L I E) RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N I VERS ITY 
 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 lU 
 
 INTERCESSION 
 
 FOR 
 
 THE FAITHFUL DEPARTED 
 
 AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE 
 EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE 
 
 A SERMON 
 
 PREACHED BY 
 
 THE VERY REV. H. MORTIMER LUCKOCK, D.D. 
 
 DEAN OF LICHFIELD 
 AT 
 
 THE CHURCH OF ST. MARY MAGDALENE, 
 MUNSTER SQUARE. N.W. 
 
 ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1906 
 
 THE OCCASION OF THE ANNDAL REQUIEM FOR THE DEPARTED MEMBERS 
 OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH UNION 
 
 Price Threepence. 
 
 London 
 
 ©tfice of tbc iBnglisb Cburcb lUnion 
 
 35, Wellington Street, Strand, W.C.
 
 i
 
 SEEMON. 
 
 INTERCESSION FOR THE FAITHFUL 
 
 DEPARTED AN INTEGRAL PART OF 
 
 THE EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. 
 
 The President of the Union, in inviting me to preach, 
 pressed the need at this time of enforcing distinctly and 
 definitely the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice- I 
 have gladly yielded to his wish, as far as my powers enable 
 me, only adding a direct application, by pleading its 
 efficacy for those upon whom our thoughts are fixed to- 
 day. Some of his words I am constrained to quote. 
 
 " The misery is that there should b6 such widespread 
 ignorance of this doctrine — that people either ignore it 
 altogether, or else persist that the Church of England has 
 some special Eucharistic doctrine of its own." 
 
 I pvirpose to show, from historic evidence, that we 
 have no such insularity, but that through all the stress 
 and strain of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries we 
 never lost the ancient and primitive principle. 
 
 If I seem to do this with a simplicity that you will 
 almost resent, I would have you bear in mind that it is 
 only to help you more easily to teach others that of which 
 you yourselves have no manner of doubt. 
 
 I divide my subject into two parts, the first " The 
 Eucharistic Sacrifice " ; the second " Eucharistic Inter- 
 cession for the Departed.''
 
 In the forefront let us place the continuity of the Jewish 
 and Christian Churches, which is such that we may speak 
 of them as One. If there is any change in doctrine it is 
 in the sense of development ; " I came not," said our Lord, 
 "to destroy but to fulfil," literally, "to fill up."' 
 
 Now we look for the first sign of unity in '^ the one 
 Church " in its worship. No one doubts what it was 
 under the Old Dispensation. " Sacrifice " Avas the only 
 means of approach to God for sinful man. The system 
 unfolded in Le^dticus appears very complex, but a careful 
 study resolves all sacrifices into three orders, under the 
 heads of " Burnt-ofPering," implying the complete dedica- 
 tion of self to God ; " Sin-offering," having for its 
 dominant idea jpropitiation, effected through blood shed 
 by the offerer, but pleaded by the Priest ; " Peace- 
 offering," symbolizing communion with God. 
 
 There is no necessity to remind you that all of these 
 were types of Christ's Sacrifice, but I must emphasize the 
 fact that, inasmuch as He instituted a service to be a 
 perpetual " Memorial before God " of that Sacrifice, this 
 also would naturally be sacrificial in character. Thus it 
 has been Avell said of the Holy Eucharist, by the 
 Evangelical author of " Church Doctrine Bible Truth," 
 "it was instituted at a sacrificial time, in sacrificial 
 terms, and for a sacrificial end." And so the Chui'ch has 
 interpreted it, in all the centuries, with, it is true, varying 
 vicissitudes of waxing and waning clearness, but with a 
 belief never lost. 
 
 Now seeing that the Primitive Church has always been 
 held up as our standard of doctrine and practice, we turn 
 at once to the evidence of the Earl}^ Fathers, and we find a 
 whole chain of passages from St. Clement to St. Leo, and 
 onward, testifjdng to the continued use of such suggestive 
 terms as Altar, Priest, Oblation, and Sacrifice, as applic- 
 able to Chi'istian worship. The same were freely adopted 
 also in the Liturgies, which are usually the best exponents 
 of contemporary belief. 
 
