His power, his wisdom, and his goodness, are superior to the united power, wisdom, and goodness of all created beings. He stands, therefore, supreme among all the intelligent creation, in respect to the most essential qualifications of a lawgiver. And this supremacy alone is sufficient to invest him with legislative authority, and place him at the head of the universe. But his propriety in his creatures, as well as his supremacy over them, constitutes him their rightful lawgiver. The Creator is the absolute owner of his creatures;the act of creation gives him a better right to them than they have to themselves. And since God is the Creator of all moral beings in the universe, he has an original, and absolute right to command them in all cases whatsoever. He is possessed of all the powers and qualifications of the most perfect lawgiver; and these powers. and qualifications being original and independent, necessarily place him on the throne of the universe, and clothe him with the highest possible authority, to give law to all his creatures, who are capable of moral government.

I now proceed,

ures.

II. To show what is implied in his right to command his creatAnd here it is plain, that his right to command them implies his absolute authority to govern their wills by his own. It is the prerogative of every lawgiver, to make his will the rule of duty to all his subjects. The civil lawgiver has authority to make his will the rule of duty to all who belong to his jurisdiction. The military lawgiver has authority to make his will the rule of duty to all under his command. The parental lawgiver has authority to make his will the rule of duty to all his children, in minority. So God, the universal supreme lawgiver, has authority to make his will the rule of duty to the whole circle of created beings. His authority as lawgiver, is limited by nothing but the eternal rule of right. His authority cannot make that right, which is in its own nature wrong; nor that wrong, which is in its own nature right. But, in regard to all other things, he has authority to make his will the rule of duty to all the subjects in his vast dominions. And this is the highest authority conceivable. It is not possible that the authority of any Jawgiver should be more absolute, than to control the wills of all other beings by his own, or to make his will the infallible rule of their duty.

But here a question may arise, how God exercises this authority; or in other words, how he makes his will a law or rule of duty to his subjects? By the will of God here we are to understand his pleasure, or the feelings of his heart. Will is sometimes used in a larger sense, as comprising the intention, design or determination of an agent, as well as his pleasure. But a lawgiver has a right to keep his purposes and designs within his own breast; these therefore need not be expressed in giving law to subjects. The lawgiv- er may, indeed, if he pleasures, reveal his designs and determinations; but this is not necessary in order to make his will a law or necessity. God, the supreme lawgiver has feelings of heart respecting the conduct of his moral subjects. Some things he chooses

they should do, and some things he chooses they should not do.The things he chooses they should do are agreeable to his will or pleasure; and the things he chooses they should not do are disagreeable to his will or pleasure. And it is this inward will, or pleasure, or feeling of heart, and not his purpose or design, which must be manifested, in order to give law to his creatures. For, so long as his will or pleasure lies in his own breast, it can be no law or rule of duty to any of his creatures. He must manifest his will, therefore, before it can become a law, or binding upon the conscience of a moral agent. It is not material in what manner God manifests his will to mankind. He may manifest it by his own voice, as he did to Israel at Mount Sinai; or by the voice of prophets sent in his name; or by writing, as human lawgivers do, and as he has done in the scriptures of truth. But in some way or other he must make his creatures know his will, before it can have the force of law, or become a rule of duty. And when he has done this, he has done all that is necessary to make his will a law to govern theirs. For, as soon as he makes them know what conduct in them will be pleasing to him, they are bound to conduct according to his pleasure; and as soon as he makes them know what conduct will be displeasing to him, they are bound to refrain from it. The manifestation of his pleasure constitutes the precept of every law; and the manifestation of his displeasure constitutes the penalty of every law.

