Rome were a much more considerable part of the world, than the chief
priests and the synagogue; why does not the Gentleman object then, that
Christ did not shew himself to Tiberius and his senate? And since all
men have an equal right in this case, Why may not the same demand be
made for every country; nay, for every age? And then the Gentleman may
bring the question nearer home; and ask, Why Christ did not appear in
England in King George's reign? There is, to my apprehension, nothing
more unreasonable, than to neglect and despise plain and sufficient
evidence before us, and to sit down to imagine what kind of evidence
would have pleased us; and then to make the want of such evidence an
objection to the truth; which yet, if well considered, would be found
to be well established.

The observation I have made upon the resurrection of Christ,
naturally leads to another; which will help to account for the nature
of the evidence we have in this great point. As the resurrection was
the opening a new commission, in which all the world had an interest;
so the concern naturally was, to have a proper evidence to establish
this truth, and which should be of equal weight to all. This did not
depend upon the satisfaction given to private persons, whether they
were magistrates or not magistrates; but upon the conviction of those,
whose office it was to be, to bear testimony to this truth in the
world. In this sense the Apostles were chosen to be witnesses of the
resurrection, because they were chosen to bear testimony to it in the
world; and not because they only were admitted to see Christ after his
resurrection: for the fact is otherwise. The gospel indeed, concerned
to shew the evidence on which the faith of the world was to rest, is
very particular in setting forth the ocular demonstration which the
apostles had of the resurrection; and mentions others, who saw Christ
after his resurrection, only accidentally, and as the thread of the