The _cruelty_, _injustice_, and _impiety_, of shedding human blood in the sacrifices of the _Pagans_ is fully granted; but _reason_ cannot thence bring the smallest objections against the sacrifice of Christ. For how can reason be more disregarded, than in such an argument as this? The _Pagans_ were unjust, cruel, and impious, in offering human blood to their false gods; therefore the true God cannot receive any _human_ sacrifice, or allow any persons to die, as a punishment for sin. For, if no human sacrifice can be fit for God to receive, because human sacrifices, as parts of _Pagan_ worship, were unjust and impious; then it would follow, that the _mortality_, to which all mankind are appointed by God, must have the _same cruelty_ and _injustice_ in it. Now that _death_ is a punishment for sin, and that all mankind are by death offered as a _sacrifice_ for sin, is not only a doctrine of revealed religion, but the plain dictate of reason. But if reason must acknowledge the death of all mankind, as a sacrifice for sin, then it can have no just objection against the sacrifice of Christ, _because_ it was _human_. I need not take upon me to prove the _reasonableness_ of God’s procedure in the _mortality_ of mankind; revelation is not under any necessity of proving this; because it is no difficulty that arises from revelation, but equally belongs to natural religion; and both of them must acknowledge it to be reasonable; not because it can be proved to be so from the nature of things, but is to be believed to be so, by faith and piety. But if natural religion, will not suffer us to think it _inconsistent_ with the justice and goodness of God, to appoint all mankind victims to death on the account of sin, then _natural_ religion, can have no objection against the sacrifice of Christ, as it is an _human sacrifice_. And all that _revelation_ adds to _natural_ religion, on the point of _human_ sacrifice, is only this; the knowledge of _one_, that gives _merit and effect_, to all the rest. _Secondly_, It is objected, that the atonement made by Jesus Christ, represents God as punishing the _innocent_ and acquitting the _guilty_; or, as punishing the innocent _instead_ of the guilty. But this proceeds all upon mistake: for the atonement made by Jesus Christ, though it procures pardon for the guilty, yet it does not acquit them, or excuse them from any punishment, or suffering for sin, which _reason could impose upon them_. Natural religion calls men to repentance for their sins: the atonement made by Jesus Christ does not acquit them from it, or pardon them without it; but calls them to a _severer_ repentance, than natural religion alone prescribes. God therefore does not by this proceeding, shew his _dislike_ of the _innocent_ and his _approbation_ of the _wicked_.