Difference between revisions of "Excommunication"

<p> A penalty, or censure, whereby persons who are guilty of any notorious crime or offence, are separated from the communion of the church, and deprived of all spiritual advantages. [[Excommunication]] is founded upon a natural right which all societies have of excluding out of their body such as violate the laws thereof, and it was originally instituted for preserving the purity of the church; but ambitious ecclesiastics converted it by degrees into an engine for promoting their own power, and inflicted it on the most frivolous occasions. In the ancient church, the power of excommunication was lodged in the hands of the clergy, who distinguished it into the greater and less. The less consisted in excluding persons from the participation of the eucharist, and the prayers of the faithful; but they were not expelled the church. The greater excommunication consisted in absolute and entire seclusion from the church, and the participation of all its rights: notice of which was given by circular letters to the most eminent churches all over the world, that they might all confirm this act of discipline, by refusing to admit the delinquent to their communion. The consequences were very terrible. </p> <p> The person so excommunicated, was avoided in all civil commerce and outward conversation. No one was to receive him into his house, nor eat at the same table with him; and, when dead, he was denied the solemn rites of burial. The [[Jews]] expelled from their synagogue such as had committed any grievous crime. </p> <p> See John 9:32 . John 12:42 . John 16:2 . and Joseph.Antiq. Jud. lib.9. cap. 22. and lib. 16. cap. 2. Godwyn, in his [[Moses]] and [[Aaron]] distinguishes three degrees or kinds of excommunication among the Jews. The first he finds intimated in John 9:22 . the second in 1 Corinthians 5:5 . and the third in 1 Corinthians 16:22 . The Romish pontifical takes notice of three kinds of excommunication. </p> <p> 1. The minor, incurred by those who have any correspondence with an excommunicated person. </p> <p> 2. The major, which falls upon those who disobey the commands of the holy see, or refuse to submit to certain points of discipline; in consequence of which they are excluded from the church militant and triumphant, and delivered over to the devil, and his angels. </p> <p> 3. Anathema, which is properly that pronounced by the pope against heretical princes and countries. In former ages, these papal fulminations were most terrible things; but latterly they were formidable to none but a few petty states of Italy. Excommunication, in the greek church, cuts off the offender from all communion with the three hundred and eighteen fathers of the first council of Nice, and with the saints; consigns him over to the devil and the traitor Judas, and condemns his body to remain after death as hard as a flint or piece of steel, unless he humble himself, and make atonement for his sins by a sincere repentance. The form abounds with dreadful imprecations; and the [[Greeks]] assert, that, if a person dies excommunicated, the devil enters into the lifeless corpse; and, therefore, in order to prevent it, the relations of the deceased cut his body in pieces, and boil them in wine. It is a custom with the patriarch of [[Jerusalem]] annually to excommunicate the pope and the church of Rome; on which occasion, together with a great deal of idle ceremony, he drives a nail into the ground with a hammer, as a mark of malediction. </p> <p> The form of excommunication in the church of [[England]] anciently ran thus: "By the authority of [[God]] the Father Almighty, the Son, and [[Holy]] Ghost, and of [[Mary]] the blessed mother of God, we excommunicate, anathematize, and sequester from the holy mother church, & 100:" The causes of excommunication in England are, contempt of the bishops' court, heresy, neglect of public worship and the sacraments, incontinency, adultery, simony, &c. It is described to be twofold; the less is an ecclesiastical censure, excluding the party from the participation of the sacrament; the greater proceeds farther, and excludes him not only from these, but from the company of all christians; but if the judge of any spiritual court excommunicates a man for a cause of which he has not the legal cognizance, the party may have an action against him at common law, and he is also liable to be indicted at the suit of the king. Excommunication in the church of Scotland, consists only in an exclusion of openly profane and immoral persons from baptism and the Lord's supper; but is seldom publicly denounced, as, indeed, such persons generally exclude themselves from the latter ordinance at least; but it is attended with no civil incapacity whatever. </p> <p> [[Among]] the [[Independents]] and Baptists, the persons who are or should be excommunicated, are such as are quarrelsome and litigious, Galatians 5:12; such as desert their privileges, withdraw themselves from the ordinances of God, and forsake his people, Judges 1:19; such as are irregular and immoral in their lives, railers, drunkards, extortioners, fornicators, and covetous, Ephesians 5:5 . 