CONFESSOR (confessor). – From Latin *confessor* (from *confiteri* = to openly declare, a term proper to Christian Latin; Greek ὁμολογητής), it is the title given today in liturgy to all saints who are not martyrs (bishops, doctors, priests, and even simple faithful who are not women). This specific meaning was reached through a threefold evolution.
1. In the early centuries, Christians who had confessed the faith in prison, under torture, in exile, or in the mines without sacrificing their lives were called by the generic title of “martyrs,” just like those who had shed their blood for Christ. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, 32; cf. III, 20) calls in this way the descendants of Judas, “brothers” of the Lord, whom Domitian judged as *inconfessivi* and sent back home. In refuting the Phrygian heresy, Apollonius (d. 180) denounces Themison and Alexander who claim the title of martyrs (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 18). Among heretics, the title of martyr served to obtain offerings and money (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 18, 7). Another example of this extended sense is found in the subscription of a letter by Serapion of Antioch (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 19, 3).
2. In the second half of the 2nd century, a clear distinction, both in concept and terminology, between martyrs and confessors appears for the first time in the letter of the Churches of Vienne and Lyon (178), reported by Eusebius (op. cit., V, 2, 2). Although the heroes celebrated there had borne witness repeatedly after being exposed to beasts, burning coals, and covered with bruises and wounds, they did not call themselves martyrs nor allow this title to be given to them; indeed, if anyone called them so in writing or conversation, they sternly reproved him. They willingly gave the title of martyr to Christ... and recalled the memory of martyrs who had already left this world, saying: “Those are martyrs whom Christ deigned to welcome at the very moment they bore witness, after sealing in them, as with a seal, the profession of faith through death. As for us, we are only humble and simple confessors” (= ὁμολογηταί).
However, this distinction did not immediately enter common usage. The two terms “martyr” and “confessor” continued to be used indistinctly. Hippolytus (d. 235) opposes martyrs to confessors (In Dan., II, 37), gives the title of confessor to Natalis, who had suffered for the faith and later became bishop of a heretical sect (Eusebius, op. cit., V, 28, 8). Tertullian (c. 197), addressing a book to confessors entitled *Ad martyres*, calls them candidates for martyrdom: “blessed confessors designated as martyrs” (Ad mart., 1). “Martyr” in the sense of “confessor” frequently recurs in his writings (De praescript. haeret., 3; Ad mart., 1; De pudic., 22; etc.). Elsewhere, the term “martyr” was used broadly, as Origen (d. 253) noted that the word ὁμολογητής can rightly apply to all who in one way or another bear witness to the truth (In Loth., II, 210). In the *Passio s. Perpetuae et Felicitatis* (ch. 11, ed. Barra, Turin 1945, p. 66), Quintus, who died in prison, is called a martyr; likewise, Primus and Donatian, who die in chains, run “to the crown of martyrdom by a crowded path” (*Passio Montani et Lucii*, ch. 2, ed. Barra, Turin 1945, p. 119). Cyprian (c. 200–258) has a more precise conceptual distinction. He distinguishes between the Numidian confessor and those who form the “glorious number of martyrs,” prepared for death by his exhortations (Epist., 40, 1). To those who died in prison, even if they did not undergo torture, he wishes the same honors as to martyrs. This is not, moreover, a novelty. Cyprian habitually gives the name of “confessors” to those who languish in prisons (Epist., 32, 1; cf. Epist., 31), sends letters “to Sergio and Rogatianus and the other confessors” (Epist., 6; 13), and receives letters from Moses, Maximus, and Nicostratus on behalf of “all confessors” (Epist., 26). He admits two degrees in confession: a public one before judges and a private one for those who escape the obligation to sacrifice by flight (De lapsis, 3); in De lapsis, 4, martyrs and confessors are clearly distinguished. But Cyprian is not always faithful to this terminology. He confuses one term with the other not because he ignores their value, but because he wishes to cut short or please the recipients of his writings (P. de Labriolle, Martyr et confesseur, in *Bull. d’ancienne littér., relig. et d’arch. chrét.*, I [1911], p. 54).
A notable precision in the use of the two terms is found in Dionysius of Alexandria (d. c. 264) and becomes more pronounced in writers of later ages. In Eusebius, mention is made of a certain Seleucus, first a confessor, then a martyr (De mart. Palest., II, 20). Optatus of Milevis (4th century) recalls the persecution “which made some martyrs, others confessors” (De schism. Donat., I, 13) and elsewhere asks: “how can you call martyrs those who were not confessors?” (op. cit., III, 8). St. Jerome (349?–420) speaks of “Egyptian confessors, already martyrs by will” (Epist., 3, 2).
