“If whilst we attempt to infer the Truth of the Resurrection of Christ, we run counter to any truly rational and allowed Principles; if the Arguments we make use of, when thoroughly sifted and traced, are found to terminate in that which the sober Sense of Mankind must condemn, as sophistical, false, or impertinent; and this, not as the Effect of bare Inadvertency or Mismanagement (because a very good Argument may possibly be handled badly, and yet ought not for that Reason, to lose any thing of its Credit) but of the very Constitution and Nature of the Argument itself. And if this be the Result of all, and every one of those Arguments, wich can be produced in Defence of this Doctrine, or in order to prove the certain Truth of it: Then the Controversy is at an end, and the Christian must give up the Cause. Because Truth can never possibly run Men into any real Absurdities in the Defence of it; nor can God oblige us to receive any Point of Doctrine, to the utter overthrowing of that Reason he has given us, to guide ourselves by; tho’ he may oblige us to receive that, which our Reason cannot solve all the Difficulties of.
If on the other Side, those who oppose this Doctrine, can neither do that, nor defend themselves, without being obliged to stand by such Conclusions, as the common Sense of Mankind would upon a fair Hearing condemn as irrational; if they are necessitated to have recourse to Principles that are either manifestly false and contradictory, or doubtful and precarious, in order to solve the Difficulties that are proposed to them; or can no ways guard themselves against such Difficulties, but by artful Evasions and Excursions from the matter in hand: In a word, if in the natural Course of the Argument, they are forced upon Things that tend to darken or blunder the Cause and do not terminate in a direct and positive Answer to what is urged upon them: In this Case it will be very evident, That Truth cannot be on their Side, and that therefore, to act as they ought to do, they should, without any more ado, yield the great Point in Dispute.” (A Discourse on the Resurrection, 2nd ed. (London: J. Darby, 1714), pp. 175-76)
This is very similar to the famous passage from Butler’s Analogy of Religion:
“Let Reason be kept to; and, if any part of the Scripture account of the redemption of the world by Christ can be shown to be really contrary to it, let the Scripture, in the name of God, be given up: but let not such poor creatures as we, go on objecting against an infinite scheme, that we do not see the necessity or usefulness of all its parts, and call this reasoning; and, which still farther heightens the absurdity in the present case, parts which we are not actively concerned in.” [(Analogy of Religion, 20th ed. (New York: Ivison, Blakeman Taylor, & Co., 1872), p. 194 (Part II, chapter 5)]