1 Corinthians 5:11 . "The exclusion of a person from any [[Christian]] church does not affect him temporal estate and civil affairs; it does not subject him to fines or imprisonments; it interferes not with the business of a civil magistrate; it makes no change in the natural and civil relations between husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and servants; neither does it deprive a man of the liberty of attending public worship; it removes him, however, from the communion of the church, and the privileges dependent on it: this is done that he may be ashamed of his sin, and be brought to repentance; that the honour of [[Christ]] may be vindicated, and that stumbling-blocks may be removed out of the way." </p> <p> [[Though]] the act of exclusion be not performed exactly in the same manner in every church, yet (according to the congregational plan) the power of excision lies in the church itself. The officers take the sense of the members assembled together; and after the matter has been properly investigated, and all necessary steps taken to reclaim the offender, the church proceeds to the actual exclusion of the person from among them, by signifying their judgment or opinion that the person is unworthy of a place in God's house. In the conclusion of this article, however, we must add, that too great caution cannot be observed in procedures of this kind; every thing should be done with the greatest meekness, deliberation, prayer, and a deep sense of our own unworthiness; with a compassion for the offender, and a fixed design of embracing reproving, instructing, and, if possible, restoring him to the enjoyment of the privileges he has forfeited by his conduct. </p> <p> See CHURCH. </p>

<p> As the church is a society constituted for maintaining certain doctrines and corresponding morals, it plainly has the right to exclude from communion such as flagrantly violate its doctrinal and moral code. The [[Jews]] had three forms of excommunication, alluded to in Luke 6:22 by our Lord, "blessed are ye when men shall separate you from their company (the [[Jewish]] niddui , for 30 days), and shall reproach you (the second form, cherem , for 90 days (See ANATHEMA), Judges 5:23), and cast out your name as evil, for the [[Son]] of man's sake" (the third form, shammatha , perpetual cutting off): John 9:34-35 margin; compare Exodus 30:33; Exodus 30:38; also John 12:42; John 16:2. </p> <p> [[Christian]] excommunication is commanded by [[Christ]] (Matthew 18:15-18); so 1 Timothy 1:20; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Titus 3:10; "delivering unto Satan" means casting out of the church, Christ's kingdom of light, into the world that lieth in the wicked one, the kingdom of [[Satan]] and darkness (Colossians 1:13; Ephesians 6:12; Acts 26:18; 1 John 5:19). The apostles besides, under divine inspiration, inflicted bodily sicknesses and death on some (e.g. Acts 5, [[Ananias]] and Sapphira; Acts 13:10, Elymas). For other cases of virtual, if not formal, exclusion from communion, though in a brotherly not proud spirit, see 2 Thessalonians 3:14; Romans 16:17; Galatians 5:12; 1 Timothy 6:3; 2 John 1:10; 3 John 1:10; Revelation 2:20; Galatians 1:8-9. </p> <p> Paul's practice proves that excommunication is a spiritual penalty, the temporal penalty inflicted by the apostles in exceptional cases being evidently of extraordinary and divine appointment and no model to us; it consisted in exclusion from the church; the object was the good of the offender (1 Corinthians 5:5) and the safeguard of the sound members (2 Timothy 2:17); its subjects were those guilty of heresy and great immorality (1 Timothy 1:20); it was inflicted by the church (Matthew 18:18) and its representative ministers (Titus 3:10; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 5:3-4). Paul's infallible authority when inspired is no warrant for uninspired ministers claiming the same right to direct the church to excommunicate as they will (2 Corinthians 2:7-9). [[Penitence]] is the condition of restoration. Temporary affliction often leads to permanent salvation (Psalms 83:16); Satan's temporary triumph is overruled "to. destroy the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (Luke 22:31). </p>

