Penance, in the Christian Church, is an initiation of the discipline of the Jewish synagogue, or, rather, it is a continuation of the same institution. Excommunica- tion in the Christian Church is essentially the same as expulsion from the synagogue of the Jews; and the penances of the offender, required for his restoration to his former condition, were not materially different in the Jewish and Christian churches. The principal point of distinction consisted in this, that the sentence of excommunication affected the civil relations of the offender under the Jewish economy; but in the Chris- tian Church it affected onlv his relations to that bodv. Neither the spirit of the primitive institutions of the Church, nor its situation, or constitution in the first three centuries, was at all compatible with the inter- mingling or confounding of civil and religious privi- leges or penalties. The act of excommunication was at first an exclusion of the offender from the Lord's Supper and from the agupce. The term itself im- plies separation from the communion. The practice was derived from the injunction of the apostle (1 Cor. V, 11): "With such a one no not fo eat." From the context, and from 1 Cor. x, 16-18: xi, 20-34, it clearly appears that the apostle refers, not to common meals and the ordinary intercourse of life, but to these relig- ious festivals. Examples of penitence or repentance occur in the Old Testament ; neither are there wanting instances, not merely of individuals, but of a whole cily or people, performing acts of penitence — fasting, mourn- ing, etc. (Neh. ix and Jonah iii). But these acts of hu- miliation were essentially different, in their relations to individuals, from Christian penance. We have, hoAv- ever. in the New Testament an instance of the excom- munication of an offending member, and of his restora- tion to the fellowship of the Church by penance, agreea- bly to the authority of Paul (1 Cor. v,' 1-8; 2 Cor. ii, 5- 11). This sentence of exclusion from the Church was pronounced bt/ the assembled body, and in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. By this sentence the offender was separated from the people of the Lord, with whom he had been joined by baptism, and was reduced to his former condition as a heathen man, subject to the power of Satan and of evil spirits. This is, perhaps, the true import of delivering such a one up to Satan. A simi- lar act of excommunication is described briefly in 1 Cor. xvi, 32 : " If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema maranatha." The /itapav d^d corre- sponds in sense with the Hebrew C"iH, and denotes a thing devoted to utter destruction. It is onlj' the Syro- Chaldaic iirx XDI'a expressed in the Greek character, and means, "The Lord cometh." Tlie whole sentence implies that the Church leaves the subject of it to the Lord, who cometh to execute judgment upon him. All that the apostle requires of the Corinthians is that they should exclude him from their communion and fellow- ship, so that he should no longer be regarded as one of their body. He pronounces no further judgment upon
PENANCE
886
PENANCE
the offender, but leaves him to the jiulgmcnt of God. "What have I to do to judye them that are without V" (ver. 12), i. e. those who are not Chrislians, to which class the excommunicated person would belong. "Do not ye judge them that are within V" i. e. full members of the Church. But them that are without God judg- eth ; or, rather, wtlljtul'/e, Kpivtl, as the reading should be. It appears from 2 Cor. ii, 1-11, that the Church had not restored such to the privileges of communion, but was willing to do so, and that the apostle very gladly authorized the measure. It is important to re- mark that in the primitive Church penance related only to such as had been excluded from the communion of the Church. Its immediate object was, not the forgive- ness of the offender by the Lord God, but his reconcili- ation with the Church. It could, therefore, relate only to open and scandalous offences. De occultis non judi- cal ecclesia — the Church takes no cognizance of secret sins — was an ancient maxim of the Church. The early fathers say expressly that the Church offers pardon only for offences committed against her. The forgive- ness of all sin she refers to God himself. " Omnia au- tem," says Cyprian {Ep. 55), "remissimus Deo omnipo- tenti, in cujns potestate sunt omnia reservata." Such are the concurring sentiments of most of the early writ- ers on this subject. It was reserved for a later age to confound these important distinctions, and to arrogate to the Cliurch the prerogative of forgiving sins. The readmission of penitents into the Church was the sub- ject of frequent controversy with the early fathers and ancient religious sects. Some contended tliat those who had once been excluded from the Church for their crimes ought never again to be received to her fellowship and comminiion. But the Church generally was disposed to exercise a more charitable and forgiving spirit. Dur- ing the severe persecutions which the Christians suf- fered in the early ages of the Gospel, many, through fear of tortures and death, apostatized from the faith. It frequently happened, after the danger was past, that these persons were desirous of returning to communion with the Church ; but they were not readmitted to com- munion until they had made a public confession of their offence. In this manner confession began to be a part of ecclesiastical discipline; and being thus, in the first instance, applied to a crime of a public nature, it was afterwards extended to private sin. See Confession. Besides the shame of public confession, the offending party was compelled to submit to public reproof, to acts of penance, to exclusion from the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and to the temporary suspension of all the priv- ileges of a Christian. See Penitents.