Confused terminology reappears in the field of inscriptions. Sometimes the title of confessor is given to martyrs, as in the case of St. Ennatha (also called Θένη), who is a martyr and is called ὁμολογητήρια (Marcus Diaconus, *Vita Porphirii Gazensis*, Leipzig 1895, p. 18). The Damasian inscription in the Crypt of the Popes concerning Greek martyrs should also be recalled: “Hic confessores sancti quos Graecia misit” (A. Ferrua, *Epigrammata Damasiana*, Vatican City 1942, no. 16), where, however, “confessores,” perhaps (as is commonly believed after De Rossi), has no greater value than a metrical necessity. An epitaph from Tarquinia (Bull. arch. crist., 2nd ser., 5 [1874], pp. 101–102) speaks of an “Euticius confessor,” whom De Rossi identified as one of those Christians who survived persecutions, having endured torture and imprisonment, and were released at the time of peace. To this may be compared a sarcophagus from Milan prepared by a certain Diogenes “confessor” for himself while still alive, whose mutilated inscription begins: “and by the Lord they are crowned, the blessed confessors, companions of martyrs.”
Diogenes is a confessor in the strict sense of the word. Another category of inscriptions attributes the title of martyr to figures who did not shed their blood. This is the case for Pontian, Cornelius, Pope Eusebius, Eusebius of Vercelli, Maximus of Naples, Dionysius of Milan, Apollinaris of Ravenna, and Felix of Nola. In the struggle against heresies, “confessor” (especially in the East, where the corresponding term is ὁμολογητής) becomes the title of those who suffered for orthodoxy. This is the sense found in the *Peregrinatio Aetheriae* (*Peregrinatio*, in *Itinera Hierosol.*, ed. Geyer, CSEL, XXXIX, 62, 65), in Pseudo-Ambrose (*Precatio*, II), and in St. Augustine when he speaks of a “liberi confessor arbitrii et Dei Conditoris” (Contra Iulian., I, 73). The title of “pontifex confessor” is given (Epist., 4, 18, 4), just as one reads: “Ego Ulfia episcopus et confessor” (Maximinus, Contr. Ambr., 63).
As one moves away from the strict sense of the terms, arbitrariness increasingly reigns in the distribution of honorific titles. But the title of “confessor” tends to be reserved exclusively for saints who did not suffer martyrdom and gradually shifts from its proper sense to the metaphorical and spiritual sense of asceticism.
3. Clement of Alexandria (d. before 215) already speaks of the sage or Christian who bears witness to Christ through a kind of spiritual martyrdom, consisting in a pure life and the observance of the commandments (Strom., IV, 15, 3). St Cyprian (Epist., 13, 5) says: «Qui pacifica et bona et iusta secundum praeceptum Christi loquitur, Christum quotidie confitetur». This meaning became established later. Confessors are ascetics (ascesis-martyrdom) who, in a life of penance and prayer, confess the faith, in particular monks or anchorites, whether solitary or gathered in communities.
L. Duchesne (Origines du culte chrétien, Paris 1920, p. 442) argues, not without reason, that in this sense must be interpreted the Good Friday prayer: «Oremus, et pro omnibus episcopis... ostariis, confessoribus, virginibus, viduis et pro omni populo Dei» and the canons of the Council of Elvira (c. 300; can. 25), of Arles (314; can. 9) and of Toledo (400; can. 6, 9). The opinion has recently been contradicted by B. Botte (Arch. lat. medii aevi, 16 [1941], p. 140), but without convincing arguments.
4. Finally, a last meaning must be noted that equates «confessor» with «cantor». This opinion goes back to Ugo Ménard (d. 1644), who formulated it on the basis of can. 11 of the Fourth Council of Carthage (Statuta Ecclesiae antiqua) and on can. 6 and 9 of the Council of Toledo. Ménard’s opinion was accepted with reservation by Tommasi, contested by M. Gerbert and L. Lesley, revived by Morin and popularized by Leclercq (DACL, III, col. 2514). Recently Botte has demonstrated its lack of foundation (art. cit. in bibl., p. 145).
In the East, in public worship, the first to receive the title of «confessors» were Anthony (d. 356), Hilarion (d. 371), Athanasius (d. 373); in the West the 4th-century bishops Eustorgius (d. 331) at Milan, Sylvester (d. 335) at Rome, Martin (d. 397) in Gaul, Severus (d. c. 409) at Naples, Augustine (d. 431) in Africa, Apollinaris (5th cent.) at Ravenna. The 4th-century bishops were defenders of the faith against Arianism. If they had not suffered martyrdom, they had often endured violent persecutions; the anniversary of their «depositio» was celebrated, their bodies rested beneath the altar; they bore such a resemblance to the martyrs. It was right that they should be given the title of «confessors», in a broader but still closely related sense. From the bishops the title extended to non-bishops. At this point the concept of ascesis-martyrdom must have had an influence. Gregory of Tours in his De gloria confessorum speaks of bishops, abbots, monks, virgins, holy women.