I come now to consider the evidence on which our belief of the resurrection stands.  And here I am stopped again.  A general exception is taken to the evidence, that it is imperfect, unfair; and a question is asked, Why did not Christ appear publickly to all the people, especially to the magistrates?  Why were some witnesses culled and chosen out, and others excluded ?  It may be sufficient perhaps to say, that where there are witnesses enow, no judge, no jury complains for want of more; and therefore, if the witnesses we have are sufficient, it is no objection that we have not others, and more.  If three credible man attest a will, which are as many as the law requires, would any body ask, why all the town were not called to set their hands?  But why were these witnesses culled and chosen out?  Why?  For this reason, that they might be good ones.  Does not every wise men chuse proper witnesses to his deed and to his will? and does not a good choice of witnesses give strength to every deed?  How comes it to pass, then, that the very thing which shuts out all suspicion in other cases should in this case only be of all others the most suspicious thing itself?

What reason there is to make any complaints on the behalf of the Jews, may be judged, in part, from what has already appeared.  Christ suffered openly in their sight; and they were so well apprised of his prediction, that he should rise again, that they set a guard on his sepulchre; and from their guards they learned the truth.  Every soldier was to them a witness of the resurrection of their own chusing.  After this they had not one apostle,(which the Gentleman observes was the case of other people), but all the apostles, and many other witnesses with them, and in their power.  The apostles testified the resurrection to them; not only to the people, but to the elders of Israel assembled in Senate:  to support their evidence they were enabled to work, and did work miracles openly in the name of Christ.  These people therefore have the least reason to complain; and had of all others the fullest evidence; and in some respects such as none but themselves could have, for they only were keepers of the sepulchre.I believe, if the gentleman was to chuse an evidence to his own satisfaction in a like case, he would desire no more, than to keep the sepulchre, with a sufficient number of guards.

But the argument goes further.  It is said, that Jesus was sent with a special commission to the Jews; that he was their Messias; and as his resurrection was his main credential, he ought to have appeared publickly to the rulers of the Jews after his resurrection:  that in doing otherwise, he acted like an ambassador pretending authority from his prince, but refusing to show his letters of credence.

I was afraid, when I suffered myself to be drawn into this argument, that I should be led into matters fitter to be decided by men of another profession, than by lawyers.  But since there is no help now, I will lay before you what appears to me to be the natural and plain account of this matter; leaving it to others, who are better qualified, to give a fuller answer to the objection.