 \,J
 
 But there is so little doubt about the testimony of this 
 period that I pass to the great upheaval in worship which 
 came upon the Church in this country in the sixteenth 
 century. No fault can be found touching the sacrifice of 
 the Eucharist in the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. It 
 places it in the clearest light. In its title the Order is 
 identified with the Mass ; the celebrant is a Priest ; that 
 on which the Oblation is laid is an Altar ; and for more 
 definite teaching, it says that " Jesus Christ commanded 
 us to celebrate with His holy gifts," the Memorial " which 
 He willed us to make, having in remembrance His blessed 
 Passion " ; and it embodies in " the Prayer of Oblation " 
 an exact description of the three typical sacrifices : 
 " mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of praise and 
 thanksgiving," a title associated again and again in 
 Leviticus with the peace-offering ; " to grant that by the 
 merits and death of Thy Son, Jesus Christ, and through 
 faith in His Blood, we and all Thy whole Church may 
 obtain remission of our sins and all other benefits of His 
 Passion," which takes us back at once to the sin-offering 
 of the Day of Atonement, made by the transgressor, and 
 its blood pleaded for the forgiveness of the sins of all by 
 the High Priest, the whole congregation joining in the 
 intercession by virtue of their priesthood; and, thirdly, 
 the burnt-offering, described in the very language which a 
 Jew would have used : " here we offer and present unto 
 Thee ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, 
 holy, and lively sacrifice." 
 
 So far all that was primitive and essential was 
 preserved; but three years later great changes were 
 introduced, owing to the interposition of Anti-Catholic 
 Reformers from the Continent, but save in one particular 
 they only indirectly, though very seriously, traversed the 
 sacrificial doctrine. They omitted a prayer that those 
 who partook of the Sacrifice might be worthy to receive 
 the most precious Body and Blood ; and they made no 
 reference to the Body and Blood of Christ in the words of
 
 6 
 
 administration ; less seriously, by substituting ^* table " 
 or " God's board " for altar. 
 
 There is no question that in their wish to reinstate the 
 act of Communion which had been neglected they went 
 perilously near to obliterating the Sacrificial aspect ; but 
 inasmuch as, probably through ignorance of their liturgical 
 significance, they left in " the Prayer of Oblation " the 
 application of the three great typical Jewish Sacrifices to 
 the Christian service, the result of their revision did no 
 more than overshadow it. 
 
 The mind of the Foreign Reformers had not been cast 
 in a liturgical mould ; and it is pi'obably owing to this 
 that in the Providence of God the primitive doctrine of 
 the Holy Eucharist, even at the most revolutionary epoch, 
 was not left without this witness. 
 
 Now we know what violent attacks upon Catholic 
 principles have been persistently? made of late, especially 
 touching sacerdotalism, and what is stigmatized as " the 
 doctrine of the Mass." 
 
 I think it may help you to repel them, if I reply 
 specifically to some of the chief arguments that are used 
 by the objectors. The first is this : — 
 
 " In the Christian Church there is no sacrificing 
 Priest." Now what do they mean ? Some, at any rate, 
 have in their mind the Priest of the Old Dispensation, and 
 are under the mistaken idea that his chief function was to 
 slay the victim. 
 
 To give one illustration from the late Dean Stanley, 
 whose lectures at Oxford attracted so much attention. In 
 his exposition of the nature of the Jewish priesthood, he 
 asserted that moral and intellectual qualifications were of 
 only secondary importance. What was first needed was 
 *' the robust frame .... the quick eye, and ready arm, 
 which could strike the fatal blow " ; and again, " Butcher 
 and Priest,*' he said, "are now the two extremes of the 
 social scale. A fine moral lesson is involved in the fact 
 that they were once almost identical ! "
 
 The unfairness of this description lies in the fact that 
 an exceptional case is taken as though it were the normal 
 function. 
 
 The fundamental principle of sacrifice was that the 
 offerer, not the Priest, should take the life of the 
 victim ; it was his acknowledgment that his own life, for 
 which it was the substitute, had been forfeited by his 
 sin. The distinctive duty of the Priest was to take some 
 drops of the blood which " makes atonement for the soul " 
 (A. v.), or " by reason of the life " (R. V.), and plead by 
 it for the forgiveness of the offerei*'s sins. Ezekiel speaks 
 of killing the victim as a punishment for certain Priests 
 who had been degraded for idolatry. 
 
 Seeing now that there is no more shedding of blood, 
 it is the office of the Priest to celebrate " the Memorial of 
 Christ's Sacrifice offered once for all on the Cross, and to 
 plead before God its all-sufficient virtue. 
 
