And the first clause of it, of course rightly explained, gives us the ground of what is surely a mighty part of the Gospel--its "first and great commandment," namely, that we have a Father whom we _can_ love, and are required to love, and to desire to be with Him in Heaven, wherever that may be. And to declare that we have such a loving Father, whose mercy is over _all_ His works, and whose will and law is so lovely and lovable that it is sweeter than honey, and more precious than gold, to those who can "taste" and "see" that the Lord is Good--this, surely, is a most pleasant and glorious good message and _spell_ to bring to men--as distinguished from the evil message and accursed spell that Satan has brought to the nations of the world instead of it, that they have no Father, but only "a consuming fire" ready to devour them, unless they are delivered from its raging flame by some scheme of pardon for all, for which they are to be thankful, not to the Father, but to the Son. Supposing this first article of the true Gospel agreed to, how would the blessing that closes the epistles of that Gospel become intelligible and living, instead of dark and dead: "The grace of Christ, and the _love_ of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost,"--the most _tender_ word being that used of the Father! VI [Greek: hagiasthêtô to onoma sou.] _Sanctificetur nomen tuum._ BRANTWOOD, _12th July, 1879_. I wonder how many, even of those who honestly and attentively join in our Church services, attach any distinct idea to the second clause of the Lord's Prayer--the _first petition_ of it--the first thing that they are ordered by Christ to seek of their Father? Am I unjust in thinking that most of them have little more notion on the matter than that God has forbidden "bad language," and wishes them to pray that everybody may be respectful to Him? Is it any otherwise with the Third Commandment? Do not most look on it merely in the light of the statute on swearing? and read the words "will not hold him guiltless" merely as a passionless intimation that however carelessly a man may let out a round oath, there really _is_ something wrong in it? On the other hand, can anything be more tremendous than the words themselves--double-negatived: "[Greek: ou gar mê katharisê ... kurios]"? For _other_ sins there is washing;--for this--none! the seventh verse (Exod. xx.), in the Septuagint, marking the real power rather than the English, which (I suppose) is literal to the Hebrew.