The Apology of the Augsburg Confession Part 13

Likewise Ps. 51, 16. 17: Thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of G.o.d are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O G.o.d, Thou wilt not despise. Likewise Ps. 4, 5: Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, and put your trust [hope, V.] in the Lord. He bids us hope, and says that this is a righteous sacrifice, signifying that other sacrifices are not true and righteous sacrifices. And Ps. 116, 17: I will offer to Thee the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and will call upon the name of the Lord They call invocation a sacrifice of thanksgiving.

But Scripture is full of such testimonies as teach that sacrifices _ex opere operato_ do not reconcile G.o.d. Accordingly the New Testament, since Levitical services have been abrogated, teaches that new and pure sacrifices will be made, namely, faith, prayer, thanksgiving, confession, and the preaching of the Gospel, afflictions on account of the Gospel, and the like.

And of these sacrifices Malachi speaks, 1, 11: From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same My name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto My name and a pure offering. The adversaries perversely apply this pa.s.sage to the Ma.s.s, and quote the authority of the Fathers. A reply, however, is easy, for even if it spoke most particularly of the Ma.s.s, it would not follow that the Ma.s.s justifies _ex opere operato_, or that when applied to others, it merits the remission of sins, etc.

The prophet says nothing of those things which the monks and sophists impudently fabricate. Besides, the very words of the prophet express his meaning. For they first say this, namely, that the name of the Lord will be great. This is accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel. For through this the name of Christ is made known, and the mercy of the Father, promised in Christ is recognized. The preaching of the Gospel produces faith in those who receive the Gospel. They call upon G.o.d, they give thanks to G.o.d, they bear afflictions for their confession, they produce good works for the glory of Christ.

Thus the name of the Lord becomes great among the Gentiles.

Therefore incense and a pure offering signify not a ceremony _ex opere operato_ [not the ceremony of the Ma.s.s alone], but all those sacrifices through which the name of the Lord becomes great, namely, faith, invocation, the preaching of the Gospel, confession, etc. And if any one would have this term embrace the ceremony [of the Ma.s.s], we readily concede it, provided he neither understands the ceremony alone, nor teaches that the ceremony profits _ex opere operato_. For just as among the sacrifices of praise, i.e., among the praises of G.o.d, we include the preaching of the Word so the reception itself of the Lord's Supper can be praise or thanksgiving, but it does not justify _ex opere operato_; neither is it to be applied to others so as to merit for them the remission of sins. But after a while we shall explain how even a ceremony is a sacrifice. Yet, as Malachi speaks of all the services of the New Testament, and not only of the Lord's Supper; likewise, as he does not favor the pharisaic opinion of the _opus operatum_, he is not against us, but rather aids us.

For he requires services of the heart, through which the name of the Lord becomes truly great.

Another pa.s.sage also is cited from Malachi 3, 3: And He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering of righteousness. This pa.s.sage clearly requires the sacrifices of the righteous, and hence does not favor the opinion concerning the _opus operatum_. But the sacrifices of the sons of Levi i.e., of those teaching in the New Testament, are the preaching of the Gospel, and the good fruits of preaching, as Paul says, Rom. 15, 16: Ministering the Gospel of G.o.d, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, i.e., that the Gentiles might be offerings acceptable to G.o.d by faith, etc. For in the Law the slaying of victims signified both the death of Christ and the preaching of the Gospel, by which this oldness of flesh should be mortified, and the new and eternal life be begun in us.

But the adversaries everywhere perversely apply the name sacrifice to the ceremony alone. They omit the preaching of the Gospel, faith, prayer, and similar things, although the ceremony has been established on account of these, and the New Testament ought to have sacrifices of the heart, and not ceremonials for sin that are to be performed after the manner of the Levitical priesthood.

They cite also the daily sacrifice (cf. Ex. 29, 38 f.; Dan. 8, ll f., 12, 11), that, just as in the Law there was a daily sacrifice, so the Ma.s.s ought to be a daily sacrifice of the New Testament. The adversaries have managed well if we permit ourselves to be overcome by allegories. It is evident, however, that allegories do not produce firm proofs [that in matters so highly important before G.o.d we must have a sure and clear word of G.o.d, and not introduce by force obscure and foreign pa.s.sages, such uncertain explanations do not stand the test of G.o.d's judgment]. Although we indeed readily suffer the Ma.s.s to be understood as a daily sacrifice, provided that the entire Ma.s.s be understood, i.e., the ceremony with the preaching of the Gospel, faith, invocation, and thanksgiving. For these joined together are a daily sacrifice of the New Testament, because the ceremony [of the Ma.s.s, or the Lord's Supper] was inst.i.tuted on account of these things, neither is it to be separated from these.