 Another objection is that the only priesthood 
 acknowledged in the New Testament is that of the 
 baptized. St. Peter and St. John spoke of these as " a 
 royal," or " holy priesthood," or as " Priests unto God " ; 
 but they were quoting God's language to the Jews, within 
 whose general priesthood there was an inner circle of 
 ministering Priests with special functions, guarded from 
 invasion by the rest, by the penalty of death. That the 
 Apostles intended not a partial, but a complete analogy is 
 shown by St. Jude, who says that this very punishment 
 was meted out to some, who must have usurped what were 
 inalienable privileges of a special priesthood ; for, it is 
 said, "they perished in the gainsaying of Core." 
 
 Another common objection is that " Christ is the only 
 Priest in His Church," which is true, but not as they 
 understand it. It is not realized that Christ was the 
 antitype of the priesthood both of Aaron and of 
 Melchizedek. As the former He entered into the 
 Presence of the Father '< by His own Blood," to present 
 to Him His own Sacrifice, and though no words were
 
 8 
 
 spoken, no uttered intercession made. He lias been 
 constantly pleading its efficacy ever since for the sins of 
 the world. This was the crowning service of the Aaronic 
 Priesthood ; and Christ continues it in Heaven ; and has 
 commanded a human priesthood as His representatives to 
 do the same on earth. 
 
 His fulfilment of the priesthood of Melchizedek was 
 begun at the Institution of the Eucharist ; when He took 
 *' Bread and Wine,'' such as Melchizedek had offered, 
 declared them to be His Body and Blood, and gave them 
 separately, signifying thereby that they were to be 
 offered in memorial of His death, by which they were 
 separated. This Priesthood Christ does not exercise in 
 Heaven ; only through the co-operation of a human 
 priesthood on earth is it possible for Him to fulfil the 
 prophecy that He should be " a Priest for ever after the 
 order of Melchizedek," of whom the only recorded priestly 
 oblation is that he " brought forth bread and wine." 
 
 However, before leaving these objections, it is well to 
 point out that, after all, our belief or disbelief in the 
 Eucharistic Sacrifice does not depend merely on the terms 
 that are used in speaking of it. The title of Priest does 
 not, of necessity, connote sacrifice, for it may be only an 
 abbreviation of " presbyter " ; neither, if we designate 
 the celebrant a " minister," do we deny that what he does 
 is a sacrificial act. 
 
 Some of you will remember how forcibly the great 
 German dramatist expressed this when he put into the 
 mouth of the Impersonation of Satan advice to this 
 effect : In dealing with theological subjects lay great 
 stress upon names and take no notice of facts. 
 
 There can be no doubt, unhappily, that the doctrine 
 of Eucharistic Sacrifice was over-shadowed at the 
 Reformation, but it is equally clear that it was never 
 obliterated ; and that, because it lay embedded in the 
 very structure of the service, which was laid down on the 
 lines of the Primitive Liturgies. When the Protestants
 
 9 
 
 rose to power under Cromwell, they realised the futility 
 of all that had been done by changing- its phraseology ; 
 and they determined on the only radical course for 
 accomplishing their end ; they prohibited the use of the 
 Prayer Book altogether under the severest pains and 
 penalties. 
 
 It was only then during the brief space of the Puritan 
 Ascendency that the Church in this country forfeited the 
 right to enjoy its historic heritage ; and then, through 
 oppression and violence from without, not from any 
 authorized concession from within. 
 
 We pass now to the second aspect of our subject, 
 ^' Eucharistic Intercession for the departed." You must 
 often have followed in thought beyond the grave those 
 Members of the Union who shared with you on earth your 
 hopes and endeavours to recover long-neglected privileges 
 of the Church ; and now you want to join them in prayer 
 through the Communion of Saints in tlie fresh atmosphere 
 of their new surroundings. 
 
 You are now gathered here, Priests and Laity, to do 
 this on your part in God's appointed way, by pleading at 
 His Altar the All-sufficient Sacrifice, the virtue of which 
 reaches alike to the dead and the living. 
 
 Time will not allow me to prove at any length that 
 this has been the Church's belief and practice all through 
 the centuries. The evidential history is as complete as 
 that for the Church's Sacrifice ; and this is naturally to 
 be expected, seeing that intercession is an essential jsart 
 of it. It will suffice to assert before you that from almost 
 the earliest of the Fathers to the latest of the primitive 
 Liturgies there is an abundanceof testimony in support of it. 
 
