CONFESSION. Among the Jews confession of the people's sins was and is a part of the observances of the Day of Atone ment (Lev. xvi. 21). The confession of one's personal sins was also enjoined and is practised (e.g., Ps. xxxii. 5; Prov. xxviii. 13). The Baptist's converts confessed their sins openly (Mark i. 5).
In the Gospels confession is scarcely mentioned. But much is said about forgiveness, and John xx. 23 with Matt. xviii. 18 witness to the early belief that the Church is empowered to administer God's pardon. The rest of the New Testament is scarcely more explicit on the subject. Baptism conveys the forgiveness of sins, and therefore ought to result in freedom from all wilful sin. But what was to be done to the baptized Christian who fell into grievous sin? On the one hand the Epistle to the Hebrews (vi. 4-6) declared that renewals of the lapsed are impossible. On the other hand, the confession of sins is enjoined in James v. 15, 16 and John i. 9, and the exercise of discipline is referred to in Cor. v. and 2 Cor. 5–ti (the identification of the two cases is precarious), Gal. vi. and other passages. The principle is laid down that the sin of the member affects the whole body, and therefore the Church is bound to deal with it both from pity for the sinner and for the sake of its own purity.
The definite discussion of the problem dates from The Shepherd of Hermas (Rome, c. A.D. I45). Hermas rejects both the ex treme opinions, viz., that to the baptized Christian there is no such thing as sin, or no such thing as further forgiveness. But while he insists on repentance and mortification, he says nothing about public confession or discipline.
At the beginning of the 3rd century, something like a definite system had been established at Carthage and elsewhere. Three groups of sins, classified as (I) idolatry, which included apostasy, (2) adultery or fornication and (3) murder, were held to exclude the guilty person from sharing in the eucharist until death, that is, if he had committed the sin after baptism. Not that it was asserted that he, therefore, could not be forgiven by God; indeed, he was urged to pray and fast and undergo Church discipline ; but the Church refused to venture on any anticipation of the divine decision. For other grave sins the baptized person was allowed to undergo discipline once, but only once in his life; if he relapsed again, he must remain excommunicate like the adul terer. Baptism was the first plank thrown out to save the drown ing man, "confession" the second, and there was no third chance. It was largely due to the rigour of this rule that men so fre quently deferred baptism till late in life. Less serious sins were held to be adequately dealt with by ordinary prayers. Public but general confession of sins and intercession for penitent sinners have from early times formed a normal part of public worship in the Christian Church.
The process of public confession or penance (exomologesis, Greek for public confession) was as follows (see Tertullian, de paenitentia ix., and other writers). The sinner was admitted to it as a privilege by laying on of hands. He wore sackcloth, made his bed in ashes and fasted or used only the very plainest fare. This went on for a time proportionate to the gravity of the offence, perhaps for years. At last the penitent was readmitted by the bishop and clergy with further laying on of hands. He must still (at least according to later rules) live in strict ab stinence, forgoing, e.g., the use of marriage. One can hardly be surprised that Tertullian says that few faced such an ordeal. In this account nothing is said of confessions ; but it would appear that in early days the sins were made known to the congregation, and in notorious cases they would take the initiative and expel the offender. It was also common for a penitent to take advice as to the necessity in his case of undergoing exomologesis, and this, of course, involved confession. It is to be noticed that the clergy were never admitted to this public discipline; but a cleric might be deposed and then admitted as a layman.
Church practice was not the same everywhere at the same time. It is, therefore, natural that we should trace the stages of develop ment through the friction they caused. Speaking broadly, develop ment was from rigour to indulgence. Thus Calixtus, bishop of Rome 219-2 23, decided to admit adulterers to exomologesis and so to communion; and Tertullian, now become a Montanist, pours out his scorn on him. Thirty years later, first at Carthage, then at Rome, the same step has been taken with regard to penitent apostates, at least the less guilty of them. But the Church was thereby involved in a double conflict ; for while on the one hand the novatianist schism represents the puritan outcry against such laxity, on the other, the martyrs claimed a position above church law, and gave trouble by issuing libelli pacis, i.e., requests or even orders that so-and-so should be readmitted to communion forth with without undergoing discipline. It was out of this practice that later on Indulgences grew up.
A further relaxation appears about the same time. Those under discipline were allowed to receive the eucharist when in articulo mortis. This was sometimes effected by means of the reserved sacrament without any formal reconciliation, even without the presence of bishop or priest.
In the 4th century at Rome and Constantinople we hear of "penitentiaries," that is, priests appointed to act for the bishop in hearing the confession of sins, and deciding whether public dis cipline was necessary. A scandal at Constantinople in 391 led to the suppression in that city not only of the office of penitentiary, but practically of public exomologesis also. This inevitably led on to the reiteration of confession after repeated lapses, and Chry sostom (bishop of Constantinople, 398-4°7) was attacked for allowing such a departure from ancient rule.
But in the West public discipline continued though under less and less rigorous conditions. Penitents were excused the painful ordeal of open humiliation ; only at the end were they publicly reconciled by the bishop. This was at Rome and Milan appointed to be done on the Thursday before Easter, and gradually became a regular practice, the same penitent year after year doing penance during Lent, and being publicly restored to communion in Holy Week. Towards the end of the 4th century priests began to be allowed to take the bishop's place in the re-admission of penitents and to do it privately. And with this step the evolution of the system was completed.