<p> Old [[Testament]] In the Old Testament, excommunication came as a curse from [[God]] as punishment for sin (Deuteronomy 27:26; Deuteronomy 28:15; [[Psalm]] 119:21; Malachi 2:2-9; Malachi 4:6 ). The [[Jewish]] community assumed authority to curse on God's behalf (Numbers 23:8; Isaiah 66:5 ). Old Testament terms for excommunication include: <i> Karath </i> , to be excluded or cut off (Exodus 12:15 , Exodus 12:19; Leviticus 17:4 , Leviticus 17:9 ); <i> cherem </i> , banish, devote, or put to destruction (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 27:28-29; Joshua 6:17 ); and <i> qelalah </i> , desolation or thing of horror (2 Kings 22:19; Jeremiah 25:18 ). The covenant community protected itself from curse and temptation by distancing covenant-breakers from the community even to the point of executing them. </p> <p> New Testament Expulsion from the synagogue was one form of New Testament excommunication. [[Christians]] were frequently subject to expulsion, which was punishment for blasphemy or for straying from the tradition of [[Moses]] (Luke 6:22; John 9:22; John 12:42; John 16:2 ). [[Many]] early Christians thus endured excommunication from the worship place of their fathers to be Christians. The apostles practiced excommunication based on the binding and loosing authority [[Jesus]] gave to them (John 20:23; Matthew 18:18 ). See Galatians 1:8 ) for gross, deliberate sin (1 Corinthians 5:1; 2 John 1:7 ) and perhaps for falling away from church belief and practice (Hebrews 6:4-8 ). The purpose was to purify the church and to encourage offenders to repent (1 Corinthians 5:5-6; 2 Corinthians 2:6-10; 2 Thessalonians 3:15 ). [[Punishment]] ranged in scope from limited ostracism to permanent exclusion and may even have included some form of physical punishment if the church continued synagogue practice (Luke 4:28-30; John 8:2-11; Acts 5:1-5; Acts 7:58 ). New Testament terms for excommunication include: being delivered to [[Satan]] (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20 ); anathema or cursed and cut off from God (Romans 9:3; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8 ). The New Testament churches apparently used excommunication as a means of redemptive discipline. See [[Apostasy]] . </p> <p> In [[Church]] History During the [[Middle]] Ages, when church and state became intertwined, excommunication was often used as a political tool. In 1054, the [[Catholic]] church was divided into east and west. Each claimed primacy as the true church. They “resolved” the issue by excommunicating each other. </p> <p> Disputes with reformers such as [[Martin]] Luther and John Calvin frequently produced excommunications in varying degrees. Many of Luther's essays were written in response to calls for him to recant or be excommunicated. During Calvin's power struggle in Geneva, a city government council tried to gain authority to excommunicate in order to use it as a political weapon. </p> <p> Contemporary In its broadest sense, excommunication now means denial of sacraments, congregational worship, or social contact of any kind. [[Excommunication]] is practiced in this manner by both [[Protestant]] and Catholic churches. However, the term itself is used mainly in the Catholic church and usually indicates the permanent ban. [[Lesser]] punishments are called censures. </p> <p> Donna R. [[Ridge]] </p>

<p> [[Excommunication]] is a form of ecclesiastical censure involving exclusion from the membership of the Church. Such exclusion may be temporary or permanent. It may cut off the offender from all communion and every privilege, or it may be less severe, allowing some intercourse and certain benefits. </p> <p> <b> 1. The term. </b> -The word ‘excommunication’ is not found in Authorized Versionor Revised Version, nor are the obsolete forms ‘excommunion’ (Milton), ‘excommenge’ (Holinshed), ‘excommuned’ (Gayton). There are general references to the subject, and one or two cases are mentioned with some detail. The [[Greek]] verb ἀφορίζω signifies ‘mark off from (ἀπό) by a boundary (ὄρος).’ It is used sometimes in a good sense ( <i> e.g. </i> Acts 13:2, Romans 1:1, Galatians 1:15), and sometimes in a bad one ( <i> e.g. </i> Luke 6:22; note the three degrees of evil treatment-ἀφορίσωσιν, ὀνειδίσωσιν, ἐκβάλωσιν τὸ ὄνομα). See also Matthew 13:49; Matthew 25:32, 2 Corinthians 6:17, Galatians 2:12. It is employed by various Greek writers-Sophocles, Euripides, Plato, and others-and is found frequently in the Septuagint. <i> Excommunicatio </i> is a [[Latin]] word of later origin. It is used in the Vulgate. </p> <p> <b> 2. Warrant for the practice in the [[Apostolic]] [[Church]] </b> .-Excommunication in apostolic times rested upon a threefold warrant. </p> <p> (1) <i> [[Natural]] and inherent right </i> .-Every properly constituted society has the right and power to exclude members not conforming to its rules. The Church has authority to exercise a right which every society claims. An analogy is sometimes drawn between the Church and the State. The [[State]] has power to send into exile, to deprive of civil rights, and even claims and exercises the power to inflict a death-sentence. So, in spiritual matters, the Church may pass sentences of separation more or less complete, and though the supreme judge alone can pronounce the sentence of death in an absolute sense, yet the Church can pass such a sentence in a relative sense-the offender being regarded as dead from the standpoint of the ecclesiastical court. [[Upon]] this point-whether in excommunication and in ‘binding and loosing’ the power of the Church is final and absolute-two divergent views have been held. As typical of these two schools of thought, see Dante, <i> de Mon </i> . iii. viii. 36ff., and Tarquini, <i> Juris eccl. Inst </i> . 