text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/110

 zooids arise at intervals. In Clavularia and its allies each outgrowth contains several solenia, and the outgrowths may take the form of flat expansions, composed of a number of solenial tubes felted together to form a lamellar surface of attachment. Such outgrowths are called stolons, and a stolon may be simple, i.e. contain only one solenium, as in Cornularia, or may be complex and built up of many solenia, as in Clavularia. Further complications arise when the lower walls of the mother zooid become thickened and interpenetrated with solenia, from which buds are developed, so that lobose, tufted, or branched colonies are formed. The chief orders of the Synalcyonacea are founded upon the different architectural features of colonies produced by different modes of budding. We recognize six orders—the, , , , , and.

In the order the zooids spring at intervals from branching or lamellar stolons, and are usually free from one another, except at their bases, but in some cases horizontal solenia arising at various heights from the body-wall may place the more distal portions of the zooids in communication with one another. In the genus Tubipora these horizontal solenia unite to form a series of horizontal platforms (fig. 5). The order comprises the families Cornulariidae, Syringoporidae, Tubiporidae, and Favositidae. In the first-named, the zooids are united only by their bases and the skeleton consists of loose spicules. In the Tubiporidae the spicules of the proximal part of the body-wall are fused together to form a firm tube, the corallite, into which the distal part of the zooid can be retracted. The corallites are connected at intervals by horizontal platforms containing solenia, and at the level of each platform the cavity of the corallite is divided by a transverse calcareous partition, either flat or cup-shaped, called a tabula. Formerly all corals in which tabulae are present were classed together as Tabulata, but Tubipora is an undoubted Alcyonarian with a lamellar stolon, and the structure of the fossil genus Syringopora, which has vertical corallites united by horizontal solenia, clearly shows its affinity to Tubipora. The Favositidae, a fossil family from the Silurian and Devonian, have a massive corallum composed of numerous polygonal corallites closely packed together. The cavities of adjacent corallites communicate by means of numerous perforations, which appear to represent solenia, and numerous transverse tabulae are also present. In Favosites hemisphaerica a number of radial spines, projecting into the cavity of the corallite, give it the appearance of a madreporarian coral.

In the order the colony consists of bunches of elongate cylindrical zooids, whose proximal portions are united by solenia and compacted, by fusion of their own walls and those of the solenia, into a fleshy mass called the coenenchyma. Thus the coenenchyma forms a stem, sometimes branched, from the surface of which the free portions of the zooids project. The skeleton of the Alcyonacea consists of separate calcareous spicules, which are often, especially in the Nephthyidae, so abundant and so closely interlocked as to form a tolerably firm and hard armour. The order comprises the families Xeniidae, Alcyonidae and Nephthyidae. Alcyonium digitatum, a pink digitate form popularly known as “dead men’s fingers,” is common in 10-20 fathoms of water off the English coasts.

In the order the colonies are upright and branched, consisting of a number of short zooids whose proximal ends are imbedded in a coenenchyma containing numerous ramifying solenia and spicules. The coenenchyma is further differentiated into a medullary portion and a cortex. The latter contains the proximal moieties of the zooids and numerous but separate spicules. The medullary portion is densely crowded with spicules of different shape from those in the cortex, and in some forms the spicules are cemented together to form a hard supporting axis. There are four families of Pseudaxonia—the Briareidae, Sclerogorgidae, Melitodidae, and Corallidae. In the first-named the medulla is penetrated by solenia and forms an indistinct axis; in the remainder the medulla is devoid of solenia, and in the Melitodidae and Corallidae it forms a dense axis, which in the Melitodidae consists of alternate calcareous and horny joints. The precious red coral of commerce, Corallium rubrum (fig. 6), a member of the family Corallidae, is found at depths varying from 15 to 120 fathoms in the Mediterranean Sea, chiefly on the African coast. It owes its commercial value to the beauty of its hard red calcareous axis which in life is covered by a cortex in which the proximal moieties of the zooids are imbedded. Corallium rubrum has been the subject of a beautifully-illustrated memoir by de Lacaze-Duthiers, which should be consulted for details of anatomy.

The comprise those corals that have a horny or calcified axis, which in position corresponds to the axis of the Pseudaxonia, but, unlike it, is never formed of fused spicules; the most familiar example is the pink sea-fan, Gorgonia cavolinii, which is found in abundance in 10-25 fathoms of water off the English coasts (fig. 7). In this order the axis is formed as an ingrowth of the ectoderm of the base of the mother zooid of the colony, the cavity of the ingrowth being filled by a horny substance secreted by the ectoderm. In Gorgonia the axis remains horny throughout life, but in many forms it is further strengthened by a deposit of calcareous matter In the family Isidinae the axis consists of alternate segments of horny and calcareous substance, the latter being amorphous. The order contains six families—the Dasygorgidae, Isidae, Primnoidae, Muriceidae, Plexauridae, and Gorgonidae.

In the order the colony consists of a stem formed by a greatly-elongated mother zooid, and the daughter zooids are borne as lateral buds on the stem. In the section Asiphonacea the colonies are upright and branched, springing from membranous or ramifying stolons. They resemble and are closely allied to certain families of the Cornulariidae, differing from them only in mode of budding and in the disposition of the daughter zooids round a central, much-elongated mother zooid. The section contains two families, the Telestidae and the Coelogorgidae. The second section comprises the Pennatulacea or sea-pens, which are remarkable from the fact that the colony is not fixed by the base to a rock or other

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/110


text:
Executive Order 11403

I have today issued Proclamation No. 3840, calling upon persons engaged in acts of violence and disorder in the Washington metropolitan area to cease and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably forthwith; and

the conditions of domestic violence and disorder described therein continue, and the persons engaging in such acts of violence have not dispersed:

, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, and by virtue of the authority vested in me as commander-in-chief of the militia of the District of Columbia by the Act of March 1, 1889, as amended (D.C. Code, Title 39), it is hereby ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to disperse all persons engaged in the acts of violence described in the proclamation, to restore law and order, and to see that the property, personnel and functions of the Federal Government, of embassies of foreign governments, and of international organizations in the Washington metropolitan area are protected against violence or other interference.

SECTION 2. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the Armed Forces of the United States as be may deem necessary.

SECTION 3. (a) The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized and directed to call into the active military service of the United States, as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order, units or members of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard to serve in the active military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders. Units or members may be relieved subject to recall at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use units and members called or recalled into active military service of the United States pursuant to this section.

(b) In addition, in carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to exercise any of the powers vested in me by law as commander-in-chief of the militia of the District of Columbia, during such time as any units or members of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard of the District shall not have been called into the active military service of the United States.

SECTION 4. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to one or more of the Secretaries of the military Departments any of the authority conferred upon him by this order.

, 4:03 P.M. Friday, April 5, 1968.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Executive Order 11403


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/545

 Rh

was born at Carthage, in Africa, a heathen; but when he grew up he was converted to Christianity. At length he became a priest, either of the Church of Carthage, or of Rome; it is uncertain which. That is, it is uncertain whether, as we now speak, he took orders in Carthage or Rome; whether he was ordained by the Bishop of Carthage or of Rome. For at that blessed time the whole extent of Christendom was as closely united as the different parts of England are; so that it was all one from which of the bishops of the Church Catholic a Christian was ordained for the ministry. Rome was at that time not more divided from Carthage, or from Corinth, or from Ephesus, or from Jerusalem, than Winchester from London, or Durham, or Oxford, or Norwich. It was natural, indeed, for many reasons, that a man should receive orders from the Church in which he lived; but on fitting reasons a Carthaginian, like Tertullian, might receive his commission from the Bishop of Rome, just as now a native of London, for instance, may become a priest of the Church of Oxford.

This one Christian body, called sometimes Christendom, (which means the kingdom of Christ,) sometimes the Church Catholic, (which means the incorporate society of Christians in all lands, as descended from the Apostles, and governed by the bishops, their representatives,) consisted in the early times of two great portions, those who spoke Greek, and those who spoke Latin, which are sometimes familiarly called the Greek and the Latin Churches. Not that they were really divided, more than


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/546

 the Welsh Dioceses are from the English, but for convenience-sake they were considered as two, according to their respective languages. Writers, from whose works extracts have as yet been made in these Records, all spoke Greek, or (as it is said) were of the Greek Church; Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, and the rest: as to the Christians of Lyons, &c. they were Greeks living in France, at that time a barbarous country. But Tertullian is a writer of the Latin Church; indeed he is the oldest of those whose works have come down to us, having been born about A.D. 160, only sixty years after St. John's death.

Tertullian's works, which have come down to us, are partly defences of Christianity and of the orthodox faith, and partly moral treatises. They are chiefly valuable, as witnesses of the state of the Church so short a time after the Apostles; as witnesses of what the Church then believed, taught, observed; as witnesses to the Creed as we hold it at this day, to Episcopacy, the Apostolical Succession, the Ceremonial of Religion, &c. His own authority indeed is small; for though very powerful as a writer, he was not a sound divine; was extravagant, nay even heterodox, in some of his opinions, and at length fell away into one of the heresies of his time. But all this, of course, does not interfere at all with the value of his writings as bearing testimony to facts, to the existing condition of the Church. And, moreover, as he writes ably, he is instructive on particular subjects, even though he is not a safe guide on the whole.

