to a person sealed, and he accepts them so, your delivery and his
acceptance implies a covenant between you, that the writings shall be
delivered and the seal whole; and should the seal be broken, it would
be a manifest fraud, and breach of trust. Nay, so strongly is this
covenant implied, that there needs no special agreement in the case; it
is a compact which men are put under by the law of nations, and the
common consent of mankind. When you send a letter sealed to the post-
house, you have not indeed a special agreement with all persons through
whose hands it passes, that it shall not be opened by any hand , but
his only to whom it is directed; yet men know themselves to be under
this restraint, and that it is unlawful and dishonorable to transgress
it.

Since then the sepulchre was sealed; since the seal imported a
covenant, consider who were the parties to this covenant. They could
be no other than the chief priests on one side, and the apostles on the
other. To prove this, no special agreement need be shewn. On one
side, there was a concern to see the prophecy fulfilled; on the other,
to prevent fraud in fulfilling it. The sum of their agreement was
naturally this, that the seals should be opened at the time appointed
for the resurrection, that all parties might see and be satisfied,
whether the dead body was come to life or no.

What now would any reasonable man expect from these
circumstances? Don't you expect to hear, that the chief priests and
the apostles met at the time appointed, opened the seals, and that the
matter in dispute was settled beyond all controversy one way or other?
But see how it happened, The seals were broken, the body stolen away in
the night by the disciples; none of the chief priests present, or
summoned to see the seals opened. The guards, when examined, were