4, Rome, 1875, p. 98. The former declares it is not absolute, ‘sed respective ad aliquid.… Posset [enim] solvere me non poenitentem, quod etiam facere ipse Deus non posset’; the latter states that St. Peter (Matthew 16:19) is invested with ‘potestas clavium, quae est absoluta et monarchica.’ </p> <p> (2) <i> The example of the [[Jewish]] nation and Church </i> .-In the [[Pentateuch]] it is stated that certain heinous sins cannot be forgiven. By some form of excommunication or by death itself the sinner is to be ‘cut off.’ [[Thus]] the sanctity of the nation is restored and preserved. In the later days of [[Judaism]] the penalties became somewhat milder as a general rule. The foundations of Jewish excommunication are Leviticus 13:46, Numbers 5:2-3; Numbers 12:14-15; Numbers 16, Judges 5:23, Ezra 7:26, Nehemiah 13:25. The effects are described in Ezra 7:26; Ezra 10:8. The [[Talmud]] mentions three kinds of excommunication, the first two disciplinary, the third complete and final expulsion. There was separation, separation with a curse, and final separation with a terrible anathema. For [[Gospel]] references see Luke 6:22, John 9:22; John 9:34-35; John 12:42; John 16:2. The sentence might be pronounced on twenty-four different grounds. </p> <p> (3) <i> The authority of [[Jesus]] [[Christ]] </i> .-The main basis of authority for the [[Christian]] Church is the teaching of its Founder. The passages of most importance on the subject under consideration are Matthew 16:19; Matthew 18:18, John 20:23. Excommunication must be preceded by private and public exhortation, conducted in the spirit of love, with caution, wisdom, and patience. Only as a last resort, and when all else has failed, must the sentence of banishment be pronounced (see Matthew 13:24-30; Matthew 13:36-43; Matthew 13:47-50). From Christ Himself the Church received authority, not only to ‘bind’ the impenitent and unbelieving and to ‘loose’ the penitent believer, but also, in its properly constituted courts, to condemn and expel gross offenders and to forgive and re-instate them if truly penitent. </p> <p> <b> 3. Legislation in the Apostolic Church. </b> -The general methods of procedure are made clear by St. Paul’s method of dealing with the case of the incestuous person at [[Corinth]] (1 Corinthians 5, 2 Corinthians 2:6-11). The excommunication of the offender was a solemn, deliberate, judicial act of the members of the Church specially gathered together ‘in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ’ for the purpose, and equipped with the authority and ‘power of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ The act of exclusion was that of the Church itself and not of the [[Apostle]] Paul. The power was not in the hands of an official, or body of officials. Wherever it has become the prerogative of a priesthood it has led to great abuse and the results have been disastrous both to priests and people. </p> <p> The object of this act of discipline was to reform the sinner (1 Corinthians 5:5), and to preserve the purity of the Church. Where a difference of opinion existed as to the course to be pursued, the verdict was decided by the majority (2 Corinthians 2:6). The sentence might be modified or rescinded according to sub-sequent events (2 Corinthians 2:6-8). ‘To deliver such a one unto [[Satan]] for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus’ (1 Corinthians 5:5), is an obscure passage. Perhaps St. [[Paul]] thought that a sin of the flesh was more likely to be cured by bodily suffering than in any other way. In his opinion certain afflictions of the body were due to the operations of Satan (2 Corinthians 2:11; 2 Corinthians 12:7, 1 Timothy 1:20). [[Probably]] he thought that, in accordance with the sentence of the Church, [[God]] would allow Satan to inflict some physical malady that would lead the offender to repentance. If we may take 2 Corinthians 2:6-11 to refer to the same case, the desired result was reached. </p> <p> ‘It cannot have been unknown to Paul that he was here using a form of words similar to the curses by which the Corinthians had formerly been accustomed to consign their personal enemies to destruction by the powers of the world of death. It seems not open to doubt that the Corinthians would understand by this phrase that the offender was to suffer disease and even death as a punishment for sin; and Paul goes on to add that this punishment of the flesh is intended to bring salvation ultimately to his soul (ἴνα τὸ πνεῦμα σωθῇ): by physical suffering he is to atone for his sin.