Tiie expression 'At'c'tGef^ia j.ictpai'a9a, as it stands bj' itself without explanation in 1 Cor. xvi, 22, Is so pecu- liar, that it has tempted a number of ingenious exposi- tions. Parkhurst hesitatingly derives it from D'^n'2 nnx, "Cursed be thou." But this derivation is not tenable. Buxtorf, Morinus, Hammond, Bingham, and others identify it with the Jewish shammdthd. Thej- do so bj' translating shammdthd, "The Lord comes." But shammdthd cannot be made to mean " The Lord comes" (see Lightfoot, in loc). Several fanciful der- ivations are given by rabbinical writers, as " There is death," "There is desolation ;" but there is no men- tion by them of such a signification as "The Lord comes." Lightfoot derives it from T/a'^J, and it prob- ably means a thing excluded or shut out. Maranatha, however peculiar its use in the text may seem to us, is a Syro-Chaldaic expression, signifj'ing "The Lord is come" (Chrysostom, Jerome, Estius, Lightfoot), or " The Lord cometh." If we take the former meaning, we may regard it as giving the reason why the of- fender was to be anathematized ; if the latter, it would either imply that the separation was to be in perpetu- ity, "donee Dominus redeat" (Augustine), or, more properly, it would be a form of solemn appeal to the da}' on which the judgment should be ratified by the Lord (comp. Jude 14). In any case it is a strength- ened form of the simple uvadtjia trJTut. And thus it ma}' be regarded as holding towards it a similar rela- tion to that which existed between the shammdthd and the che7-em,, but not on anj' supposed ground of ety- mological identity' between the two words shammdthd and muraii-atha. Perhaps we ought to interpunctuate more strongly between dvddti.ia and iianavaOd, and read j'/roj avdQtjia' fianavaOd, i. e. "Let him be anath- ema. The Lord will come." The anathema and the cherem answer very exactl}' to each other (see Lev. xxvii, 28; Num. xxi, 3; Isa. xliii, 28). See Mara- natha.
4. Rpstoratinn to Communion. — Two cases of excom- munication are related in Holy Scripture, and in one of them the restitution of the offender is specially re- counted. The incestuous Corinthian had been excom- municated b}' the authoritj' of Paul, who had issued his sentence from a distance without any consultation with the Corinthians. He had required them public- ly to promulgate it and act upon it. Tlie}' had done so. The offender had been brought to repentance, and was overwlielmed with grief. Hereupon Paul, still alisent as before, forbids the further infliction of the punishment, pronounces the foi-giveness of tlie peni- tent, and exhorts the Corinthians to receive him back to communion, and to confirm their love towards him.
5. The Nature of Excommunication is made more evi- dent by these acts of Paul than by any investigation of Jewish practice or of the etymology of words. We
thus find (1) that it is a spiritual penalty, involving no temporal punisliment except accidentally ; (2) that it consists in separation from the communion of the Church ; (3) that its object is the good of the suflerer (1 Cor. V, 5), and tiie protection of the sound members of the Church (2 Tim. iii, 17j ; (4) that its subjects are those M'ho are guilty of heresy (1 Tim. i, 20) or gross immorality (1 Cor. v, 1) ; (5) that it is inflicted liy the authority of the Church at large (Matt, xviii, 18), wielded b}' tlie highest ecclesiastical officer (1 Cor. v, 3; Tit. iii, 10) ; (G) that this officer's sentence is pro mulgated by the congregation to which the ottender belongs (1 Cor. v, 4), in deference to his superior judg- ment and command (2 Cor. ii, 9), and in spite of any opposition on the part of a minority (ib. G); (7) that the exclusion may be of indefinite duration or for a period ; (8) that its duration may be abridged at tlie discretion and bj' tlie indulgence of the person who has imposed the penalty (ih. 8) ; (9) that penitence is the condition on which restoration to communion is granted (jb. 7) ; (10) that the sentence is to be publicly reversed as it was publicly promulgated (ib. 10). — Smith, Appendix, s. v.
III. In the Post- Apostolic Christian Church. — (1.) In fjeneral. — Such a power is necessaril}' inherent in erer;/ community; and although "the onh' sense in which the apostles, or, of course, anj' of their successors in the Christian ministry, can be empowei-ed to ' for- give sins' as against God is by pi'onouncing and pro- claiming his forgiveness of all those who, coming to him through Christ, repent and forsake their sins," yet since offences as ar/ainst a community may " be visited with penalties by the regular appointed officers of that communitj', they may enforce or remit such penalties. On these principle? is founded the right which the Church claims both to punish ecclesiastical offences, and to pronounce an absolute and complete pardon of a particular offender on his making the requisite sub- mission and reparation" (Eden, s. v.).
(II.) In till early Christian Church. — 1. In the disci- pline of the primitive Church, according to the ajx)s- tolic injunction, recourse was not had to excommuni- cation until "after the first and second admonition" (jrpoQ'iaj.ua). If the offender proved refractoiy after the time granted for repentance (Siegel, Alterthihner, ii, 131), he was liable to excommunication, which at first consisted simplj' in the removal of the offender from the Lord's Supper and the love-feasts : hence the word ercommunication, separation from commu- nion. The practice was founded on the words of the apostle (1 Cor. v, 11), "with such an one, no, not to eat;" which do not refer to ordinary meals and the common intercourse ofdife, but to the agapce and oth- er solemnities. The chief diflerence betwsen Jew- ish and Christian excommunication coasisted in this : the former extended in its consequences to the af- fairs of civil life, whereas the latter was strictly con- fined to ecclesiastical relations. It was impossible, in the constitution and situation of the Church dur- ing the three first centuries, that there should have been any confounding or intermingling of civil and religious privileges or penalties. But, though insti- tuted at first for the purpose of preserving the purity of the Church, excommunication was afterwards by degrees converted by ambitious ecclesiastics into an engine for promoting their own power, and was often inflicted on the most frivolous occasions (Bingham, Orig. Eccles. bk. xv, chap. ii). The primitive Church was verj- cautious in exercising its power of excom- munication. No man could l)e condemned to it in liis absence, or without being allowed liberty to answer for himself. Legal conviction was alwaj's required, i. e. b}' his own confession, by credible evidence, or by open notoriety. Minors were subjected to corporal dis- cipline rather than to this censure (Bingham, Orig. Eccl. bk. xvi, ch. ii ; Cave, Prim. Christicmity, iii, 5).