 If we pass over several centuries of the mediaival 
 history, it is only because it is still the same, and is no- 
 where doubted. But it is necessary to test the validity 
 of the oft-repeated assertion that, " though the practice 
 may have been primitive aud mediaeval, it was deliberately 
 rejected at the Reforniiition."
 
 10 
 
 There is not eveu the semblance of truth in the state- 
 ment as touching- the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. 
 We shall endeavour to show that in those which followed, 
 though the practice was veiled and obscured, through the 
 interposition of foreign and uncatliolic Reformers, it wa^ 
 never prohibited or even wholly ignored. 
 
 Let me adduce three illustrations of its preservation ; 
 one from the Burial Service, two from the Order of Holy 
 Communion. I bring forward the former, because it fixes 
 the meaning to be assigned to an analogous expression in 
 the latter. Tn the First Prayer Book petitions for the 
 departed were expressly so worded ; in the Second Book 
 the language was modified, but the principle preserved. 
 
 Bishop Cosin, the leading compiler of our Prayer 
 Book, in the large collection of notes on the whole subject 
 which he made, evidently in ^dew of the Revision he 
 looked forward to, shows very clearly that it could not 
 have been more than a modification. Thus of the words 
 . . . . " That we with this our brother may have our 
 perfect consummation and bliss, &c.," he writes : — " The 
 Puritans think that here is prayer for the dead, allowed 
 and practised by the Church of England, and so think I ; 
 but we are not both of one mind in censuring the Church 
 for so doing." The Protestant objection to which he 
 calls attention is very significant, as showing that it was 
 imderstood at the time to be a distinct prayer, as much as 
 if it had been written that " we and our brother," &c. 
 
 With this commentary we turn to the corresponding 
 expression in the Prayer for the Church Militant in our 
 present Service : " We bless Thy Holy Name for all Thy 
 servants departed this life in Thy faith and fear, beseech- 
 ing Thee that with them we may be partakers of Thy 
 heavenly kingdom"; on the analogy of the previous 
 interpretation, this, too, is equivalent to " that we and 
 they " — a distinct prayer. 
 
 In the Second Praj'er Book all such prayer wa& 
 (>xcluded from the General Prayer for the Church, not.
 
 11 
 
 however, as is often supposed, because it was then headed 
 " militant here in earth/' but by the fact that it made no 
 mention of the dead whatever ! 
 
 At the jBnal Revision this omission was rectified b}- 
 adding the concluding- clause as we now have it ; and 
 Bishop Cosin has shown us that it was so intended ; and 
 it is more than probable that, with his knowledge of 
 ancient prayers, he left the heading as it was, because of 
 a very striking resemblance it bore to a pre-Eeformation 
 prayer, in which the bulk of its petitions were for the 
 living, but which concluded, as this does in effect, with a 
 distinct supplication, that " all faithful people, whether 
 alive or dead, might be granted eternal life and rest in 
 the land of the living " ; and this is the title it b3re : " A 
 General and Devout Prayer for the Good Estate of our 
 Mother the Church, Militant here on Earth." 
 
 Now we pass to a third Avitness to the preservation ot 
 the principle, and that the most conclusive, not only 
 because its very uncommon phraseology would otherwise 
 be most perplexing, but chiefly because Cosin himself 
 strongly confirms it. 
 
 Speaking of the clause in the Prayer of Oblation, 
 " That by the merits and death of Thy Son, Jesus Christ, 
 and through faith in His Blood, we and ' all Thy whole 
 Church ' may obtain remission of our sins and all other 
 benefits of His Passion," he saysy '' This is a plain 
 oblation of Christ's Death, once offered, and a repre- 
 sentative sacrifice of it, for the sins of the whole Church, 
 that both those which are here on earth and those that rest 
 in the sleep of peace may find the effect and virtue of it." 
 And lie repeats the same later at great length. We ha^e 
 then in this, at the very time tliiit the Oblations are lying 
 on the Altar, an all-embracing intercession. It would lay 
 a tremendous strain on our credulity to be asked to believe 
 that this reference to the Jewish sacrifice was accidental or 
 figurative only. 
 
