Concerning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah King of Judah. The law is that like begets like. It is so physically and mentally to large extent, and morally and spiritually as well. Generally, blessed be God, the children of his servants become his servants too. And, on the other hand, the habit of sin in the parent is reproduced in the child, so that we have criminal classes, hereditary drunkards, profligates, and much else of a similar sad sort. But the law has frequent exceptions on both sides. The two names in this verse are both of them instances of such exception. Now, how are we to account for them? We have frequent instances in the Old Testament. The sons of "Aaron the saint of the Lord;" of Eli, the devout high priest; of Samuel, the upright judge. What a set David's children were! And here we have Josiah the good, father of the infamous Jehoiakim. But we have nothing of this in the New Testament. It does not seem to be recognized there that the children of the godly can be otherwise than godly themselves. Even when one of the parents was an unbeliever, a heathen, the faith of the other was held to have such virtue that of their children St. Paul says, "Now are your children holy." We have very many instances of whole households being believers, but none of the children of believers being other than what their parents were. Would to God it were always so now! And, on the other hand, we have, as in the cases of the pious Hezekiah, son of the wicked Ahaz, and Josiah, son of Amen, who "sinned more and more," instances of ungodly parents having godly children. Now, how are these to be accounted for? Consider the sad case -

I. THAT GODLY PARENTS SHOULD HAVE UNGODLY CHILDREN. We are accustomed to assent to the possibility and frequency of this as an unquestionable truth. But is it so? We would ask two questions with a view to a better understanding of the matter.

1. Is it meant that godly parents who have been both able and anxious to train their children for God may yet have ungodly children?

(1) Some godly parents are not thus able. Probably Josiah was not. The might of evil, the fearful sweep and rush of its tide, was probably in those days, and in that court and city, too great for even the godly king to withstand, and it bore away his son before his eyes. For a prince in that age to be godly was almost a miracle. And that which we have suggested as perhaps and probably accounting for the ungodliness of Josiah's son may explain some similar cases now.

(2) But more are not really anxious about it. If parents were as anxious about the godliness of their children as they are about their health, education, and start in life, and took as much pains to secure it, such cases as we are considering would be more rare than they are.

(3) The children of believers ought not to need conversion. They should grow up in the kingdom of God in which their baptism declared them to be already members. But there is a deadly doctrine all too influential in thousands of Christian homes, that children must go into the far country first, and there live more or less prodigal-like, and then afterwards come to themselves, be converted, and return. And of course what is expected of such children happens, as far as the going away is concerned: not always the return. But why should they ever go into that far country? The elder son though, like Jonah and many a devout Jew (cf. Paul's "I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God," etc.), he was perplexed at the Father's gracious way of dealing with repentant sinners, was the elder Son still who had been ever obedient, and to whom the father said, "Son, thou art over with me, and all that I have is thine;" as much as to say, "Why do you complain of my treatment of your poor wretched brother? Yours is far the better lot; you are so much the happier that you assuredly ought not to complain." So did the lather "entreat him," and, no doubt, successfully. But from most mournful forgetfulness of the fact that there is no need that our children should go away, and that they ought not to go away, many parents let them go, or at least acquiesce in their going as something that is inevitable. Hence, as it is of no use to be anxious and guard against the inevitable, they take no such pains about their children's godliness as they do about those other more temporal matters which concern their welfare, and which they know do very largely depend upon the endeavors they, their parents, put forth. They cannot avoid desiring their children's highest good, and in family prayers and private ones it is remembered before God. But the energies of the will are never roused up to seek it as other and lesser things are sought. Would to God they were! Now, we say that if you have a case of real ungodliness in the children of the godly, it is to be accounted for by the fact that either the parents were not able or else not really anxious to train them for God. More often the latter is the sad truth.

