HENNESSY
218
HENOTICON
recorded, but it is probable that he died at Rome soon
after the date of the letter written by Dubos.
WlxsoR. Xarratire and Crilifal History of Ajuerica, IV (Bos- ton, 18?4), 184, 247; Vas Hulst, Xolice sur ie Fire Louis Hen- nepin, niii Alh (Bilgiqiie) vers 1640 (Li^se, 1845); Bancroft, History of the United Slates of Ameriea, II (Boston, 1879); Abbot, The Adventures of the Chevalier de la Salle and his com- panions (Now York, 1S75); Neill, History of Minnesota (Min- neapolis 1882).
John W. Willis. Hennessy, John Joseph. See Wichit.^, Diocese
OF.
Henoch (Or. 'Ei'iix, Heb. 113n), the name of the son of Cain (Gen., iv, 17, 18), of a nephew of Abraham (Gen., XXV, 4), of the first-born of Ruben (Gen., xlvi, 9), and of the son of Jared and the father of Mathusala (Gen., V, 18 sq.). The last-named patriarch is the most illustrious bearer of the name. At the time of the Ijirth of Mathusala Henoch was sixty-five years of age, " and all the days of Henoch were three hundred and sixty-five years" (Gen., v, 23). Instead of the clause "and he died", added to the sketches concern- ing the other patriarchs, the text says of Henoch: "And he walked with Goii, and was seen no more: be- cause God took him" (Gen., v, 24). The inspired writer of Heb., xi, 5, adds: "By faith Henoch was translated, that he should not see death." Ecclus., xliv, 16, and xlix, Ki, intimates the same truth about the patriarch. The Epistle of St. Jude (14, 15) shows us Henoch in the light of a prophet, announcing the judgment of God upon the ungodly. Some writers have supposed that St. Jude quoted these words from the so-called apocrj-phal Book of Henoch (see Apoc- RypH.\) ; but, since they do not fit into its context (Ethiopic), it is more reasonable to suppose that they were interpolated into the apocryphal book from the text of St. Jude. The Apostle must have borrowed the words from Jewisli tradition.
Hagen, Lexicon Bihiicum (Paris, 1907), II, 485 sq.; Chase, Dictionary of the Bible (New York, 1900), I, 705.
A. J. Maas.
Henoticon. — The story of the Henoticon forms a chapter in that of the Monophysite heresy in the fifth and sixth centuries. It is the name of the unhappy and unsuccessful law made by the Emperor Zeno in order to conciliate Catholics and Monophysites. Really, it satisfied no one and brought about the first great schism between Rome and Constantinople.
When Zeno (474-91) came to the throne the Mono- physite trouble was at its height. The mass of the people of Egypt and Syria rejected the Council of Chalcedon (451) altogether, and found in Monoph3'sit- ism an outlet for their national, anti-imperiai feeling. The three Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were in schism. The Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, Proterius, had been murdered in 457; a fanatical Monophysite, Timothy ^lurus (Ailuros), had been elected as his successor. He died in 477; the heretics elected one Peter Mongus — the "Stam- merer" — to succeed him; the CathoHcs, John Talaia. Peter Gnapheus (FuUo), one of the most determined leaders of the heretical party, occupied the See of .An- tioch; Theodosius, also a Monophysite, that of Jeru- salem. Over .500 l)isliops in these patriarchates were open partisans of Eutyches's heresy. Zeno foimd him- self in a difficult position. On the one hand he was a friend of Peter FuUo of .\ntioch and sympathized with the Monophysites, on the other he wius forced into the defence of the Catholic Faith by the fact that his rival Basiliscus (whom he succeeded in deposing) had made himself the protector of the heretics. Zeno, in spite of his personal feeling, came to the throne as the cham- pion of the Catholic party. At first he protected the Catholic bishops (John Talaia, for instance). But he was anxious to conciliate his old friends in Eg>-pt and SjTia, and he realized how nuich harm this scliism was doing to the empire. He therefore issued a law that
was meant to satisfy every one, to present a compro-
mise that all could accept. This law was the famous
Henoticon (ivtiiTiKbv, "union"). It was published in
482.
As an attempt at conceding what both parties most desired, the Henoticon is a very skilful piece of work. It licgins by insisting on the faith defined at Niea;a, confirmed at Constantinople, followed faithfully by the Fathers at Ephesus. Nestorius and Eutyches are both condemned, the anathemas of CjtH approved. Christ is God and man, one, not two. His miracles and Passion are works of one (whether person or na- ture, is not said). Those who divide or confuse, or introduce a phantasy (i. e. affirm a mere appearance) are condemned. One of the Trinity was incarnate. This is written not to introduce a novelty, but to sat- isf}' every one. Who thinks otherwise, either now or formerly, either at Chalcedon or at any other synod, is anathematized, especially Nestorius. Eutyches, and all their followers. It will be noticed that the Heno- ticon carefully avoids speaking of nature or person, avoids the standard Catholic formula [one Christ in two natures), approves of Peter FuUo's expression (one of the Trinity teas incarnate), names onl\- the first three councils with honour, and alludes vaguely but disrespectfully to Chalcedon. There is no word against Dioscurus of Alexandria. Otherwise it of- fends rather by its omissions than by its assertions. It contains no actually heretical statement (the text is in Evagrius, "H. E.", Ill, 14; Liberatus, "Breviarium", XVII). Peter Mongus accepted it, explaining that it virtually condemned Chalcedon, and thereby secured his place as Patriarch of Alexandria. His rival, John Talaia, was banished. Peter F\illo at Antioch ac- cepted the new law too. But the strict Monophysites were not content, and separated themselves from Mongus, forming the sect called the Acephali (dx/^o- Xoi, " without a head " — with no patriarch). Nor were CathoHcs sati.stied with a document that avoided de- claring the Faith on the point at issue and alluded in such a way to Chalcedon. The emperor succeeded in persuading Acacius (.\kakios), Patriarch of Constanti- nople (471-89), to accept the Henoticon, a fact that is remarkable, since Acacius had stood out firmly for the Catholic Faith under Basiliscus. It is perhaps ex- plained by his personal enmity against John Talaia, orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria. The Henoticon was .addressed in the first place to the Egyptians, but was then applied to the whole empire. Catholic and consistent Monophysite bishops were deposed, their sees were given to people who agreed to the compro- mise. But the emperor had not counted with Rome. From all parts of the East Catholics sent complaints to Pope Felix II (or III: 483-92) entreating him to stand out for the Council of Chalcedon. He then wrote two letters, one to Zeno .and one to Acacius, exhorting them to continue defending the Faith without com- promise, as they had done before (Epp. i et ii Felicis III in ThicI, "Epistohe Uom. Pontificum genuime", Braunsberg, 18()S, vol. 1, pp. 222-39). Then John Talaia, exiled from .Alexandria, arri\ed at Rome and gave a further account of what was happening in the East. The pope wrote two more letters, summoning Acacius to Rome to explaiti his conduct (Epp. iii et iv, ibid., pp. 239-241). The legates who brought these letters to Constantinople were imprisoned as soon as they landed, then forced to receive Communion from Acacius in a Liturgy in which they heard Peter Mon- gus and other Monophysites named in the diptychs. The pope, having heard of this from the Acoemeti (dKoi'Mirot, sleepless) monks at Constantinople, held a synod in 484 in which he denounced his legates, de- posed and exconinuHiicated Acacius (Epp. vi, vii, viii, ibid., 243 sti.). Acacius retorted by striking Felix's name from his diptychs. Thus began the Acacian schism that lasted tliirty-five )-ears (484-519). The Acoemeti monks alone at Constantinople stayed in
