But the famous letter of Leo to the Campanian bishops (6th May, 459 A.D.) is justly regarded as marking an era in the history of Confession in the Latin Church; by its terms secret confession to the priest was substituted for open confession before the Church, and the intercession of the priest for the intercession of the Church; the door thus opened for escaping the shame of public confession was never afterwards closed, and secret confession became the rule of the Church'. The Lateran Council, A.D. 1215, saw this obligation become binding, as henceforth it was ordered that all of each sex should confess at least once a year to their parish priest (4 Conc. Lateran. c. 21).

It was this rule of compulsory confession, as enjoined by this Council, which, as all schools of thought in the Anglican Church are agreed, our Reformers desired to abrogate.

But English Churchmen of all schools of thought are also agreed that our formularies, as e.g. the Exhortation to Communion and the Visitation of the Sick2, permit private confession and absolution in certain circumstances3, although how far this permission is encouraged by the formularies, or how far it should extend in practical life, are matters upon which such general agreement is apparently unattainable1.

It is of interest to note that the Homily 'Of Repentance' expressly denies that any authority in support of auricular confession can be derived from James v. 16, and concludes that it is against true Christian liberty that any man should be bound to the numbering of his sins, while it practically repeats and enlarges upon the invitation given by the Minister in the warning for the Celebration of Holy Communion. In Canon 113 of 1603, the caution given to Ministers not to reveal 'secret and hidden sins' such as may have been confessed to them for the unburdening of anyone's conscience and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind' certainly seems to imply that 'the confession of secret and hidden sin' is one form in which the 'opening of grief' may be made (see Fulham Conference, pp. 57, 67).

humiliation of public confession, so that by degrees the latter dropped more and more into abeyance, whilst private confession more and more developed. Batiffol's examination extends more or less through four chapters of his book, Études d'Histoire et de Théologie Positive, 2nd edit. 1902, in the essay entitled Les Origines de la Pénitence; see e. g. pp. 106, 146, 158, 165, 200 ff., 212, 217, for his own views and the criticism of those of others.

1 Art. Exomologesis,' Dict. of Christian Antiquities, 1. p. 647. For some valuable points in the history of Confession in East and West see Plummer's St James, p. 340.

2 On the changes made in the different revisions of the Prayer Book see Fulham Conference on Confession and Absolution, pp. 55, 62.

3 On following the Church's counsel in this respect see the practical remarks of George Herbert in the chapter on 'The Parson Comforting' in A Priest to the Temple.

4 In the Introduction to Fulham Conference, p. 8, the Bishop of London marks as a most valuable point the acknowledgment of the Conference that Confession and Absolution are permitted in certain circumstances, and he adds, 'the frank agreement that private confession and absolution are in certain circumstances allowed is all that the great majority of the parish priests of the Church of England who ever make use of it wish to maintain.' For practical considerations as to the relation of Confession and Absolution to the spiritual and moral life of men and women, the pages of the Fulham Conference, 85-108, are full of interest. Amongst recent biographies some striking remarks will be found in that of Felicia Skrine of Oxford, p. 355.

ADDITIONAL NOTE.-PRAYER.

Two remarks may here be made upon prayer and its relation to modern thought. (1) It is interesting to note that the same Epistle which encourages us to pray for the recovery of the sick, or for changes of weather, is also the Epistle which lays stress upon the unchangeableness of God, 'the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning, i. 17. If we turn to recent scientific utterances upon the subject of prayer it is noteworthy, first of all, that the same utterance which demands that both science and faith should accept as a truth the reign of law, sometimes called the uniformity of nature, also tells us that if we have instinct for prayer, for communion with saints or with Deity, let us trust that instinct, for there lies the true realm of religion,' and again, 'religious people seem to be losing some of their faith in prayer; they think it scientific not to pray in the sense of simple petition. They may be right; it may be the highest attitude never to ask for anything specific, only for acquiescence. If saints feel it so they are doubtless right, but, so far as ordinary science has anything to say to the contrary, a more childlike attitude might turn out to be more in accordance with the total scheme. Prayer for a fancied good that might really be an injury would be foolish; prayer for breach of law would be not foolish only but profane; but who are we to dogmatise too positively concerning law ?......Prayer, we have been told, is a mighty engine of achievement, but we have ceased to believe it. Why should we be so incredulous? Even in medicine, for instance, it is not really absurd to suggest that drugs and no prayer may be almost as foolish as prayer and no drugs. Mental and physical are interlocked.' Sir Oliver Lodge, Hibbert Journal, Jan. 1903, pp. 210, 224, 225.

We turn from such utterances to another recent pronouncement in the field, not of physical but of psychical science, and there also we find stress laid upon the reality of the religious life and its accompaniments of prayer and trust: 'in prayer, spiritual energy, which otherwise would slumber, does become active, and spiritual work of some kind is effected really' (although we are not told, whether this work is subjective or objective), James, The Varieties of Religious Experiences, p. 477. All this is very far removed from the dogmatic assertion that there is no place in the universe for prayer, or that prayer at its best is useless and its very attitude degrading.

(2) But all true prayer is conditioned also by the words of this same Epistle of St James, If the Lord will,' iv. 15 (cf. i. 6), yet that will is the will not of a capricious tyrant but of a righteous Father; and when we pray we pray indeed according to law, but according to the law of a Father, the law of the paternal relation; and just as in the earthly family there are relations between parent and child which no science has ever yet been able strictly to analyse or define, so the Father of spirits may answer His children, may enter into communion with them, now in one way and now in another, because He is the Father, and because His love is not the breaking but the fulfilling of law.

But, further, if we thus believe in a personal God, many of the objections urged against prayer would seem to be deprived of their plausibility. It is said, e.g., that to pray for a shower of rain is to ask for a violation of the law of the conservation of force. But is this the right way of putting it? ought not a distinction to be drawn between creation of force and distribution of force? and may not a personal God change by His intervention a whole series of physical phenomena without creating new energy? (See further Jellett's Donnellan Lectures, p. 154; Worlledge, Prayer, pp. 50 ff.; Matheson, 'Scientific Basis of Prayer,' Expositor, 1901.)

CAMBRIDGE; PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.