… The whole thought stands in the closest relation to the theory of the confession-inscriptions, in which those who have been punished by the god thank and bless him for the chastisement’ (Ramsay in <i> Expository Times </i> x. [1898-99] 59). </p> <p> For cases in which physical ill followed ecclesiastical censure see Acts 5:1; Acts 8:20; Acts 13:10. Some hold that the ‘delivery to Satan’ was by virtue of the special authority of St. Paul himself, while the Church had power to expel only. There is nothing in the text to support such a view. This punishment must not be confounded with the anathema of Romans 9:3, 1 Corinthians 16:22, Galatians 1:8-9. ‘The attempt to explain the word (ἀνάθεμα) to mean “excommunication” from the society-a later use of the [[Hebrew]] in Rabbinical writers and the Greek in ecclesiastical-arose from a desire to take away the apparent profanity of the wish’ (Sanday-Headlam, <i> Romans 5 </i> [ <i> International Critical [[Commentary]] </i> , 1902], p. 228). Calvin and some other reformers thought the expression ἀνάθεμα. Μαρὰν ἀθά (1 Corinthians 16:22) was a formula of excommunication. [[Buxtorf]] ( <i> Lex. Chald. </i> , Basel, 1639, pp. 827, 2466) says it was part of a Jewish cursing formula from the <i> [[Prophecy]] of [[Enoch]] </i> (Judges 1:14).There is no reason for such an opinion. It was not held until the meaning of the words was lost or partially so. They are neither connected nor synonymous as some have supposed, and are rightly separated in Revised Version-‘If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema. Maran atha’ (cf. Philippians 4:5). </p> <p> In addition to the specific case at Corinth and general references in such passages as 1 Thessalonians 5:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:14 (cf. Romans 16:17, James 5:16), we find more precise directions in later books-the Pastoral [[Epistles]] and General Epistles of St. John (see 1 Timothy 5:19-20; 1 Timothy 6:3, Titus 3:10, 1 John 1:8 f., 1 John 5:16, 2 John 1:10, 3 John 1:9-10). Heresy, schism, insubordination, usurpation of the authority of the Church by a section, became grounds of excommunication. The morals, doctrine, and government of the Church were all imperilled at times and could be preserved only by strict discipline and severe penalties upon wrong-doers. As in the Jewish community, the sentence of excommunication might be lighter or heavier, the exclusion being more or less complete. It might mean only expulsion from the Lord’s Table, but not from the Lord’s House; or it might be utter banishment from the Lord’s House and an interdict against all social intercourse with its members. </p> <p> It is beyond the scope of this article to trace the history of excommunication in the Christian Church. [[Suffice]] it to say that the distinction between the minor (ἀφορισμός) and major (παντελὴς ἀφορισμὸς ἁνάθεμα) forms of it, which existed from very early times, if not from the Apostolic [[Age]] itself, were continued for centuries with a wealth of elaborate detail as to the exact penalties involved in each, and as to the attitude of those within the Church to those without its pale. Unfortunately, excommunication often became an instrument of oppression in the hands of unworthy men. In mediaeval days it frequently entailed outlawry and sometimes death. </p> <p> ‘The censures of the Church, reserved in her early days for the gravest moral And spiritual offences, soon lost their salutary terrors when excommunications became incidents in territorial squabbles, or were issued on the most trivial pretext; and when the unchristian penalty of the interdict sought to coerce the guilty by robbing the innocent of the privilege of Christian worship and even of burial itself’ (A. Robertson, <i> [[Regnum]] Dei </i> [Bampton Lectures, 1901], p. 257). </p> <p> See also Anathema, Chastisement, Discipline, [[Restoration]] of Offenders. </p> <p> Literature.-articles ‘Discipline’ in <i> Hasting's Dictionary of the [[Bible]] (5 vols) </i> , <i> Dict. of Christ and the [[Gospels]] </i> , ‘Discipline (Christian)’ in <i> Encyclopaedia of [[Religion]] and [[Ethics]] </i> , ‘Excommunication’ in <i> Dict. of Christ and the Gospels </i> , Smith’s <i> Dict. of the Bible </i> 2, <i> Jewish Encyclopedia </i> , <i> [[Catholic]] Encyclopedia </i> , ‘Bann (kirchlicher)’ in <i> Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche </i> 3; E. v. Dobschütz, <i> Christian Life in the Primitive Church </i> , Eng. translation, London, 1904; H. M. Gwatkin, <i> [[Early]] Church History </i> , do. 1909; E. Schürer, <i> History of the Jewish People (Eng. tr. of GJV).] </i> , Edinburgh, 1885-1890; C. v. Weizsäcker, <i> Das apostolische Zeitalter </i> 3, Tübingen, 1902 (Eng. translationof 2nd ed., London, 1894-95); A. Edersheim, <i> LT </i> [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the [[Messiah]] (Edersheim).]4, London, 1887; J. Bingham, <i> Origines Ecclesiasticae </i> , do. 1708-1722; H. Hallam, <i> [[View]] of the State of [[Europe]] during the [[Middle]] [[Ages]] </i> 10, do. 1853. </p> <p> H. Cariss J. Sidnell. </p>

