, Eng tranal., Edinburgh, 1887; C. H. Zeller Kurze Seelenlshre, Calw, 1850; J. G. Krumm, De notionibus psychologies Paulinis, chap. iii., Giessen, 1858; J. T. Beck, Umriss der biblischen Seelenlshre, Stuttgart, 1871; idem Outlines of Biblical Psychology, pp 78-148, Edinburgh, 1877; G. F. Oehler, Theology of O. T., i. 221 eqq.. ii. 449, ib. 1874-75; B. Weiss, Biblical Theology of N. T., ib. 1882-83; E. Womer, Biblische Anthropologic, II., xi. 3, Stuttgart, 1887; K. Fischer, Biblischa Psychologie, Biologic und Padapogik, pp 20 sqq.. Goths, 1889; H. Schultz, O. T. Theology, ii. 248 sqq., London, 1892; W. Beyschlag, N. T. Theology, consult Index, Edinburgh, 1896; C. A. Briggs, in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, pp. 94-105, London, 1897; T. Simon, Die Psychologie des Aposteis Paulus, pp. 24 sqq, Gottingen, 1897; G. Waller, Biblical View of the Soul, London, 1904; DB. ii. 317-318; EB, ii. 1981-82; JE, vi. 295-296; DCG i. 709-711; and the lexicons under the words cited in the text.



Terms Employed (§ 1).
Classification of Religions (§ 2).
The Deities of Polytheism (§ 3).
Development of Polytheism (§ 4).
Mythology and StanWorship (§ 5).
Animism Distinguished from Polytheism (1 6).
Shamanism and Fetishism (§ 7).
The Old Testament employs the word goyim ("peoples," "nations"; E. V. "Gentiles," "heathen," "nations") as a designation of all peoples other than the chosen one, and uses it in a religious sense. Other nations of antiquity had similar designations for peoples of other faiths, but these had only ethnic or national significance, such as the barbaroi of the Greeks, or the airya or arya by which Indians and Iranians distinguished themselves from others. A name for other peoples founded upon religious differences alone is peculiar to the Jews. The usage of the Old Testament passed over into the New Testament and into the Latin and Gothic versions, where ethne, gentes, thiedos were employed to designate the followers of false religions. In later Latin usage the word paganus ("pagan") came to be applied to those who retained the old faith as distinct from the Christian majority, though the original sense of the word may have been simply "civilian" as opposed to "military;" and it had later the meaning "rustic" or "countryman" (cf. Gothic haithns). In Germany since the time of Luther the term Heide ("heathen") has been much used to name all religions except Judaism and Christianity. These two religions are historically connected, and are regarded as the true religions or religions of revelation. As a rule, Islam is now also admitted to the category of religions of revelation, but is still regarded as false.

In the classification of religions another mark has been used to distinguish the three religions named from all others, namely monotheism. Yet it has to be noted that monotheism was developed in the Hebrew faith, and is a tendency in all polytheistic religions. In all polytheistic faiths there are elements which make for monotheism, and the same is true even of animistic religions. Indeed, in most religions there have been efforts made to discover unity in the midst of diversity and plurality, though these attempts have failed to gain the mastery, and where even small success has attended them it has been confined to narrow circles. Moreover, these attempts toward unity have developed not monotheism so much as pantheism. But religions may be classified as mono- theistic or non-monotheistic, and the term heathen is applied to the latter. The question has been raised whether, among the heathen religions, Buddhism is to be singled out as furnishing another category-atheistic religions, to which a negative answer is returned on the ground that neither in origin nor in development is Buddhism atheistic, though the true disciple is wholly independent of gods and need not worship them. Heathen religions are further distinguished by the character of their objects of worship into polytheistic and animistic. Polytheistic religions are those of the advanced peoples of culture, such as the. Semitic and Indo-Germanic races and other groups of the Old and the New World. Animistic religions are to be distinguished as they reveal fetishism, in which the spirits worshiped are closely connected with material objects; or shamanism, in which the spirits are elemental. In both religions there is worship of souls, and especially of the dead, whose souls are thought to have power for good and evil over the living. The boundary between soul and spirit can not be sharply drawn. Animistic religions lay stress upon magic, i.e., the power of making the spirits serve the will of man.

