A discourse of the true nature of the Gospel demonstrating that it is no…

But it will be objected, Repentance supposeth the Person to have sinned, and therefore a Precept of it to Adam in his Uprightness was altogether needless. No not at all, for a Precept to oblige Man to what is due and just, is necessary for him in every Condition; and nothing can be more due than to acknowledge a Wrong done: And what is Repentance, but an hearty owning ⟨p. 53⟩and lamenting the highest Injury offered to God by our Sins? And besides, God in making a Law, gave such a perfect Rule as was sufficient to bind Man to his Duty in all Circumstances of his Case; and therefore it was not only modelled to oblige him to perfect Obedience, but to engage him to repent when he had failed of his Duty.

But it will be objected, Repentance supposeth the Person to have sinn'd, and therefore a Precept of it to Adam in his Uprightness was altogether needless. No not at all, for a Precept to oblige Man to what is due and just, is necessary for him in every Condition; and nothing can be more due than to acknowledg a Wrong done: And what is Repentance, but an hearty owning ⟨p. 53⟩and lamenting the highest Injury offer'd to God by our Sins? And besides, God in making a Law, gave such a perfect Rule as was sufficient to bind Man to his Duty in all Circumstances of his Case; and therefore it was not only modell'd to oblige him to perfect Obedience, but to ingage him to repent when he had fail'd of his Duty.

Well, but some may argue against what I before said concerning Faith's being a Precept of the Original Law given to Adam, that tho it is true, that Faith in God is required in the first Commandment, yet there is no Faith in a Redeemer expressed. What then? It is yet plainly implied, since this our Redeemer is God, and therefore a general Command to trust on God at all Times, and according to the various Necessities of our State, must include a Precept to believe on Christ the Redeemer, when the sad State of our Case doth require it.