As the objections in this case are founded upon the story
reported by the Jews, and the Roman soldiers, Mr. B. in his answer,
endeavored to shew, from some historical passages, that the Jews
themselves did not believe the story.

His first argument was, That the Jews never questioned the
disciples for this cheat, and the share they had in it, when they had
them in their power. And yet who sees not that it was very much in
their purpose so to do? To this there is no reply.

The second argument was from the treatment St. Paul had from King
Agrippa, and his saying to St. Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a
Christian: A speech which he reckons could not be made by a prince, to
one concerned in carrying out a known cheat. To this the Gentleman
replies, That Agrippa never did become a Christian; and that no great
stress is to be laid upon his compliance to his prisoner. But allowing
that there was something of humanity and civility in the expression,
yet such civility could hardly be paid to a known impostor. There is a
propriety even in civility. A prince may be civil to a rebel; but he
will hardly compliment him for his loyalty: he may be civil to a poor
sectary; but if he knows him to be a cheat, he will scarcely compliment
him with hopes that he will be of his party.

The third argument was from the advice given by Gamaliel to the
council of the Jews, to let the apostles alone, for fear they
themselves should be found to fight against God: A supposition which
the Gentleman thinks absolutely inconsistent with his, or the council's
being persuaded, that the apostles were guilty of any fraud in managing
the resurrection of Christ.