Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 8.djvu/835

Rh E X G M M U N I A T I N 799 primary signification means simply any person or thing separated or set apart, a meaning which is still seen in the familiar Arabic word &quot; harem.&quot; The connexion in thought between the notions separation from common use, dedica tion to God, and devotion to destruction is not very obscure, and it soon established itself in the Hebrew mind. In Lev. xxvii. 21, 28, 29, veread that no &quot; devoted &quot; person or thing was to be sold or redeemed; &quot; none which shall be devoted from among men shall be redeemed, but shall surely be put to death.&quot; The Hebrew mohoram (devoted) was precisely in the same position as the Latin impius or sacer (Mommssn, Rum. Alt., ii. 50 ff.). In Num. xxi. 2, 3, L)eut. ii. 34, iii. G, vii. 2, we find whole cities or nations thus &quot; banned,&quot; &quot; excommunicated,&quot; or devoted to destruc tion. We occasionally read of Israelites as well as of aliens falling under this ban (e.g., in Judg. xxi. 5, 11); indeed, the extreme penalty of being &quot;cut off,&quot; which is attached to so many sins, appears to have been carried into effect by the congregation only after the &7jn had been duly pronounced by the competent authority (Ex. xxii. 19 [20] ; Deut. xiii. 7-18 [G-17]; cf. Ewald, Alterth., pp. 101, 420). If in this Dgn we already find the analogue of the major excommunication (called anathema) of the mediaeval church, we may perhaps look for the analogue of the minor in that temporary separation or seclusion (niddah) which was pre scribed for ceremonial uncleanness. Scripture furnishes no distinct trace of the use of the deadly anathema in post- exile times ; it is probable, however, that the right of sentencing by a QTjH to capital punishment remained with the Jewish ecclesiastico-civil authorities to a very late period (Ezra vii. 25, 26). In Ezra x. 8, it ought to be observed, we read of an excommunication of a milder kind; its effect was that all the substance of the offender was &quot; forfeited &amp;gt;; (i.e., laid under a herein), but he himself merely &quot; separated &quot; from the congregation. The Talmud recognizes two kinds of excommunication, a minor and, a major, called respectively uiddui and herein. The niddui (from niddah, to drive away) could be pro nounced at any time by any competent individual (cum periculo, of course); its validity continued for thirty days, during which period the subject of it was expected to go into mourning, absent himself from the synagogue, and separate himself from all his fellows by a distance of not less than four ells. He was not excluded from the temple, but if he visited it he was required to enter by a separate door. If at the end of thirty days he showed impenitence or con tumacy, the niddui might be renewed once and again ; and finally, in certain circumstances, the fyerem might be pro nounced. A valid herem, which could only be pronounced by a court of not less than ten judges, had the effect of excluding from the temple as well as from the synagogue, and from all association with the faithful. Some writers have asserted that there was a still more terrible, because irrevocable, sentence called the shammatta ; but the pre ponderance of evidence is against this statement. (See Buxtorfs Lexicon, p. 24G6; and Selden, De Jure Nat. et Gen., iv. 9.) Among modern instances of expulsion from the Jewish communion, that of Spinoza (16th July 1G5G) for contempt of the law has became famous. The text of the curse pronounced upon the culprit, which is similar to that given by Selden (as above, iv. 7), may be taken as a fair specimen of the formula) then in use. The Exemplar Ilumanae Vitce of Uriel d Acosta may also be referred to. As an authority upon Jewish usages the Talmud does not go nearly so far back as to the beginning of the first Christian century. It is to the New Testament alone that we must look for any little information that can be had on the contemporary practice of the Jewish courts. The sentence of exclusion from the synagogue is plainly indicated in Luke vi. 22, John ix. 22, xii. 42, and the more severe sentence seems to be hinted at in John xvi. 2. The question as to the period at which the Jewish synedrium ceased to have the power of giving full effect to the herem spoken of in Leviticus, has been much disputed. The Talmud itself says that the judgment of capital causes was taken away from Israel forty years before the destruction of the temple. But the point whether the synedrium which tried Jesus Christ could lawfully claim that power is still unsettled. It has been already said that the use of excommunication as a part of Christian discipline, is based on the precept of Christ and on the apostolic practice. The general principles which ought to be observed can be easily gathered from the New Testament writings ; but the church appears to have been left, for most of the practical details, to the guidance of reason and experience. Mat. xviii. 17 leaves unsolved many questions which cannot fail to arise as to the occa sion, nature, and effects of excommunication. Tit. iii. 10, which enjoins the &quot;rejection&quot; (comp. 1 Tim. iv. 7) of a &quot; heretic &quot; after two &quot; admonitions,&quot; can hardly be called more explicit. The locus classicus is 1 Cor. v. taken in connexion with 1 Tim. i. 20. In the former passage, much importance has been attached to the apparent distinction between the alpeiv IK ju.ecrou in vs. 2, 13, and the Tra^aSowai TW 3aram in v. 5, the former being (it is alleged) within the competency of the congregation, and the latter a purely apostolic function. The dvd#e/ua, .or &quot; delivering over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,&quot; has been the subject of much dispute (see Bingham, Antiq., xvi. 2, 15). The language may safely be assumed to have been borrowed from an older formula. Plainly it was intended as the highest censure, to be pronounced only on grave offenders. It is also manifest that it was not irrevocable, and that it was in every case meant to have a salutary disciplinary effect upon the soul. The writings of the church fathers give sufficient evi dence that two degrees of excommunication, the d&amp;lt;/&amp;gt;optoyzds and the d&amp;lt;/&amp;gt;opto-/xos TravreX^s, as they were generally called, were in use during, or at least soon after, the apostolic age. The former, which involved exclusion from participation in the eucharistic service and from the eucharist itself, though not from the so-called &quot; service of the catechumens,&quot; was the usual punishment of comparatively light offences; the latter, which was the penalty for graver scandals, involved &quot; exclusion from all church privileges,&quot; a vague expres sion which has sometimes been interpreted as meaning total exclusion from the very precincts of the church building (inter hiemantes orare}, and from the favour of God (Bingham, xvi. 2, 16). For some sins, such as adultery, the sentence of excommunication was in the 2d century regarded as Trai reX^s in the sense of being irrevocable. Difference of opinion as to the absolutely &quot; irremissible &quot; character of mortal sins led to the important controversy associated with the names of Zephyrinus, Tertullian, Cal- listus, Ilippolytus, Cyprian, and Novatian, in which the stricter and more montanistic party held that for those who had been guilty of such sins as theft, fraud, denial of the faith, there should be no restoration to church fellow ship even in the hour of death. On this point the provincial synods of Illiberis (Elvira) in 305 and of Ancyra in 315 subsequently came to conflicting decisions. But the excommunication was on all hands regarded as being &quot; medicinal &quot; in its character. It is noteworthy that the word dvaOffia had fallen into disuse about the beginning of the 4th century, and that, throughout the same period, no instance of the judicial use of the phrase wapoSowot TW Sarava can be found. A new chapter in the history of church censure may be said to have begun with the publication of those imperial edicts 1 against heresy the first of which, De summa trinitate etfide