The principle in which the plan of our salvation had its origin in the counsel of God, was “mercy.”–Mercy, we may view as an extension of the sentiment of love. Divine love, strictly defined, may be regarded as goodness towards beings who are not unworthy, as the pure angels, and man in the state of innocence. Mercy, is goodness towards those who are unworthy, yet capable of being reclaimed, as men in their fallen condition. Mercy, therefore, is more than love; or rather, it is the highest act and exercise of love in its larger sense. It was love, that prompted the Deity to become a Creator, to form other beings than himself, that this benign sentiment might have an opportunity of acting, that there might be creatures for the divine love to embrace. It was “mercy,” that provided a rescue for the human family of these creatures when fallen; when, without this rescue through Christ crucified, they would have been without God, and without hope.
And, do we not, in this view, perceive that the salvation devised for us by the Godhead, was wholly free? Yes, survey the matter in any light, and you will see that nothing in man could have contributed to the grant of saving “mercy” graciously provided for him. In the first place, salvation was devised for man before he existed, the Lamb was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world. And those who had not yet their being, could contribute as little to their own redemption, as to their own creation. In the next place, the very fact of our having fallen, precludes the possibility of any excellence foreseen in us, having had a share in procuring the scheme of grace. For, if men could, by anticipation on the part of God’s prescience, have offered a meritorious consideration towards the providing of mercy for them after sinning, they could have offered more to prevent their sinfulness, and secure themselves against the need of mercy. Man surely could contribute more, while yet innocent, to avert the approach of that tempter who brought sin into the world, than he could to move God to provide a pardon after sin had made him depraved. But we can claim no merit in either of these respects; we had not that in us, at first, which could have us spared the trial under which our nature fell; much less, when fallen, have we aught in us, which, being fore-known, could avail in bringing us restoration. In the last place, what could be thus foreseen in man, that would entitle him to the favour of God, or his forbearance? Perfect obedience is impossible, in our present state. Imperfect obedience, does not satisfy the law of God; much less can it buy off the just sentence of that law. It was imperfection, or failure in duty, that banished man from paradise; and surely, imperfection and failure, could contribute nothing towards procuring the salvation which brings him the higher privilege, of the paradise of God.
Is it not, then, infallibly true, that, in the counsel of the Godhead, which provided “mercy” for fallen man, no claim whatever, on the part of man, was anticipated? It was a counsel of mere, and pure love, and of higher love, than that which moved the Almighty to bring man into being.