Paul says accordingly, 1 Cor. 11, 26: As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till He come. But it in no way follows from this Levitical type that a ceremony justifying _ex opere operato_ is necessary, or ought to be applied on behalf of others, that it may merit for them the remission of sins.

And the type aptly represents not only the ceremony, but also the preaching of the Gospel. In Num. 28, 4 f. three parts of that daily sacrifice are represented, the burning of the lamb, the libation, and the oblation of wheat flour. The Law had pictures or shadows of future things. Accordingly, in this spectacle Christ and the entire wors.h.i.+p of the New Testament are portrayed. The burning of the lamb signifies the death of Christ. The libation signifies that everywhere in the entire world, by the preaching of the Gospel, believers are sprinkled with the blood of that Lamb, i.e., sanctified, as Peter says, 1. Ep. 1, 2: Through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. The oblation of wheat flour signifies faith, prayer, and thanksgiving in hearts. As, therefore, in the Old Testament, the shadow is perceived, so in the New the thing signified should be sought, and not another type, as sufficient for a sacrifice.

Therefore, although a ceremony is a memorial of Christ's death, nevertheless it alone is not the daily sacrifice; but the memory itself is the daily sacrifice, i.e., preaching and faith, which truly believes that, by the death of Christ, G.o.d has been reconciled. A libation is required, i.e., the effect of preaching, in order that, being sprinkled by the Gospel with the blood of Christ, we may be sanctified, as those put to death and made alive. Oblations also are required, i.e., thanksgiving, confessions, and afflictions.

Thus the pharisaic opinion of the _opus operatum_ being cast aside, let us understand that spiritual wors.h.i.+p and a daily sacrifice of the heart are signified, because in the New Testament the substance of good things should be sought for [as Paul says: In the Old Testament is the shadow of things to come but the body and the truth is in Christ], i.e., the Holy Ghost, mortification, and quickening. From these things it is sufficiently apparent that the type of the daily sacrifice testifies nothing against us, but rather for us, because we seek for all the parts signified by the daily sacrifice. [We have clearly shown all the parts that belonged to the daily sacrifice in the law of Moses, that it must mean a true cordial offering, not an _opus operatum_.] The adversaries falsely imagine that the ceremony alone is signified, and not also the preaching of the Gospel, mortification, and quickening of heart, etc. [which is the best part of the Ma.s.s, whether they call it a sacrifice or anything else].

Now, therefore, good men will be able to judge readily that the complaint against us that we abolish the daily sacrifice is most false. Experience shows what sort of Antiochi they are who hold power in the Church; who under the pretext of religion a.s.sume to themselves the kingdom of the world, and who rule without concern for religion and the teaching of the Gospel; who wage war like kings of the world, and have inst.i.tuted new services in the Church. For in the Ma.s.s the adversaries retain only the ceremony, and publicly apply this to sacrilegious gain. Afterward they feign that this work, as applied on behalf of others, merits for them grace and all good things. In their sermons they do not teach the Gospel, they do not console consciences they do not show that sins are freely remitted for Christ's sake, but they set forth the wors.h.i.+p of saints, human satisfactions, human traditions, and by these they affirm that men are justified before G.o.d. And although some of these traditions are manifestly G.o.dless, nevertheless they defend them by violence. If any preachers wish to be regarded more learned, they treat of philosophical questions, which neither the people nor even those who propose them understand. Lastly, those who are more tolerable teach the Law, and say nothing concerning the righteousness of faith.