We are now to consider,

III. What is implied in God's commanding his creatures to love him perfectly. It appears from what has been said, under the last head, that God's commanding his subjects, essentially consists in manifesting his will to them. And this leads me to observe,

1. That God's commanding mankind to love him perfectly, implies his making them know, that it is his will, simply considered, that they should love him. This is the import of his saying in the text, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart."By this he manifests, that it is really pleasing to him, to have his reasonable creatures love him, and in particular those to whom he manifests this to be his pleasure. The words of our text were primarily addressed to his peculiar people. "Hear, O Israel, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart." This was as much as to say to all Israel, that it would be really pleasing to him, if every one of that nation would love him supremely. He did not mean by the command, that they should all love him supremely, or that he intended to make them all love him supremely, or that it would, all things considered, be agreeable to him, that such an event should take place. He only meant to let them know his feelings with respect to their loving him He meant to tell them, that he always loved those, who loved him; or that he should always be pleased by being beloved by his peculiar people, and by all his reasonable creatures. When God commanded Abraham to offer up his son, he did no more than to make Abraham know, that such an act of love and submission would, in its own nature, be pleasing to him; and, therefore, as soon as Abraham manifested that he was

willing to perform the self-denying deed, he commanded him to forbear striking the fatal stroke. When God commanded Moses to go to Pharaoh, and deliver his people, he only manifested his will that he should go; or made him know, that his performing that great and arduous work would be pleasing to him. So when God commads all men to love him with all the heart, he makes them know that their love, simply considered, will be pleasing to his heart, not that he intends that they shall all love him, or that he desires, a chips considered, that the love he requires should actually exist. o's commanding men to love him perfectly, implies his manifestin, his pleasure, that they should love him as much as possible. T love of creatures toward their Creator is measured by their caparity of loving, and not by his worthiness of love. When created begs love God to the ext ut of their capacity, they love him to pe fection; and when they love him to perfection, he is perfectly pleased with them. He commands his creatures to love him perfectly, when he gives them to know that they will give him pleasure by loving him to the foll extent of their natural powers. The precest in the text, therefore, requires every one to love him perfectly. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Here God requires every one to love him perfectly, but not equally. He makes every person's capacity the measure of his duty. If one has a larger capacity than another, he requires one to love him more than another.— And so he that has the least capacity, may love him as perfectly as he who has the greatest, and as completely fulfil his duty. But then it is proper to inquire what is implied in men's loving God perfectly, or to the extent of their capacity. And this must certainly imply,

1. Their loving God constantly. For, if they are capable of loving God at all, they are capable of loving him always. Or at least, they are capable of loving every moment, in which they are capable of exercising any affection towards him. And this is what is expressly required in the law of perfection. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart" The heart comprizes all the moral exercises of the man; and when all these are uniformly and constantly benevolent, he fulfils the law, or loves God with all his heart. He is as perfect in holiness, as the sinner is in sin.He is totally sinful, because every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil, and only evil continually." When all the exercises of the heart are selfish, the man is perfectly sinful; but when all the exercises of the heart are benevolent, the man is perfectly holy. And all men are as capable of constantly exercising holy affections. as they are of constantly exercising sinful affections.Hence God's requiring men to love him perfectly, necessarily implies his requiring them to love him constantly.

2. Men's loving God perfectly, implies their loving him to the extent of their intellectual powers. These are distinct from the heart and form no part of duty, but are the measure of it. This is agreeable to the phraseology in the text. "Thou shalt love the Lord

thy God with all thine heart;" that is, constantly; "and with all thy soul;" that is, with all thy rational powers. The soul here, in distinction from the heart, must mean not the whole mind, but only the intellectual part of it. Some men know much more of God than others, and have much more extensive views of his works of creation, providence, and redemption. They see a vast deal more in God, which is truly amiable, than others do, who have less capacities and less opportunities of knowing God. And the law of perfection requires those who know most to love most; or it requires every one to love every perfection, every design, and work, and every precept of God, so far as he understands it, at the time being. For mens' knowledge of God is continually varying. They know more of God, at one period of their lives, than at another, and they attend more to what they do know of God at one time than at another. Their perfect knowledge, however, is the measure of their perfect duty. They are to love God at all times, to the extent of their actual perfect knowledge of his character, designs and works. To this I must add,