The work, from which an extract follows, was written when he was about forty years old, and may be called in English, "The Church's Plea (or Demur) against Dissenters." Tertullian's argument is this. "You who dissent from the Church," he says, "are confuted by the very novelty of your doctrine. The true doctrine must be old, and cannot be new; now the Church and its doctrines, which you despise, are much older than all your sects and their respective doctrines. Nay, the Church is as old as the Apostles; it was founded all over the world by the Apostles; and transmits down, from age to age, the doctrines which it received from them. But from whom did you receive your doctrine? Not from the Church, for you have gone out of it. Trace it up even for a few years, if you can; much less can


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/547

 you trace it up to the Apostles. In truth, your doctrine began with you, or at least with your immediate teachers: where was it before? Was it hidden from the Church, that doctrine which Christ commanded should be set up on high among the faithful, like a light within a house? Impossible: it plainly began with you: we can put our finger on the date of its birth; and therefore it is false: for Christ and His Apostles "planted" (1 Cor. iii.) the true Gospel, according to the will of the Father; and he says, 'Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.'" Such is the argument of the work from which the following passages are extracted; which obviously contain an instructive lesson for this day.

[The Separatists of Tertullian's age urged the words of our Lord, "Seek, and ye shall find," in proof that they might allowably strike out their own views (though novel) from the sacred text: he says upon this:—]

"Let us grant it has been said to all, 'Seek and ye shall find;' yet even as to these very words it is convenient to discuss their meaning with some guide of interpretation. No divine saying is so vague and extended, that its mere words are to be adhered to, and their real drift not determined. Now, in the first place, I lay down this proposition: that doubtless some one certain faith was instituted by Christ, which the nations ought by all means to believe; and, in seeking to find it, to seek with the purpose of believing when they had found it. The inquiry after one certain definite appointment (of God) must surely have an end some where or other. You are to seek until you find, and believe when you have found. After this, there is no more to do, but to keep what you have believed; this being in fact one part of your belief, viz. that there is nothing farther to be believed, nor therefore to be sought; inasmuch as you have found and believed that which was appointed by Him, who does not set you to seek any thing else but what he has appointed. I will presently make


text:
Executive Order 11404

I have today issued Proclamation No. 3841, pursuant in part to the provisions of Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code; and

the conditions of domestic violence and disorder described therein continue, and the persons engaging in such acts of violence have not dispersed;

, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code, and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to disperse all persons engaged in the acts of violence described in the proclamation and to restore law and order.

. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the Armed Forces of the United States as he may deem necessary.

. The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized and directed to call into the active military service of the United States, as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order, units or members of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard to serve in the active military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders. Units or members may be relieved subject to recall at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use units and members called or recalled into the active military service of the United States pursuant to this section.

. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to one or more of the Secretaries of the military Departments any of the authority conferred upon him by this order.

, 1:01 A.M. April 7, 1968.

title: Executive Order 11404


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/548

 good, to the satisfaction of all doubters, that we have that in our possession which was appointed by Christ. In the mean time, from confidence in the proof, I anticipate so far as to admonish certain persons that they have nothing to seek beyond what they have already accepted; that that is what they were bound to seek: so that they must not interpret without consideration of the import of the words, 'Seek, and ye shall find.'

"But the import of this saying is determined by three particulars; the matter, the time, the manner: by the matter, that you should consider what is to be sought; by the time, when it is to be sought; by the manner, how far. Now that is to be sought, which Christ instituted; then, of course, when you do not find it, so long, of course, until you find it. But you have found it, when you have attained to belief, for you would not have believed, if you had not found; as neither would you have sought, unless that you might find. For where shall inquiry come to an end? where faith take her stand? where discovery gain her discharge? With Marcion? nay, Valentinus also sets up 'seek, and ye shall find.' With Valentinus? nay, Apelles too will beset me with the same declaration: and Hebion, and Simon, and all, one after another, have nothing else but this same text, by which to insinuate themselves into my approbation, to bind me to their cause. I shall therefore come to no result, while I meet on every side, 'seek, and ye shall find.'

[To understand the above argument, it must be borne in mind that at baptism the Creed was committed to and accepted by the new Christian. Thus the time of belief was a certain definite date, to which Tertullian refers. It must be observed also, that the persons he speaks to were Separatists, who had been baptized in the Church, not regular hereditary Dissenters.]

"Although we were to be for ever inquiring, yet where ought we to seek? Among heretics, where all is extraneous and adverse to the truth we hold, whom we are forbidden to approach? What servant expects food from one who is a stranger, not to


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/549

 say an enemy to his master? What soldier looks for presents and pay from unallied, not to say hostile princes, unless he be a downright deserter and rebel? Even she who sought diligently, sought her piece of money in her own house; he who asks for loaves, knocks at a friend's, not a stranger's door; and the widow interceded with a hard judge, but not an enemy. Let us then seek at home, and from those who are our own, and of that which is our own; and inquire respecting that only which may be called in question without injury to the Rule of Faith."

"But the Rule of Faith (that we may now profess what we mean to defend,) is this:—That there is One only God, and no other Creator of the world beside, who brought all things out of nothing by His own Word sent forth before all things: that this Word, called His Son, appeared in the name of God to the Patriarchs in different ways; was always heard in the Prophets; and at last conveyed by the Spirit and power of God the Father into the Virgin Mary, became flesh in her womb, and lived as her Son Jesus Christ; afterwards proclaimed a new law, and a new promise of the kingdom of Heaven, wrought miracles, was crucified, rose again on the third day, was taken into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father; sent the power of the Holy Spirit in His stead, to guide believers; will come with glory to take His saints to the enjoyment of eternal life and His heavenly promises, and sentence the profane to eternal fire, bringing to life again good and bad, together with the resurrection of their flesh. This Rule, instituted, as it shall be proved, by Christ, has no questions raised about it among us, except such as heresies introduce, and such as constitute men heretics.… O novice, it is better to be ignorant, lest you should learn what you ought not, now that you know what you ought. 'Thy faith,' he says, 'hath made thee whole;' not a perverse troubling of the Scriptures. Faith has for its object the. The law of life is given you; keep it, and you are made whole: but this cross-examining of Scripture springs from restlessness; pursue it, and it brings, not salvation, but mere credit for cleverness. Let restlessness yield to faith; fame among men to salvation of the soul."


text:
Executive Order 11405

I have today issued Proclamation No. 3842, pursuant in part to the provisions of Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code; and

the conditions of domestic violence and disorder described therein continue, and the persons engaging in such acts of violence have not dispersed;

, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces by the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Chapter 15 of Title 10 of the United States Code, and Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

. The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to take all appropriate steps to disperse all persons engaged in the acts of violence described in the proclamation and to restore law and order.

. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use such of the Armed Forces of the United States as he may deem necessary.

. The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized and directed to call into the active military service of the United States, as he may deem appropriate to carry out the purposes of this order, units or members of the Army National Guard and of the Air National Guard to serve in the active military service of the United States for an indefinite period and until relieved by appropriate orders. Units or members may be relieved subject to recall at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out the provisions of Section 1, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to use units and members called or recalled into the active military service of the United States pursuant to this section.

. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to delegate to one or more of the Secretaries of the military Departments any of the authority conferred upon him by this order.

, 1:13 P.M. April 7, 1968.

title: Executive Order 11405


text:
Proclamation 3840

By the President of the United States of America A Proclamation

WHEREAS I have been informed that conditions of domestic violence and disorder exist in the District of Columbia and threaten the Washington metropolitan area, endangering life and property and obstructing execution of the laws, and that local police forces are unable to bring about the prompt cessation of such acts of violence and restoration of law and order; and

WHEREAS I have been requested to use such units of the National Guard and of the Armed Forces of the United States as may be necessary for those purposes; and

WHEREAS in such circumstances it is also my duty as Chief Executive to take care that the property, personnel and functions of the Federal Government, of embassies of foreign governments, and of international organizations in the Washington metropolitan area are protected against violence or other interference:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, LYNDON B. JOHNSON, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do command all persons engaged in such acts of violence to cease and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably forthwith.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-eight, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-second.

, 4:02 P.M. Friday, April 5, 1968.

title: Proclamation 3840


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/550

[Next, he shows the futility of arguing with men who mutilate and alter the Scriptures; but this topic does not so nearly concern us at this day: though we cannot tell what is coming upon us. He then proceeds as follows, to show that there is nothing gained in arguing from Scripture, when God has given us so clear a guide in the Rule of Faith, i. e. the Creed preserved in the Church; for, though that Rule is also contained in Scripture, and may be proved from it, yet heretics will say it cannot; whereas they cannot deny the Creed came from the Apostles.]

"But for that person, if there be such, for whose sake you descend to a comparison of Scriptures, to confirm him when in doubt, will he incline to truth, or rather to heresies? Influenced by the very fact, that he sees you have hitherto gained no ground, and stand even with your adversary in denying this point and defending that, he will undoubtedly leave this even contest in still greater uncertainty, not knowing which he is to judge to be heresy. For surely nothing can hinder them retorting upon us, if they are minded, the charges we bring against them. Nay, they must, in self-defence, say that we rather introduce corruptions of Scripture, and false expositions, inasmuch as they claim truth for themselves. Therefore I do not advise appeal to the Scriptures: it is a ground in which there can be either no victory, or a doubtful one, or one as good as doubtful. For although the comparison of Scripture did not end so as to place either party on an equality, the order of things requires that this point should be first advanced, which is now the only question: viz. To whom belongs the faith itself? Whose are the Scriptures? By whom, and through whom, and when, and to whom was that system of instruction committed, by which men are made Christians? For there, wherever the truth of Christian instruction and faith shall be proved to be, there will be the truth of the Scriptures, and of expositions, and of all Christian traditions."

