but however, whether present or absent, he did not use his wisdom and power to uphold her; doubtless Christ was not far off when his Eve did eat, but did not use his power, but left her, being sufficient of herself. Now for the matter, Eve being in Adam when the law was given, as has been proved before, and so but one body; when Eve had eaten the flesh and bones, and body of Adam, had eaten, and transgressed, 1 Tim. 2. 14. and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression. The faction is hers, but the offence is the man's, Rom. 5. For the man and woman is but Adam, Gen. 5. 2. Therefore when she had eaten, Adam had sinned, and is under the sentence of death; but she was not till he had eaten, for there was no opening of eyes till he had eaten, Gen. 3. 7. And the eyes of both of them were opened. Neither was there any knowledge of their nakedness till then; neither was there any shame one of another till then, for there it appears the woman was guilty of bringing in death upon her head, because the Lord tells the serpent, that the seed of the woman shall bruise his head. Neither

was Adam guilty by a personal act of his own, yet he must have died for the transgression of Eve, by virtue of that Oneness she had with him, both by nature and fœderally, or covenant. Neither did the sin of the elect make Christ guilty by a personal act, but by virtue of oneness, both by nature and by fœderally, or covenant-compact. Neither could Eve's transgression make the posterity of Adam guilty, for she was not the head that belonged to Adam only, who was both her head and the head of all his posterity, but not in the same order or way;

for though Eve's faction was Adam's, yet if all the posterity of Adam had eaten, they could not have laid Adam nor themselves under a judicable sentence of death; for though Adam was head, both of his wife and his posterity, yet the relation was different; for though Adam's wife and his posterity was in him when the law was given, yet it was in a different constituted way; for Eve was not made of any superfluous member of Adam's body, but of a necessary part, and of so needful a part, that he was but a perfect man with it, and imperfect without it; therefore Adam and Eve was but one perfect man, neither before her being taken out of him, nor after; but his posterity or seed was the superAluities of nature, so he was a perfect man without posterity, or he could not have had none; so as Adam was a perfect man before he propagated, so was he a perfect man without them. The doctrine is this, that the seminal relation between Adam and his seed could not make their eating his, suppose they had eaten, nor his eating to be theirs.; neither indeed could their eating have brought themselves under that sentence, Thou shalt die. I propose, First, How their eating could not have ascended to Adam by generation.

Secondly, If Adam's acts was his posterity, because he begot them, and so by generation, how was Eve guilty that never was generated?

Thirdly, Why was not Adam's posterity guilty of all his other acts as well as of that?

Fourthly, If Adam's acts was theirs by generation, why are not his posterity guilty of all the acts of their immediate fathers?

Fifthly, If acts and habits be conveyed by generation, why are not all the acts of faith and grace in Adam and in our immediate fathers conveyed so? Sixthly, If their eating had laid them under that sentence of death, how was Adam a head?

Seventhly, If he was not a fœderal head, how are all his posterity born in sin?

Eightly, If his posterity be not born in sin, how doth all his posterity die in him, and many of them before they have acted sin in their own persons?

Till these things be answered, I conclude that the sin of Adam cannot be ours by natural relation, nor conveyed by generation, but by imputation; neither is there the same cause for his posterity's eating to have redounded upon him, as there was for his wife's eating. I shall offer but one argument, and that is this: If the man was not without the woman, nor the woman without the man, then the man could not receive the law without the woman, neither could the woman eat without the man; but the former is true. Egro, Gen. 1. 27. Gen. 2. 7. 1 Cor. 11. 11. If it be objected, that the husband cannot be guilty of the wife's fact, I answer, that there never was any husband and wife that had that relation that Adam and his wife (Christ only excepted:) for the mystery of Adam and his wife and Christ and his wife is so intermingled, that the mystery is so great, that it is inseparable, Eph. 5. 32. though distinguished; for Eve has such a near relation to Adam, both by nature and by covenant-constitution; that her transgression makes him guilty, and yet leaves him pure in his own person, which was more than all the sin of his posterity could have done; just as though the Lord would plainly

shew us, that when Adam fell, and all in him, that there was a part of mankind that was so nearly related to Christ both by nature and covenant-constitution, that their sin was reckoned or accounted his, 2 Cor. 5. 19. and yet left him pure from any personal act of sin. So as Eve was such a type of the church, that the mystery is inseparable; so is Adam and Christ so inseparable, that the one cannot be well seen without the other. From the premises the doctrine is this, that Adam and Christ are the two crowned heads of all mankind. I suppose the doctrine in general will not be denied, but perhaps when I shall go down into particulars, I question not, but the doctrine will be questioned enough, therefore let me prove the doctrine in general. At first, Psal. 8. 4. What is man? ver. 6. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works. of thy hauds, thou hast put all things under his feet, That this is spoken of Adam, appears from Gen. 1. 26. That this is also spoken of Christ, appears from Heb. 2. 6, 7, 8, 9. Now for Adam in particular, The doctrine is this, that Adam was crowned with glory and honour; this I suppose will go down too in general. But now let us enquire what glory and honour this was that he was crowned withal; he was crowned with the likeness of Christ, as has been proved before, and that to have all things subjected under him; but more particularly the doctrine is this:

First, That Adam had the glory of having the heavens and the earth committed to his will, whether they should stand or no; for this take Rom. 8. 20, 21, 22,

Secondly, He had the power to put all the whole creation in pain and travail, was not this a Glory?

Thirdly, He had the glory to have the life of every creature under the heavens subject to him.

Fourthly, Which was the greatest of all, he had the glory of having the life and death of his pos terity or mankind in his hands, to dispose of them at his will; he could kill, he could keep alive.

Fifthly, He had power to draw all men after him ; if he willed it he could draw them all to eternal life; if he willed he could draw them all to hell; if he willed he could make them all righteous, or he could make them all sinners; he had the keys of death and hell, and of life and glory; he opened and none did shut; and he shut and none did open. Now was not this glory indeed? and all this glory he had by virtue of a constituted head; but this is sufficiently proved before. But I argue thus; that if Adam's disobedience did make us sinners, and laid us under condemnation, and brought in death on all his posterity, then his obedience must have been imputed to us for righteousness, had he obeyed, or the covenant had not been reasonable or just. But it may be objected, how was it a righteous covenant, for all persons to be righteous or sinners by one man's righteousness or disobedience? I answer, that the righteousness of Adam must have been theirs also. For if the covenant had required any other obedience than his, it might have required more disobedience than his. Now if one man's disobedience has made them all sinners, then the covenant of life and death was made but with one man; but the former is true Rom. 5. 12, 13 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Now if the covenant was made but