This observation is entirely inconsistent with the supposition upon which the reasoning stands.  The Gentleman has all along supposed the resurrection to have been managed by fraud, and not by violence.  And indeed violence, if there had been an opportunity of using it, would have been insignificant:  beating the guards, and removing the dead body by force, would have destroyed all pretences to a resurrection.  Now, surely the guards, supposing them to be enough in number to withstand all violence, were at least sufficient to prevent or to discover fraud.  What occasion then to hasten the plot for fear of numbers meeting at the tomb, since there were numbers always present sufficient to discover any fraud; the only method that could be used in the case?

Suppose then that we could not give a satisfactory account of the way of reckoning the time from the crucifixion to the resurrection; yet this we can say, that the resurrection happened during the time that the guards had the sepulchre in keeping; and it is impossible to imagine what opportunity this could give to fraud.  Had the time been delayed, the guards removed, and then a resurrection pretended, it might with some colour of reason have been said, Why did he not come within his time? why did he chuse to come after his time, when all witnesses, who had patiently expected the appointed hour, were withdrawn?  But now what is to be objected?  You think he came too soon.  But were not your guards at the door when he came? did they not see what happened? and what other satisfaction could you have had, supposing he had come a day later?

By saying of this, I do not mean the decline the Gentleman’s objection, which is founded upon a mistake of a way of speaking, common to the Jews and other people; who, when they name any number of days and years, include the first and last of the days or years to make up the sum.  Christ, alluding to his own resurrection, says, In three days I will raise it up.  The angels report his prediction thus, The Son of Man shall be crucified, and the third day rise again.  Elsewhere it is said, After three days; and again, that he was to be in the bowels of the earth three days and three nights.  These expressions are equivalent to each other; for we always reckon the night into the day, when we reckon by so many days.  If you agree to do a thing ten days hence, you stipulate for forbearance for the nights as well as days; and therefore, in reckoning, two days, and two days and two nights, are the same thing.  That the expression, After three days, means inclusive days, is proved by Grotius on Matt. xxvii. 63 and by others.  The prediction therefore was, that he would rise on the third day.  Now, he was crucified on Friday and buried; he lay in the grave all Saturday, and rose early on Sunday morning.  But the Gentleman thinks he ought not to have risen before Monday.  Pray try what the use of common language requires to be understood in a like case.  Suppose you