[This ground of the truth is of course the Church. Tertullian does not mean to decry arguing from Scripture; he only says, it will not silence a subtle and perverse disputant; whereas the Rule of Faith must silence them, it is so clear. Again he argues, Were not the Scriptures committed to the Church?


text:
Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 1.djvu/551

 therefore the Church is the appointed interpreter of them. Since his time, the Church has gone wrong; but what he says is quite true of the primitive Church. And this is the rule of the Church of England, to interpret Scripture according to the usage of the first centuries.]


text: Tracts for the Times/Record XVII

title: Tracts for the Times/Record XVII


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/George Elder

Elder,, educator, b. August 11, 1793, in Kentucky, U.S.A.; d. September 28, 1838, at Bardstown. His parents, James Elder and Ann Richards (a convert), natives of Maryland, emigrated shortly after their marriage to Hardin's Creek, in the present Marion County, Kentucky, where George, the second of their seven children was born. The Elders enjoyed a moderate competency and were full of zeal for their Catholic Faith. George's early education devolved mainly upon his father, who was well versed in the Scriptures and thoroughly acquainted with the teaching of the Church, which he frequently defended in discussion and explained to converts who were preparing for baptism. George Elder imbibed a love for serious study, and in his sixteenth year he entered Mount St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg, Maryland, to pursue classical studies. Here he became the friend of William Byrne (q.v.), afterwards founder of St. Mary's College, Kentucky. Both studied theology in St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, and were ordained priests at Bardstown by Bishop David, September 18, 1819. In addition to the duties of an assistant at the cathedral there, Father Elder was entrusted by Bishop Flaget with the founding of a high-grade school or college for lay students. This was, at first, a day school and was taught in the basement of the theological seminary (erected in 1818). A separate building was erected in 1820-23. The college was then one of the largest and best appointed educational structures in the entire West. The arrival, in 1825, of fifty southern students was the beginning of the extensive patronage the college received from the Southern States, notably Louisiana and Mississippi, and which continued down to the Civil War. In 1827 the Rev. Ignatius A. Reynolds (afterwards Bishop of Charleston) was appointed president and Father Elder was given charge of the congregation of St. Pius, in Scott County. Dr. Reynolds was transferred in 1830 to pastoral work, and Father Elder again became president, a position which he held until his death. He frequently did duty in the cathedral and was one of the editors of the Louisville "Catholic Advocate" newspaper (founded in 1836), to which he contributed a series of well-written articles on the education of children and the obligations of parents in such matters. "Letters to Brother Jonathan", half satirical, half controversial, were also the product of his pen. His sense of justice forced him, in spite of his characteristic amiability, to prosecute a bigoted preacher, Nathan L. Rice, for libelling, after the manner of "Maria Monk", a worthy Kentucky priest, then absent in Europe. Father Elder's last illness was brought on by over-exertion and fatigue at the burning down (January 25, 1838) of the main college building.

P. M. J. ROCK


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/William Henry Elder

Elder,, third Bishop of Natchez, Mississippi, U.S.A., and second Archbishop of Cincinnati, b. in Baltimore, Maryland, March 22, 1819; d. in Cincinnati, October 31, 1904. His father, Basil Elder, was a descendant of William Elder, who had emigrated from England to America, in colonial times; his mother, Elisabeth Miles (Snowden) Elder. In 1831 he entered Mt. St. Mary's College, Emmitsburg, Maryland, then presided over by the Rev. John Baptist Purcell, who afterwards became the second Bishop, and later the first Archbishop, of Cincinnati. In 1842 he went to Rome, to complete his theological studies at the College of the Propaganda, where he received the degree of Doctor of Divinity. He was ordained priest in Rome, March 29, 1846. Returning to Maryland, he became professor at Emmitsburg, which position he held until he was appointed Bishop of Natchez, for which he was consecrated in the cathedral of Baltimore, by Archbishop Kenrick, May 3, 1857. In 1864 he was brought into prominence by his refusal to obey the order of the Federal troops at Natchez, to have certain prayers for the President of the United States recited publicly in the churches of his diocese. He was arrested, tried, and convicted; but the decision of the military court was reversed at Washington. His devotion to his people during the yellow-fever epidemic of 1878 won universal commendation. On January 30, 1880, he was made titular Bishop of Avara and transferred to Cincinnati, as coadjutor with the right of succession to Archbishop Purcell, whom he succeeded July 4, 1883. Great financial difficulties clouded the last years of Archbishop Purcell's life and made the task of his successor a trying one. But the reopening of the theological seminary, Mt. St. Mary's of the West, the founding of St. Gregory's Preparatory Seminary, the enlarging of St. Joseph's Orphan Asylum, besides the building of numerous other religious institutions, show how well Archbishop Elder overcame these difficulties. (See Archdiocese of Cincinnati.)

TIMOTHY J. DEASY


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eleazar

Eleazar (Heb. AL`ZR, God's help).—I. Elizabeth, daughter of Aminadab and sister of Nahason, bore to Aaron four sons, Nadab, Abiu, Eleazar, and Ithamar (Ex., vi, 23), all of whom, with their father, "were anointed... and consecrated, to do the functions of priesthood" (Num., iii, 2-3; Lev., viii, 1-13). As Nadab and Abiu died without children, punished for offering strange fire before the Lord (Lev., x, 1-7; I Par., xxiv, 1-2), "Eleazar and Ithamar performed the priestly office in the presence of Aaron" (Num., iii, 4). Thus entitled to succeed his father in the office of high-priest, "Eleazar... took a wife of the daughters of Phutiel", and so became the father of Phinees (Ex., vi, 25). Prince of the princes of the Levites "that watch for the guard of the sanctuary" (Num., iii, 32), directing the sons of Caath when wrapping up "the sanctuary and the vessels thereof at the removing of the camp" (Num., iv, 15-16), Eleazar was selected as the suitable official, "to whose charge pertaineth the oil to dress the lamps, and the sweet incense, and the sacrifice.. and the oil of unction, and whatsoever pertaineth to the service of the tabernacle, and of all the vessels that are in the sanctuary" (Num., iv, 16). At the very moment when his brothers were punished "by fire coming out from the Lord", Eleazar, though deeply affected by mental anguish, obeyed the order of Moses, and completed their unfinished sacrifice (Lev., x, 1-20). After the terrible punishment inflicted on the daring usurpers, Core, Dathan, and Abiron, as if to make more evident his right to become the high-priest, Eleazar, complying with orders, beat into plates the still smoking censers used by these unfortunate rebels, and for a sign and a memorial, fastened this metal to the altar (Num., xvi, 1-40). Appointed to preside over the immolation of the red cow (Num., xix, 1-10), Eleazar next appears, clothed with the vesture of Aaron, and exercising the office of high-priest (Num., xx, 22-29). Hence it is that we find Eleazar associated with Moses, in numbering the children of Israel after the slaughter of the twenty-four thousand (Num., xxvi, 1-4), in settling the inheritance case presented by the daughters of Salphaad (Num., xxvii, 1-3), in distributing the spoils taken from the Madianites (Num., xxxi, 1-54), and, finally, in considering the request of Ruben and Gad for land east of the Jordan (Num., xxxii, 1-5). To Eleazar, Josue, the successor of Moses, is presented by the Jewish law-giver himself (Num., xxvii, 12-23). On the list of those appointed to divide among the Israelites the lands west of the Jordan, the very first name is that of Eleazar (Num., xxxiv, 16-19; Jos., xiv, 1-2; xix, 51), who was buried "in Gabaath, that belonged to Phinees his son, which was given him in mount Ephraim" (Jos., xxiv, 33). If we except the period from Hell to Solomon during which the descendants of Ithamar exercised the office of high-priest (I Kings, ii, 30-36; III Kings, ii, 26-27), those holding this most sacred calling, down to the time of the Machabees, belonged to the family of Eleazar (Ex., vi, 25).

II. ELEAZAR, surnamed Abaron, was the fourth son of Mathathias (I Mach., ii, 1-5). With some probability, he is identified with the Esdras who before the battle with Nicanor read the Holy Book to the Jewish warriors (II Mach., viii, 22-24). In the engagement at Bethzacharam, he displayed marvellous courage in attacking and killing the elephant, on which "it seemed to him that the king [Antiochus Eupator] was". Crushed to death beneath the dying elephant, Eleazar "exposed himself to deliver his people and to get himself an everlasting name". (I Mach., vi, 17-46.)

III. ELEAZAR, a scribe and doctor of the law, though ninety years of age, bravely preferred to die a most glorious death than to purchase a hateful life by violating the law which forbade to the Israelite the use of swine's flesh. His friends, "moved with wicked pity", were willing to substitute lawful flesh, that Eleazar, feigning to have eaten the forbidden meat, might be delivered from death. But, considering "the dignity of his age... and the inbred honor of his grey head", Eleazar spurned this well-meant proposal, which if accepted, though securing his deliverance from punishment, might scandalize many young persons, and could not deliver from the hand of the Almighty. Having thus changed into rage the rejected sympathy of his friends, the holy man bravely endured his cruel torture, probably at Antioch, during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (II Mach., vi, 18-31; I Mach., i, 57-63.)

D. P. DUFFY

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eleazar


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Elect

Elect denotes in general one chosen or taken by preference from among two or more; as a theological term it is equivalent to "chosen as the object of mercy or Divine favor, as set apart for eternal life". In order to determine the meaning of the word more accurately, we shall have to study its usage both in the Old Testament and the New.

I. THE OLD TESTAMENT applies the term elect, or chosen, only to the Israelites in as far as they are called to be the people of God, or are faithful to their Divine call. The idea of such an election is common in the Book of Deuteronomy and in Is., xl-lxvi. In Ps. civ, 6 and 43, and cv, 5, the chosen ones are the Hebrew people in as far as it is the recipient of God's temporal and spiritual blessings; in Is., lxv, 9, 15, and 23, they are the repentant Israelites, as few in number "as if a grain be found in a cluster" (ibid., 8); in Tob., xiii, 10, they are the Israelites remaining faithful during their captivity; in Wisd., iii, 9, and iv, 15, they are God's true servants; in Ecclus., xxiv, 4, 13, and xlvi, 2, these servants of God belong to the chosen people.

