by a positive precept, which in and of itself was of no importance, but as it was a command of the Creator, it was allimportant that the mandate should be strictly obeyed. The prohibition contained in Gen. ii. 17, the man is only here represented to be prohibited from eating of the tree. The prohibition is related previous to the woman's creation. We have already shown, that the order of events are not preserved in the second chapter. For Adam to be constituted a representative of posterity, when he was a solitary individual, and always to remain so, for any thing he knew, would be an anomaly. The plan of creation was not consummated until woman was created. By God's ordinance the mother has as good a right to the child as the father, 1 Sam. i. 28; 1 Corin. vii. 14; and for Adam to have the exclusive right of representation, would say that the mother had no authority, or right in the child. We know it is said, "for one man's disobedience many were made sinners," Rom. v. 19. They were but one as far as posterity was concerned, and were both called Adam, or red earth, Gen. v. 2. In Hosea vi. 7, it is said, "like men they have transgressed the covenant," or as the margin, "like Adam."

The Lord Jesus Christ, who represents the spiritual seed, is one person with two natures; Adam and Eve were two persons with one nature, and represented their natural posterity. Now it is manifest, that Adam and Eve were adjuncts in the covenant, as far as posterity was concerned, as posterity suffers on their account. But as far as they were individually concerned, each one suffered for his or her own crimes;-Adam never suffered for Eve, nor Eve for Adam; they both suffered for their respective sins, as far as mere human suffering was concerned. If Eve was no party in the covenant, as some would have it, we cannot see how her posterity is to be punished, on her account, nay, even some who are classed among the "orthodox," say that Adam represented Eve, denying her even moral agency. We wonder on what principle such people can admit mothers to devote their children to the Lord in baptism, even without the cooperation of their husbands. But the sequel amply demonstrates, that she was a moral agent. The Apostle settles the matter; he says, "The woman was in the transgression," 1 Tim. ii. 14; and also, "Where no law is, there is no trans

gression," Rom. iv. 15. Man's representation was so poorly conducted, that there is no honour resulting from the transaction. But we do not wish to shield woman from merited censure. Through the subtlety of the serpent the woman was beguiled, 2 Corin. xi. 3, and she did eat of the prohibited tree, Gen. iii. 6:) as soon as she broke the Divine command, she became a sinner, which manifested itself in the overt act of seduction-"she gave also to her husband, and he did eat;” which amply demonstrated that her standing was not in Adam. Their eyes were opened to their calamitous situation-their communion with their Creator was intercepted, and they vainly attempted to hide themselves from the all-seeing God, whose favour they had forfeited, and whose indignation they feared. The Almighty called to them both, under the name of Adam, and which of the two first answered, is not apparent. To the twelfth verse, and, the man said, "the woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of before the tribunal of Jehovah, and both pleaded guilty to the the tree, and I did eat." The culprits were then arraigned charge of eating the forbidden fruit; and thus was sin introduced with all its direful consequences. Unhallowed lust for dominion, and the strong oppressing the weak, are not amongst the least of its calamitous train of evils. The woman lays the blame on the serpent, and Adam lays the blame on his wife, or rather on her Maker, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me." Neither of the pleas were received, as even a palliation of their crime.

Mr. Henry, when commenting on Gen. iii. 12, brings a grave charge against Adam. He says, that "Adam should have taught his wife, and not be taught by her." This is in anticipation of the theological doctorate, 1 Cor. xiv. 35. So we see Adam is charged with a sin of omission, in not teaching his wife before he had eaten the forbidden fruit; but any thing to represent Eve as a mere machine in the hand of Adam.

We have already said, that Adam and Eve were arraigned before the tribunal of Jehovah, and pleaded guilty to the charge preferred against them. The Almighty pronounces sentence against the transgressors, and begins with the serpent, Gen. iii. 14, 15, a part of which was, "I will put enmity between thee and the woman."

And most literally has this prediction

been fulfilled. He has manifested his enmity to the woman literally, and her seed. He has a peculiar hatred to his first victim. Wherever the prince of darkness sits brooding over any land, there women are immolated on Moloch's altars, as women's tears, and groans, and blood, are acceptable offerings to this horrible monster. And in proportion as any country advances in moral and intellectual improvement, in the same ratio does woman approximate to an equality with man. But the serpent's malignity is to recoil on his own head; the sentence to him is one of degradation and final vanquishment, but to Adam and Eve a promise of the blessed recovery of mankind from the calamitous situation into which they had plunged themselves, and of which recovery the woman was to be an honoured instrument. Her blessed Seed was finally to triumph over this fell destroyer, which was calculated to act as an exhilarating balsam on their dejected spirits. God's purposes were not to be frustrated by the machinations of this malignant enemy, though by his subtlety he deceived the woman; still it was true, that it was "not good for man to be alone." She continued to be "a help-meet for man," and God would have a seed of mankind to serve him; and after their pilgrimage was ended on earth, to dwell with him for ever in heaven.

