EXCOMMUNICATION means the judicial exclusion of offenders from the rights and privileges of the religious com munity to whom they belong (Lat. ex, out of, away from; com munis, common). The history of the practice may be traced through (I) pagan analogues, (2) Hebrew custom, (3) primitive Christian practice, (4) mediaeval usage, (5) modern survivals in Christian churches.
Pagan Analogues.—Among these are the Gr. xepvi(3wv (Demosth. 505, 14). The exclusion from purification with holy water of an offender whose hands were defiled with bloodshed. (Aesch. Choeph. 283, Eum. 625 seq. Soph. Oed. Tyr. 236 seq.) The Roman Exsecratio and diris devotio was a religious curse calling down divine wrath upon enemies. The Druids claimed the right of excluding offenders from sacrifice (Caes. B.G. vi. 13). Primitive Semitic customs recognize that a ban or taboo (herem) restricts contact with the banned person. Impious persons might be devoted to utter destruction.
Hebrew Custom.—In a theocracy excommunication is both a civil and a religious penalty. In the N. Test. the word ava6Eµa is the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew lierem Cor. xvi. 22, Gal. i. 8-9, Rom. ix. 3) . The word means "set apart" (cf. harem) , and does not distinguish between things devoted to God and things devoted to destruction. Lev. xxvii. 16-34 defines the law for dealing with "devoted" things. "None devoted shall be ran somed, he shall surely be put to death." Whole cities or nations might be devoted to destruction by pronouncement of a ban (Num. xxi. 2.3, Deut. ii. 34, iii. 6, vii. 2). Israelites may fall under the curse (Judges xxi. 5. I 1). A milder penalty was tem porary separation (niddah), prescribed for ceremonial unclean ness. This was the ordinary form of religious discipline. Both major and minor forms are recognized by the Talmud. The lesser (niddah) involved exclusion from the synagogue for 3o days, and other penalties, and might be renewed. The major excommunica tion (lierem) excluded from the Temple and from all association with the faithful. Spinoza was excommunicated (July 16, 1656) for contempt of the law (Selden, De jure nat. et gen. iv. 7). See also the Exemplar Humane Vitae of Uriel d'Acosta. The prac tice of the Jewish courts in N. Test. times may be inferred from Luke vi. 22, John ix. 22, xii. 42 where exclusion from the syna gogue is a recognized penalty, probably inflicted on those who confessed Jesus as the Christ. John xvi. 2 ("Whosoever killeth you") seems to point to the major penalty. The Talmud says that the judgment of capital cases was taken from Israel 4o years before the destruction of the Temple, where "4o" is probably a round number.
Primitive Christian Practice.—The use of excommunication as a form of Christian discipline is based on the teaching of Jesus and on apostolic practice. Matt. xviii. 15-17 prescribed a three fold admonition, first privately, then in the presence of witnesses (cf. Titus iii. 1o), then before the Church. The tone of the passage when compared with the disciplinary methods of the synagogue indicates that it was intended to introduce elements of reason and moral suasion in place of sterner methods. Its aim is the protection of the Church rather than the punishment of the sinner. In the locus classicus on this subject (I Cor. v. 5) Paul refers to a formal meeting of the Corinthian church at which the incestuous person is "delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." These mysterious words imply: (I) a formal ecclesiasti cal censure, (2) a physical penalty, (3) the hope of a spiritual result. There is a reference in 2 Cor. ii. 6–r1 to a case of disci pline which may or may not be the same. I Tim. i. 20 refers to the excommunication of Hymenaeus and Alexander. 1 Cor. xvi. 22, Gal. i. 8, 9, Rom. ix. 3 refer to the practice of regarding a person as anathema. These passages seem to point to exclusion from church fellowship rather than a final cutting off from the hope of salvation. In the pastoral letters there is already a formal and recognized method of procedure. I Tim. v. 19, 20 requires two or three witnesses in the case of an accusation against an elder and a public reproof. Tit. iii. 20 recognizes a factious spirit as a reason for excommunication after two admonitions (cf. Tim. vi. and 2 John v. 1o). In 3 John v. 9–I o Diotrephes appears to have secured an excommunication by the action of a party in the Church. It is clear that within the N. Test. there is development from spontaneous towards strictly regulated methods, and that excommunication is for protective rather than punitive purposes. Mediaeval Usage.—The writings of the Fathers supply evi dence that two degrees of excommunication, the ceckopevµos and the acpopiaµos ravreXiis were in use soon after the apostolic age. The former involved exclusion from the eucharist and from the eucharistic service, though not from the "service of the cate chumeus" and was the usual punishment for light offences; the latter involved "exclusion from all church privileges" (Bingham Antiquities, xvi. 2, 16) . From some sins, such as adultery, the sentence of excommunication was in the end century regarded as 7ravr€Xis in the sense of being irrevocable. The important con troversy associated with the names of Zephyrinus, Tertullian, Calistus, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Novatian turned on whether such sins as theft, fraud, denial of the faith were "irremissible." The stricter party held that there should be no restoration to church fellowship even in the hour of death.