II. THE NEW TESTAMENT transfers (excepting perhaps in Acts, xiii, 17) the meaning of the term from its connection with the people of Israel to the members of the Church of Christ, either militant on earth or triumphant in heaven. Thus I Pet., i, 1, speaks of the elect among the "strangers dispersed" through the various parts of the world; I Pet., ii, 9, represents them as "a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people", called from darkness into God's marvellous light. St. Paul, too, speaks of the elect (Rom., viii, 33) and describes the five degrees of their election: they are foreknown, predestined, called, justified, and glorified (loc. cit., 29, 30). He returns to the idea again and again: II Thess., ii, 12 sq.; Col., iii, 12; Tit., i, 1, 2; II Tim., ii, 10. St. John gives the title of elect to those who fight on the side of the Lamb against the powers of darkness (Apoc., xvii, 14). According to St. Luke (xviii, 7), God hears the cries of his elect for vengeance; according to the first two Evangelists he will shorten the last days for the sake of the elect (Matt., xxiv, 22, 24, 31; Mark, xiii, 20, 22, 27).

If it be asked why the name elect was given to the members of the Church Militant, we may assign a double reason: first, they were freely chosen by God's goodness (Rom., xi, 5-7, 28); secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephes.) iv, 17). In the sentence "many are called, but few are chosen", the latter expression renders a word in the Greek and Latin text which is elsewhere translated by elect (Matt., xx, 16; xxii, 14). It is agreed on all sides that the term refers to members of the Church Triumphant, but there is some doubt as to whether it refers to mere membership, or to a more exalted degree. This distinction is important; if the word implies mere membership in the Church Triumphant, then the chosen ones, or those who will be saved, are few, and the non-members in the Church Triumphant are many; if the word denotes a special degree of glory, then few will attain this rank, and many will fail to do so, though many are called to it. The sentence "many are called, but few chosen" does not, therefore, settle the question as to the relative number of the elect and the lost; theologians are divided on this point, and while Christ in the Gospels urges the importance of saving one's soul (Luke, xiii, 23, 24), he alternately so strengthens our hope and excites our fear as not to leave us any solid ground for either presumption or despair.

A. J. MAAS

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Elect


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Election

Election (Lat. electio, from eligere, to choose from).—This subject will be treated under the following heads: I. Juridical Concept; II. Electors; III. Persons Eligible; IV. The Act of Electing: Forms and Methods; V. After Election; VI. Elections Now in Use.

I. JURIDICAL CONCEPT.—In its broadest sense election means a choice among many persons, things, or sides to be taken. In the stricter juridical sense it means the choice of one person among many for a definite charge or function. If we confine ourselves to ecclesiastical law, canonical election, in a broad sense, would be any designation of a person to an ecclesiastical charge or function; thus understood it includes various modes: postulation, presentation, nomination, recommendation, request or petition, and, finally, free collation. In a narrower sense, election is the canonical appointment, by legitimate electors, of a fit person to an ecclesiastical office. Its effect is to confer on the person thus elected an actual right to the benefice or charge, independently of the confirmation or collation ulteriorly necessary. Hence it is easily distinguished from the aforesaid modes that only in a broad sense can be termed election.

(a) Postulation differs canonically from election, not as regards the electors, but as regards the person elected, the latter being juridically ineligible on account of an impediment from which the superior is asked to dispense him. For instance, if in an episcopal election the canons designate the bishop of another see, or a priest under thirty years of age, or one of illegitimate birth, etc., no actual right would be conferred on such a person, and the ecclesiastical superior would be in no wise bound to recognize such action; hence the electors are then said to postulate their candidate, this postulation being a matter of favor (gratia), not of justice. (b) Presentation, on the contrary, differs from election not in respect to the person elected but to the electors; it is the exercise of the right of patronage, and the patron may be a layman, whereas the electors to ecclesiastical dignities must be clerics. In both cases the right of the candidate is the same (jus ad rem); but while an election calls for canonical confirmation, presentation by a patron leads to canonical institution by a competent prelate. Moreover, when the right of patronage belongs to a moral body, e.g. a chapter or an entire congregation, presentation may have to follow along the lines of election. Though frequently called nomination) the designation of bishops and beneficed clergy by the civil authority in virtue of concordats is in reality presentation, and results in canonical institution. (c) Correctly speaking, nomination is the canonical act by which the electors propose several fit persons to the free choice of the superior. The role of electors in nomination is the same as in election properly so called; as election, however, can fall only on one person, so nomination cannot confer on several a real right to a benefice—rather, their right is real inasmuch as it excludes third parties, though none of them possesses the jus ad rem (c. Quod sicut, xxviii, De elect., lib. I, tit. vi). (d) Recommendation is the name applied to the designation of one or several fit persons made to the superior by certain members of the episcopate or clergy, chiefly in view of sees to be filled (see Bishop). It differs from election and nomination in that the bishop or members of the clergy do not act as electors; hence the persons designated do not acquire any real right, the Holy See remaining perfectly free to make a choice outside of the list proposed. (e) Still further removed from election is simple request, or petition, by which the clergy or people of a diocese beg the pope to grant them the prelate they desire. The authors of this petition, not being properly qualified, as in the case of recommendation, to make known their appreciation of the candidate, it is needless to say the latter acquires no right whatsoever from the fact of this request. (f) Finally, free collation is the choice of the person by the superior who confers canonical institution; it is the method most in use for appointment to inferior benefices, and the practical rule for the filling of episcopal sees, apart from some well-known exceptions. Evidently, where free collation obtains, election, properly so called, is excluded.

II. ELECTORS.—Electors are those who are called by ecclesiastical law or statute to constitute an electoral college, i.e. to designate the person of their choice, and who have the qualifications required for the exercise of their right to vote. The law appoints competent electors for each kind of election: cardinals for the election of a pope; the cathedral chapter for the election of a bishop or a vicar capitular; and the various chapters of their order, etc. for the election of regular prelates. In general, election belongs, strictly speaking, to the college, i.e. the body, of which the person elected will become the superior or prelate; if this college have a legal existence, like a cathedral chapter, it can exercise its right as long as it exists, even if reduced to a single member, though, of course, such a one could not elect himself. Electors called upon to give a prelate to the Church must be ecclesiastics. Hence laymen are excluded from all participation in a canonical election; it would be invalid, not only if made by them exclusively (c. iii, h.t.), but even if they only cooperate with ecclesiastics, every custom to the contrary notwithstanding. Ecclesiastics alone, and those only who compose the college or community to be provided with a head, can be electors. This is well exemplified in the cathedral chapter, all of whose canons, and they alone, are episcopal electors. Other ecclesiastics have no right to associate with the chapter in the election of a bishop, unless (a) they are in full possession of this right and it is proved by long prescription; (b) hold a pontifical privilege, or (c) can show a right resultant from the foundation of the chapter or the church in question. To exercise their right, the electors, whoever they may be, must be full members of the body to which they belong, and must, moreover, be in a condition to perform a juridical, human act. Hence natural law excludes the demented and those who have not reached the age of puberty; ecclesiastical law debars (I) canons who have not attained full membership in the chapter, i.e. who are not yet subdeacons (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. iv, De ref.), and (2) religious who have not made their profession. Moreover, in punishment of certain offenses, some electors may have forfeited their right to elect, either for once or permanently, e.g. those excommunicated by name, those suspended, or those placed under interdict. The Constitution of Martin V, "Ad evitanda scandala", permits the excommunicated known as tolerati (tolerated) to take part in an election, but exception may be taken to them, and their exclusion must follow; if, after such exception, they cast a vote, it must be considered null. Apart from censures incurred, privation of an active share in elections occurs frequently in the ecclesiastical law affecting regulars; in common law and for the secular clergy, it exists in only three cases: Electors lose the right to elect, for that time, first, when they have elected or postulated an unworthy person (c. vii, h.t.); second, when the election has been held in consequence of an abusive intervention of the civil authority (c. xliii, h.t.); finally, when it has not been made within the required time. In all these cases the election devolves upon the superior (c. xli, h.t.).

III. PERSONS ELIGIBLE.—Those persons are eligible who meet the requirements of common ecclesiastical law, or special statutes, for the charge or function in question; hence, for each election it is necessary to ascertain what is required of the candidate. In general, for all kinds of elections, the necessary qualifications are mature age, moral integrity, and adequate knowledge (c. vii, h.t.); for each charge or function dependent on an election these conditions are defined with more precision and fullness. Thus, neither a layman nor an ecclesiastic who is not yet a subdeacon can be elected bishop; and no regular can be elected superior, etc., unless he has made his final profession. Some of the aforesaid requirements are easily verified, e.g. the proper age, adequate knowledge, the latter being presumable when the law formally exacts an academic degree (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII, c. ii, De ref.); others, especially an upright life, must usually depend on negative evidence, i.e. on the absence of proof to the contrary, such proof being positive offenses, particularly when they have seriously impaired the reputation of the person in question or called for canonical punishment. It is principally candidates of censurable morality who are termed unworthy; the sacred canons constantly repeat that the unworthy must be set aside. Such unworthy persons are: (I) all outside the Church, viz. infidels, heretics, and schismatics; (2) all who have been guilty of great crimes (crimina majora), viz. the sacrilegious, forgers, perjurers, sodomites, and simoniacs; (3) all whom law or fact, for whatever reason, has branded as infamous (infamae juris aut facti); (4) all under censure (excommunication, suspension, interdict), unless said censure be occult; (5) all whom an irregularity, particularly a penal one (ex crimine), debars from receiving or exercising Holy orders. Those also are excluded who, at the time of election, hold several incompatible benefices or dignities without dispensation (c. liv, h.t.); or who, at a preceding election, have already been rejected as unworthy (c. xii, h.t.), and all who have consented to be elected through the abusive intervention of lay authority (c. xliii, h.t.). There are other cases in which regulars cease to be eligible. The legislation here described was meant for the episcopal elections of the thirteenth century and aims at abuses now impossible.