 It was inserted in the First Prayer Book, and it was
 
 12 
 
 happily preserved as a safeguard of the principle through 
 all the revisions that followed. Cosin and his colleagues 
 coming to their work so shortly after the Protestant 
 supremacy retained all that they could ; and they have 
 been careful to leave it on record for future guidance, 
 that little as it was, it preserved the great principle of 
 Eucharistic intercession. If I seem to have laboured this 
 subject too much in detail, it is in view of repudiating by 
 positive and historic disproof the unjustifiable charge that 
 in teaching this doctrine and practice some of our most 
 devoted Priests have been guilty of disloyalty to the 
 principles of the Prayer Book. 
 
 If again I seem to have exaggerated the importance of 
 what is only scanty evidence, I would ask, what can be 
 more scanty than that which we have in the New 
 Testament for prayer for the departed ? " The Lord 
 grant unto Onesiphorus that he may find mercy in that 
 day." It is only a single verse, and yet it sufficed for the 
 Primitive Church to have it incorporated in her Liturgies 
 as a frequent and favourite intercession for the departed. 
 Even so with the clauses we have examined ; though we 
 could have wished for more, they have secured for us, 
 through all the vicissitudes of the Reformation, a con- 
 tinuity of Catholic usage. 
 
 Now the practical question arises, what can we do to 
 help in winning back the fulness of our diminished 
 inheritance ? Let me suggest two ways. 
 
 First, by trying to multiply such anniversary services 
 as this, especially for departed members of guilds, con- 
 fraternities, and other religious communities, and by doing 
 it with authority, i.e., episcopal sanction. If it is found 
 to be a real and widespread want, and that it will be, if we 
 of Jtlie Clergy teach our people, unless we are greatly 
 mistaken few Bishops will withhold the power that jnany 
 are ready to believe is inherent in the Episcopate, by 
 virtue of the jus Liturgieum, to sanction special services, 
 which are quite ovitside the Act of Uniformity. Some few
 
 13 
 
 of the best of our brethren, I know, think differently 
 about the necessity of obtaining this sanction ; but surely 
 it must be better, according to the primitive rule, to *' do 
 nothing- without the Bishop," than to claim the right of 
 private judgment, which has wrought so much mischief 
 in the Church, and which is alien to the constitution and 
 well-being of the Body of Christ. 
 
 At the present critical juncture it is suggested a 
 remedy may be found for our grievance in another way, 
 which seems to many of us bristling with difficulty and 
 fraught with peril. Is there no danger if, to satisfy the 
 cravings of one's devout instincts, we ask Parliament, 
 which is now showing itself not very well-disposed to the 
 Church, for bread that it may give us a stone or possibl}^ a 
 scorpion? Dr. Pusey wrote to me shortly before his 
 death : " Any revision, I believe, would rend our com- 
 munion in two — our only hope, under God, is the bond of 
 the Prayer Book as it is." The}^ are words to be weighed 
 at this time. We have persevered for years in our belief 
 that we have in the Rubric all we require for the ornaments 
 of the Church and Ministers, and at last the claim has 
 been practically and publicly vindicated. We shall obtain 
 the same liberty for additional Services if by our loyalty 
 and moderation we can convince our Fathers in God that 
 it will supply a deep spiritual need. Already some of the 
 Bishops have gladly exercised their right — your own 
 Bishop, for example — in satisfying our heart's desire for 
 a Service for the Departed ; other Bishops in providing 
 special Collects, Epistles, and Gospels for a Celebration on 
 many Black Letter Days in the Calendar. In Lichfield we 
 have them authorized for upwards of twenty special days. 
 
 If in the former case (the Ornaments Rubric) some of 
 us resisted authority, it is no inconsistency ; it was 
 because conscience absolutely forbad us to agree that 
 " shall " could mean " shall not " ; but there is no such 
 difficulty about the necessity for Episcopal sanction in the 
 case of special Services.
 
 14 
 
 Then there is a second suggestion, which may help 
 very largely to the ultimate attainment of our pur- 
 I^ose. It is to press upon Priests and Laity the great 
 desirability of having Funeral Celebrations. Let the 
 Priest propose, or the Laity plead for them when they are 
 about to commit their beloved dead to the grave. 
 
 If you compare our Burial Service with the other 
 special of&ces you will see at a glance what a serious 
 difference there is. Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Matri- 
 mony, Visitation of the Sick; there are prayers in 
 abundance for the child to be baptized or confirmed; for 
 those who desire to be joined together by an eternal bond ; 
 for one upon whom God's chastening hand has been laid ; 
 for one and all, intercession is not only an integral part, 
 but, so to speak, the very breath of the Service, sancti- 
 fying with the Blessed Spirit those more immediately 
 concerned. But in the Burial Service prayer becomes 
 utterly selfish — " deliver its from the pains of eternal 
 death " ; " suffer us not at our last hour to fall from 
 Thee." It is true we hear the voice of thanksgiving and 
 hope, but how few, unfamiliar with the explanation I have 
 given, ever realise that the words which follow, ''that we 
 with all those that are departed may have our perfect 
 consummation and bliss,'* is a prayer for them as well as 
 for ourselves ! 
 
