to the preaching of the apostles, you will find this was the great article insisted on [Acts 2:22, 3:15, 4:10, 5:30].  And St. Paul knew the weight of this article, and the necessity of teaching it, when he said, If Christ be not risen, our faith is vain.  You see, then, that the thing which the apostles testified, and the thing for which they suffered, was the truth of the resurrection; which is a mere matter of fact.

Consider now how the objection stands.  The council for Woolston tells you, that it is common for men to die for false opinions; and he tells you nothing but the truth.  But even in those cases their suffering is an evidence of their sincerity; and it would be very hard to charge men who die for the doctrine they profess, with insincerity in the profession.  Mistaken they may be; but every mistaken man is not a cheat.  Now, if you will allow the suffering of the apostles to prove their sincerity, which you cannot well disallow; and consider that they died for the truth of a matter of fact which they had seen themselves, you will perceive how strong the evidence is in this case.  In doctrines, and matters of opinion, men mistake perpetually; and it is no reason for me to take up with another man’s opinion, because I am persuaded he is sincere in it.  But when a man reports to me an uncommon fact, yet such an one as in its own nature is a plain object of sense; if I believe him not, it is not because I suspect his eyes, or his sense of feeling, but merely because I suspect his sincerity:  for if I was to see the same thing myself, I should believe myself; and therefore my suspicion does not arise from the inability of human senses to judge in the case, but from a doubt of the sincerity of the reporter.  In such cases, therefore, there wants nothing to be proved, but only the sincerity of the reporter:  and since voluntary sufferings for the truth, is at least a proof of sincerity; the sufferings of the apostles for the truth of the resurrection, is a full and unexceptionable proof.

The council for Woolston was sensible of this difference; and therefore he added, that there are many instances of men’s suffering and dying in an obstinate denial of the truth of facts plainly proved.  This observation is also true.  I remember a story of a man who endured with great constancy all the tortures of the rack, denying the fact with which he was charged.  When he was asked afterwards, how he could hold out against all the tortures?  He answered, I had painted a gallows upon the toe of my shoe, and when the rack stretched me, I looked on the gallows, and bore the pain, to save my life.  This man denied a plain fact, under great torture; but you see a reason for it.  In other cases, when criminals persist in denying their crimes, they often do it, and there is a reason to suspect they do it always, in hopes of a pardon or reprieve.  But what are these instances to the present purpose?  All these men suffer against their will, and for their crimes; and their obstinacy is built on the hope of escaping, by moving the compassion of the government.  Can the Gentleman give any instances of persons who died willingly in attestation of a false fact?  We have had in England some weak enough to die for the Pope’s supremacy; but do you think a man could be found to die in proof of the Pope’s being actually on the throne of England?