self-indulgence of one man evil was entailed on others, by the self-denial and self-sacrifice of another, the evil was to be remedied. Here is seen the operation of a general law, in virtue of which every thing we do, whether good or evil, entails consequences, or sheds an influence upon others. We do not say, indeed, that the mediation contemplated in the first promise intended no more than that we have described. We only affirm, that as far as the doctrine of mediation was taught in the first promise, and under the Patriarchal economy, it was based on a general law, and found its analogies in the family constitution. As if to call attention to the coincidence between the two, the Deliverer was to be born of "the seed of the woman;" a law of the family was to be made subservient to the law of moral mediation in its highest form. And as faith in parental character and testimony is essential to filial obedience and well-being, so the belief of this promise was indispensable to a participation of the blessings flowing from its fulfillment. The degree in which the child confides in his parent is the degree or measure in which he is likely to be benefited by him; just as the degree in which our first parents confided in the Divine promise was the index and measure of the advantage they would derive from it. Divine revela This brings us to another important point tion and parental of analogy-the fact that the first promise, on instruction. the belief of which man's well-being was suspended, was a direct revelation from God. Now, not only was there nothing, at that time, in the family organization to contradict the probability of such a method of communication, but much that was analogous to support it. God had taught his new-made creatures many other things which were essential to their welfare directly and person ally, and had, so far, made this the natural method of disclosing certain facts; and their direct disclosure of facts to their children was but in harmony with this method of Divine teaching. The one was not, at that time, more remarkable than the other; for, as far as man was concerned, they both were new; nor had he an established course of nature by which to judge of the probability of the continuance or discontinuance of the one any more than of the other. Not only do many of the parental disclosures come to the children with all the directness of a revelation, but, at the time they are made, and for years afterward, the children do not know whether such disclosures are made in harmony with a course of nature or not. All that they feel is, that the being making them is their father; and, in their fullness of their confidence, they are prepared to believe alike a human discovery and a Divine revelation. As the Creator had directly imparted to our first parents. knowledge relating both to their temporal and eternal welfare, their parental relation devolved on them the duty of teaching their children the same truths in the same man ner. The relation of But how did such direct divine communiwill to will. cations consist with the free agency of the creature receiving them? In the preceding volume, we saw that the introduction and co-existence of a second will was at once the problem and glory of the universe. Here, we see that will beginning to find itself surrounded by the indications of a plan. These indications, indeed, have since been constantly multiplying; indications that man is in the midst of a progressive and all-related scheme. Even the first promise, containing, as it did, the germ or primary outline of Divine revelation, bears, in this respect, a strik ing analogy to the first outlines of either of the kingdoms of nature as geologically brought to light. But even at the beginning, man found himself within the limits of an all-encompassing plan. The same Being who had chosen the dimensions of the world he should inhabit, and the number and variety of the objects it should contain, and who had thus set a limit to the materials of his knowledge, now intimated that, as a moral being, he was the subject of government; and a government supposes order, subordination, and the operation of laws. The promise of a Deliverer, too, implied foresight, providence, and the existence of a forelaid scheme of mercy, of which his future acts will be the filling up. Now, if man is thus placed within the sphere of the activity of another will, how, it might be asked, can he assert the liberty of his own will? With the discussion of this question we have not now to do, but only with its analogy. The family constitution is strikingly parallel. The mystery is repeated in the coincidence of the wills of the husband and wife. For while their individuality forbids and prevents the loss of the personality of either-and that personality lies in the voluntary part of their nature-their happiness depends on the harmony, of their separate wills, and is in proportion to it. The mystery is repeated in the freedom yet coincidence of the parent and child. The parental plan or purpose related to the child before it came into the world; and, as such, continues to influence its movements, directly or indirectly, from infancy to old age. But who thinks of questioning its accountability on that ground? Conscious of moral freedom, the child never ceases to assume that he enjoys it, and to act accordingly; while, at the same time, he finds that freedom in the very act of conforming himself to wise parental law. Thus, the very mysteries of the Divine government are analogically repeated in the mysteries of the family government. The family a al government. Reminding us, in conclusion, that the fampart of God's mor- ily constitution is in analogy with the moral government of God, as being a part of it and in subserviency to it. "Framed for this brief and transitory, yet all-important, state of existence, and to expire with the last generation of human beings, still it points to what is permanent and unchangeable. In its constitution, as far as we can penetrate, it displays the nearest approach to the Divine government, and, unquestionably, it bears this resemblance, with an immediate view to the best interests of that government. As man himself was originally created in the image of God, so it would seem, in the depth of his condescension, He intended to place him at the head of a government, the shade or similitude of His own."* And as, in the Divine government, the glory of God is coincident with the well-being of the creature, so in the family, the honor of the parent and the welfare of the child are coincident. So that the highest interest of the child, the highest honor of the parent, and the highest glory of God are coincident. * Anderson on the Genius and Design of the Domestic Constitution, etc.; Part i. § 8. SECOND PART. CHAPTER XVII. THE LAW OF CHANGE; OR, HISTORY OF THE PROBATION OF THE FAMILY. Grounds for ex pecting the end of the family proba tion. NUMEROUS grounds existed for expecting that, sooner or later, the family dispensation would be succeeded by another. If, for example, the attainment of the great end of the Divine manifestation be in its very nature progressive, this is only saying that the process must ever be kept open to receive the addition of new effects or of extended revelations. Accordingly, this patriarchal stage itself is a superinduction on preceding stages. And as we could not have contemplated the display of the Divine power without being prepared by it for the coming illustrations of wisdom; nor of wisdom without feeling that we were as yet standing only on the threshold of the great process; so now, in the moral department, we could not have comprehended the constitution and condition of man in Paradise, as illustrative of the holy character and government of God; nor the new dispensation of mercy which succeeded his fall, and which continued to be administered age after age, notwithstanding his perseverance in transgression, without |