The adversaries in the _Confutation_ make a great ado concerning the desolation of churches, namely, that the altars stand unadorned, without candles and without images. These trifles they regard as ornaments to churches. [Although it is not true that we abolish all such outward ornaments; yet, even if it were so, Daniel is not speaking of such things as are altogether external and do not belong to the Christian Church.] It is a far different desolation which Daniel means, 11, 31; 12, 11, namely, ignorance of the Gospel. For the people, overwhelmed by the mult.i.tude and variety of traditions and opinions, were in no way able to embrace the sum of Christian doctrine. [For the adversaries preach mostly of human ordinances, whereby consciences are led from Christ to confidence in their own works.] For who of the people ever understood the doctrine of repentance of which the adversaries treat? And yet this is the chief topic of Christian doctrine.

Consciences were tormented by the enumeration of offenses and by satisfactions. Of faith by which we freely receive the remission of sins, no mention whatever was made by the adversaries. Concerning the exercises of faith struggling with despair, and the free remission of sins for Christ's sake, all the books and all the sermons of the adversaries were silent [worse than worthless, and, moreover, caused untold damage]. To these, the horrible profanation of the ma.s.ses and many other G.o.dless services in the churches were added. This is the desolation which Daniel describes.

On the contrary, by the favor of G.o.d, the priests among us attend to the ministry of the Word, teach the Gospel concerning the blessings of Christ, and show that the remission of sins occurs freely for Christ's sake. This doctrine brings sure consolation to consciences.

The doctrine of [the Ten Commandments and] good works which G.o.d commands is also added. The worth and use of the Sacraments are declared.

But if the use of the Sacrament would be the daily sacrifice, nevertheless we would retain it rather than the adversaries, because with them priests hired for pay use the Sacrament. With us there is a more frequent and more conscientious use. For the people use it, but after having first been instructed and examined. For men are taught concerning the true use of the Sacrament that it was inst.i.tuted for the purpose of being a seal and testimony of the free remission of sins, and that, accordingly, it ought to admonish alarmed consciences to be truly confident and believe that their sins are freely remitted. Since, therefore, we retain both the preaching of the Gospel and the lawful use of the Sacrament, the daily sacrifice remains with us.

And if we must speak of the outward appearance, attendance upon church is better among us than among the adversaries. For the audiences are held by useful and clear sermons. But neither the people nor the teachers have ever understood the doctrine of the adversaries. [There is nothing that so attaches people to the church as good preaching. But our adversaries preach their people out of the churches; for they teach nothing of the necessary parts of Christian doctrine; they narrate the legends of saints and other fables.] And the true adornment of the churches is G.o.dly, useful, and clear doctrine, the devout use of the Sacraments, ardent prayer, and the like. Candles, golden vessels [tapers, altar-cloths, images], and similar adornments are becoming, but they are not the adornment that properly belongs to the Church. But if the adversaries make wors.h.i.+p consist in such matters, and not in the preaching of the Gospel, in faith, and the conflicts of faith they are to be numbered among those whom Daniel describes as wors.h.i.+ping their G.o.d with gold and silver, Dan. 11, 38.

They quote also from the Epistle to the Hebrews, 5, 1: Every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to G.o.d that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins. Hence they conclude that, since in the New Testament there are high priests and priests, it follows that there is also a sacrifice for sins.

This pa.s.sage particularly makes an impression on the unlearned, especially when the pomp of the priesthood [the garments of Aaron, since in the Old Testament there were many ornaments of gold, silver, and purple] and the sacrifices of the Old Testament are spread before the eyes. This resemblance deceives the ignorant, so that they judge that, according to the same manner, a ceremonial sacrifice ought to exist among us, which should be applied on behalf of the sins of others, just as in the Old Testament. Neither is the service of the ma.s.ses and the rest of the polity of the Pope anything else than false zeal in behalf of the misunderstood Levitical polity. [They have not understood that the New Testament is occupied with other matters, and that, if such ceremonies are used for the training of the young, a limit must be fixed for them.]

And although our belief has its chief testimonies in the Epistle to the Hebrews, nevertheless the adversaries distort against us mutilated pa.s.sages from this Epistle, as in this very pa.s.sage, where it is said that every high priest is ordained to offer sacrifices for sins. Scripture itself immediately adds that Christ is High Priest, Heb. 5, 5. 6. 10. The preceding words speak of the Levitical priesthood, and signify that the Levitical priesthood was an image of the priesthood of Christ. For the Levitical sacrifices for sins did not merit the remission of sins before G.o.d; they were only an image of the sacrifice of Christ, which was to be the one propitiatory sacrifice, as we have said above. Therefore the Epistle is occupied to a great extent with the topic that the ancient priesthood and the ancient sacrifices were inst.i.tuted not for the purpose of meriting the remission of sins before G.o.d or reconciliation, but only to signify the future sacrifice of Christ alone. For in the Old Testament it was necessary for saints to be justified by faith derived from the promise of the remission of sins that was to be granted for Christ's sake, just as saints are also justified in the New Testament. From the beginning of the world it was necessary for all saints to believe that Christ would be the promised offering and satisfaction for sins, as Isaiah teaches, 53, 10: When Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin.

