tions of the sinner. The whole process is strictly confined within its limits as a society: it belongs to the internal organization of the Church, and has nothing to do with any other person. No one can, strictly speaking, avail himself of this power, except so far as he submits himself in general to the discipline of the Church, and lives as one of its members. All such practices, therefore, as those of which we read, by which men make the Sacrament of Penance a means to a wicked life, are parodies and caricatures of a very serious and solemn thing. Absolution is not for those, the tenor of whose life is consciously immoral, whose life persistently defies the code of the society to which they belong; but for those who, having fallen into sin, are anxious to be reconciled and have the assurance of forgiveness, of which their participation in the Holy Eucharist is a sign. b. We must next ask, whether such formal absolution is necessary at all, and then whether it is necessary that it should be administered privately after private confession. St. Paul lays down the rule clearly enough, that a person who is living in sin is unworthy to come to the Holy Communion. Sin, then, committed within the Church, must be removed somehow, if the sinner is to remain in communion with the Church. In virtue of their membership of Christ, men have free access to the Father by Jesus Christ the righteous; they have an Advocate with the Father, Who is also a propitiation for their sins. There is, therefore, no formal reason why every sinner should not confess his sins to God, and receive by his repentant confession the assurance of absolution. At the same time, the Church has a right to protect itself against false claims to partake of its mysteries; and, therefore, it has always placed a form of confession and absolution before reception of Holy Communion. In the earliest days, individuals publicly confessed their sins, and publicly received absolution for them. Then followed a period in which private confession and absolution took the place of this public act; and now in the English Church a form of general confession and absolution precedes the prayer of consecration. There are two causes of confusion connected with this subject which we may mention here. (1) It is commonly supposed that there is something wholly and essentially separate in the act of private confession and absolution, so that while the public and general confession is legitimate, the other is wrong. This is an inconsistency. In the one, exactly as much as in the other, the power of the keys is exercised. This is proved by the restriction of the words of absolution, wherever they occur, to the priest, to whom the power of the keys is given at his ordination. It is, therefore, merely a question of expediency, and not at all of the general theory of the Church, whether this function should be performed by it in one way or in the other. In the general confession, each individual applies the words to the sins of which he is conscious, and the absolution which follows frees him from them as completely as if he had recited them one by one in the hearing of the priest. (2) The question is further confused by a secularized conception of Church unity. The union of men in Church is not supposed to carry with it any close connexion outside. The differences of class, private quarrels, and social reserves, all begin again at the Church door as soon as men pass back into their secular life. The feeling of family or class unity among Churchmen, which was so strong in early days, is very largely lost, and it has become almost an axiom that religious differences should not be allowed to influence any other part of life. There are, of course, exceptions to this state of things, and some part of it, where it exists, may be accounted for by the very large numerical extension of Christianity, the far greater hold it has upon society as a whole, and the complexity of society in itself. But there can be no question that the prevalence of individualism, and the consequent severance of religious from other interests, is very largely responsible for the condition of Church feeling. With the loss of a family feeling among Churchmen goes the sense that the Church is the true home, where men can afford to be natural, to show themselves as they are, where their faults and failings are sure to meet with sympathy and help. They are on their guard against their brethren, are distrustful of them, and are afraid to put themselves so completely in the power of any one else, as they must if they are to confess their sins. It was, of course, the presence of all that is most opposite to this in the early Church that made such a thing as public confession possible at all. If, then, we shudder at the very thought of public or private confession, and regard it with indignation, we should remember that in coming, rightly or wrongly, to this frame of mind, we have lost something which once existed in the Church, and which lies very near to the heart of Christianity. The recognition of this change of tone amongst Churchmen leads us to the second of our questions: Is private confession necessary to all men? We have already pointed out that this is a question not of theory but of expediency. The use of private confession implies no change whatever in the general relation of the penitent to the Church. In the public services of the Church, the priest declares the absolution of God over the whole congregation, and must trust to individuals for the completeness of their confession and the reality of their repentance. He does, and can do, no more in private confession. He can, indeed, by questions or exhortation aid the sinner in confession and in penitence, but in the end the responsibility for its reality falls upon the conscience of the man who confesses. This being so, we cannot regard private confession as being theoretically obligatory upon any one. Is it, then, expedient to make it practically obligatory? It certainly possesses advantages which the other plan does not. The use of it, if it is serious and honest, must certainly deepen the contrition felt at the sins. Moreover, it is easy to understand that, if rightly used, it may be a preventive of sin; it enables a person to obtain help in cases where his own conscience is in doubt, to learn the tendency of an apparently inoffensive habit, and the like. And this would not imply the least interference on the part of the priest with the concerns of secular life: it would simply mean that a man was availing himself of legitimate assistance in the development of his moral and spiritual life.1 But the practice of the Roman Church has revealed many 1 Those who have read Adam Bede will remember a scene precisely in point here. The young squire goes to breakfast with the rector in order to ask him advice on the subject of his attentions to Hetty Sorrel. He leaves the question to be brought on by the turn of the conversation at breakfast. An opportunity occurs, which he misses, and his downfall dates from that day. This is typical of cases which private confession would meet unerringly, and without any loss of independence or dignity. possibilities of grievous disaster in the insistence upon private confession as a necessity for all. It leads to unreality in the use of the rite itself: people cannot easily produce at will the mood in which they seek auricular confession; and in the hands of ignorance, or unscrupulousness, or tyranny, it has been a tremendous engine of moral evil. We say this deliberately, but without com mitting ourselves to the morbid dreams of anti-Roman fanatics. We think, then, that the English method by which the use of confession is left to the individual conscience is greatly to be preferred. Besides the public acts of confession at morning and evening prayer, and in the Communion Office, there is a definite rubric in the Visitation Service, ordering the priest to move the sick person 'to make a special confession of his sins, if he feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter,' and appointing a form of absolution to follow the confession. Further, the exhortation to come to the Holy Communion (appointed to be read when the minister giveth warning for the celebration of the Holy Communion, which he shall always do upon the Sunday, or some holy day, immediately preceding') contains a recommendation to come to confession, if there be any 'who cannot quiet his own conscience.' He is to receive the benefit of absolution together with ghostly counsel and advice. A practical commentary on the effect of these words may be found in the preface to Jeremy Taylor's Ductor Dubitantium. This work is a treatise on moral theology, dated 1660 and its object is to furnish priests with trustworthy guidance in hearing confessions, which the author thinks a serious want in the English Church. Taylor admits that confession is less frequent than it : |