1. That mens' loving God perfectly implies their loving him to as great a degree, as their mental and bodily powers will admit. This measure of duty is pointed out in the text "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." The vigor, the height, or intenseness of the moral exercises in every person, bear some proportion to the strength and vigor of his mental and bodily powers. A man of strong mind, or great capacity, will commonly have stronger affections than one of weak mind or small capacity. But the man of a strong mind may have a weak body, as his body may be indisposed, and in that case, the strength of his affections may be greatly diminished. A sick man is often incapable of putting forth any strong, vigorous, ardent affections. Here then the law of affection is adapted to the mental and bodily powers of men, and requires them to love God to as great a degree as their mental and bodily powers will admit. In a word, God's requiring men to love him perfectly, implies his letting them know that he shall be pleased with nothing short of their loving him as constantly, as exiensively, and as ardently, as possible. But his barely letting them know that this will be pleasing to him, does make his pleasure a law, binding them to obedience.Therefore there is something more absolutely implied in his commanding men to love him perfectly. And that is,

2. lis letting them know that he shall be displeased, if they do not love him as much as possible. There can be no law without a threatening. And the threatening of any law consists in the expression of displeasure against the transgressor. The threatening of a living law may be expressed, merely by the tone of the voice. Where a parent says to the child, you shall, or you shall not do such a thing, his will is clothed with all his authority, or with all his power to punish the disobedient child. When God said to every Israelite, thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, mis will was clothed with all his authority and became a law or rule of

duty. A reward was understood in case of obedience, and a punishment in case of disobedience. But it was not necessary that God should say how he would reward obedience, or punish disobedience. A parent may command a child without expressly saying a word about rewarding him for obedience, or punishing him for disobedience. But when he speaks authoratively he always expresses a disposition to punish if he be not obeyed. So God's commanding men to love him perfectly, necessarily expresses his disposition to punish them if they refuse to obey his will. But sometimes God expressly tells his creatures what punishment he will inflict upon them in case they disobey his command. Thus he told Adam, that if he disobeyed "he should surely die." And though he did not tell the Israelites in the text, what punishment he would inflict upon them for breaking his moral law, yet in other places he told them not only that he would punish them, but what punishment he would inflict upon them. In one place he told them, "Cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them, and all the people shall say, Amen.” In other places, he has mentioned a long catalogue of awful judgments which he would bring upon his people if they disobeyed his law of love. These threatenings either expressed or understood, were absolutely necessary to give force, authority and obligation to law, requiring them to love him perfectly. And they actually did clothe his precept in the text, with all the weight of his great and glorious perfections. They had reason to expect that if they disobeyed, the Lord their God would be against them, and sooner or later, employ all his power and justice to make them completely wretched. And the same law, which is still in force is still clothed with the same awful sanction, the displeasure of the supreme lawgiver of the universe. Death, eternal death, is still the wages of sin, and will be inflicted upon the finally disobedient.

HEADS OF IMPROVEMENT.

1. It appears from what has been said concerning God's requiring men to love him perfectly, that he does not pledge his veracity in -the penalty of any law. In the precept, he expresses his pleasure, and in the penalty, he expresses his displeasure.-He does not, either in the precept or penalty, declare that it is his design or intention, that the presept shall be obeyed-or that the penalty shall be inflicted. Hence in the threatening to Adam, he did not pledge his veracity that he would execute the threatening. Had he done this, there would have been no room for a Savior. And if the penalty of the law of love pledges the divine veracity there can be no forgivness under the gospel. For the law is still binding in its full force. It was not the opinion of the Assembly of Divines, that the penalty of the law pledges the veracity of God to execute it; for they say that men by nature "are liable to all the miseries of this life, to death itself, and the pains of hell forever." But if God pledges his veracity in the law of love, all men must inevitably perish forever. 2. It appears from what has been said, that the moral law has a penally. This is denied by some. But it is certain, that the