Most modern investigators of religions, excepting Roman Catholic scholars, connect animism and polytheism as two stages of a development; worship of souls and spirits precedes that of gods. The lofty abstract idea of "god" is not a product of the lower culture either in cult or language. First comes faith in spirits, then polydemonism, then polytheism, and then, in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam,


[Page 179]


[Page 180]


[Page 181]


[Page 182]


[Page 183]


[Page 184]


[Page 185]


[Page 186]


[Page 187]


[Page 188]


[Page 189]


[Page 190]


[Page 191]


[Page 192]


[Page 193]


[Page 194]


[Page 195]


[Page 196]


[Page 197]


[Page 198]


[Page 199]


Hefeie THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG goo Hegeeippns his magnum opus, the Concaiengeschichte, the fruit of years of study (7 vole., Freiburg, 185:-74, 2d ed., vole. i.-vi., viii.-ix., 1873-90; Eng. transl. of vols. i., ii., and part of iii.-to the Second Council of Nicma, 787-by W. R. Clark, 5 vols., Edinburgh, 1883-96). The contents of the work are as follows: Vol. i. goes to the Synod of Gan gra; ii., from 381 to the year 553; iii., to the year 813; iv., to 1073; v., to the year 1250; vi., to the year 1409; viii., from 1434 to 1520; ix., to the year 1536. It is universally admired for the breadth of its survey of the field, and for the relatively complete use of its material and unprejudiced historical attitude. The work, of course, is not everywhere based on The the same thorough critical examma^ Concilien- tion, and has in places already be geschichte. come antiquated. But it marks a new stage in the study of conciliar action, which in Hefele's hands broadened out into a history of the Church and of the development of dogma. The book placed him in the first rank of Roman Catholic scholars, and in 1868 won him a place as consultor on the commission to arrange for the ap proaching Vatican Council. He spent a part of 1869 in Rome on this business, and The returned thither the next year to take Vatican part in the council as bishop of Rotten Council. burg. On his arrival in Rome, he at once took ,a prominent place as a leader of the antiinfallibilist minority. His solid learning and his courage did much to hold them together, and he took part in all their important moves, sup porting them also by a small book on the question of Honorius published in Naples. It discussed the questions whether Honorius (q.v.) had declared as de fide a heretical proposition ex cathedra, and whether a general council, claiming the right to judge him, had condemned him as a heretic. It attracted great attention, and greatly displeased the majority, calling forth several counterblasts. In the debate of May 17 Hefele delivered an im pressive speech, voted non placet in the decisive session of July 13, and supported Haynald's pro posal at a meeting of the minority on the 17th to repeat this vote in the public session of the following day; when this fell through, he signed the solemn protest of the minority to the pope, and left Rome before the final vote was taken. The neat few months were full of doubt and difficulty for him. He had at first decided not to proclaim the new dogma in his diocese; but at last, after giving up hope of concerted action on the part of the bishops in the minority, and under pressure from the nuncio at Munich and the Ultramontane party in his diocese, he published it on Apr. 10, 1871. He explained his position clearly, saying that he did not regret the stand he had taken at the Council, and expressing a hope that future conciliar treat ment of the parts of the program left unfinished might remove the misgivings which had forced him to take it. On the ground that an authoritative exposition of the definition was still lacking, he gave one of his own which softened it as much as possible. His submission was received with bitter

reproaches by the Old Catholics and by others, and unworthy motives were freely imputed. But there is no doubt that it was only the logical outcome of a life devoted to maintaining the unity of the Church, to which he felt bound to bring even this costly sacrifice. His remaining years were spent in untiring work in his diocese, to which he had restored peace by his decision. This left him little time for writing, though he succeeded in completing the revision of the first four volumes for the new edition of his great work, which was completed by the addition of two more volumes by Cardinal Hergenr6ther. He left behind him in WOrttemberg the memory of an unselfish, lovable personality, revered far beyond the bounds of his own Church.

(A. HEGLERt.) K. BOLL. BIBLIOGRAPHY: No complete biography has yet appeared.

Consult A. Werfer, in Deutachlande Episkopat in Lebenebildern, iv. 2, W9rzburg, 1875; Funk, in TQS, laavi. 1 aqq. ; Deutachea Volkeblatt, 1893, nos. 127-129; and Gran Gott, vol. a., nos. 4-6. Other phases of Hefele's activities are discussed in: J. Friedrich, tieachichte des vatikaniechen %onzile, vol. i-iii., part 2, Bonn, 1877-97; H. Roth, Dr. K. J. von He/ele, 1894.


CCEL home page
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.
Calvin seal: My heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely