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withdrawn?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