THE ACT OF ELECTION: FORMS AND METHODS.—In this matter, even more than in the preceding paragraphs, we must consider special laws and statutes. Strictly speaking, the common ecclesiastical law, which dates from the thirteenth-century Decretals, considers only episcopal elections (lib. I, tit. vi, De electione et electi potestate; and in VI°). Since an election is held to appoint to a church or an ecclesiastical charge or office that is vacant, it is obvious that the first condition requisite for an election is precisely the vacancy of said church, charge, or office, in consequence of death, transfer, resignation, or deposition; any election made with a view to filling an office not yet vacant is a canonical offense. When an election becomes necessary, the first step is to convoke the electoral assembly in some specified place, and for a certain day within the legal time-limit. The place is ordinarily the vacant church or, if it be question of an election in a chapter, wherever the deliberations of the chapter are usually held. The time-limit set by common ecclesiastical law is three months, after the lapse of which the election devolves upon the immediate superior (c. xli, h.t.). In an electoral college, the duty of convoking the members belongs to the superior or president; in a chapter this would be the highest dignitary. He must issue an effectual summons, for which no special form is prescribed, to all the electors without exception, whether present in the locality or absent, unless, however, they be too far away. The distance considered as constituting a legitimate excuse for absence (see c. xviii, h.t.) should be more narrowly interpreted today than in the thirteenth century. It is unnecessary to convoke electors publicly known to be incompetent to exercise their electoral right, e.g. canons excommunicated by name or not yet subdeacons. So binding is this convocation that if even one elector be not summoned he can, in all justice, enter a complaint against the election, though the latter is not ipso facto null by reason of such absence. Such an election will stand provided the unsummoned elector abides by the choice of his colleagues or abandons his complaint. As no one is bound to use a right, common law does not oblige an elector to attend the assembly and take part in the voting; the absent are not taken into consideration. As a general rule the absent cannot be represented or vote by proxy unless, according to the chapter "Quia propter" (xlii, h.t., Lateran Council, 1215), they are at a great distance and can prove a legitimate hindrance. Moreover, they can choose as proxy only a member of the assembly, but they can commission him to vote either for a particular person or for whomsoever he himself may deem most worthy.

On the appointed day the president opens the electoral assembly. Though the common law requires no preliminary solemnities, such are frequently imposed by special statute, e.g. the Mass of the Holy Ghost, which should be attended by all the assembled electors and those not prevented from assisting; also the recital of certain prayers. Moreover, the electors are often obliged previously to promise under oath that they will conscientiously vote for the most worthy. However, apart from such oath, their obligation is none the less absolute and serious. These preliminaries over, the electoral assembly proceeds, if necessary, to verify the credentials of certain electors, e.g. those who act as delegates, as happens in the general chapters of religious congregations. Then follows the discussion of the merits (tituli) of the candidates. The latter need not have previously made known their candidacy, though they may do so. The electors, nevertheless, have all freedom to propose and sustain the candidates of their choice. Frank and fair discussion of the merits of candidates, far from being forbidden, is perfectly conformable to the law, because it tends to enlighten the electors; indeed, some maintain that an election made without such a discussion would be null or could be annulled (Matthaeucci, in Ferraris, "Bibliotheca", s.v. "Electio", art. iv, n. 5). It is more accurate to say that the election would be vitiated if the presiding officer were to oppose this discussion for the purpose of influencing votes. However, though the law strictly prohibits cabals and secret negotiations in the interest of certain candidates, the line between illicit manoeuvring and permissible negotiating is in practice not always easily recognizable. [See the Constitution "Ecclesiae" of Innocent XII (September 22, 1695), on the elections of regulars (in Ferraris, art. iii, no. 26), also the regulations that govern a Conclave (q.v.).]

The discussion concluded, voting begins. Actually there is only one customary method, i.e. secret voting (scrutinium secretum) by written ballots. The common ecclesiastical law (c. Quia propter, xlii, h.t., Lateran Council, 1215) admits only three modes of election: the normal or regular method by ballot, and two exceptional modes, namely, compromise and quasi-inspiration. Recourse to lots is especially prohibited; nevertheless, the Sacred Congregation of the Council (Romana, Electionis, May 2, 1857) ratified an election where the chapter, equally divided between two candidates in other respects fit, had drawn lots; just about as was done for the Apostolic election of St. Matthias. As to the two exceptional methods: (I) Election by quasi-inspiration takes place when the electors greet the name of a candidate with enthusiasm and acclamation, in which event the ballot is omitted as useless since its result is known in advance, and the candidate in question is proclaimed elected. However, modern custom in this matter differs from ancient habits, and it is wiser, even in the case of such apparent unanimity, to proceed by ballot. (2) Compromise occurs when all the electors confide the election to one or several specified persons, either members of the electoral college or strangers, and ratify in advance the choice made by such arbitrator or arbitrators. Formerly this exceptional method was often resorted to, either to terminate long and fruitless sessions, or when there was a lack of exact information concerning the candidates; it is minutely regulated by the law of the Decretals. The compromise must be agreed to by all the electors without exception, and can be confided to ecclesiastics only. It may be absolute, i.e. leaving the arbitrators quite free, or conditional, i.e. accompanied by certain reservations concerning the manner of election, the persons to be elected, the time-limit within which the election should be held, and so on.

The normal or regular method by ballot, according to the law of the Decretals was necessarily neither secret nor written. The law "Quia propter" (see above) merely calls for the choice of three trust-worthy scrutineers from among the electors. These were charged with collecting secretly (in a whisper) and in succession the votes of all; the result was then drawn up in writing and made public. The candidate who had obtained the votes of the more numerous or sounder party (major vel sanior pars) of the chapter was declared elected. However, this appreciation, not only of the number but also of the value of the votes, led to endless discussions, it being necessary to compare not only the number of votes obtained, but also the merits of the electors and their zeal, i.e. the honesty of their intentions. It was presumed, of course, that the majority was also the sounder party, but proof to the contrary was admitted (c. lvii, h.t.). The use of the secret and written ballot has long since remedied these difficulties. If the Council of Trent did not modify on this point the existing law, at least it exacted the secret ballot for the elections of regulars (Sess. XXV, c. vi, De regul.). According to this method the scrutineers silently collect the ballots of the electors present; when occasion requires it, certain members are delegated to collect the votes of sick electors beneath the same roof (e.g. at a conclave or at one of the regular chapters) or even in the city (for cathedral chapters), if the statutes so prescribe. This accomplished, the scrutineers count the number of ballots collected, and if, as should be, they tally with the number of electors, the same officers proceed to declare the result. Each ballot is in turn opened, and one of the scrutineers proclaims the name inscribed thereon, then passes it to the second scrutineer for registration, while the third, or secretary, adds up die total number of votes obtained by each candidate. As a general rule, election is assured to the candidate who obtains the majority of votes, i.e. an absolute, not merely a relative, majority; however, certain statutes require, e.g. in a conclave, a majority of two-thirds. When the electors are odd in number, a gain of one vote ensures the majority; if the number be even, it requires two votes. In calculating the majority, neither absent electors nor blank ballots are taken into account; whoever casts a blank vote is held to have forfeited his electoral right for that ballot. If no candidate obtains an absolute majority, balloting is recommenced, and so on until a definitive vote is reached. However, not to prolong useless balloting, special statutes can prescribe, and in fact have provided, various solutions, e.g. that after three rounds of fruitless balloting the election shall devolve upon the superior; or again, that in the third round the electors can vote only between the two most favored candidates; or, finally, that in the fourth round a relative majority shall suffice (Rules of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for congregations of women under simple vows, art. ccxxxiii sq.). Other special regulations provide for the case of two candidates receiving the same number of votes (the voters being of even number), in which event the election is decided in favor of the senior (by age, ordination, or religious profession); sometimes the deciding vote is assigned to the presiding officer. For all these details it is necessary to know and observe the special legislation that covers them.

When the final vote is obtained, whatever its character, it should be made public, i.e. officially communicated to the electoral assembly by the presiding officer. The decree of election is then drawn up; in other words, the document which verifies the voting and the election. The role of the electoral college thus fulfilled, the election is closed.

The principal duty of an elector is to vote according to his conscience, without allowing himself to be actuated by human or selfish motives, i.e., he must vote for him whom he deems the most worthy and best qualified among the persons fit for the office in question. External law can scarcely go farther, but moralists rightly declare guilty of mortal sin the elector who, against his conscience, casts his vote for one who is unworthy. In order, however, to fulfil his duty, the elector has a right to be entirely free and uninfluenced by the dread of any unjust annoyance (vexatio) which might affect his vote, whether such annoyance be in its source civil or ecclesiastical (cc. xiv and xliii, h.t.).