<p> [[Though]] this word does not occur in the A.V. the duty of excommunicating wicked persons from the fold of Israel, and from the church as the house of God, is plainly taught. Again and again we read in the O.T. that for particular sins "that soul shall be out off from Israel" or "cut off from his people." Exodus 12:15; Exodus 30:33,38; Leviticus 7:20,21,25,27; Numbers 9:13; Ezra 10:8; etc. How far this was acted upon we do not know. In the N.T. we find the authorities agreeing that if any one confessed that [[Jesus]] was the [[Christ]] he was to be cut off; and they excommunicated the man that had been born blind because he said that Jesus must be of God. John 9:34 . </p> <p> In the church we have a case of 'putting away' at Corinth. The assembly were admonished to put away from themselves the wicked person that was among them. 1 Corinthians 5:13 . The person was cast out. He was afterwards repentant, and then the [[Corinthian]] saints were instructed to forgive him and to receive him again into communion. 2 Corinthians 2:6-11 . The necessity of putting away an evil person is apparent; the presence of God, who is holy, demands it, and believers are called to holiness: "the temple of [[God]] is holy, which temple ye are." 1 Corinthians 3:17 . As to discipline on earth there is a dispensational binding and loosing (cf. Matthew 18:18 ), to which the saints are called where it is needful to put away evil from the assembly, but always with the hope that restoration may follow. See DISCIPLINE. </p> <p> Connected with the case at [[Corinth]] there was also mentioned the delivering unto [[Satan]] of the guilty person for the destruction of the flesh, but this was the determination of [[Paul]] as being there in spirit with them (1 Corinthians 5:4,5 ), which seems to stamp it as an apostolic act. Paul individually did the same with [[Hymenaeus]] and Alexander. 1 Timothy 1:20 . The positive injunction to the church at Corinth was to put away from among themselves the wicked person. In 3John we read of [[Diotrephes]] who took upon himself to cast some out of the church, which John would not forget when he visited them. As is seen at Corinth, 'putting away' should be an act of the assembly, not of an individual. </p>

<p> is the judicial exclusion of offenders from the religious rites and other privileges of the particular community to which they belong. [[Founded]] in the natural right which every society possesses to guard its laws and privileges from violation and abuse by the infliction of salutary discipline, proportioned to the nature of the offences committed against them, it has found a place, in one form or another, under every system of religion, whether human or divine. That it has been made an engine for the gratification of private malice and revenge, and been perverted to purposes the most unjustifiable and even diabolical, the history of the world but too lamentably proves; yet this, though unquestionably a consideration which ought to inculcate the necessity of prudence, as well as impartiality and temperance in the use of it, affords no valid argument against its legitimate exercise. From St. Paul's writings we learn that the early excommunication was effected by the offender not being allowed to "eat" with the church, that is, to partake of the Lord's Supper, the sign of communion. In the early ages of the primitive church also, this branch of discipline was exercised with moderation, which, however, gradually gave place to an undue severity. From Tertullian's "Apology" we learn, that the crimes which in his time subjected to exclusion from [[Christian]] privileges, were murder, idolatry, theft, fraud, lying, blasphemy, adultery, fornication, and the like, and in Origen's treatise against Celsus, we are informed that such persons were expelled from the communion of the church, and lamented as lost and dead unto God; [ <em> ut perditos Deoque mortuos; </em> ] but that on making confession and giving evidence of penitence, they were received back as restored to life. It was at the same time specially ordained, that no such delinquent, however suitably qualified in other respects, could be afterward admitted to any ecclesiastical office. But it does not appear that the infliction of this discipline was accompanied with any of those forms of excommunication, of delivering over to Satan, or of solemn execration, which were usual among the Jews, and subsequently introduced into them by the Romish church. The authors and followers of heretical opinions which had been condemned, were also subject to this penalty; and it was sometimes inflicted on whole congregations when they were judged to have departed from the faith. In this latter case, however, the sentence seldom went farther than the interdiction of correspondence with these churches, or of spiritual communication between their respective pastors. </p> <p> To the same exclusion from religious privileges, those unhappy persons were doomed, who, whether from choice or from compulsion, had