Since, therefore, in the Old Testament, sacrifices did not merit reconciliation, unless by a figure (for they merited civil reconciliation), but signified the coming sacrifice, it follows that Christ is the only sacrifice applied on behalf of the sins of others.

Therefore, in the New Testament no sacrifice is left to be applied for the sins of others, except the one sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.

They altogether err who imagine that Levitical sacrifices merited the remission of sins before G.o.d, and, by this example in addition to the death of Christ, require in the New Testament sacrifices that are to be applied on behalf of others. This imagination absolutely destroys the merit of Christ's pa.s.sion and the righteousness of faith, and corrupts the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and instead of Christ makes for us other mediators and propitiators out of the priests and sacrificers, who daily sell their work in the churches.

Therefore, if any one would thus infer that in the New Testament a priest is needed to make offering for sins, this must be conceded only of Christ. And the entire Epistle to the Hebrews confirms this explanation. And if, in addition to the death of Christ, we were to seek for any other satisfaction to be applied for the sins of others and to reconcile G.o.d, this would be nothing more than to make other mediators in addition to Christ. Again, as the priesthood of the New Testament is the ministry of the Spirit, as Paul teaches 2 Cor. 3, 6, it, accordingly, has but the one sacrifice of Christ, which is satisfactory and applied for the sins of others. Besides it has no sacrifices like the Levitical, which could be applied _ex opere operato_ on behalf of others, but it tenders to others the Gospel and the Sacraments, that by means of these they may conceive faith and the Holy Ghost and be mortified and quickened, because the ministry of the Spirit conflicts with the application of an _opus operatum_.

[For, unless there is personal faith and a life wrought by the Holy Spirit, the _opus operatum_ of another cannot render me G.o.dly nor save me.] For the ministry of the Spirit is that through which the Holy Ghost is efficacious in hearts; and therefore this ministry is profitable to others, when it is efficacious in them, and regenerates and quickens them. This does not occur by the application _ex opere operato_ of the work of another on behalf of others.

We have shown the reason why the Ma.s.s does not justify _ex opere operato_, and why, when applied on behalf of others, it does not merit remission, because both conflict with the righteousness of faith. For it is impossible that remission of sins should occur, and the terrors of death and sin be overcome by any work or anything, except by faith in Christ, according to Rom. 5, 1: Being justified by faith, we have peace.

In addition, we have shown that the Scriptures, which are cited against us, in no way favor the G.o.dless opinion of the adversaries concerning the opus operatum. All good men among all nations can judge this. Therefore the error of Thomas is to be rejected, who wrote: That the body of the Lord, once offered on the cross for original debt, is continually offered for daily offenses on the altar in order that, in this, the Church might have a service whereby to reconcile G.o.d to herself. The other common errors are also to be rejected, as, that the Ma.s.s _ex opere operato_ confers grace upon one employing it; likewise that when applied for others, even for wicked persons, provided they do not interpose an obstacle, it merits for them the remission of sins, of guilt and punishment. All these things are false and G.o.dless, and lately invented by unlearned monks, and obscure the glory of Christ's pa.s.sion and the righteousness of faith.

And from these errors infinite others sprang, as, that the ma.s.ses avail when applied for many, just as much as when applied individually. The sophists have particular degrees of merit, just as money-changers have grades of weight for gold or silver. Besides they sell the Ma.s.s, as a price for obtaining what each one seeks: to merchants, that business may be prosperous; to hunters, that hunting may be successful, and infinite other things. Lastly, they apply it also to the dead; by the application of the Sacrament they liberate souls from the pains of purgatory; although without faith the Ma.s.s is of service not even to the living. Neither are the adversaries able to produce even one syllable from the Scriptures in defense of these fables which they teach with great authority in the Church, neither do they have the testimonies of the ancient Church nor of the Fathers.

