This is the substance of the argument on both sides.

I must observe to you, that this reasoning from the case of
Lazarus has no foundation in history. There is no pretence for saying,
that the Jews in this whole affair had any particular regard to the
raising of Lazarus. And if they had any such just suspicion, why was
it not mentioned at the trial of Christ? There was then an opportunity
of opening the whole fraud, and undeceiving the people. The Jews had a
plain law for punishing a false prophet; and what could be a stronger
conviction, than such a cheat made manifest? Why then was this
advantage lost?

The Gentleman builds this observation on these words, So the
last error shall be worse than the first. But is there here anything
said about Lazarus? No. The words are a proverbial form of speech,
and probably were used without relation to any particular case. But if
a particular meaning must be assigned, it is more probable, that the
words being used to Pilate, contained a reason applicable to him. Now,
Pilate had been drawn in to consent to the crucifixion, for fear the
Jews should set up Jesus to be their King in opposition to Caesar;
therefore say the chief priests to him, If once the people believe him
to be risen from the dead, the last error will be worse than the first;
i.e. they will be more inclined and encouraged to rebel against the
Romans than ever. This is a natural sense of the words, as they are
used to move the Roman governor to allow them a guard. Whether Lazarus
were dead or alive; whether Christ came to destroy the Law and the
Prophets, or to establish or confirm them, was of little moment to
Pilate. It is plain, he was touched by none of these considerations;
and refused to be concerned in the affair of Christ, till he was