polluted themselves, after their baptism, by any act of idolatrous worship; and the penance enjoined on such persons, before they could be restored to communion, was often peculiarly severe. The consequences of excommunication, even then, were of a temporal as well as a spiritual nature. The person against whom it was pronounced, was denied all share in the oblations of his brethren; the ties both of religious and of private friendship were dissolved; he found himself an object of abhorrence to those whom he most esteemed, and by whom he had been most tenderly beloved; and, as far as expulsion from a society held in universal veneration could imprint on his character a mark of disgrace, he was shunned or suspected by the generality of mankind. </p> <p> <strong> 2. </strong> It was not, however, till churchmen began to unite temporal with spiritual power, that any penal effects of a civil kind became consequent on their sentences of excommunication; and that this ghostly artillery was not less frequently employed for the purposes of lawless ambition and ecclesiastical domination, than for the just punishment of impenitent delinquents, and the general edification of the faithful. But as soon as this union took place, and in exact proportion to the degree in which the papal system rose to its predominance over the civil rights as well as the consciences of men, the list of offences which subjected their perpetrators to excommunication, was multiplied; and the severity of its inflictions, with their penal effects, increased in the same ratio. The slightest injury, or even insult, sustained by an ecclesiastic, was deemed a sufficient cause for the promulgation of an anathema. Whole families, and even provinces, were prohibited from engaging in any religious exercise, and cursed with the most tremendous denunciations of divine vengeance. Nor were kings and emperors secure against these thunders of the church; their subjects were, on many occasions, declared, by a papal bull, to be absolved from allegiance to them; and all who should dare to support them, menaced with a similar judgment. These terrors have passed away; the true Scriptural excommunication ought to be maintained in every church; which is the prohibition of immoral and apostate persons from the use of those religious rites which indicate "the communion of saints," but without any temporal penalty. </p>

<p> '''''eks''''' -'''''ko''''' -'''''mū''''' -'''''ni''''' -'''''kā´shun''''' : Exclusion from church fellowship as a means of personal discipline, or church purification, or both. Its germs have been found in (1) The [[Mosaic]] "ban" or "curse" (חרם , <i> '''''ḥērem''''' </i> , "devoted"), given over entirely to God's use or to destruction (Leviticus 27:29 ); (2) The "cutting off," usually by death, stoning of certain offenders, breakers of the [[Sabbath]] (Exodus 31:14 ) and others (Leviticus 17:4; [[Ex]] 30:22-38); (3) The exclusion of the leprous from the camp (Leviticus 13:46; Numbers 12:14 ). At the restoration (Ezra 10:7 , Ezra 10:8 ), the penalty of disobedience to Ezra's reforming movements was that "all his substance should be forfeited ( <i> '''''ḥērem''''' </i> ), and himself separated from the assembly of the captivity." Nehemiah's similar dealing with the husbands of heathen women helped to fix the principle. The New [[Testament]] finds a well-developed synagogal system of excommunication, in two, possibly three, varieties or stages. נדּוּי , <i> '''''niddūy''''' </i> , for the first offense, forbade the bath, the razor, the convivial table, and restricted social intercourse and the frequenting of the temple. It lasted thirty, sixty, or ninety days. If the offender still remained obstinate, the "curse," <i> '''''ḥērem''''' </i> , was formally pronounced upon him by a council of ten, and he was shut out from the intellectual, religious and social life of the community, completely severed from the congregation. שׁמּתא , <i> '''''shammāthā'''''' </i> , supposed by some to be a third and final stage, is probably a general term applied to both <i> '''''niddūy''''' </i> and <i> '''''ḥērem''''' </i> ̌ . We meet the system in John 9:22 : "If any man should confess him to be Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue" ( ἀποσυναγωγός , <i> '''''aposunagōgós''''' </i> ); John 12:42 : "did not confess ... lest they should be put out of the synagogue"; and John 16:2 : "put you out of the synagogue." In Luke 6:22 [[Christ]] may refer to the three stages: "separate you from their company ( ἀφορίσωσιν , <i> '''''aphorı́sōsin''''' </i> ), and reproach you (ὀνειδίσωσιν , <i> '''''oneidı́sōsin''''' </i> = <i> '''''ḥērem''''' </i> , "malediction"), and cast out your name as evil (ἐκβάλωσιν , <i> '''''ekbálōsin''''' </i> )." </p> <p> It is doubtful whether an express prescription of excommunication is found in our Lord's words (Matthew 18:15-19 ). The offense and the penalty also seem purely personal: "And if he refuse to hear the church also, let him be unto <i> thee </i> as the [[Gentile]] and the publican," out of the pale of association and converse. [[Yet]] the next verse might imply that the church also is to act: "Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc. But this latter, like Matthew 16:19 , seems to refer to the general enunciations of principles and policies rather than to specific ecclesiastical enactments. On the whole, [[Jesus]] seems here to be laying down the principle of dignified personal avoidance of the obstinate offender, rather than prescribing ecclesiastical action. Still, personal avoidance may logically correspond in proper cases to excommunication by the church. 