why may not I For if the king

draw all men after him; and I, obey, to draw all men after me? dom of the Devil consisted in the one, the kingdom of God in the other. But why should Adam be so ambitious to draw all men after him? The antitype may yet serve, John xvii. 24, Father, I will that they also whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me.. So if Christ had not drawn all men after him, that they might be with him, they could never have seen the glory of his constituted body, nor the glory of his substituted headship. So Adam, had he not personally eaten, he might have died for the transgression of his body, but could not have made all men see the glory of his substituted headship, but he personally eating, has drawn all men after him, 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22, Rom. v, 12. This glory the Devil labors to observe, (2 Cor. iv. 4, Rom. v. 12 to the end) but both their glories will be manifest at the last day, for eternal life is but the glory of the one, and eternal death the glory of the other. So both these constituted heads were laid in the laps of their constituted bodies, which as Dalilah betrayed them both, so that how great soever Adam's glory. was, it was in the power of Eve to deface. Let me illustrate this of Adam and Christ with a figure, for they run parallel; I choose Sampson, who was a Nazarite; Dalilah presseth him hard or earnestly, to tell her wherein his strength lieth;

he

he tells her, that if they take ta bind him, with seven green withs, that were never dried, that be should be as another man, Judg. xvi. 7. The Hebrew has it, I should be as one, signifying, that as long as he kept his Nazarite's vow he was more than one; that is, had the strength of more than one; but this I observe, that he tells her just as many green withs as he had locks, and just as many new cords as he had locks, and he had just as many locks as powers of the soul, which is reason, understanding, knowledge, judgment, memory, will and power to express itself.

Now, could the Devil provided Adam's Dalilah or Christ's with any reflecting act for their per sonal sins, they might have been bound; I mean the powers of their human souls had been imperfect, for it is guilt that weakens the soul.

Secondly. Or, could the cords made or twisted or contracted by others, have bound them; I mean, had the imputation of the transgression of their Dalilah made any imperfection in their souls, they would have been unfit to have acted as pub. lic heads; for how could Adam sin in a proper sense, if the powers of his soul had not been perfect? Besides, he was not deceived, but sin must properly be a free choice of the free will. argument I offer, if Adam was not deceived, then all the powers of his soul must be perfect, but the former is true: therefore,

One

Thirdly.

Thirdly. The weaving or binding of his locks with the web could not bind him or disable him; I mean, that though the perfection of every power was required in the obedience of Adam and Christ, these powers remain in their perfection; in Christ's obedience there was the perfection of every power; so there must have been in Adam, not only in his obedience, but in his disobedience. For my part, I cannot see how his disobedience could be disobedience properly, without the perfection of his powers; nor can I see how all his powers could be corrupted and his will free; nor can I see how any of his powers could be impotent till he had eaten.

Some tell us, that God created the will of men and angels free, but did not uphold the goodness of the will.

First. Query; What was that goodness of the will? Was it some created power in Adam to uphold his will good, or incline his will to good? If so, then he must have lost that before his will was free to evil as to good, for his will could not be free, if it was naturally inclined to good or evil..

Secondly. Or, was it some power in God to uphold his will? I argue further, this power was either promised or not promised; if not promised, Adam could not plead it; if promised, God failed Adam in the fall.

Thirdly. I observe, he could not be bound until the Nazarite vow was broken, that is, tlll

his locks were cut, and that was Dalilah that did it too. How was this act of her's imputed to him? surely because he laid his head and committed himself in her lap; for had his locks been pulled or cut off by force, his strength could not have departed till his vow was broken. I have brought this only for an illustration.

Farther, I observe, that the distance of time between Eve's eating and Adam's eating, he is condemned by her transgression, though sinless in his own person, and she is perfectly righteous in Adam's obedience, though a sinner in herself. Just as Christ from the fall to his actual obeying, he was under the condemnation of his Eve's transgression, though perfect in himself, and she per. fectly righteous in his obedience, though a sinner in herself, or how were the Old Testament saints justified? But to return, what glory was that that Eve had ?

First. She could not be a sinner in a judicable sense if her husband was righteous.

Secondly. She could not be condemned if her husband was just.

Thirdly. She could not be seperated from her God, except he was seperated.

Fourthly. She could not die if he lived.

Fifthly. The whole creation could not be cursed to her, except he brought the curse upon

her.

Sixthly.

Sixthly. She was reputed righteous when he was a sinner.

Seventhly. She was righteous in a more glorious righteousness than her own.

Eighthly. She needed no act of her's to entitle

her to it.

Ninthly. She was the mother of all living. Tenthly. She had nothing to do but to admire. her creator and her husband.

Eleventhly. She was the glory of the man who is the image of God.

Twelfthly. She had the glory to have the head and lord of the whole creation laid in her lap; I mean she had the power on or over him, that angels and devils could not have.

Let us enquire how far the power of Eve extended over Adam; I. shall first speak negatively.

First. She had not the power that her obedience should be intermixed with his personal obedience, in any part of it.

Secondly. She had no power to make him personally unrighteous.

Thirdly. She had no power to help him to bear a part of the condemnation or death she had brought him under.

Fourthly. She had no power to know good or evil, Gen. iii. 6, 7.

Fifthly. She had no power to bring him under condemnation by any of her after acts.