and the discourse were already public. And the observation which these
instances afford is of equal validity for the purpose of the present
argument, whoever were the authors of the histories.


These four circumstances:--first, the recognition of the account in its
principal parts by a series of succeeding writers; secondly, the total
absence of any account of the origin of the religion substantially
different from ours; thirdly, the early and extensive prevalence of
rites and institutions, which resulted from our account; fourthly, our
account bearing in its construction proof that it is an account of facts
which were known and believed at the time, are sufficient, I conceive,
to support an assurance, that the story which we have now is, in general,
the story which Christians had at the beginning. I say in general; by
which term I mean, that it is the same in its texture, and in its
principal facts. For instance, I make no doubt, for the reasons above
stated, but that the resurrection of the Founder of the religion was
always a part of the Christian story. Nor can a doubt of this remain
upon the mind of any one who reflects that the resurrection is, in some
form or other, asserted, referred to, or assumed, in every Christian
writing, of every description which hath come down to us.

And if our evidence stopped here, we should have a strong case to offer:
for we should have to allege, that in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, a
certain number of persons set about an attempt of establishing a new
religion in the world: in the prosecution of which purpose, they
voluntarily encountered great dangers, undertook great labours,
sustained great sufferings, all for a miraculous story, which they
published wherever they came; and that the resurrection of a dead man,
whom during his life they had followed and accompanied, was a constant