2 Thessalonians 3:14 : "Note that man, that ye have no company with him"; Titus 3:10 : "A factious man ... avoid" (American Revised Version margin); 2 John 1:10 : "Receive him not into your house," etc., all inculcate discreet and faithful avoidance but not necessarily excommunication, though that might come to be the logical result. Paul's "anathemas" are not to be understood as excommunications, since the first is for an offense no ecclesiastical tribunal could well investigate: 1 Corinthians 16:22 , "If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathema"; the second touches Paul's deep relationship to his Lord: Romans 9:3 , "I myself ... anathema from Christ"; while the third would subject the apostle or an angel to ecclesiastical censure: Galatians 1:8 , Galatians 1:9 , "Though we, or an angel ... let him be anathema." </p> <p> Clear, specific instances of excommunication or directions regarding it, however, are found in the [[Pauline]] and Johannine writings. In the case of the incestuous man (1 Corinthians 5:1-12 ), at the instance of the apostle ("I verily, being absent in body but present in spirit"), the church, in a formal meeting ("In the name of our Lord Jesus, ye being gathered together"), carrying out the apostle's desire and will ("and my spirit"), and using the power and authority conferred by Christ ("and with the power of our Lord Jesus"), formally cut off the offender from its fellowship, consigning (relinquishing?) him to the power of the prince of this world ("to deliver such a one unto Satan"). Further, such action is enjoined in other cases: "Put away the wicked man from among yourselves." 2 Corinthians 2:5-11 probably refers to the same case, terminated by the repentance and restoration of the offender. 'Delivering over to Satan' must also include some physical ill, perhaps culminating in death; as with [[Simon]] [[Magus]] ( Acts 8:20 ), [[Elymas]] (Acts 13:11 ), [[Ananias]] (Acts 5:5 ). 1 Timothy 1:20 : "Hymenaeus and [[Alexander]] ... that they might be taught not to blaspheme," is a similar case of excommunication accompanied by judicial and disciplinary physical ill. In 3 John 1:9 , 3 John 1:10 we have a case of excommunication by a faction in control: "Diotrephes ... neither doth he himself receive ... and them that would he ... casteth out of the church." </p> <p> [[Excommunication]] in the New Testament church was not a fully developed system. The New Testament does not clearly define its causes, methods, scope or duration. It seems to have been incurred by heretical teaching (1 Timothy 1:20 ) or by factiousness (Titus 3:10 (?)); but the most of the clear undoubted cases in the New Testament are for immoral or un-Christian conduct ( 1 Corinthians 5:1 , 1 Corinthians 5:11 , 1 Corinthians 5:13; perhaps also 1 Timothy 1:20 ). It separated from church fellowship but not necessarily from the love and care of the church (2 Thessalonians 3:15 (?)). It excluded from church privileges, and often, perhaps usually, perhaps always, from social intercourse ( 1 Corinthians 5:11 ). When pronounced by the apostle it might be accompanied by miraculous and punitive or disciplinary physical consequences (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20 ). It was the act of the local church, either with (1 Corinthians 5:4 ) or without (1 Corinthians 5:13; 3 John 1:10 ) the concurrence of an apostle. It might possibly be pronounced by an apostle alone (1 Timothy 1:20 ), but perhaps not without the concurrence and as the mouthpiece of the church. Its purpose was the amendment of the offender: "That the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Corinthians 5:5 ); and the preservative purification of the church: "Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened" (1 Corinthians 5:7 ). It might, as appears, be terminated by repentance and restoration (2 Corinthians 2:5-11 ). It was not a complex and rigid ecclesiastical engine, held <i> in terrorem </i> over the soul, but the last resort of faithful love, over which hope and prayer still hovered. </p> Literature <p> Arts. in <i> HDB </i> , <i> DB </i> , <i> [[Jewish]] Encyclopedia </i> , <i> DCG </i> ; Martensen, <i> [[Christian]] [[Ethics]] </i> , III, 330ff; Nowack, Benzinger, <i> Heb Archaeol </i> .; [[Commentary]] in the place cited. </p>