AURICULAR CONFESSION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 1183, 11 December 1913, Page 4

AURICULAR CONFESSION.

The following paper was read by Mr C. J. Keul-Johnslou at a recent meeting of the local branch of the C.E.M.S- :

Confession both general and private, has been sanctioned for years by the book of common prayer, and therefore, the Church. I would first direct attention to the lorm of “General Confession” in morning and evening prayer ; thF is followed by “The Absolution or Remission of Sins” pronounced by the Priest; then again in the creed ot both services we say we believe in “The Forgiveness of Sins.” Here in both places we have confession and forgiveness of sins admitted. Proceeding onward we next come to the form of “The Visitation ol the Sick” in which it is specially stated “here shall the sick person be moved to make a confession of his sins, if he leels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter, after which confession, the Priest shall absolve him. if he humbly and heartily desire it.” Here we most emphatically see that Auricular Confession is authorised as well as the giving of absolution. The last instance of Auricular Confession being authorised by the book of common prayer will be found in the first exhortation in the Communion Service, “therefore, if there be any of you who by this means cannot quiet bis own conscience, but requketh further comfort or counsel, let him come to me or to some other discreet and learned minister of God’s word, and open his grief; that by the ministry ot God’s Holy Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and advise to the quieting of his conscience, and avoiding of all scruple and doubtfulness.” From the above instances there can be no denying that the church has always sanctioned confession both general and private as also the giving of absolution, if the one confessing is truly penitent for his misdeeds. That the church has always taught that its ministers have the power to forgive sins, we need only turn once more to our book of common prayer, and here find that when a Bishop ordains a Priest, be lays his hand on his head and he says : “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God now committed unto thee by she imposition of our hands ; whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain they are retained.” This power was first given to the Apostles who were permitted to pass it on and it these words do not mean that the minister receives, by the imposing of the Bishop’s hands, the power of forgiving sin, they mean nothing at all. And, when the minister pronounces this sentence, either he intends to convey this power of absolution, or he does not. It he intended lo confer this power, he could not employ more clear and precise language to express his idea ; if he did not intend to confer this power, then his language is calculated lo mislead, and this is hardly conceivable. The forgiveness ot sins by the Priest is taught by the Scriptures and upheld not only by a large number of our church, but by the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek aud other Oriental schismatic churches of the East. It is often stated by people that they would not confess to man, but would to God. Take our own Government ot the day ; do we not approach our King through his representative, the Governor and his Ministers ; we do not go straight to the royal presence ; so it is with confession, we go to our Priest who stands between us and God. The Almighty’s plan has always been to appoint ministers of reconciliation to act in His sane. It has always been His practice both in the old and new law to empower human agents to execute His merciful designs, viz., when he desired to liberate the Children of Israel, he employed Moses ; wbeu Paul was going down to Damascus, breathing vengeance against the Christians, God used Ananias to restore his sight aud baptise him. In the Holy Gospel of St. Matthew XVI., 18-iq, we read, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. . . aud I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom ot Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall bind oa earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose ou earth shall be loosed a’so iu heaveu.” Farther, in St. Matthew’s Gospel XVIII., 18, we find Christ saying to his Apostles, who were assembled together on another occasion, in the same forcible language, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaveu, aud whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed

