Nay, and in respect of God himself, it must needs appear to be wholly of Grace; could Redemption of Man add any thing to the essential Glory of God? Did he stand in need of Man to make him more happy or glorious in himself, who being an independent Being, had been eternally happy in the Enjoyment of himself, had Man never been made, or had he left him under Wrath and Misery? Or was he obliged to save us, and that he might do it, to send his own Son to die, and be made a Curse for us? Or could he not have created other Creatures to have showed forth his glorious Perfections? Or why might he not have sent his Son to have taken hold of the Nature of Angels to have redeemed them, (who were his Creatures as well as fallen Man, and more glorious too than Man before they fell) and let Man have perished for ever, and not have entered into such a Covenant of Grace with his own Son on his Behalf?
Nay, and in respect of God himself, it must needs appear to be wholly of Grace; could Redemption of Man add any thing to the essential Glory of God? Did he stand in need of Man to make him more happy or glorious in himself, who being an independent Being, had been eternally happy in the Injoyment of himself, had Man never been made, or had he left him under Wrath and Misery? Or was he obliged to save us, and that he might do it, to send his own Son to die, and be made a Curse for us? Or could he not have created other Creatures to have shewed forth his glorious Perfections? Or why might he not have sent his Son to have taken hold of the Nature of Angels to have redeemed them, (who were his Creatures as well as fallen Man, and more glorious too than Man before they fell) and let Man have perished for ever, and not have entred into such a Covenant of Grace with his own Son on his Behalf?