God next pronounces sentence on the woman, verse 16, and then on Adam, verses 17-19. The Almighty informs the woman, that as one of the fruits of her disobedience, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee," or as the margin reads, subject to her husband. Her family cares and sorrows ("in sorrow shalt thou bring forth,") would render her subject to him for her temporal nourishment, which, together with his superior physical strength, would be powerful engines in his hands for oppression. Now this is evidently no command to Adam to rule his wife, for it was a declaration given to Eve. Whenever the Almighty invests any with authority, he gives the commission into their own hand, with an injunction to exercise it, and directions how it is to be exercised, which is not the case here. This is nothing else but a prophecy, and most literally and universally has it been fulfilled, with few exceptions, during all ages, both in barbarous and civilized countries to the present era. Thus stands woman, a being ruled in the fami

ly, in the church, and in the state, all based on the supposed authority of the husband. It is certainly a fact which cannot be successfully contradicted, that more sighs and groans have ascended to the God of the oppressed from this source, than from all other inflictions by man in cumulo.

The page of history teems with woman's wrongs, and is wet with woman's tears. The following affecting anecdote may give some idea of the sufferings of woman among the aborigines of America, and is a true picture of her treatment in almost all barbarous countries. "Father Joseph reproved a female savage for destroying her infant daughter. She replied, 'I wish my mother had thus prevented the manifold sufferings I have endured. Consider, father, our deplorable condition. Our husbands go out to hunt; we are dragged along with one infant at the breast and another in a basket. Though tired with much walking, we are not allowed to sleep when we return, but must labour all night in grinding maize and chica for them. They get drunk and beat us, draw us about by the hair of the head, and tread us under foot. Would to God my mother had put me under ground the moment I was born!"" Though women in civilized society are generally not over-burdened with labour, yet they are always reminded, that household duties are their sphere of action-some kind of bodily labour. And it seems as if there had been a league formed to crush the immortal mind of woman; she is divested of a great portion of her natural and inalienable rights, and woman is still a degraded and subordinate being.

The universality of the exercise of this rule is sufficient, of itself, to demonstrate that it is not a command of God, but a prophecy, the fulfilment of which is a convincing proof of the authenticity of Divine revelation. And it may be said as a general rule, that the more meek and heavenly-minded any man becomes, the less he exercises this rule over his wife, as he considers her a being capable of willing and ruling herself, and his heart does safely trust in her, knowing that she was appointed by God as his associate in the government. And is it not also true as a general rule, that the more wicked and carnally minded any man is, the more scrupulous regard he has to the will of God in ruling his wife? Now, we know, "the carnal mind is enmity against

God, and is not subject to his law." It is not very hard to discover from whence this rule proceeds. If it is a command of God, that a man is to exercise this rule over his wife, it is imperatively his duty to do so; and the end of the rule ought to be specially taken into view, which in this case is penal. He must rule in such a manner as to make it felt as a penalty; and it would be a burlesque on authority to say he had not the necessary means of coercion, which is very different from what the Apostle speaks of, "loving, nourishing and cherishing her, as the Lord the church." Christ does not inflict any of the penalties of the broken covenant on the church, for he bore them in his own body on the tree.

We have been gravely told, "that it was a great mercy that it was to her husband that woman was made subject, and not to a stranger." The Psalmist had a different opinion; he said, "For it was not an enemy that reproached me, then I could have borne it; neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me," Ps. lv. 12, 14. As far as God's providence is concerned, he certainly is merciful, as well as just; and we thank God that women are not the oppressors. We have also been told, that as it is a Divine penalty, it should be meekly borne, and not endeavour to thwart a Divine sentence. It is certainly lawful to say, "Deliver me from the oppression of man,"-"Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me." On parity of reasoning, our brethren should use no effort in removing thorns and thistles, but cultivate them, lest they would subvert a Divine penalty-should always "eat their own bread in the sweat of their face," and they should not use any means to prolong life, as death is a penalty of the broken

covenant.

Now, if Adam had a commission to rule his wife, then Cain had a commission to rule over Abel, for the identical words are made use of. We think, it would be a great mitigation of Cain's crime, if this was the case. Perhaps Abel was not sufficiently submissive to Cain, when talking together in the field; and as Cain was set in authority, he might consider himself authorized to enforce it by coercion, as it would be rather a burlesque on authority not to have the requisite means to enforce it. But we do not think that Cain was invested with any authority over Abel, as Adam