This laxity Eli must

routine of the tabernacle service. have tolerated; at least he wanted firmness to repress it (1 Sam. ii. 12-17). Need we point to the still grosser infamies, that made the holy place of the Most High resemble the abominable dens of moral pollution to be found in the heathen temples (ver. 22)? Such foul wickedness never could have been so practised by the most abandoned of mankind, except under a state of things implying the most deplorable misrule. We do

not speak of the actual misconduct of the miserable young men themselves, who prostituted to these vile purposes their priestly character and office; we found rather on the mere fact, that misconduct like theirs was possible, as proving that the reins of spiritual government must have fallen into the hands of one himself either very wicked or very weak. And as, in the case of Eli, the former side of the alternative is out of the questionfor he was a holy man, and hated sin- -we are forced to conclude, that in his capacity of priest, as well as in that of judge, he was the victim of indecision and imbecility.

3. But it is as a parent that he chiefly shows his weakness; and it is in that character that he is especially reproved and judged. "Thou honourest thy sons above me," is the charge which the Lord brings against him (chap. ii. 29). And yet Eli feared God, and had no sympathy with his sons in their vile crimes. On the contrary, he remonstrated with them faithfully: "Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the Lord's people to transgress. If one

man sin against another, the judge shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him?" (chap. ii. 23-25.) What more could he do? Instruction, admonition, expostulation, persuasion, are all in vain. The resources of his parental influence are exhausted. What further remains to be tried?

Ah! he forgets that he is invested with parental authority-authority, in his case, backed and seconded by all the powers of law and all the terrors of religion. Nay, it is not so much that he forgets this, as that he has not nerve to act upon the recollection of it. He knows his right and duty as a father; but he weakly shrinks from enforcing his right and performing his duty, out of false tenderness and pity to his sons.

a harsh construction?

his parental feelings?

And what construction does God put upon his weakness?" Thou honourest thy sons above me." Is it not Is no allowance to be made for He does not mean deliberately to prefer his sons to God; and if he fails to execute the full measure of severity that their offences merit, and his position warrants, is it not hard to ascribe the failure to a want of respect for God? Might it not rather be allowed to pass as the venial, and even amiable, infirmity of parental love?

No. For it is not really parental love, according to any right view of that pure affection, but self-love at bottom that Eli indulges, and self-love in one of its least respectable forms. It is himself that Eli is unwilling to mortify, not his sons. It is to himself that he is tender, not to them. And when it is considered that his selfish

feebleness and fondness show themselves in his neglect of parental discipline even in matters in which the divine honour is immediately concerned, it is not too much to say that he is preferring his children to his God.

How offensive to God must be a parent's want of firmness in enforcing his authority! For what, in fact, is that authority but the authority of God himself? God has delegated his own authority to the parent; and, so far as the parent has any right of rule at all over his child, he has it as representing God. In the exercise of it, therefore, he has properly no discretion. If he rule as

God, he must rule for God; and to let any partial leaning of the natural heart towards his child tempt him to act as if it were otherwise,—as if he ruled in his own right and for himself, and not in God's right and for God, and might, in consequence, please himself or his child as he sees fit, this is evidently to usurp a power independent of that of God,-it is to dishonour the Lord of all.

How this sin of Eli's, in his treatment of his sons, commenced, we cannot tell; probably in their early childhood, when their evil dispositions began to show themselves, and he spared the rod and withheld correction. What his sin was, is very precisely pointed out ;—" he restrained them not." Doubtless he taught them; surely he prayed for them; he certainly exhibited to them the example of a holy and blameless life;-but he restrained them not. At first, he might have restrained them with comparatively a very gentle hand: a firm voice, a decided look, might have been enough; a few instances of patient, persevering determination, with an absence of all angry

passion provoking them to wrath, might have taught the little rebels how hopeless it was to think of making their father yield to them; judicious kindness, not being bitter against them, would have made them feel the relief and gladness of yielding to him; and thereafter he might have guided them with his eye. Failing at that first stage to form in them the habit of obedience, Eli's task became of course more difficult as his sons grew in strength and stature, as well as in force of will. The waywardness and impetuosity of early youth, succeeding to the insubordination of spoiled and fondled childhood, presented a stouter aspect of resistance or defiance. Still he might have restrained them; his parental resources were not yet exhausted; they had not yet outgrown the power of the parental arm, nor could they yet dispense with the support of parental love. He has a hold over them still by many ties, if only he will summon resolution for the task of first thoroughly studying their characters, and then vigorously and wisely using bit and bridle, if need be, to keep them in. It may be a struggle; but calm consistency will gain the day. For a parent's rule commends itself to the conscience, as a parent's kindness touches the heart; and an effort put forth even at the last hour, in faith and prayer, to resume the reins of parental discipline, will have the countenance of God, and will not fail of success. But, alas for Eli! This second opportunity also is allowed to pass. His sons have become men; they have left the parental roof; they have families of their own; they take rank on their own account in the world; they hold office in the Church. They

are their own masters now, and, availing themselves of their liberty, they let loose their unruly passions and make themselves vile. Still Eli should have restrained them; for it is expressly mentioned, that his not restraining them even then was his sin. He had power to restrain them. He had the power every parent has, when his children make themselves incurably vile, he could disown them, discountenance them, solemnly renounce their fellowship, and cast them off. He had power also as their ruler in the state, and their superior in the priesthood. And every consideration of decency and good order, as well as of godliness and virtue, should have made him use his power to the utmost, and adopt the most decided measures, when they were making the very sanctuary a foul scandal. But he had not the heart; he could not bring himself to be severe. Even God's highest

honour must give place to the indulgence of his fond and feeble dotage. And the issue is, that "the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged for ever."

It is an issue, as to all the parties concerned, sufficiently disastrous.

For the sons of Eli, whom "he did not restrain," what hope is there? Sudden destruction comes upon them. There may be a show and semblance of adventurous patriotism in their readiness to bear the ark, as a forlorn hope, into the midst of Israel's renewed battle with the Philistines. But, with all their daring, they carry into the fight a weight of guilt and a crushing sentence of wrath, that cannot but be fatal. They perish miserably.