[Therefore they are impious and blind people who knowingly despise and trample under foot the plain truth of G.o.d.]

Part 31

_What the Fathers Thought concerning Sacrifice._

And since we have explained the pa.s.sages of Scripture which are cited against us, we must reply also concerning the Fathers. We are not ignorant that the Ma.s.s is called by the Fathers a sacrifice; but they do not mean that the Ma.s.s confers grace _ex opere operato_, and that, when applied on behalf of others, it merits for them the remission of sins, of guilt and punishment. Where are such monstrous stories to be found in the Fathers? But they openly testify that they are speaking of thanksgiving. Accordingly they call it a eucharist. We have said above, however, that a eucharistic sacrifice does not merit reconciliation, but is made by those who have been reconciled, just as afflictions do not merit reconciliation, but are eucharistic sacrifices when those who have been reconciled endure them.

And this reply, in general, to the sayings of the Fathers defends us sufficiently against the adversaries. For it is certain that these figments concerning the merit of the opus operatum are found nowhere in the Fathers. But in order that the whole case may be the better understood, we also shall state those things concerning the use of the Sacrament which actually harmonize with the Fathers and Scripture.

Part 32

Some clever men imagine that the Lord's Supper was inst.i.tuted for two reasons. First, that it might be a mark and testimony of profession, just as a particular shape of hood is the sign of a particular profession. Then they think that such a mark was especially pleasing to Christ, namely, a feast to signify mutual union and friends.h.i.+p among Christians, because banquets are signs of covenant and friends.h.i.+p. But this is a secular view; neither does it show the chief use of the things delivered by G.o.d; it speaks only of the exercise of love, which men, however profane and worldly, understand, it does not speak of faith, the nature of which few understand.

The Sacraments are signs of G.o.d's will toward us, and not merely signs of men among each other, and they are right in defining that Sacraments in the New Testament are signs of grace. And because in a sacrament there are two things, a sign and the Word, the Word, in the New Testament, is the promise of grace added. The promise of the New Testament is the promise of the remission of sins, as the text, Luke 22, 19, says: This is My body, which is given for you. This cup is the New Testament in My blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Therefore the Word offers the remission of sins.

And a ceremony is, as it were, a picture or seal, as Paul, Rom. 4, 11, calls it, of the Word, making known the promise. Therefore, just as the promise is useless unless it is received by faith, so a ceremony is useless unless such faith is added as is truly confident that the remission of sins is here offered. And this faith encourages contrite minds. And just as the Word has been given in order to excite this faith, so the Sacrament has been inst.i.tuted in order that the outward appearance meeting the eyes might move the heart to believe [and strengthen faith]. For through these, namely, through Word and Sacrament, the Holy Ghost works.

And such use of the Sacrament, in which faith quickens terrified hearts, is a service of the New Testament, because the New Testament requires spiritual dispositions, mortification and quickening. [For according to the New Testament the highest service of G.o.d is rendered inwardly in the heart.] And for this use Christ inst.i.tuted it, since He commanded them thus to do in remembrance of Him. For to remember Christ is not the idle celebration of a show [not something that is accomplished only by some gestures and actions], or one inst.i.tuted for the sake of example, as the memory of Hercules or Ulysses is celebrated in tragedies, but it is to remember the benefits of Christ and receive them by faith so as to be quickened by them. Psalm 111, 4. 5 accordingly says: He hath made His wonderful works to be remembered: the Lord is gracious and full of compa.s.sion. He hath given meat unto them that fear Him. For it signifies that the will and mercy of G.o.d should be discerned in the ceremony. But that faith which apprehends mercy quickens. And this is the princ.i.p.al use of the Sacrament, in which it is apparent who are fit for the Sacrament, namely, terrified consciences and how they ought to use it.

The sacrifice [thank-offering or thanksgiving] also is added. For there are several ends for one object. After conscience encouraged by faith has perceived from what terrors it is freed, then indeed it fervently gives thanks for the benefit and pa.s.sion of Christ, and uses the ceremony itself to the praise of G.o.d, in order by this obedience to show its grat.i.tude; and testifies that it holds in high esteem the gifts of G.o.d. Thus the ceremony becomes a sacrifice of praise.

