But now to remove this scandal, let us consider that many of these things are not so contrary to the reason of men as some think: As for the satisfaction made for our sins by the sufferings of Christ, did not almost all the heathen world suppose that God would not pardon sin without satisfaction? What else mean all their bloody sacrifices? And why did they sometimes proceed so far as to murder men, and offer them to God for their sins? I confess indeed, that many of the philosophers and learned men amongst them, who derided the gospel of Christ, did also despise the sacrifices and religious ceremonies of their own countrymen, believing that God would be merciful to men that were penitent and pious, without any rites of atonement and sacrifice. But it is as evident also, that the people had a general notion of the necessity of some atonement for sin, and that the more valuable the sacrifice was, the sooner was their god appeased, and the benefit procured would be more extensive, howsoever the philosophers might ridicule it. It is manifest then, that many of the heathens did imagine that the death and sufferings of one person would procure pardon and immunities for a whole multitude. And upon this principle some of the ancient Romans, now and then, out of nobility of spirit, devoted themselves to death, to appease the anger of the gods, for their whole country. Thus it appears, that the business of satisfaction for sin, and the doctrine of expiation and atonement by the blood and death of a surety, was not so utterly unknown in the world. I add farther, that the notion of one person’s making satisfaction for the crime of another in human and political affairs, has been sometimes practised, and thought to be very intelligible; and why should it be counted so very monstrous and absurd in things divine? Do we understand what it is for one man to become a surety for another, or for a criminal to be set free from punishment by the voluntary substitution of another person in his stead? Are we not well acquainted what it is for one man to pay the debt of another, and the original person that was obliged thereby, to become free? Do we not know what it is for a whole family of children to inherit a possession for many ages, one after another, for some noble acts and services of their father? Therefore honour, and glory, and happiness, bestowed upon a multitude, for the sake of what one man has done, is not so unintelligible a thing as some men would persuade us. Why should that be esteemed impossible in the affair of religion, which is evident and plainly practicable in the affairs of this world?