2. But we ask, also - What is meant by ungodly? Do you mean those who for a while go astray, but afterwards come back? Of course, if the sin be like Manasseh's, very flagrant and long-continued, then, even though there may be the after coming back, as there was in his case, it must be allowed that such are ungodly. But that stern word should generally be reserved for a life wholly without God, and not be cast carelessly on those who, like so many of God's saints have done, may fall yet rise again; still less on children because of their natural thoughtlessness and incapacity of thinking seriously for a long time about anything. God forbid they should I But if the word "ungodly" Be confined, as it should be, to those whose lives are wholly or for the most part without God, then we affirm that such children do not spring from parents both able and really anxious to train them for God. To affirm that they are would be to contradict:

(1) God's word; e.g. "Train up a child... and when he is old he shall not depart from it;" "Ask, and ye shall receive;" and the many promises to answer prayer. Now, we know that the godliness of our children must be in accordance with the Divine will, therefore all these promises must be set aside if, etc. And St. Paul bids parents train their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;" and he never hints that such training may after all be thrown away. What was the constant baptism of households but an indication of the apostolic and primitive belief that, as a matter of course, in the faith of the father the children would share? The promise was to them and their children.

(2) Analogies. If there be real pains to train children in a given manner educationally, socially, morally - as there is on the part of parents - success is gained nearly always. And so it would be in things spiritual. There is no slight done to the truth of the Holy Spirit's agency in this great matter, but all that is urged is that we obey the laws of the Spirit.

(3) Facts. No instance can be shown where there has been real solicitude and opportunity on the part of the parents that their children should be godly, of such children having been permanently ungodly. There has not been permanent failure, though there may have been temporary. It would be horrible to believe that God had drawn forth the earnest yearning of the parent's heart for the salvation of their children - a yearning attested by all loving and consistent endeavor in the way of example, education, influence, direct and indirect - and yet, after all, such desire to be miserably and forever disappointed. We will not believe it. And, on the other hand, there are innumerable instances which show that it is the rule that godly parents should have godly children. Nearly all the godly today are the children of the godly. Instead of the fathers have risen up the children. Such is God's blessed order, and we should be slow to believe that he ever sets it aside. It is well for every father and mother to take it to heart that if their children turn out ungodly the fault is, in all probability, theirs. But now note the opposite case -

II. THAT UNGODLY PARENTS SHOULD HAVE GODLY CHILDREN. We have referred above to such cases. And they frequently occur. The chaff nourishes the wheat in its bosom. The ungodly home nurtures godly children. How is this?

1. Sometimes it is because ungodly parents are more careful than even others about the companionships of their children. They try to gain a good for their children which they know they have not for themselves. Many a bad parent wishes his child to be good.

2. Sometimes the children, seeing how wretched sin makes their home, are led to seek "a more excellent way' for themselves. The ways of godliness seem like paradise to the victim of the ungodliness of many a home. How Sunday school children - many of them from terrible homes - love their school!

3. God willing to show them that there is nothing too hard for the Lord. Can a man bring forth a clean thing out of an unclean? Certainly not. But God can, and in these instances does. And the reasons for such gracious action may be:

(1) Pity for the children.

(2) Instruction to his Church. They are to despair of none.

(3) The glory of his Name.

Hence he snatches these, trophies as it were, from the very gates of hell; plucks them as brands from the burning.

4. Conclusion. Let us give God thanks that he does this. That Amens have Josiahs for children; Ahaz, Hezekiah; Henry VIII., Edward VI. That from such a court as that of the previous reigns our own beloved queen should have come. God be praised for this and every such instance! - C.

Jehoiakim was king, and yet not one word of thanks do we find, nor one word of love, nor one word of regret expressed concerning his fate. We should learn from this how possible it is to pass through the world without leaving behind us one sacred or loving memory. He that seeketh his life shall lose it. A man that sacrifices daily to his own ambition, and never sets before himself a higher ideal than his own gratification, may appear to have much whilst he actually has nothing, may even appear to be winning great victories, when he is really undergoing disastrous defeats. What is a grand house if there be not in it a loving heart? What are walls but for the pictures that adorn them? What is life but for the trust which knits it into sympathetic unity? What is the night but for the stars that glitter in its darkness? There is an awful process of retrogression continually operating in life. Experienced men will tell us that the issue of life is one of two things: either advancement, or deterioration; continual improvement, or continual depreciation: we cannot remain just where we are, adding nothing, subtracting nothing, but realising a permanence of estate and faculty. The powers we do not use will fall into desuetude, and the abilities which might have made life easy may be so neglected as to become burdens too heavy to be carried. It lies within a man's power so to live that he may be buried with the burial of an ass: no mourners may surround his grave; no beneficiaries may recall his charities; no hidden hearts may conceal the tender story of his sympathy and helpfulness. A bitter sarcasm this, that a man should be buried like an ass!

(J. Parker, D. D.)