V. AFTER ELECTION.—We are confronted here by two hypotheses: either an election is or is not disputed. An election may be disputed by whoever is interested in it, in which case the question of its validity is referred to the superior, in accordance with the same rule as for judicial appeals. Now, an election may be defective in three ways, i.e. as to the electors, the person elected, or the mode of election. The defect concerns the electors if, through culpable neglect, one or more of those who have a right to participate in the election are not summoned; or if laymen, excommunicates vitandi, or unauthorized ecclesiastics are admitted as electors. The defect lies with the person elected if it can be proved that he was not fit (idoneus), in which case he may be postulated, or that he was positively unworthy, in which event the election is invalid. Finally, the defect concerns the form or mode of election when the legal prescriptions relative to balloting or compromise have not been observed. The challenged election, with proofs of its imperfection, is judged canonically by the proper ecclesiastical superior. If the alleged defect is not proven, the election is sustained; if it be proven, the judge declares it, whereupon the law provides the following sanctions: An election made by laymen, or with their assistance, is invalid (c. lvi, h.t.); the one at which an excommunicated person has been admitted to vote, as also that to which an elector has not been invited, must be closely investigated, but is not to be annulled unless the absence of the excommunicated person, or the presence of the unsummoned elector might have given a different turn to the vote. The election of a person who is not unworthy, but simply the victim of an impediment, may be treated indulgently; that of an unworthy person is to be annulled, while the electors who, knowing him to be such, nevertheless elected him, are deprived for that time of the right to vote and are suspended for three years from the benefices they hold in the vacant church in question. Finally, the election wherein the prescribed form has not been observed must be annulled. In all of these cases the right to elect (bishops) devolves upon the Holy See (Boniface VIII, c. xviii, h.t., in VI°); the only case in which it devolves upon the immediate superior is when the election has not been made within the prescribed time-limit.

If, on the contrary, the election meets with no opposition the first duty of the presiding officer of the electoral college is to notify the person elected that choice is made of his person. If he be present, e.g. in the elections of regulars, the notification takes place immediately; if he be absent, the decree of election must be forwarded to him within eight days, barring legitimate hindrance. On his side, the person elected is allowed a month within which to make known his acceptance or refusal, the month dating from the time of receiving the decree of election or the permission of the superior when such is obligatory. If the person elected refuses the honor conferred upon him, the electoral college is summoned to proceed with a new election, under the same conditions as the first time and within a month. If he accepts, it is his right as well as his duty to demand from the superior the confirmation of his election within the peremptory limit of three months (c. vi, h.t., in Vic'); but if, without legitimate hindrance, he allows this time to pass unused, the election has lapsed. From the moment of his acceptance, the person elected acquires a real, though still incomplete, right to the benefice or charge, the jus ad rem to be completed and transformed into full right (jus in re) by the confirmation of the election; it is his privilege to exact this confirmation from the superior, just as it is the latter's duty to give it, except in the event of unworthiness, of which fact the superior remains judge. However, until the person elected has received this confirmation, he cannot take advantage of his still incomplete right to interfere in any way whatever in the administration of his benefice, the punishment being the invalidity of all administrative acts thus accomplished and privation of the benefice itself. The ecclesiastical legislation on this point is very severe, but it concerns episcopal sees only. In the time of Innocent III (1198-1216) those elected to an ordinary episcopal see had to seek the confirmation of their election from the metropolitan only. Bishops outside of Italy who had to obtain from Rome the confirmation of their election (metropolitans, or bishops immediately subject to the Holy See) were authorized (c. xliv, h.t.), in cases of necessity, to enter at once on the administration of their churches, provided their election had aroused no opposition; meanwhile the confirmation proceedings went their ordinary course at Rome.

At the Second Council of Lyons, in 1274 (c. Avaritiae, v, h.t., in VI)), elected persons were forbidden, under penalty of deprivation of their dignity, to meddle in the administration of their benefice by assuming the title of administrator, procurator, or the like. A little later, Boniface VIII (Extray., Injunctae, i, h.t.) established the rule still in force for entering on possession of major benefices and episcopal sees, according to which the person elected must not be received unless he present to the provisional administrators the Apostolical Letters of his election, promotion, and confirmation. The Council of Trent having established the vicar capitular as provisional administrator of the diocese during the vacancy of the see, it became necessary to prohibit elected persons from entering on the administration of their future dioceses in the capacity of vicars capitular. This was done by Pius IX in the Constitution "Romanus Pontifex" (August 28, 1873), which recalls and renews the measure taken by Boniface VIII. In this Constitution the pope declares that the law "Avaritiae" of the aforesaid Council of Lyons applies not only to bishops elected by chapters, but also to candidates named and presented by heads of states in virtue of concordats. He rules that chapters can neither appoint temporarily vicars capitular nor revoke their appointment. He also forbids them to designate as such persons nominated by the civil power, or otherwise elected to a vacant church. Offenses against this law are severely punished, by excommunication specially reserved to the pope and by privation of the revenues of their benefices for those dignitaries and canons who turn over the administration of their church to a person elected or nominated. The same penalties are pronounced against said elected or nominated persons, and against all who give them aid, counsel, or countenance. Moreover, the person elected or nominated forfeits all acquired right to the benefice, while all acts performed during his illegitimate administration are declared invalid.

We may now return to the confirmation of the election according to the law of the Decretals. It belonged to the immediate superior. It was his duty to extinguish all opposition by summoning the elected person to defend himself. Even if there were no opposition the superior was bound to summon, by a general edict posted on the door of the vacant church, all who might possibly dispute the election to appear within a fixed period; all this under penalty of the nullity of subsequent confirmation (c. xlvii, h.t., in VI°). The superior had to examine carefully both the election and the person of the one elected, in order to satisfy himself that everything was conformable to law; if his investigation proved favorable he gave the requisite confirmation whereby the elected person became definitively prelate of his church and received full jurisdiction. While the law did not bind the superior to any strict time-limit for the granting of confirmation, it authorized the elected person to complain if the delay were excessive. All this legislation, especially elaborated for episcopal elections, is now no longer applicable to them; however, it is still in force for inferior benefices, e.g. canonries, when they are conferred by way of election.

VI. ELECTIONS NOW IN USE.—Election, considered as the choice made by a college of its future prelate, is verified first of all in the designation of a pope by the cardinals (see Conclave). The election of bishops by chapters is still, theoretically, the common rule, but the general reservation formulated in the second rule of the Apostolic Chancery has suppressed in practice the application of this law; episcopal elections, in the strict sense of the word, occur now in only a small number of sees (see Bishop). Finally, the prelates of regulars are normally appointed by election; the same is true of abbesses. (See the Council of Trent, Sess. XXV, c. vi, De regul.) The common ecclesiastical law provides for no other elections. There are, however, other ecclesiastical elections that do not concern real prelates. Religious communities of men and women under simple vows proceed by election in the choice of superiors, superiors general, assistants general, and usually the members of the general councils. In cathedral churches it is by election that, on occasion of the vacancy of a see, the chapter appoints the vicar capitular (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, c. xvi, De ref.). It is also according to the canonical form of election that colleges, especially chapters, proceed in appointing persons, e.g., to dignities and canonries, when such appointment belongs to the chapter; to inferior benefices to which the chapter has a right to nominate or present; again in the appointment of delegates on seminary commissions (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, c. xviii, De ref.), or in bestowing on some of its members various capitulary offices, or making other such designations. The same is true of other ecclesiastical groups, e.g. the chapters of collegiate churches, etc., also of confraternities and other associations recognized by ecclesiastical authority. In the latter cases, however, there is no election in the strictly canonical sense of the term.

A. BOUDINHON

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Election


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/St. Eleutherius

Eleutherius (Fr. ), Saint, Bishop of Tournai at the beginning of the sixth century. Historically there is very little known about St. Eleutherius, but he was without doubt the first Bishop of Tournai. Theodore, whom some give as his immediate predecessor, was either a bishop of Tours, whose name was placed by mistake on the episcopal list of Tournai, or simply a missionary who ministered to the Christians scattered throughout the small Frankish Kingdom of Tournai. Before he became bishop, Eleutherius lived at court with his friend Medardus, who predicted that he would attain the dignity of a count and also be elevated to the episcopate. After Clovis, King of the Franks, had been converted to Christianity, in 496, with more than 3000 of his subjects, bishops took part in the royal councils. St. Remigius, Bishop of Reims, organized the Catholic hierarchy in Northern Gaul, and it is more than likely that St. Eleutherius was named Bishop of Tournai at this time.

The saint's biography in its present form was really an invention of Henri of Tournai in the twelfth century. According to this, Eleutherius was born at Tournai towards the end of the reign of Childeric, the father of Clovis, of a Christian family descended from Irene us, who had been baptized by St. Piatus. His father's name was Terenus, and his mother's Blanda. Persecution by the tribune of the Scheldt obliged the Christians to flee from Tournai and take refuge in the village of Blandinium. The conversion of Clovis, however, enabled the small community to reassemble and build at Blandinium a church, which was dedicated to St. Peter. Theodore was made Bishop of Tournai, and Eleutherius succeeded him. Consulted by Pope Hormisdas as to the best means of eradicating the heresy which threatened nascent Christianity, Eleutherius convened a synod and publicly confounded the heretics. They vowed vengeance, and as he was on his way to the church, one day, they fell on him and, after beating him unmercifully, left him for dead. He recovered, however, but his days were numbered. On his deathbed (529) he confided his flock to his lifelong friend, St. Medardus.

The motive underlying this biography invented by Canon Henri (1141), was to prove the antiquity of the Church of Tournai, which from the end of the eleventh century had been trying to free itself from the jurisdiction of the bishops of Noyon. The sermons on the Trinity, Nativity, and the feast of the Annunciation (Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. XV), sometimes attributed to St. Eleutherius, are also of a more than doubtful authenticity. His cult, however, is well established; there is record of a recovery of his relics during the episcopate of Hedilo in 897 or 898, and a translation of them by Bishop Baudoin in 1064 or 1065, and another in 1247. Relics of this saint were also preserved in the monastery of St. Martin at Tournai, and in the cathedral at Bruges. His feast is given in martyrologies on 20 or July 21, but is usually celebrated on the former date. The translation of his relics is commemorated August 25.

