PRIEST

(See Orders , Ordination , Presbyter , Sacrifice , and Absolution .) Who can deny that our word priest is corrupted of presbyter ? Our ancestors, the Saxons, first used preoster ; whence, by further contraction, came preste and priest . The High and Low Dutch have priester ; the French, prestre [now contracted into prêtre ]; the Italian, prete ; but the Spaniard only speaks full, presbytero .— Joseph Mede. The Greek and Latin words, ( ἱερεύς , sacerdos ,) which we translate “ priest ,” are derived from words that signify holy: and so the word priest , according to the etymology, signifies him whose mere charge and function is about holy things; and therefore seems to be a most proper word to him who is set apart to the holy public service and worship of God , especially when he is in the actual ministration of holy things. If it be objected that, according to the usual acceptation of the word, it signifies him that offers up a sacrifice , and therefore cannot be allowed to a minister of the gospel, who hath no sacrifice to offer, it is answered, that the ministers of the gospel have sacrifices to offer, (1 Pet. ii. 5,) “Ye are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices” of prayer, praises, thanksgiving, . In respect of these, the ministers of the gospel may safely, in a metaphorical sense, be called priests; and in a more eminent manner than other Christians, because they are taken from among men to offer up these sacrifices for others. But besides these spiritual sacrifices mentioned, the ministers of the gospel have another sacrifice to offer, viz. the “unbloody sacrifice,” as it was anciently called, the commemorative sacrifice of the blood of Christ , which does as really and truly show forth the death of Christ , as those sacrifices under the law did; and in respect of this sacrifice of the eucharist, the ancients have usually called those that offer it up, priests.— Fludyer’s Comm. That it might not be doubted by whom the form of absolution may be pronounced, the rubric expre ly informs us, that it is the priest who officiates. By priest , in Church language, is understood a person who is advanced in the ecclesiastical orders to the dignity of a presbyter; and no person, in any age of the Church, who was under this degree, did ever pretend, as of right, to pronounce absolution. The penitentiaries, in the ancient and more modern ages of the Church, were always of this degree. It was adopted into an axiom in the canon law, “ ejus est absolvere cujus est ligare .” No one could pronounce absolution but he who had power to excommunicate. In the body of that law, absolutions of all kinds are reserved either to presbyters or bishops; and in our provincial constitutions it is strictly enjoined, “ de pœnitentia præcipimus quod diaconi pœnitentias dare non presumant ,” unle the priest be away when a man is dying.— Lyndwood. Our Church, in the last review of the liturgy, has chosen to put in the word priest instead of minister , (which was in King Edward VI.’s Second Book, and in Queen Elizabeth’s,) to the end that no one might pretend to pronounce this but one in priest’s orders; being sensible that some bold innovations have been made herein, by reason of some persons misunderstanding or misapplying the word minister . But the first compilers of the Common Prayer understood the same by minister as we do now by priest , that being the general acceptation of the word at that time. The compilers of the Second Book of Edward VI. (in which the Confe ion and Absolution were first inserted) put into the rubric, “to be pronounced by the minister” (or priest) “ alone ,” to avoid the imputation which the Papists had charged some of the reformed with, for permitting absolution to be pronounced by persons not of this order. For in the provincial Council of Sens, A. D. 1528, which was before that of Trent, and twenty years before the compiling our Common Prayer, we find the Protestants found fault with for affirming, that laics and women among them might pronounce absolution; which indeed was Luther’s opinion, but only so (as Chemnitius explains it) that in case of extreme nece ity they might use it; which doctrine he had from the Papists themselves.— Nicholls ; and see his long note on the subject, if nece ary, in his “Commentary on the Common Prayer,” Evening Service. In the diocese of Alexandria, the privilege of giving absolution to great criminals and scandalous offenders was reserved to the patriarch; as appears in the case of Lamp on i an us, an excommunicated presbyter. “Though,” says he, “he expre ed his repentance with tears, and the people interceded for him, yet I refused to absolve him; only a uring this, that if he should be in manifest danger of death, any presbyter should receive him into communion by my order.” And in general, in the primitive Church, the granting absolution to reconcile penitents, was the bishop’s sole prerogative, and rarely committed to presbyters; but never to deacons, except in cases of extreme nece ity, when neither bishop nor presbyter was at hand.— Bingham. The privilege was also allowed in times of persecution, to martyrs and confe ors in prison; but then they always signified what they had done to the bishop.—See Cave’s Prim. Ch. At the last review of the Common Prayer Book, A. D. 1661, the Presbyterian divines requested that “as the word minister , and not priest or curate, is used in the Absolution, and in divers other places, it may throughout the whole book be so used, instead of those two words.” To which the Episcopalian commi ioners replied, that “it is not reasonable the word minister should be only used in the liturgy. For since some parts of the liturgy may be performed by a deacon, and others, such as absolution and consecration, by none under the order of a priest , it is fit that some such word as priest should be used for those offices, and not minister , which signifies at large every one that ministers in that holy office, of what order soever he be.” Accordingly the word “ priest ,” in its exclusive sense, and in contradistinction to the word deacon , was inserted, and the sense of the Church of England on this subject, ascertained through the objection made by the Presbyterian divines, was adopted and ratified by the act of parliament. In the primitive Church, the deacons were ranked among the “sacred orders;” and though their office has not always been so accurately defined as that of the presbyters, or priests, yet in the Church of England they are to most purposes considered as an inferior degree of “ the priesthood .” Their duties are laid down in the office of “the Form and Manner of making Deacons;” and, “for the resolution of all doubts,” the preface to the Book of Common Prayer has wisely directed, that “the parties that so doubt, or diversely take anything, shall always resort to the bishop of the diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same order be not contrary to anything contained in this book.” It has generally been customary for deacons to substitute a prayer taken from the liturgy, which has been usually one of the collects in the conclusion of the Communion Service; and a pious commentator (Mr. Waldo) countenances this by saying, “a deacon, when he officiates, is never to use it, but is to offer up some short prayer in its stead.” But this is improperly said. For if a deacon, an officiating minister of the lowest order, may be considered at liberty to make this alteration in breach of the act for uniformity, where is the point at which he shall stop? What in this case he should do seems settled by the authorities referred to by Shepherd. “If a deacon is neither to read the Absolution, nor to substitute a prayer in its room, what is he to do? The rule is plain, and leaves him no alternative. After the confe ion, he is to remain kneeling, and to proceed to the Lord’s Prayer. This always appeared to me to be the nece ary and only conclusion to be drawn from the premises. Suspecting, however, the validity of my own arguments, I requested the opinion of a respectable divine, for whose modesty I have such regard, that I dare describe him only as having been, for many years, the confidential and intimate friend of Bishop Lowth. By his judgment, the opinion already given was sanctioned and confirmed. In consequence of further inquiry, I have since learned, that the heads of a cathedral church lately recommended the same practice. It is the busine of priest vicars, I understand, in some cathedrals, to read morning and evening prayer; and it once happened, that a deacon was appointed a priest vicar. When it came to his turn to officiate, he was directed to omit the Absolution, and after the confe ion to say the Lord’s Prayer.”— Shepherd. PRIEST’S INTENTION. (See Intention .)