What does the Bible say about confession of sin to a priest?

Confession of sins is of essential importance: and is connected in scripture with the blessedness of sins forgiven. But there is no uncertainty as to whom we should confess. “I acknowledge my sin to thee, and my iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions to the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin.” (Ps. 33.) “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight, that thou mightest be justified,” &c. (Ps. 51.)

And in the New Testament, speaking of Christians, we read, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9.) Is “He” God, or the priests? John wrote these words that we sin not. “And if any man sin.” Here we come to the very point. If a Christian should fall into sin, those who defend the confessional would say, he must confess to the priest, and in this way receive absolution. The scripture says, “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins,” &c. Could you tell us of any two things more opposed than scripture and the confessional? In this paper we do not propose to speak a word about its abuse, but to show that in principle it is utterly opposed to the truth of God, and has not surely a single text to rest upon. We might refer to every word that came from the lips of Christ in proof. Take the parable of the prodigal. Would it not entirely falsify the true character of God, who had given His Son to die for the lost one, to say that before the Father could receive the lost son, he must first confess to the priest, and pay for his sins? “When he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.” Do you think such a Father needs a priest to soften His heart towards the returning sinner?

The first passage surely means that we should confess our sins to God. For this we need no earthly mediator, no human priest. As to the latter passage, it clearly means that if we sin against any person our duty is to confess our wrong-doing to the person we have wronged and seek his forgiveness. Out of these simple verses Rome has built up a great system, a money-making affair, which fastens upon its dupes a priestly domination, totally foreign to Scripture.

The principal passages of scripture adduced by Romanists on this subject, are — "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." .... "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." (James 5:16; John 20:23) The first of these passages evidently refers to the mutual confession of faults on the part of Christians; and the second to church discipline, but neither certainly to the secret confession of sins into the ear of a priest, with the view of receiving absolution. The duty, or privilege, of confession must be admitted by all, Protestants as well as Catholics; but the question is, to whom ought we to confess? To a priest, or to God? Numerous passages might be quoted, from both the Old and New Testaments, to prove that confession of sin is to be made to God. Take one from each. "And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me." .... "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (Joshua 7:19; 1 John 1:8-9)

But the form of confession prescribed by the Romish church to be used by every penitent at the confessional will best show us its real character. He must kneel down at the side of his confessor, and make the sign of the cross, saying, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, "I confess to Almighty God, to the blessed Mary, ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter, and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, my ghostly father, that I have sinned exceedingly, in thought, word, and deed, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault." At this point of the ceremony the penitent specifies his several sins in their details, without evasion or equivocation; the most indelicate or the most diabolical are poured into the ear of the priest, whatever he may be. We know what many of them have been. When the priest has satisfied himself with details, the penitent goes on — "Therefore I beseech the blessed Mary, ever virgin, the blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and all the saints, and you, my ghostly father, to pray to our Lord God for me. I am heartily sorry, purpose amendment for the future, and most humbly ask pardon of God, and penance and absolution of you, my ghostly father."*

"Confess, therefore, your sins one to another, that ye may be healed." This brings out fully the fact that the sickness in view is on account of specific sins. When the sins are confessed and judged, grace intervenes, and God in mercy heals. Rome builds upon this passage the miserable invention of the confessional. But it does not mean confession to a man-made "priest," but a simple confiding of believers among themselves.

(Vv. 16-18). The prayer to God may be accompanied by confession to one another. There is no thought of confession to a priest or to an elder, but from “one to another”. One has truly said, “Whatever may be the state of ruin in which the assembly of God is found, we can always confess our faults one to another, and pray for one another, that we may be healed. This does not require the existence of official order, but it supposes humility, brotherly confidence and love. We cannot indeed confess our faults without confidence in a brother's love. We may choose a wise and discreet brother (instead of opening our hearts to indiscreet persons), but this choice alters nothing as to the guilty person's state of soul. Not hiding the evil, but opening his heart, he frees his humbled conscience: perhaps also his body” (J.N.D.).