L. VAN DER ESSEN


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eleutheropolis

Eleutheropolis, a titular see in Palstina Prima. The former name of this city seems to have been Beth Gabra, "the house of the strong men", which later became Beït Djibrïn, "the house of Gabriel". Vespasian slaughtered almost all its inhabitants, according to Josephus, De Bell. Jud., IV., viii, 1, where its name is written Betaris. In A.D. 200 Septimius Severus, on his Syrian journey changed its name to Eleutheropolis, and it soon became one of the most important cities of Judea. Its special era, which figures on its coins and in many inscriptions, began January 1, A.D. 200. (See Echos d'Orient, 1903, 310 sq.; 1904, 215 sq.) Its first known bishop is Macrinus (325); five others are mentioned in the fourth and two in the sixth century (Lequien, Or. Christ., III, 631). In 393, during the episcopate of Zebennus, the relics of the Prophets Habakuk and Micah were found at Ceila and Tell Zakariya near Eleutheropolis (Sozom., H. E., VII, xxix). At Eleutheropolis was born St. Epiphanius, the celebrated bishop of Salamis in Cyprus; at Ad in the neighborhood he established a monastery which is often mentioned in the polemics of St. Jerome with Rufinus and John, Bishop of Jerusalem. The city was, moreover, an important monastic center at least till the coming of the Arabs. The latter beheaded (638) at Eleutheropolis fifty soldiers of the garrison of Gaza who had refused to apostatize. They were buried in a church built in their honor. (See Anal. Bolland., 1904, 289 sq., and Echos d'Orient, 1905, 40 sq.) The city was destroyed by the Mussulmans in 796 in the civil wars. The Crusaders erected there a fortress, in 1134, under Fulco of Anjou; the Knights of St. John, to whom it was committed, restored at this time the beautiful Byzantine church at Sandahanna. The citadel was taken in 1187 by Saladin, conquered in 1191 by Richard Lion Heart, destroyed in 1264 by Sultan Bibars, and rebuilt in 1551 by the Turks. Today Belt Djibrin is a village with about 1000 Mussulman inhabitants, on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, in a fertile and very healthy region. The medieval fortress still stands, about 180 feet square; there are also remains of the walls, ruins of a cloister, and of a medieval church. In the neighborhood are remarkable grottoes, which filled St. Jerome with wonderment. Some of these grottoes were used in early Christian times as places of worship; others bear Arabic inscriptions.

S. VAILHE


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/The Elevation

Elevation, .—What we now know as par excellence the Elevation of the Mass is a rite of comparatively recent introduction. The Oriental liturgies, and notably the Byzantine, have indeed a showing of the consecrated Host to the people, with the words "Holy things to the holy", but this should rather be regarded as the counterpart of our "Ecce Agnus Dei" and as a preliminary to the Communion. Again, in the West, a lifting of the Host at the words "omnis honor et gloria", immediately before the Pater Noster, has taken place ever since the ninth century or earlier. This may very probably be looked upon as originally an invitation to adore when the great consecratory prayer of the canon extending from the Preface to the Pater Noster (see Cabrol in "Dict. d'Archeologie", I, 1558) had been brought to a conclusion. But the showing of the Sacred Tlost (and still more of the Chalice) to the people after the utterance of the words of Institution, "Hoc est corpus meum", is not known to have existed earlier than the close of the twelfth century. Eudes de Sully, Bishop of Paris from 1196 to 1208, seems to have been the first to direct in his episcopal statutes that after the consecratory words the Host should be "elevated so that it can be seen by all".

There has, however, been a good deal of confusion upon this point in the minds of some early liturgists, owing to the practice which prevailed of lifting the bread from the altar and holding it in the hands above the chalice while consecrating it. Some degree of lifting, at the words "accepit panem in sanetas ac venerabiles manus suas", was unavoidable, and many priests carried it so far that liturgical commentators spoke of their act as "elevare hostiam" (cf. Migne, P.L., CLXXVII, 370, and CLXXI, 1186), but a careful examination of the evidence proves that this was quite a different thing from showing the Host to the people. Moreover, the motive of this latter showing has generally been misconceived. It has often been held to be a protest against the heresy of Berengarius; but Berengarius died a century before, and the statements of writers at the beginning of the thirteenth century make the whole development plain. The great center of intellectual life at that period was Paris, and we learn that at Paris a curious theological view was then being defended by such eminent scholars as the chancellor Peter Manducator and the professor Peter Cantor, that transubstantiation of the bread only took place when the priest at Mass had pronounced the words of consecration over both bread and wine (see, e.g., Giraldus Cambrensis, Works, 124; Caesarius of Heisterbach, "Dialogus", IX, xxvii, and "Libri Miraculorum", ed. Meister, pp. 16, 17). To quote the words of Peter of Poitiers "dicunt quidam.... quod non facta est transubstantiatio panis in corpus donee prolata sint haec verba `Hie est sanguis'" (Migne, P.L., CCXI, 1245; Pope Innocent "De sacro altaris mysterio", IV, 22, uses very similar language). This view, as may readily be understood, aroused considerable opposition, and notably on the part of Bishop Eudes de Sully and Stephen Langton, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury and cardinal. It seems clear that the theologians of this party, by way of protest against the teaching of Peter Cantor, adopted the custom of adoring the Host immediately after the words "Hoc est enim corpus meum" were spoken, and by a natural transition they encouraged the practice of showing it to the people for this purpose. The developments can be easily followed in the synodal decrees of France, England, and other countries during the thirteenth century. We find mention of a little bell of warning in the early years of that century, and before the end of the same century it was enjoined in many dioceses of the Continent and in England that one of the great bells of the church should be tolled at the moment of the Elevation, in order that those at work in the fields might kneel down and adore.

It will be readily understood from the above explanation that there was not the same motive at first for insisting on the elevation of the Chalice as well as the Host. No one at that period doubted that by the time the words of Institution had been spoken over the wine, transubstantiation had been effected in both species. We find accordingly that the elevation of the Chalice was introduced much more slowly. It was not adopted at St. Alban's Abbey until 1429, and we may say that it is not practiced by the Carthusians even to this day. The elevation of the Host at Mass seems to have brought in its train a great idea of the special merit and virtue of looking upon the Body of Christ. Promises of an extravagant kind circulated freely among the people describing the privileges of him who had seen his Maker at Mass. Sudden death could not befall him. He was secure from hunger, infection, the danger of fire, etc. As a result, an extraordinary desire developed to see the Host when elevated at Mass, and this led to a variety of abuses which were rebuked by preachers and satirists. On the other hand, the same devout instinct undoubtedly fostered the introduction of processions of the Blessed Sacrament and the practice of our familiar Exposition and Benediction (qq.v.).

.


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Fausto de Elhuyar y de Suvisa

Elhuyar y de Suvisa,, a distinguished mineralogist and chemist, b. at Logrono, Castile, October 11, 1755; d. February 6, 1833. He was professor in the School of Mines, Vergara, Biscay, from 1781 to 1785. His most celebrated work is the isolation of tungsten. Associated with his brother, Juan Jose, in 1783, two years after Scheele and Bergman had announced the probable existence of this metal, he isolated it, reducing it by carbon. At the present day when tungsten steel, known as high speed steel and self-hardening steel, is revolutionizing machine-shop practice, the work of Elhuyar is of particular interest. He named the metal Wolfram, a name which it still retains in the German language; the name, tungsten, meaning heavy stone, is generally used in other tongues. The Academy of Sciences of Toulouse, March 4, 1784, received notice of this discovery. Elhuyar then spent three years in travelling, for the purpose of study, through Central Europe and went to Mexico, when called New Spain. Here he had general superintendence of the mines and founded a Royal School of Mines in 1792. Driven away by the Revolution, he returned to Spain, where he was appointed general director of mines and was busy reorganizing his department when he was seized with a fit of apoplexy and died. His works are numerous; he wrote on the theory of amalgamation, a system for the reduction of silver from its ore which received great development in Mexico. In 1818 he published memoirs on the mintage of coins. He was also the author of memoirs on the state of the mines of New Spain (now Mexico) and on the exploitation of the Spanish mines. At Madrid, in 1825, he published a work on the influence of mineralogy in agriculture and chemistry.

T. O'CONOR SLOANE


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Elias

Elias (Heb. 'Eliahu, "Yahweh is God"; A.V., Elijah), the loftiest and most wonderful prophet of the O. T. What we know of his public life is sketched in a few popular narratives enshrined, for the most part, in the Third (Heb., First) Book of Kings. These narratives, which bear the stamp of an almost contemporary age, very likely took shape in Northern Israel, and are full of the most graphic and interesting details. Every part of the prophet's life therein narrated bears out the description of the writer of Ecclesiasticus: He was "as a fire, and his word burnt like a torch" (xlviii, 1). The times called for such a prophet. Under the baneful influence of his Tyrian wife Jezabel, Achab, though perhaps not intending to forsake altogether Yahveh's worship, had nevertheless erected in Samaria a temple to the Tyrian Baal (III K., xvi, 32) and introduced a multitude of foreign priests (xviii 19); doubtless he had occasionally offered sacrifices to the pagan deity, and, most of all, had allowed a bloody persecution of the prophets of Yahveh.

