[1.] From what has been said concerning justification, as founded in Christ’s suretyship-righteousness, wrought out for us, by what was done and suffered by him, in his human nature; and the infinite value thereof, as depending on the glory of the divine nature, to which it is united, we cannot but infer the absurdity of two contrary opinions, namely, that of those who have asserted, that we are justified by the essential righteousness of Christ as God[57]; and that of others, who pretend, that because all mediatorial acts are performed by Christ only as man: therefore the infinite dignity of the divine nature, has no reference to their being satisfactory to divine justice. This is what they mean when they say, that we are justified by Christ’s righteousness as man, in opposition to our being justified by his essential righteousness as God[58]: whereas, I think, the truth lies in a _medium_ between both these extremes; on the one hand we must suppose, that Christ’s engagement to become a surety for us, and so stand in our room and stead, and thereby to pay the debt which we had contracted to the justice of God, could not be done in any other than the human nature; for the divine nature is not capable of being under a law, or fulfilling it, or, in any instance, of obeying, or suffering; and therefore, we cannot be justified by Christ’s essential righteousness, as God; and, on the other hand, what Christ did and suffered as man, would not have been sufficient for our justification, had it not had an infinite value put upon it, arising from the union of the nature that suffered with the divine nature, which is agreeable to the apostle’s expression, when he says, _God purchased the church with his own blood_, Acts, xx. 28. [2.] From what has been said, concerning the fruits and effects of justification, as by virtue hereof our sins are pardoned, and we made accepted in the beloved, we infer; that it is not only an unscriptural way of speaking, but has a tendency to overthrow the doctrine we have been maintaining, to assert, as some do, that God is only rendered reconcileable by what was done and suffered by Christ. This seems to be maintained by those who treat on this subject, with a different view. Some speak of God’s being rendered reconcileable by Christ’s righteousness that they might make way for what they have farther to advance, namely, that God’s being reconciled to a sinner, is the result of his own repentance, or the amendment of his life, whereby he makes his peace with him; which is to make repentance or reformation the matter of our justification, and substitute it in the room of Christ’s righteousness: therefore, they who speak of God’s being made reconcileable in this sense, by his blood, are so far from giving a true account of the doctrine of justification, that, in reality, they overthrow it.