The apostle then presents the principle in general as the course for all, namely, to open their hearts to each other, in order to maintain truth in the inner man as to oneself; and to pray for each other in order that charity should be in full exercise with regard to the faults of others; grace and truth being thus spiritually formed in the church, and a perfect union of heart among Christians, so that even their faults are an occasion for the exercise of charity (as in God towards us), and entire confidence in each other, according to that charity, such as is felt towards a restoring and pardoning God. What a beautiful picture is presented of divine principles animating men and causing them to act according to the nature of God Himself, and the influence of His love upon the heart. We may remark, that it is not confession to the elders that is spoken of. That would have been confidence in men — official confidence. God desires the operation of divine charity in all. Confession to one another shows the condition of the church, and God would have the church to be in such a state, that love should so reign in it, that they should be so near to God, as to be able to treat the transgressor according to the grace they know in Him: and that this love should be so realised, that perfect inward sincerity should be produced by the confidence and operation of grace. Official confession destroys all this — is contrary to it. How divine the wisdom which omitted confession when speaking of the elders, but which commands it as the living and voluntary impression of the heart!

This leads us also to the value of the energetic prayers of the righteous man. It is his nearness to God, the sense that he has consequently of that which God is, which (through grace and the operation of the Spirit) gives him this power. God takes account of men, and that according to the infinitude of His love. He takes account of the trust in Himself, the faith in His word, shown by one who thinks and acts according to a just appreciation of what He is. That is always faith, which makes sensible to us that which we do not see — God Himself, who acts in accordance with the revelation that He has given of Himself. Now the man who in the practical sense is righteous through grace, is near to God; as being righteous, he has not to do with God for himself with regard to sin, which would keep his heart at a distance; his heart is thus free to draw nigh to God, according to His holy nature on behalf of others; and, moved by the divine nature, which animates him and which enables him to appreciate God, he seeks, according to the activity of that nature, that his prayers may prevail with God, whether for the good of others or for the glory of God Himself in his service. And God answers, according to that same nature, by blessing this trust and responding to it, in order to manifest what He is for faith, to encourage it by sanctioning its activity, putting His seal on the man who walks by faith.

Then comes the general spirit of confession. "Confess your faults one to another, and pray for one another, that ye may be healed." It is the true love that interests itself, not only in that which is good, but even in what is, alas! the fruit of unjudged evil. But there is a careful abstinence from urging confession to the elders, I cannot doubt, in the far-seeing wisdom of God, who loves souls and hates superstition. "The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Elias is cited in support of this. Finally we have, "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." It is doubtless put in a general form. At the same time it only confirms, as it appears to me, what has already been shown to be the comprehensive character of the epistle.

But here we find another and more general instruction, which, however, also depends upon the state of the assembly. We have seen that, when all was in order, the sick person was to send for the elders; and this can still be done by calling for those who practically are elders. Only it is needful that faith wrought of God, and those acting on His part, should be there. But, whatever may be the state of ruin in which the assembly of God is found, we can always confess our faults one to another, and pray for one another, that we may be healed. This does not require the existence of official order, but it supposes humility, and brotherly confidence, and love.

The apostle adds a more general admonition as to which there is no difficulty: "Confess" therefore, "your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed." This still, however, needs wisdom for its application. The confession of sin itself may be looked at, as men look so much at confession to a priest, as if it were to work something merely as confession. Apart from the recognized need of confessing to another that in which we have wronged him, there may be, and no doubt are, cases where it would be good for any one burdened with the sense of wrong-doing to unburden himself, and find the help of another's prayers. The acceptance of the humiliation of it may be good in itself; but, on the other hand, there is no general rule but will have its exceptions; or, rather, there is no principle that does not need wisdom in application. Nothing will do away with the need of this.