in Heaven.” From Hie passages quoted we see that the Priests have the power to give absolution, but they are not empowered to give it to every one indiscriminately. They must use and exercise the power with judgment and discretion. They must reject the impenitent and absolve the penitent. That Confession was indulged in at the time of the Apostles we hud in Acts YIX., 18, that “many ot them who believed came confessing and declaring their deeds” to the Apostles. Likewise in the Epistle of St, James, V., 16, we read, “Confess, therefore, your sins to one another.” In further support that Auricular Confession is not of recent date, one may mention that it was supported by many of the old Fathers of the Church, to wit, the Clements, the Leos, the Gregories, the Chrysostoms, the Jeromes, the Basils, and Augustines, also St. Ambrose. St. Augustine wrote, “Our merciful God wills us to conless in this world that we may not be confounded in the other.” St. Chrysostom stated, “Lo, we have now at length reached the close of Holy Lent, now especially we must press forward in the career of fasting . . . and exhibit a full and accurate confession of our sins.” St. Jerome also wrote, “With us the bishop or priest binds or looses, not them who are merely innocent or guilty, but having heard, as his duty requires, the various qualities of sin, be must understand who should be loosed and who bound.” That Confession was not invented since the days of the Apostles is manifest as soon as we attempt to fix the period of its establishment. Let us go back step by from the Nineteenth Century. Everyone must admit that it had not its origin in the last century, nor did it even in the Sixteenth Century, as Luther stated that “Auricular Coulessiou as now in vogue is useful, nay necessary. Nor would I have it abolished, since it is the remedy of afflicted consciences.” Even Henry VIII. once wrote a treatise upon the benefits of Confession. It was in vogue in the Thirteenth Century, as in 12T5 the Council ol Lateran passed a resolution, or decree, obliging the faithful to confess once a year. Still going further back to the Ninth Century, we find Confession was even then in use, as the Greek schism took its rise under the leadership of Photius, and this church has always approved of Confession. In the Fiith Century the Arlans revolted from the church, and the Nestorians and Eutychiaus in the Fourth Century, both ot which sects still exist in large numbers in Persia, Abyssina, and along the coast of Malabar, and they retain confession as one of their most cherished and sacred practices. In fine no human agency could succeed in instituting Confession between the First and the Fourth Centuries, for the teachings of our Divine Redeemer and of his disciples had made too vivid an impression on the Christian community to be easily effaced, and even the worst enemies of the Church admit that no spot or blemish yet deformed her lair visage in this the golden age of her existence. As I have stated before, the doctrine of Confession ot sins is not confined to the Roman Catholic and Oriental Churches alone. The same doctrine is also taught by a large and influental portion of the Anglican Church to-day. Some of our wellknown bishops are, and have been, supporters of Auricular Confession, and I may here state that some of the earlier editions of the Book ot Common Prayer were most emphatic on the matter. I wish to point out that no priest claims the power to forgive sins ; he acts as the delegate of the Most High. When he absolves a penitent sinner, he acts in the name and by the express authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, for he says, “I absolve thee in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” It is the Holy Spirit that operates sancity in the soul of the penitent. St. Augustine, who lived over 1,500 years ago, stated, “Let no one say to himself, I do penance to God in private. I do it before God.” Is it In vain that Christ has said, “Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven ?” Is it in vain that Christ said this ? Some say, “Why should you go to a priest, a sinner like yourself, when secretly in your own room you can approach God, the pure Fountain of Grace ?” I say that, as one who has had the benefit of confession, that there is not the same feeling of concentration when addressing the Almighty as when making our confession to His representative the priest, or our making a general confession has not the same heartfulness that there is with Auricular Confession. Further, when we confess to a priest it must naturally make one more determined than ever to avoid for the future such sins as we have been guilty of in the past. To my mind, the only real objec-

tion that can be offered to Auricular Confession is the reason that we do not like a fellow man to know our misdeeds. It is not that some do not believe in Confession, it is simply that lew have the moral courage to go to a priest and confess their sins. Confession is part of our system of worship which has fallen into disuse ; it is no iuovalion, and the Bible shows that it was used by the earliest of the Christians. The Confessional is the most powerful lever for raising men from sin. It has more weight in withdrawing people from vice than the pulpit. The words of the j rie.st go home to the heart of the penitent in the confessional. In a public discourse the priest addresses all in general, but in theconfessional the words are exclusively for the penitent whose heart is open to receive the word of God. In making confession to a priest, we do so to one who can understand our failings and weaknesses, for, as stated in Hebrews V., 2, he is one “who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way ; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.” I have essayed to give you in a short manner the reasons that appear to me to point out to a layman that Auricular Confession is sanctioned by holy writ, and that it is, and has always been, approved by the Church.