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_.
For how can God be thought to punish our blessed Saviour out of _dislike_, if his sufferings are represented of such infinite merit with him? Or how can he shew thereby his _approbation_ of the guilty, whose repentance is not _acceptable_ to him, till recommended by the infinite merits of Jesus Christ?
As to the fitness of our Lord’s sufferings, as God and man; and the _nature_ and _degree_ of their worth; reason can no more enter into this matter, or _prove_ or _disprove_ any thing about it, than it can enter into the state of the whole creation, and shew, how it could, or could not, be in the whole, better than it is.
For you may as well ask any of your _senses_, as ask your _reason_ this principal question, _Whether any supernatural means be necessary for the atonement of the sins of mankind?_ Or, supposing it necessary, whether the _mediation_, _death_, and _intercession_ of Jesus Christ, as God and man, be that true supernatural means?
For as the fitness or unfitness of any _supernatural_ means, for the atonement of sin, must result from the _incomprehensible relation_ God bears to sinners, as it must have such _necessity_, and _dignity_, as this relation _requires_, it necessarily follows, that if God acts according to _this relation_, the _fitness_ of his actions cannot be according to our comprehension.
Again: Supposing some _supernatural means_ to be necessary, for destroying the guilt and power of sin; or that the _sufferings_, and _intercession_, of the Son of God incarnate, is that true supernatural means, it necessarily follows, that a revelation of such, or any other _supernatural_ means, cannot possibly be made obvious to our reason and senses, as the things of human life, or the transactions amongst men are; but can only be so revealed, as to become just occasions of our _faith_, _humility_, and _pious resignation_, to the divine wisdom and goodness.
For, to say that such a thing is _supernatural_, is only saying, that it is something, which, by the _necessary state_ of our own nature, we are as incapable of knowing, as we are incapable of seeing _spirits_.
If therefore supernatural things are by the letter of scripture ever revealed to us, they cannot be revealed to us as they are in their _own nature_: for if they could, such things would not be _supernatural_.
If an _angel_ could appear to us, as it is in its own nature, then we should be _naturally_ capable of seeing angels; but, because our nature is not _capable_ of such a sight; therefore, when _angels_ appear to men, they must appear, not as they are in themselves, but in some _human_ or _corporeal_ form.