The Tryal of the Witnesses of the Resurrection of Jesus. the Seventh Edition.

by Thomas Sherlock

The 18th century was a wealth of knowledge, exploration and rapidly growing technology and expanding record-keeping made possible by advances in the printing press. In its determination to preserve the century of revolution, Gale initiated a revolution of its digitization of epic proportions to preserve these invaluable works in the largest archive of its kind. Now for the first time these high-quality digital copies of original 18th century manuscripts are available in print, making them highly accessible to libraries, undergraduate students, and independent scholars.The Age of Enlightenment profoundly enriched religious and philosophical understanding and continues to influence present-day thinking. Works collected here include masterpieces by David Hume, Immanuel Kant, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as well as religious sermons and moral debates on the issues of the day, such as the slave trade. The Age of Reason saw conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism transformed into one between faith and logic -- a debate that continues in the twenty-first century.++++The below data was compiled from various identification fields in the bibliographic record of this title. This data is provided as an additional tool in helping to insure edition ++++British LibraryT011746Anonymous. By Thomas Sherlock. With a final leaf of printed for J. Pemberton, 1733. 110, [2]p.; 8

Genres: Christianity

118 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1979

Reviews

[Drikus]

This book is not a very deep and insightfully constructed argument, I think. Yet, it is an interesting read, because of the court-style execution. It examines the Biblical argument, or evidence, to see if it can be concluded as tampered-with evidence, or a skewed-account of what really took place, i.e. that Jesus never rose from the dead.

The pro argument analyses the Biblical records against the objections. It logically considers how foul play could have taken place, at the hand of the evidence cited in the Bible.

The conclusion, based on Biblical evidence, it seems improbable that a fraud took place.

It does not address the historicity of Jesus, from a secular perspective, where I think most of the objection ability of the account may be found. As for the narrative, even theatrical nature of the Gospel accounts of the alleged true events, I find Mangasarian's (The Truth About Jesus: Is He a Myth?) account more compelling that the Bible's narration is the execution of a carefully constructed play-script. It reads clearly much like it, probably with intention, as the historical recording of the Gospels tool place post-factum, from both written and verbal deliverance, in the style and sway of the particular writer. But, does that invalidate the Bible as being God-breathed?

Who moved the stone (Frank Morrison) is a book that must be read in conjunction with this trial. The trial, however, illuminates a few important principles.

That we look at the evidence of the resurrection of Christ, from the recorded Gospels, and can make them neither better nor worse.

That objections against Christianity most often than not, spring from a preconceived prejudice, not as a result of careful study and refutation. Jesus behaved contrary to human nature, by not usurping the kingdom and popularity of men, but quite the contrary, removing him from it, even warning about his resurrection by foretelling it just prior to the event. Imposters usually take advantage of the prejudices of the people, generally they make choice of cunning dextrous fellow for company, or the execution of their plans. This he had not done, but the converse. If then a plot, for whose sake did he contrive it?

If the disciples stole the body, what on earth did they do that for?

Then the twist, i.e. that he shewed himself not to the Jews after rising from the grave, that the dispensation had transferred from the Jews to the whole world (Jew and Gentile) with the Jews falling into a temporary blindness.

That the resurrection is a wholly understated event in history. Jeusus never wrote books, neither asked his followers to. Why, if he be God making a statement? This is what any usurper would be inclined to do. Yet, he remained in obscurity, hence our secular dimness, not only that but from Jewish perspective even Josephus is at a whisper. This brings the matter to the crux, and that of the Holy Spirit. The apostles were chosen to witness the resurrection, by performing validating miracles. The latter not the object, but only ratifying from whence the power come. Christ not entrusting the resurrection to mere human evidence allowed this obscurity, yet obscurity, and not a total void. The Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me, the apostles bearing witness [John 15:26, 27]. He even forbidding them to go into the world before they have received powers from above, the agency of the Holy Spirit is integral to the witness.

Without the Holy Spirit the letter is dead.

The matter of proof, is a matter of complexity, and it does not vest in secular history alone, for that record is superfluously flimsy. It rests upon the witness of the prophets (the Jewish deliverance), the apostles (those bearing witness of the resurrection) and the cloud of witnesses, viz. logical analysis of Scripture, secular proof, e.g. historical records, and archaeology, to substantiate Scripture in that it removes an absolute muteness. In the absence of absolute silence on the history of the Bible, however weakly represented in actual historical records, is not mute, and has to be argued on the logic of Scripture. Christianity, as it would seem from theology, has never been intended to be a legally contracted and documented legacy to man, but one substantiated in a degree, and operating on the superstition of the believer, as the Holy Spirit moves on such.

This seems to be the essence of the book, and the body of proof argued for.

[Kimberly]

very good approach - 18th Century English was a little bit confusing but great approach to a book that has stood the test of time.

[Bob]

Very good!

[Andy]

The Trial of the Witnesses of the Resurrection is a delightful response to the deist Thomas Woolston, who had attacked the Christian miracles in six pamphlets that were published in the years 1727 & 1728.

Sherlock’s rather unusual approach to the issues is to present it as a court case in which an attorney who represents his orthodox Christian position presents the case for the resurrection of Christ against another attorney whose deistic arguments are culled directly from the pamphlets of Woolston, Anthony Collins, and Matthew Tindal.

Sherlock’s counsel for the defense demonstrates that deism is nothing but unbelief. No amount of evidence is sufficient, regardless of how reliable it is, for the person who has already made up his mind in advance that something is not true.

Hume had this work in view when he wrote his attack on the rationality of belief in miracles in1748. Apparently, Hume didn’t pay attention, because he advances the same argument Sherlock exploded in the Trial.

This is a classic piece of apologetics. It stands the test of time. The arguments advanced against the miracles of the Bible, the resurrection of Christ, the reliability of the Apostles, etc., have actually not changed. Sherlock answered them all definitively.