I have now gone through the objections which were
necessarily to be removed before I could state the evidence in this
case. I am sensible I have taken
up too much of your time; but I have this to say in my excuse, That
objections built on popular notions and prejudices, are easily conveyed
to the mind in few words; and so conveyed, make strong impressions: but
whoever answers the objections, must encounter all the notions to which
they are allied, and to which they owe their strength; and it is well
if with many words he can find admittance.

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?