See Bbttiger, Hcinnch der Lowe, Hanover, 1819; Prutz, Heinrich dcr Lowe, Leipsic, 1865 : Weiland, Das Saclis. Herzogthuin unter f/othar und Heinrich don Lowcn, Greifswald, 1866 ; Philippson, Geschichte Heinrichs dcs Lowcn, Leipsic, 2 vols., 1867-8 ; and the various biographies of Frederick I.
HENRY the Deacon, variously called of Cluny, because he was at one time a monk of that rule, of Lausanne, because he is believed to have first appeared as a preacher of repentance there, and of Toulouse, because his later years were passed in that city and neighbourhood,—founder of the anti-sacerdotal sect of Henricians, was of Swiss or Italian extraction (his birthplace is unknown), and was born towards the end of the 11th century. About the year 1115 he abandoned the cloister, where he had entered the diaconate, and, burning with righteous indignation against the dead mechanical ceremonialism of the dominant church and the hideous moral corruption of its clergy, began to go about as an itinerant preacher. The neighbourhood of Lausanne was probably the scene of his earliest appearances, but he soon betook himself to France, where the soil had been prepared for him by Peter of Bruis (leader of the Petrobrusians), and where he at once began to attract adherents. About the beginning of Lent in 1116 he asked and received permission of the bishop Hildebert of Le Mans (Cenomani) to visit that city ; the fact that he was not only tolerated but received with some degree of honour at this time shows that he had not as yet fallen under serious suspicion of heretical pravity. Soon the extraordinary fascination of his character began to make itself felt; and the rude but convincing eloquence with which he exposed the immorality of the clergy rapidly alienated the people of the town from their spiritual guides ; remonstrances and inhibitions by the local ecclesiastical authorities were equally vain ; and when Hildebert, who had been absent in Rome, returned to his diocese, he found his episcopal blessing treated with contempt, and was bluntly told by his flock that they had found " a father, a priest, an intsrcessor, more exalted in authority, more honourable in life, more eminent in knowledge." From the confused accounts of Henry s life and labours which have reached us it does not appear that even then he had come forward as the teacher of any new or strange doctrine ; his efforts as a reformer of public and domestic morals are chiefly insisted on, especially the measures he took for the reclamation of fallen women, for the encouragement of early and honourable marriage among the laity, and for the promotion of a higher standard of purity among the nominally celibate clergy. It was not as a heretic but merely as a somewhat inconvenient agitator that he was ordered by Hildebert at last to leave Le Mans. We next read of Henry as conspicuously active in Provence, especially after the burning in 1124 of Peter of Bruis, with whose peculiar views he is alleged, upon evidence which has not reached us, to have entirely sympathized. In 1134 he was arrested by the bishop of Aries and taken to the council of Pisa ; there he was declared to be a heretic, and condemned to imprisonment. This captivity, however, does not appear to have lasted long. The scene of the third and concluding chapter of the recorded life of Henry is laid at Toulouse, where after ten years of uninterrupted activity with the result complained of by Saint Bernard (Ep. 241) "the churches are without flocks, the flocks without priests, the priests are nowhere treated with due reverence, the cburches are reduced to the level of synagogues, the sacraments are despised, the festivals disregarded " it was found necessary by Pope Eugenius III. to take active measures for the defence of the church. With this view the cardinal bishop Alberic of Ostia was sent as a legate to the disaffected districts, and with him was associated Bernard of Clairvaux. Their efforts were ultimately successful ; Henry died an obscure death in prison about the year 1148, and his sect soon afterwards ceased to have any separate existence.
The original authorities upon tins subject are the Ada Episco- porum Ccnomanensium ("Gesta Hildeberti"), which have been published in Mabillon s Anal. Vd., and Bernard s letter (Ep. 241) to Count Ildephonso of St Gilles, written in 1147. From these sources the distinctive tenets of Henry and the Henricians (if dis tinctive tenets there were) cannot bo gathered with any clearness. The probability is that Henry and his disciples had not any definite system of doctrine to oppose to that of the church, but were anti- sacerdotalists pure and simple, "insurgents, who shook the estab lished government, but did not attempt to replace it by any new form or system of opinions and discipline." See Mihnan, History of Latin Christianity, bk. ix. c. 8 ; and Hahn, Gcschichtc dcr Kctzer im Mittdalter (1845).
HENRY of Ghent. The scholastic writer generally known by this name was born probably about 1217 in the district of Mude, near Ghent. His family name seems to have been Goethals, but he is always described as Henry of Mude or of Ghent. Little is known of the details of his life. He studied at Ghent and then at Cologne under Albertus Magnus. After obtaining the degree of doctor he returned to Ghent, and is said to have been the first to lecture publicly in that city on philosophy and theology. Like most of the great doctors of the age, he was drawn to Paris by the fame of the university there. In 1247 he is known to have taught at Paris ; and he was distinguished by the title of doctor solennis. He took an active part in some of the many disputes between the orders and the secular priests, and warmly defended the latter. He died at Tournay, of which place he was archdeacon, in 1293. His most important works, Quodlibeta Theologica and Summa Theologian have been printed, the first in 1518, the second in 1520. Several other writings remain in MS. Henry of Ghent occupies a somewhat remarkable place in the his tory of scholasticism. A contemporary of the great Aquinas, he opposed several of the dominant theories of the time, and united with the current Aristotelian doctrines a strong infusion of Platonism and mysticism. Only a few of the salient points of his doctrine can here be given ; the line of thinking by which they are reached is elaborate and com plex. He distinguishes between knowledge of natural objects and the divine inspiration or intuition by which ve cognize the being and existence of God. The first, accord ing to Henry, throws no light upon the second. Indi viduals are not constituted by the material element in them, but by the fact of their independent existence, i.e., ulti mately by the fact that they are created as separate objects. Universals must be distinguished according as they have reference to our minds or to the Divine mind. In the divine intelligence exist exemplars or types of the genera and species of natural objects. On this subject, however, Henry is far from clear ; but it deserves notice that he defends Plato against the current Aristotelian criticism, and endeavours to show that the two views are in har mony. In psychology, his view of the intimate union of soul and body is truly remarkable. The body he regards as forming part of the very substance of the soul ; through this union the soul is more perfect and complete.
There is a monograph on Henry by Fr. Huet, Rcchcrchcs his- toriqiics et critiques sur la vie, Ics ouvragcs, ct la doctrine dc Henri de Gand, Paris, 1838. See also Werner, Heinrich von Gent als Reprdscntant dcs Chrifitlichcn Platonismus im IS 1 " Jahrh., Vienna, 1878; Stiickl, Phil. d. MiUclaltcrs, ii. 738-758; Jourdain, Phil, dc St Thomas d Aquin, ii. 29-46 ; Histoire litttraire dc la France, xx. 144 sqq. ; also Haurcau, Tennemann, and the general histories.