 It is from the desire to remedy this very serious defect 
 that we wish to encourage what is practically the revival 
 of the use of the First Prayer Book — viz., to have, where 
 circumstances permit, a Celebration not only for the 
 strength and comfort of the friends and relations, but pre- 
 eminently for Eucharistic Intercession in behalf of the 
 departed. No permission is required for this, there being 
 no restriction laid upon any Parish Priest touching the 
 number of Celebrations he may lawfully have. In case 
 the scantiness of the Intercession contained in the letter 
 of the Service seems hardly to meet the mourners' need, 
 they have only to be reminded that it may be expanded at
 
 15 
 
 the time in their private devotions, which are equally 
 efficacious, if they are in accordance with God's will and 
 blended with the All-prevailing- pleading of Christ's own 
 Sacrifice. 
 
 If we are contented to pray as the Early Church did, 
 it will be for the peace of the departed — that peace which 
 passeth all understanding ; for his rest, which is not idle- 
 ness but restful activity ; for light, from the reflexion of 
 that which no man can approach unto ; for refreshment, 
 in the Presence of Him Who promised it to all who should 
 come to Him ; for purification — that progressive process 
 which everyone must pass through before he is fitted to 
 " see God " in the Beatific Vision ; and for the complete 
 efiacement of those spots and stains which sin cannot but 
 leave even upon the purest soul. These and other such- 
 like supplications will supply ample material for the fullest 
 intercession. 
 
 And my last word shall be for encouragement. When- 
 ever I think, as I often do, of the change that has come 
 over England in our relation to the dead, I recall two 
 remarkable letters that I received just twenty-eight years 
 ago, from the most honoured Churchmen of the day. 
 Dean Church wrote, full of hope, that one of the results 
 of a calm and dispassionate examination of the primitive 
 evidence, then lately set forth, for the legitimacy of the 
 practice would be (to use his exact words) that " our 
 children will be able to enjoy without offence a primitive 
 liberty of prayer, which we, their fathers, could only do 
 grudgingly and under suspicion." Canon Liddon, almost 
 in despair, asked " how long men would continue to go on 
 appealing to antiquity, and not realize that prayers for 
 the departed were almost as much a part of the life of the 
 Early Church as the worship of our Lord?" Had they 
 been alive to-day, how surprised both would have been ! 
 One would have said that his most sanguine expectations 
 had been even exceeded ; the other, that his indignation 
 might have been spared, for when he wrote he little
 
 16 
 
 thought he had actually reached the very dawn of 
 returning" day ! 
 
 And now I pray you^ my brethren in Christ, you who 
 have recovered for the Chui'ch in this land so much of her 
 ancient heritage, take heart of grace from this experience. 
 You have seen the practice wonderfully revivified in our 
 private devotions ; you will see the same in public worship ; 
 but be content to wait patiently upon His good pleasure, 
 always confident in hope that if it be God's Will, " it will 
 surely come," ifc may be, " it will not tarry." 
 
 By the ^'ery Rev. H. MORTIMER LUCKOCK, D.D., Bean of Lwhfield. 
 
 Nearly ready. Crown 8vo, cloth, price 2/6 net, by post 2/9. 
 
 EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE AND INTERCESSION FOR 
 THE DEPARTED 
 
 Both consistent with the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer. A 
 Course of Addresse.^. (To be published in February, in time for Holy 
 Week and Easter.) 
 
 Tlwsc of the Chryy mho are familifir with the Author' k Addresses on 
 ♦' The Footprmts of the Son of Man," which havg passed through many 
 Editions, will welcome this new booh as illustratiny doctrines of much 
 interest at the present time. 
 
 To be obtained from 
 
 SKEFFINGTON AND SON, 
 
 34, Southampton Street, Strand, London, W.C. 
 
 By post on receipt of a remittance. 
 
 Church Printius "^o., 11, B'Tleigh Street. Strand. W.C.
 
 ,/' 
 
 r.,:v:'