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,