Of Elias's origin nothing is known, except that he was a Thesbite; whether from Thisbe of Nephtali (Tob., i, 2, Gr.) or from Thesbon of Galaad, as our texts have it, is not absolutely certain, although most scholars, on the authority of the Septuagint and of Josephus, prefer the latter opinion. Some Jewish legends, echoed in a few Christian writings, assert moreover that Elias was of priestly descent; but there is no other warrant for the statement than the fact that he offered sacrifices. His whole manner of life resembles somewhat that of the Nazarites and is a loud protest against his corrupt age. His skin garment and leather girdle (IV K., 1, 8), his swift foot (III K., xviii, 46), his habit of dwelling in the clefts of the torrents (xvii, 3) or in the caves of the mountains (xix, 9), of sleeping under a scanty shelter (xix, 5), betray the true son of the desert. He appears abruptly on the scene of history to announce to Achab that Yahveh had determined to avenge the apostasy of Israel and her king by bringing a long drought on the land. His message delivered, the prophet vanished as suddenly as he had appeared, and, guided by the spirit of Yahveh, betook himself by the brook Carith, to the east of the Jordan, and the ravens (some critics would translate, however improbable the rendering, "Arabs" or "merchants") "brought him bread and flesh in the morning, and bread and flesh in the evening, and he drank of the torrent" (xvii, 6).

After the brook had dried up, Elias, under Divine direction, crossed over to Sarepta, within the Tyrian dominion. There he was hospitably received by a poor widow whom the famine had reduced to her last meal (12); her charity he rewarded by increasing her store of meal and oil all the while the drought and famine prevailed, and later on by restoring her child to life (14-24). For three years there fell no rain or dew in Israel, and the land was utterly barren. Meanwhile Achab had made fruitless efforts and scoured the country in search of Elias. At length the latter resolved to confront the king once more, and, suddenly appearing before Abdias, bade him summon his master (xviii, 7, sq.). When they met, Achab bitterly upbraided the prophet as the cause of the misfortune of Israel. But the prophet flung back the charge: "I have not troubled Israel, but thou and thy father's house, who have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and have followed Baalim" (xviii, 18). Taking advantage of the discountenanced spirits of the silenced king, Elias bids him to summon the prophets of Baal to Mount Carmel, for a decisive contest between their god and Yahveh. The ordeal took place before a great concourse of people (see Mount Carmel) whom Elias, in the most forcible terms, presses to choose: "How long do you halt between two sides? If Yahveh be God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him" (xviii, 21). He then commanded the heathen prophets to invoke their deity; he himself would "call on the name of his Lord"; and the God who would answer by fire, "let him be God" (24). An altar had been erected by the Baal-worshippers and the victim laid upon it; but their cries, their wild dances and mad self-mutilations all the day long availed nothing: "there was no voice heard, nor did any one answer, nor regard them as they prayed" (29). Elias, having repaired the ruined altar of Yahveh which stood there, prepared thereon his sacrifice; then, when it was time to offer the evening oblation, as he was praying earnestly, "the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the holocaust, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench" (38). The issue was fought and won. The people, maddened by the success, fell at Elias's command on the pagan prophets and slew them at the brook Cison. That same evening the drought ceased with a heavy down of rain, in the midst of which the strange prophet ran before Achab to the entrance of Jezrael.

Elias's triumph was short. The anger of Jezabel, who had sworn to take his life (xix, 2), compelled him to flee without delay, and take his refuge beyond the desert of Juda, in the sanctuary of Mount Horeb. There, in the wilds of the sacred mountain, broken spirited, he poured out his complaint before the Lord, who strengthened him by a revelation and restored his faith. Three commands are laid upon him: to anoint Hazael to be King of Syria, Jehu to be King of Israel, and Eliseus to be his own successor. At once Elias sets out to accomplish this new burden. On his way to Damascus, he meets Eliseus at the plough, and throwing his mantle over him, makes him his faithful disciple and inseparable companion, to whom the completion of his task will be entrusted. The treacherous murder of Naboth was the occasion for a new reappearance of Elias at Jezrael, as a champion of the people's rights and of social order, and to announce to Achab his impending doom. Achab's house shall fall. In the place where the dogs licked the blood of Naboth will the dogs lick the king's blood; they shall eat Jezabel in Jezrael; their whole posterity shall perish and their bodies be given to the fowls of the air (xxi, 20-26). Conscience-stricken, Achab quailed before the man of God, and in view of his penance the threatened ruin of his house was delayed. The next time we hear of Elias, it is in connection with Ochozias, Achab's son and successor. Having received severe injuries in a fall, this prince sent messengers to the shrine of Beelzebub, god of Accaron, to inquire whether he should recover. They were intercepted by the prophet, who sent them back to their master with the intimation that his injuries would prove fatal. Several bands of men sent by the king to capture Elias were stricken by fire from heaven; finally the man of God appeared in person before Ochozias to confirm his threatening message. Another episode recorded by the chronicler (II Par., xxi, 12) relates how Joram, King of Juda, who had indulged in Baal-worship, received from Elias a letter warning him that all his house would be smitten by a plague, and that he himself was doomed to an early death.

According to IV K., iii, Elias's career ended before the death of Josaphat. This statement is difficult—but not impossible—to harmonize with the preceding narrative. However this may be, Elias vanished still more mysteriously than he had appeared. Like Enoch, he was "translated", so that he should not taste death. As he was conversing with his spiritual son Eliseus on the hills of Moab, "a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder, and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (IV K., ii, 11), and all the efforts to find him made by the sceptic sons of the prophets disbelieving Eliseus's recital, availed nothing. The memory of Elias has ever remained living in the minds both of Jews and Christians. According to Malachias, God preserved the prophet alive to entrust him, at the end of time, with a glorious mission (iv, 5-6): at the New Testament period, this mission was believed to precede immediately the Messianic Advent (Matt., xvii, 10, 12; Mark, ix, 11); according to some Christian commentators, it would consist in converting the Jews (St. Jer., in Mal., iv, 5-6); the rabbis, finally, affirm that its object will be to give the explanations and answers hitherto kept back by them. I Mach., ii, 58, extols Elias's zeal for the Law, and Ben Sira entwines in a beautiful page the narration of his actions and the description of his future mission (Ecclus., xlviii, 1-12). Elias is still in the N. T. the personification of the servant of God (Matt., xvi, 14; Luke, i, 17; ix, 8; John, i, 21). No wonder, therefore, that with Moses he appeared at Jesus' side on the day of the Transfiguration.

Nor do we find only in the sacred literature and the commentaries thereof evidences of the conspicuous place Elias won for himself in the minds of after-ages. To this day the name of Jebel Mar Elyas, usually given by modern Arabs to Mount Carmel, perpetuates the memory of the man of God. Various places on the mountain: Elias's grotto; El-Khadr, the supposed school of the prophets; El-Muhraka, the traditional spot of Elias's sacrifice; Tell el-Kassis, or Mound of the priests—where he is said to have slain the priests of Baal—are still in great veneration both among the Christians of all denominations and among the Moslems. Every year the Druses assemble at El-Muhraka to hold a festival and offer a sacrifice in honor of Elias. All Mussulmans have the prophet in great reverence; no Druse, in particular, would dare break an oath made in the name of Elias. Not only among them, but to some extent also among the Jews and Christians, many legendary tales are associated with the prophet's memory. The Carmelite monks long cherished the belief that their order could be traced back in unbroken succession to Elias whom they hailed as their founder. Vigorously opposed by the Bollandists, especially by Papenbroeck, their claim was no less vigorously upheld by the Carmelites of Flanders, until Pope Innocent XII, in 1698, deemed it advisable to silence both contending parties. Elias is honored by both the Greek and Latin Churches on July 20.

The old stichometrical lists and ancient ecclesiastical writers (Const. Apost., VI, 16; Origen, Comm. in Matth., xxvii, 9; Euthalius; Epiphan., Haer., xliii) mention an apocryphal "Apocalypse of Elias", citations from which are said to be found in I Cor., ii, 9, and Eph., v, 14. Lost to view since the early Christian centuries, this work was partly recovered in a Coptic translation found (1893) by Maspéro in a monastery of Upper Egypt. Other scraps, likewise in Coptic, have since been also discovered. What we possess now of this Apocalypseae and it seems that we have by far the greater part of it—was published in 1899 by G. Steindorff; the passages cited in I Cor., ii, 9, and Eph., v, 14, do not appear there; the Apocalypse, on the other hand, has a striking analogy with the Jewish "Sepher Elia".

.

title: Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Elias


text:
Page:Australian Emigrant 1854.djvu/162

 himself, that must be your revenge, so lay down." Obedient to her master's word Lady reluctantly complied, but in such a position that every action of the bushranger was under her observation.

As Dodge was endeavouring to force a little spirit into the mouth of the gasping man, he shrieked, "Poison! poison!—hellfire! poison!—poison me, what for?—I'm nothing—I'm a——what am I?" As Hugh Raymond was stooping over, Jarrol fixed his eyes upon him in a peculiarly earnest manner and momentarily recognised him. Transient as was the impulse given, it was sufficiently lasting to bend Jarrol's wandering thoughts in the direction so much desired. Drawing Hugh towards him with his manacled hands he whispered "Don't marry her, she is a beggar: I made her so years and years ago.—I tell you Annie Raymond is a beggar." Hugh and Slinger looked on but remained silent, hoping that in his wanderings some useful information might unwittingly escape him; but a long season of incoherency gave place to a morose silence. They were beginning to despair, and were whispering together, when Jarrol, looking hard at them, cried out "It's a lie—a conspiracy, you are plotting against me; the deeds were not put there by me, but they are safe, very safe.—There, open the pannel.—So, so, as I left it. Now look beyond.—Open that one, the deeds are there, but you can't touch them, they belong to my son—she is his wife, and so Master Hugh Raymond see to what your plotting has come at last.—Ha! ha!!" Slinger carefully noted on paper every word as it fell from the bushranger's lips, and when he ceased speaking, turned to Dodge. Although nothing was said, Dodge nodded his head mysteriously, and remarked, that it was "a subject requiring to be well smoked over" before he could venture to give an opinion worth anything.—"The deeds and the pannel!

title: Page:Australian Emigrant 1854.djvu/162