My Lord, we are now to enter upon the last and main article of this case; the nature of the evidence upon which the credit of the resurrection stands.  Before I inquire into the qualifications of the particular witnesses whose words we are desired to take in this case, I would ask, why this evidence, which manifestly relates to the most essential point of Christianity, was not put beyond all exception?  Many of the miracles of Christ are said to be done in the streets, nay even in the temple, under the observation of all the world; but the like is not so much as pretended as to this; nay, we have it upon the confession of Peter, the ringleader of the apostles, that Christ appeared, not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God.  Why picking and culling of witnesses in this case more than in any other?  Does it not import some suspicion, raise some jealousy, that this case would not bear the publick light?

I would ask more particularly, Why did not Jesus after his resurrection appear openly to the chief priests and rulers of the Jews?  Since his commission related to them in an especial manner, why were not his credentials laid before them?  The resurrection is acknowledged to be the chief proof of his mission, why then was it concealed from those who were more than all others concerned in the event of his mission?  Suppose an ambassador from some foreign prince should come into England, make his publick entry through the city, pay and receive visits, and at last refuse to shew any letters of credence, or to wait on the King, what would you think of him?  Whatever you would think in that case, you must think in this; for there is no difference between them.

But we must take the evidence as it is.  It was thought proper, in this case, to have select chosen witnesses; and we must now consider who they were, and what reason we have to take their word.

The first witness was an angel, or angels.  They appeared like men to some women who went early to the sepulchre.  If they appeared like men, upon what ground are we to take them for angels?  The women saw men, and therefore they can witness only to the seeing of men.  But I suppose it is the women’s judgement, and not their evidence, that we are to follow in this case.  Here then we have a story of one apparition to support the credit of another apparition:  and the first apparition hath not so much as the evidence of the women to support it, but is grounded on their superstition, ignorance, and fear.  Every country can afford an hundred instances of this kind; and there is this common to them all, that as learning and common sense prevail in any country, they die away, and are no more heard of.

The next witnesses are the women themselves.  The wisest men can hardly guard themselves against the fears of superstition; poor silly women therefore in this case must needs be unexceptionable witnesses, and fit to be admitted into the number of the chosen witnesses to attest this fact.  One part of the account given of them is very rational, that they were surprised and frightened beyond measure; and I leave it to your Lordship and the court to judge, how well qualified they were to give a just relation of what passed.