CONFESSION

tion, confession of Christ carried with it readiness to bear witness to that supreme fact (Jn 20"- '', Ro 10'); and this of course implied an acceptance of the historical tradition as to His marvellous life and character which made it impossible for death to hold Him (cf. Ac 2^*). All that was at first demanded of converts, however, may ha ve been the confession ' Jesus is Lord ' ( 1 Co 1 2= ; cf. Ph 2", 2 Ti 1*); a view that is confirmed by the fact of their being baptized 'into (or in) the name of the Lord' (Ac 8'! 10" 19«). At a later period the growth of heresy made a more precise confession necessary. In the Johannine Epistles it is essential to confess, on the one hand, that 'Jesus Christ is come in the flesh' (1 Jn 4?- =, 2 Jn '), and, on the other, that 'Jesus is the Son of God' (1 Jn 41'). With this developed type of confession may be compared the gloss that has been attached to the narrative of the Ethiopian eunuch's baptism (Ac 8", see E.Vm), probably representing a formula that had come to be employed as a baptismal confession. It was out of baptismal formulas like this that there gradually grew those formal 'Confessions' of the early Church which are known as the Apostles' and the Nicene Creeds.

(6) The value of confession. — Upon this Jesus Himself lays great stress. It we confess Him before men, He will confess us before His Father in heaven; if we deny Him, He will also deny us (Mt 10'"- 1|, cf. Mk S^'). The glorious blessing He gave to St. Peter at Ccesarea Philippi was the reward of the Apostle's splendid profession of faith; and it contained the assurance that against the Church built on the rock of believing confession the gates of Hades should not prevail (Mt 16"-"). In the Epp. the value of confession is emphasized not less strongly. According to St. Paul, the spirit of faith must speak (2 Co 4>'), and confession is necessary to salvation (Ro 10'-'"). And St. John regards a true confession of Christ as a sign of the presence of the Divine Spirit (1 Jn 4^), a proof of the mutual indwelling of God in man and man in God (v.").

2. Confession of sin. — (1) This holds a prominent place in the OT. The Mosaic ritual makes provision for the confession of both individual (Lv S""- 26") and national (lO^i) transgressions; and many examples may be found of humble acknowledgment of both classes of sin, for instance in the Penitential Psalms and In such prayers as those of Ezra (10'), Nehemiah (1«- '), and Daniel (9™- 20). it is fully recognized in the OT that confession is not only the natural expression of penitent feeling, but the condition of the Divine pardon (Lv 5. 6, Ps 32', Pr 28").

(2) In the N'T 'confess' occurs but seldom to express acknowledgment of sin (Mt 3" = Mk is, Ja 5", 1 Jn 1»). But the duty of confessing sin both to God and to man is constantly referred to, and the indispensableness of confession in order to forgiveness is made very plain (Lk 18i»'-, 1 Jn 18).

(a) Confession lo God. — This meets us at many points in our Lord's teaching — in His calls to repentance, in which confession is involved (Mt 4" = Mk 1", Lk 1P»- ^ 2V), in the petition for forgiveness in the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6", Lk 11<), in the parables of the Prodigal Son (Lk IS"- "■ ") and the Pharisee and the PubUcan (18'i"). It is very noteworthy that while He recognizes confession as a universal human need (Lk ll'll). He never confesses sin on His own account or shares in the confessions of others.

(6) Confession to man. — Besides confession to God, Christ enjoins confession to the brother we have wronged (Mt 5"- "), and He makes it plain that human as well as Divine forgiveness must depend upon readiness to confess (Lk 17*). In Ja S'* (RV) we are told to confess our sins one to another. The sins here spoken of are undoubtedly sins against God as well as sins against man. But the confession referred to is plainly not to any official of the Church, much less to an official with the power of granting absolution, but a mutual

CONGEEGATION, ASSEMBLY

unburdening of Christian hearts with a view to prayer 'one for another.' ' J. C. Lambekt.

CONFIRMATION.— The noun ' confirmation' is used only twice in AV (Ph 1', He 6'"), the reference in the first case being to the establishment of the truth of the gospel, and in the second to the ratification of a statement by an oath. The verb 'confirm,' however, is found frequently in both OT and NT, in various shades of meaning, but with the general sense of strengthening and establishing. The only questions of interest are (1) whether 'confirm' is used in NT to denote the ecclesiastical rite of Confirmation; and (2) whether that rite is referred to under the 'laying on of hands.'

1. There are 3 passages in Acts (14« 15M. «) in which Paul and Barnabas, or Judas and Silas, or Paul by himself, are said to have confirmed 'the souls of the disciples,' 'the brethren,' 'the churches.' In none of these is there any indication of the performance of a rite, and the natural suggestion is that the word is used simply of a spiritual strengthening.

2. In the 'Order of Confirmation' in the Book of Common Prayer, 'the laying on of hands upon those that are baptized and come to years of discretion,' as performed by the bishop, is said to be done ' after the example of Thy holy Apostles.' Presumably the refer-ence is to such passages as Ac 8"-" 19», He 6^. In the passages in Acts, however, the imposition of hands is associated with the impartation of extraordinary spiritual gifts, while of He & no more can be said than that in the early Church the act appears to have been closely associated with baptism. That it might precede baptism instead of following it is shown by Ac 9"- "; which further shows that it might be performed by one who was not an Apostle or even an ofiicial of the Church. In all likelihood it was simply a natural and beautiful symbol accompanying prayer (Ac 8''), which had come down from OT times (Gn 48"), and had been used by Christ Himself in the act of blessing (Mt 1913-is). See, further, Laying on of Hands.

J. C. Lambert.

CONFISCATION.— See Ban, § 2, Excommtjnication.

CONFUSION OP TONGUES.— See Tongues ICon- fusion of].

CONGEEGATION, ASSEMBLY.— In AV these terms are both employed to render either of the two important Heb. words ' Whah and qahal, with a decided preference, however, in favour of 'congregation' for the former, and 'assembly' for the latter. In RV, as we read in the Revisers' preface, an effort has been made to secure greater uniformity on these lines. Of the two, gahai is the more widely distributed, although neither is frequent in pre-exilic literature; 'Mhah, which is not used in the prophetic or Deuteronomic sources of the Pentateuch, is found at least 115 times in the Priests' Code alone, where it denotes the theocratic community of Israel as a whole, the church-nation in its relation to J". The full designation, as found in Nu 1^ and a score of times elsewhere, is ' (the sum of) all the congregation of the children of Israel,' which is the equivalent of the Deuter-onomic phrase 'all the assembly (g&hSl) of Israel' (Dt 31'°, RV and AV ' congregation'). In the older and more secular writers the same idea would have been expressed by 'the sum of the people' of Israel, as in 2 S 24s.

It is extremely doubtful if there is any valid ground for the attempts to find a distinction between the two expressions 'congregation' and 'assembly,' even within P itself, as if 'assembly' represented either 'picked members of the congregation' (EBi col. 345), or the latter in its capacity as an assembly of wor-shippers. For in one and the same verse P employs 'congregation' and 'assembly' as synonymous terms, as in Lv 4'«, Nu 16' RV, and in the priestly redaction of Jg 20"-, the whole body of the people being intended

152