an ecclesiastical censure, by which, till it be removed, a person is excluded from communion with his church. It is founded on the natural right which all societies have to exclude from their body such as contravene the established laws. Hence this power has been exercised wherever societies have existed—secular, spiritual, literary, &c. It was in use among the Jews, who, in certain cases, excluded persons from communion in the benefits of religious worship with the people. Excommunication, or the act of excluding from a participation in the mysteries of religion, was also in use under Paganism. Persons thus excommunicated were prohibited from assisting at or attending the sacrifices, or entering the temples, and were solemnly given over to the infernal deities with certain imprecations. This was called by the Romans diris devorere. Among the ancient Britons and Gauls the Druids likewise made use of excommunication against rebels, and interdicted from the communion of their mysteries such as refused to acquiesce in their decisions. Among the early Christians excommunication was instituted for the purpose of preserving the purity of the church, and enforcing its discipline. It was originally exercised by the whole community, but afterwards the right to excommunicate was confined to the bishops. This formidable power, however, soon came to be wielded with little discretion, and eventually ambitious ecclesiastics converted it into an engine for aggrandizing themselves, frequently inflicting it on the most frivolous pretences. In the Roman Church, since the time of Pope Gregory IX., there have existed two kinds or rather degrees of excommunication—the greater and the less. By the former, parties are deprived of the sacraments and benefit of divine offices, of the society and conversation of the faithful, and are denied Christian burial. In the case of an excommunicated sovereign, subjects were absolved from their allegiance, or even forbidden to obey him; though many ecclesiastical writers in later times maintained that the excommunication of a prince ought not to have any influence on matters of political administration—a condition no less necessary than convenient, when the relations between princes and people had assumed a character very different from what they had been during the middle ages. In those times of ignorance and superstition, the Pope reigned supreme over the consciences of men; and if he thought fit to excommunicate a city, province, or country, the consequences were felt as a calamity of the heaviest kind. All religious services ceased; there was no regular burial, no ringing of the bells, &c., and relics and crucifixes lost their supposed efficacy. Of such excommunication or interdicts (as these are called when issued against a whole country), the first was that which Gregory V. pronounced against France, in the year 998, because King Robert refused to put away his lawful wife; and such were its consequences that the king was at last compelled to yield. But still more memorable is that issued against England by Innocent III., because King John refused to pay the tribute called Peter's-pence, and to acknowledge the Pope's right of nominating to the English bishoprics. In the end, however, John was obliged to yield, and received back his kingdom as a Papal fief. The excommunication of Henry VIII., too, is famous in history. No country has suffered so severely from interdicts as Germany, revolutions having frequently been the consequence of excommunications issued against the emperors. The latest instance of the excommunication of a sovereign, was that of Napoleon by Pius VII. in 1809. The Romanists use the phrase fulminating an excommunication, to signify the solemn denunciation after several admonitions; and the excommunication thus pronounced is called anathema. The ceremonies attending these fulminations are of a terrible character, and appear to have been first used in the eleventh century. The less excommunication only excluded from a participation in the sacraments and divine worship, and this is the sense in which the term is commonly used. This sentence is passed by judges ecclesiastical on such persons as are guilty of obstinacy or disobedience in not appearing upon a citation, or not submitting to penance or other injunctions of the court.

Excommunication, as a means of punishment, was introduced at an early period into England; and the English Church retains a form of excommunication in cases of adultery, heresy, simony, neglect of public worship, &c., but the use of it is now almost obsolete. Blackstone remarks that "heavy as the penalty of excommunication is, considered in a serious light, there are notwithstanding many obstinate or profligate men who would despise the brutum fulmen of mere ecclesiastical censures, especially when pronounced by a petty surrogate in the country, for railing or contumacious words, for non-payment of fees or costs, or other trivial causes. The common law, therefore, compassionately steps in to the aid of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and kindly lends a supporting hand to an otherwise tottering authority. This was done by the writ called de excommunicato capiendo; but by act 53d Geo. III., cap. 127, "no person who shall be pronounced or declared excommunicate (pursuant to the second clause of this statute) shall incur any civil penalty or incapacity in consequence of such excommunication, save such imprisonment, not exceeding six months, as the court pronouncing or declaring such person excommunicate shall direct." By the same act, a writ de contumacie capiendo, which in effect is the same as the old writ de excommunicato capiendo, shall issue in all cases in ecclesiastical courts when a person shall refuse to appear, when cited by such court, or refuse to obey its decree, except in certain cases, as spiritual censures for offences of ecclesiastical cognizance.