But the apostle enlarges here upon the value of prayer. "The fervent supplication of the righteous man," he says, "availeth much." Plainly, "the righteous man" here is one who is so simply, out and out for God, so that there is nothing to hinder the confidence in Him which this supposes. Elijah is adduced as an example here, a man who stood for God when all Israel was departing from Him; but, as he notes here, a man of like passions with ourselves — notes it, evidently, for our encouragement. We are apt to make exceptions of such men to excuse ourselves, alas, even from the blessing which was theirs in consequence of what they were. His infirmities are made known to us in the very record given to us of his faith; but the man of God was in him most eminent. Thus it was for the honor of God that "he prayed fervently that it might not rain;" not to serve any end of his own apart from this; and such prayers are of the sort that have wisdom in them, and secure answers. Thus he prayed, and it rained not on the earth for three years and six months; and again he prayed, and the heaven gave rain and the earth brought forth her fruit. The power of prayer can never be separated from the character of the man who prays, although God is pitiful, and can hear any man in his extremity; that is true, but that is not the prayer that is recorded here, or the prayer of which we can really say that it has power in it.

A Commission. — Repeating the salutation, "Peace be to you," and the reality of His resurrection now apprehended, the Lord acquainted them with a commission with which He would entrust them: "As My Father has sent Me, even so send I you" (20:21). In His prayer to His Father He had spoken of a mission to the world which would be fruitful in results. And in view of that, as gathering power would be manifested, and the number of His adherents be increased, He here breathed on them, "saying, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit [or, forgive], they are remitted [or, forgiven] to them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained" (22, 23). Was this communication the gift of the Spirit, spoken of in John 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:7-13? No. For the Lord in Acts 1:4, at a date subsequent to that of which John here writes, told His disciples that they were still to wait for the promise of the Father. What then was this of which the Lord spoke? The context makes plain. He was communicating of His Spirit to the company to act for Him upon earth, when He should have left it; empowering them thereby to receive and to reject any who would join them professedly as believers. As such were received to their company, they were forgiven their sins. Their past history, their acts, their ways, before conversion were not to be remembered against them. They were forgiven. So Paul, the former persecutor of the Church, was received by believers at Damascus. His sins were forgiven. And those at Jerusalem, when assured of his conversion, never, we may be certain, cast up to him his former ways, grievously though he may once have injured some of them. It was administrative forgiveness. Who can forgive sins but God only (Mark 2:7) is indeed true in an absolute sense. No fellow-sinner can blot out the sins of another before God. That is a matter solely for God. He has never delegated jurisdiction in that to any individual. It is a domain in which no creature has power or authority. The blood of Christ, too, alone cleanses from all sin.

Administrative Forgiveness. — But what is called administrative forgiveness is a power entrusted by the Lord to the Assembly to exercise on earth. This may be called for either on the occasion of receiving individuals into fellowship at the Lord's Table, or on that of restoring one who has been put away in the exercise of discipline. Of this last Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning the offending brother: "To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also: for what I also have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ" (2 Cor 2:10). The Assembly at Corinth would forgive the brother, and would show it by restoring him to Christian fellowship. On that occasion it was a question of restoration to communion with the saints on earth. In our Gospel it is the question of receiving into fellowship. But in neither case would administrative forgiveness be rightly called for, till forgiveness on the part of God had been first accorded to the individual. In neither case would it be a substitute for this last. The passage in this Gospel (20:23), we would add, is the only authority from the Lord to receive people to the Table, as that in Matt. 18:17-18, is the scriptural authority from the Lord Himself to bind and to loose in connection with the exercise of discipline. The reader will perceive the difference between these passages, as he marks, that in John's the forgiving is mentioned before the retaining, in Matt. 18 the binding precedes the loosing. Of retaining sins we have an instance in the case of Simon Magus, whom Peter, detecting his spirit, refused to accredit as a Christian. He was still in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity (Acts 8:21-23). The disciples had now seen the Lord. And from this time the first day of the week became the recognised meeting day for Christians. Jews met on the Sabbath. Christians felt constrained to meet on the first day of the week.