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?

Now, the apostles died in asserting the truth of Christ's
resurrection. It was always in their power to quit their evidence and
save their lives. Even their bitterest enemies, the Jews, required no
more of them than to be silent. [Acts 4:17, 5:28] Others have denied
facts, or asserted facts, in hopes of saving their lives, when they
were under sentence of death: but these men attested a fact at the