The irruptions of the barbarians lowered the general moral standard, and church discipline tended to become mechanical and legalist (see PENITENTIAL and INDULGENCE) . Yet among the religious, women and laymen as well as clergy, the old ideals survived. Thus in the chapter-house of a monastery acts of discipline took place regularly, on the Scriptural theory that the sin of the individual is the concern of the society; open confession was made, open penance was expected. Gradually such confession or more private forms of it came to be considered a normal part of the Christian life. It was allowed for priests as well as lay men. Penance was reckoned one of the sacraments, one of the seven when that mystic number was generally adopted ; but there was no agreement as to what constituted the essential part of the sacrament, whether the confession, the laying on of hands, the penance or the dismissal. It was more and more regarded as the special function of the priest to administer absolution, though as late as the i6th century we hear of laymen confessing to and absolving one another on the battle-field because no priest was at hand.
At last, in 1215, the council of the Lateran decreed that every one of either sex must make confession at least once a year before his parish priest, or some other priest with the consent of the parish priest. Treating this rule as axiomatic the school-men elaborated their analyses of the sacrament of penance, distinguish ing form and matter, attrition and contrition, mortal and venial sins. The Council of Trent repudiated the worst corruptions and repelled as slanders certain charges which were made against the mediaeval system ; but it retained the obligation of annual con fession, and laid it down that the essential part of the sacrament consisted in the priest's words of absolution. (See ABSOLUTION.) As discipline is now administered in the Roman Church, anyone who is in "mortal" sin is forbidden to receive Holy Communion; he must first make his confession and receive absolution. The faithful are bound to confess all "mortal" sins ; they need not confess "venial" sins. No priest may hear confessions without licence from the bishop. Children begin to go to confession about the age of seven.
In the Greek Church confession has become obligatory and habitual. Among the Lutherans auricular confession survived the Reformation, but the general confession and absolution before communion were soon allowed by authority to serve as a substi tute. Since the beginning of the 19th century the practice of auricular confession has been to a certain extent revived among orthodox Lutherans.
To come to England, Wesley provided for spiritual discipline (1) through the class-meeting, whose leader has to advise, com fort or exhort as occasion may arise, and (2) through the min isters, who have to bear the chief responsibility in the reproof, suspension or expulsion from communion of erring brethren. In the Salvation Army people are continually invited to come for ward to the "penitent form," and admissions of past evil living are publicly made. Among the Calvinistic bodies in the British Isles and abroad kirk discipline has been a stern reality; but in none of them is there either private confession or priestly abso lution of a formal kind.
The Church of England holds as usual a central position. The method generally adopted is one of general confession to God in the face of the Church, to be in secret used by each member of the congregation for the confession of his own particular sins, and to be followed by public absolution. See e.g., "Forms of Prayer to be used at Sea." But three other methods of confession for private use are mentioned in one of the exhortations in the communion service. First, all men are urged to practise secret confession to God alone, and in it the sins are to be acknowledged in detail. Secondly, where the nature of the offence admits of it, the sinner is to acknowledge his wrong-doing to the neighbour he has aggrieved. And, thirdly, the sinner who cannot satisfy his conscience by these methods is invited to open his grief to a minister of God's word. Similarly, the sick man is to be moved to make a special confession of his sins if he feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. The priest is bound, under the most stringent penalties, never to divulge what he has thus learnt. On the other hand, the Church of Ireland has made important alterations even in the passages that concern the sick, while the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States has omitted that part of the visitation service altogether.
Auricular confession never died out in the Church of England, but there has been a great increase and development of the prac tice since the Oxford movement in the middle of the century. Two chief difficulties have attended this revival. (I) There were none among the English clergy who had experience in delicate questions of conscience; and there had been no treatment of casuistry since Sanderson and Jeremy Taylor. (See CASUISTRY.) Those, then, who had to hear penitents unburden their souls were driven to the use of Roman writers on the subject. (2) The ab sence of any authoritative restraint on the hearing of confessions by young and unqualified priests, the Church of England merely directing the penitent who wishes for special help to resort to any "discreet and learned minister." Extreme views are held on the question. Some oppose auricular confession as the citadel of sacerdotal authority and as a peril to morals, while others speak as if it were a necessary element in every Christian life, and hold that post-baptismal sin of a grave sort can receive forgiveness in no other way. Such a view cannot be found within the covers of the English Prayer-Book.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.-Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, book vi. ; Morinus, Bibliography.-Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, book vi. ; Morinus, Commentarius historicus de sacramento paenitentiae; Mead, "Exo mologesis" and "Penitence" in Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (1875) ; E. B. Pusey, Advice, etc. being the Abbe Gaume's Manual for Confessors, etc. (1878) ; Carter, The Doctrine of Confession in the Church of England (1885) ; H. C. Lea, A History of Auricular Con fession and Indulgences in the Latin Church (Philadelphia, 1896) ; H. Wace, Confession and Absolution: Report of Fulham Conference (1902); H. B. Swete, in Journal of Theological Studies (April 1903) ; P. Batiffol, Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive, premiere serie, 4th ed. (1906) ; K. E. Kirk, Some Principles of Moral Theology (192o). (W. O. B.) Law.—In criminal procedure confession has always, of course, played an important part, and the attempt to obtain such a con fession from the incriminated person, whether by physical torture or by less violent means, was formerly a recognized expedient for securing the conviction of the guilty. This method was carried to ruthless extremes by the Inquisition (q.v.), but was by no means unknown in countries in which this institution never gained a foothold; as in England, where torture was practised, though never legalized, for this purpose. In English law the confession of an incriminated person can be received in evidence against him only if it has been free and voluntary.
In divorce law, the confession of a wife charged with adultery is always treated with circumspection and caution, for fear of collusion between the parties to a suit. Where, however, such a confession is clear and distinct the court will usually receive it as evidence against the person making it, but, speaking generally, some corroboration will be required.