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