Eli enjoyed the greatest privilege in Israel-the place of greatest nearness to God, and occupation with His service. As high-priest, all the hallowed associations of the sanctuary, its sacrifices and other worship, were matters of daily even hourly familiarity with him. Nor does it seem that this was lost upon him :a real attachment to the things of God, and in a sense a zeal for His glory are marked in him, together with a submission to His will under government. Nor was the privilege for Eli alone; his family shared with him in the nearness, the hallowed occupation with the things of the sanctuary. Had there been a state of heart in Hophni and Phinehas answering to the place of outward nearness which they occupied, they would have been men of marked and intelligent piety. But, alas! outward privileges do not change the heart, natural descent does not mean regeneration. Israel as a nation are proofs of this:descended from Abraham, the man of faith, they have shown by the hardness of their hearts that they are not children of Abraham. It is just as true for the sons of godly parents as for those utterly ignorant of God, that " Ye must be born again." Without this, outward blessing only proves a curse. Occupied with holy things, these men instead of being elevated, degrade those things. They made the Lord's offering to be abhorred. Those whose worship they should have guided, they degraded, and all this with the knowledge of their father Eli.

Look on the other hand at Hannah. A woman, and so representative of the feeble ; barren and despised, how could she, in the eyes of Israelites, to whom a barren womb was as a curse, glorify God ? All seems to be against her according to nature; but this only drives her to one unfailing refuge. Even at the tabernacle and in its worship she could find comfort in prayer and tears, rather than in praise, and Eli the priest of God, who should "have compassion on the ignorant," fails to understand her. Alas ! his eyes, so long closed to his sons' waywardness, fail to discern the difference between one of a sorrowful spirit and those who had been debauched by the priests. He is severe where nothing but sympathy is called for. He can admonish an outsider, where none is
needed, while in his own house all manner of evil is allowed. There is nothing sadder in Eli than this evidence of loss of discernment and of power. His own weakness at home has made him incompetent to deal with matters in connection with God's house. He is not alone in this. The apostle in giving the requirements for one to be a ruler in God's house writes, " One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the Church of God)." (i Tim. 3:4, 5.) Doubtless, many cases of mistaken discipline, needless severity, and want of wisdom in general, may be directly traced to the fact that Elis are trying to do in God's house what they have failed to do in their own, and, like the one of whom we are speaking, only manifest their lack of wisdom and of power. Surely this is a most pungent truth for parents to consider. How unspeakably solemn is Eli's position, a wearer of high-priestly robes, with two ungodly sons. How incongruous ! But it may be said, Eli rebuked his sons. Yes, and allowed them to go on in their sins. His very rebuke only hardened them, for it showed that with full knowledge of their course he allowed them to continue in the priests' office. How different was this from Phinehas in the time of Baal Peor! No rebuke is sufficient to arrest the flood-tide of evil, and he stands forth with his spear, not to speak, but to act,-to act for God at whatever cost, and blessing follows. Surely, parents should admonish and instruct their children, but words alone, unaccompanied by power, are of no avail. How did these sons of Eli grow to manhood with such habits ? Was it carelessness on the part of their father, a spirit of indulging his children, another name for self-indulgence? Parents are told to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and these two words mean all that is needful spiritual food and spiritual correction, administered in power. If parents seek in dependence upon God to carry out this instruction with reference to their children, surely God will give His blessing. Eli is forced to hear the doom pronounced upon his house, because of his own unfaithfulness. " His own sons made themselves vile and he restrained them not." It does not say, "he admonished them not," but "he restrained them not." He did not come in with that authority given to him from God, _given to every parent to restrain, yes, by force if necessary, his children. Eli had much in him to commend, doubtless ; but he seems to be one of those easygoing people who will not sacrifice ease to duty, who do not hearken to the wholesome words in Proverbs, "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying." The Revised Version renders the latter clause, " And set not thine heart on his destruction." This surely is done by those who for the sake of sparing the tears caused by wholesome chastening will allow self-will in the child, which will surely bring it to destruction. With the example of Eli before them, let no parent excuse himself for carelessness in the training of his children. He will reap what he has sown, and the after sorrows will far, far outweigh all the present pain of being firm and faithful with those whom God has placed under his care. For proper correction and discipline at the right time and in the right spirit does not take up the larger part of the parent's intercourse with his children, nor color the whole life. Correction is the exception, not the rule :a uniform firmness, tempered with love, is far better than oft-repeated chastisement.

But let us return to Hannah. Her child is one given in direct answer to prayer, and before its birth it is dedicated to God. He is to be a Nazarite-one separate unto God from much even that passes for good. Let us notice the one point which makes the great difference between Hannah and Eli. Hannah is communion with God about her child. She asks him from God, she dedicates him to God. The sanctuary is to be his home. But it might be said, Children ought to be happy, not tied down or made religious. Wait until they get older before putting a yoke upon them. Hannah's way with Samuel is the answer. She might say to any who objected to her giving up her son to God, "In His presence is fullness of joy, at His right hand are pleasures for evermore." Can there be greater joy for children, as for all, than to know God ? It is Satan who would keep parents from thus fully dedicating their children to God, and from acting upon it. Like Pharaoh, he would allow the parents to go on pilgrimage, provided the children are left behind in Egypt. It is just here that great mistakes are made. Under the pretext of allowing for youth, and childish pleasures, associations, habits, and practices are allowed which are of the world. What is the result? The children grow up in the world. The bodily food that is good enough for the parent suffices for the child :so the spiritual food is good alike for both. Milk for babes indeed, but milk does not mean poison. It means elementary instruction in the same truths upon which the parent feeds. The question might he asked, Are harmless sports, etc., to be forbidden ? Surely not; yet there is a way of enjoying these, and at the same time taking them from a Father's hand, that will make the child a worshiper. How important, then, to begin where Hannah did. The child belongs to God :it shall be brought up for Him :it shall be a Nazarite. God answered her faith. Her son was all that she expected him to be-all that she asked for him. It is needful to notice this precious fact:God does hear believing prayer for children, He does honor the faith that honors Him. But this includes the practical carrying out of the dedication. Hannah carries Samuel up to the Lord's house. It was not enough that in her affliction she vowed to do so; she accomplished her vow. Many parents are constant, and in a sense believing, in their prayers for their children; yet when action is needed-practical separation unto God, they fail. Some may say, Children are not converted, have not the tastes of the new man, and therefore it would make them legal to require them to act upon principles a Christian alone can understand. To this it is enough to reply, first, Who can say how early in life a child may be regenerated and the new man require proper food ? Secondly, the Word is the appointed means to this end, and should therefore be freely, persistently, and faithfully used. Thirdly, the children of believers have a responsibility for walk apart from the question of their new birth. All this is intimated in two points in the child-history of Samuel :he was weaned, and yearly his mother brought him a little coat, when she came up to the Lord's house to offer sacrifice. The weaning would seem to teach that breaking of the will without which little or nothing can be done for the child. Its desires are curbed, its wishes are checked effectually, begetting a subdued spirit before unknown. How needful it is that children should be taught to surrender their wills ! Obedience, absolute, immediate, and cheerful, is the first lesson to teach them. Once effectually learned, it stays with the child through life:partially learned, it crops up again and again in acts and ways of willfulness. But who can truly command obedience but the one who is obedient ? Only those themselves as weaned children in God's presence can expect the subject spirit in their own children. How can children honor those who do not command it by their lives? This obedience need not be unintelligent. Of course, a reason cannot be given for every command, and children must be taught to obey unquestioningly. But conscience should also be instructed, so that as the children grow, they may learn to obey, not with eye-service merely, but from principle.

(To be continued.)