And the Fathers, indeed, speak of a twofold effect, of the comfort of consciences, and of thanksgiving, or praise. The former of these effects pertains to the nature [the right use] of the Sacrament; the latter pertains to the sacrifice. Of consolation Ambrose says: Go to Him and be absolved, because He is the remission of sins. Do you ask who He is? Hear Him when He says, John 6, 35: I am the Bread of life; he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst. This pa.s.sage testifies that in the Sacrament the remission of sins is offered; it also testifies that this ought to be received by faith. Infinite testimonies to this effect are found in the Fathers, all of which the adversaries pervert to the _opus operatum_, and to a work to be applied on behalf of others; although the Fathers clearly require faith, and speak of the consolation belonging to every one, and not of the application.

Besides these, expressions are also found concerning thanksgiving, such as that most beautifully said by Cyprian concerning those communing in a G.o.dly way. Piety, says he, in thanksgiving the Bestower of such abundant blessing, makes a distinction between what has been given and what has been forgiven, i.e., piety regards both what has been given and what has been forgiven, i.e., it compares the greatness of G.o.d's blessings and the greatness of our evils, sin and death, with each other, and gives thanks, etc. And hence the term eucharist arose in the Church. Nor indeed is the ceremony itself, the giving of thanks ex opere operato, to be applied on behalf of others, in order to merit for them the remission of sins, etc., in order to liberate the souls of the dead. These things conflict with the righteousness of faith, as though, without faith, a ceremony can profit either the one performing it or others.

Part 33

_Of the Term Ma.s.s._

The adversaries also refer us to philology. From the names of the Ma.s.s they derive arguments which do not require a long discussion.

For even though the Ma.s.s be called a sacrifice, it does not follow that it must confer grace _ex opere operato_, or, when applied on behalf of others, merit for them the remission of sins, etc.

_Leitourgia_, they say, signifies a sacrifice, and the Greeks call the Ma.s.s liturgy. Why do they here omit the old appellation synaxris, which shows that the Ma.s.s was formerly the communion of many? But let us speak of the word liturgy. This word done not properly signify a sacrifice, but rather the public ministry, and agrees aptly with our belief, namely, that one minister who consecrates tenders the body and blood of the lord to the rest of the people, just as one minister who preaches tenders the Gospel to the people, as Paul says, 1 Cor. 4, 1: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of G.o.d, i.e., of the Gospel and the Sacraments. And 2 Cor. 5, 20: We are amba.s.sadors for Christ as though G.o.d did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, Be ye reconciled to G.o.d. Thus the term _Leitourgia_ agrees aptly with the ministry. For it is an old word, ordinarily employed in public civil administrations, and signified to the Greeks public burdens, as tribute, the expense of equipping a fleet, or similar things, as the oration of Demosthenes, _FOR LEPTINES_, testifies, all of which is occupied with the discussion of public duties and immunities: _Phehsei de anaxious tinas anthrohpous euromenous ateleian ekdedukenai tas leitourgias_, i.e.: He will say that some unworthy men, having found an immunity, have withdrawn from public burdens.

And thus they spoke in the time of the Romana, as the rescript of Pertinax, _De Iure Immunitatis_, l. Semper, shows: _Ei kai meh pasohn leitourgiohn tous pateras ho tohn teknohn arithmos aneitai_, Even though the number of children does not liberate parents from all public burdens. And the Commentary upon Demosthenes states that _leitourgia_ is a kind of tribute, the expense of the games, the expense of equipping vessels, of attending to the gymnasia and similar public offices. And Paul in 2 Cor. 9, 12 employs it for a collection. The taking of the collection not only supplies those things which are wanting to the saints, but also causes them to give more thanks abundantly to G.o.d, etc. And in Phil. 2, 25 he calls Epaphroditus a _leitourgos_, one who ministered to my wants, where a.s.suredly a sacrificer cannot be understood. But there is no need of more testimonies, since examples are everywhere obvious to those reading the Greek writers, in whom _leitourgia_ is employed for public civil burdens or ministries. And on account of the diphthong, grammarians do not derive it from _liteh_, which signifies prayers, but from public goods, which they call _leita_, so that _leitourgeoh_ means, I attend to, I administer public goods.