this view was held in conjunction with those at which I had arrived myself concerning miracles, prophecy, the untrustworthiness of Scripture as to details, and the essential unreasonableness of imposing dogmatic propositions as a creed, I had to consider why I could not adopt such a modification, or (as it appeared to me) reconstruction, of Christianity; and I gave reasons in the first edition of this book, which, avoiding direct treatment of the character of Jesus, seemed to me adequate on the opposite side.

My argument was reviewed by a friend, who presently published the review with his name, replying to my remarks on this scheme.  I thus find myself in public and avowed controversy with one who is endowed with talents, accomplishments, and genius, to which I have no pretensions.  The challenge has certainly come from myself.  Trusting to the goodness of my cause, I have ventured it into an unequal combat; and from a consciousness of my admired friend’s high superiority, I do feel a little abashed at being brought face to face against him.  But possibly the less said to the public on these personal matters, the better.

I have to give reasons why I cannot adopt that modified scheme of Christianity which is defended and adorned by James Martineau; according to which it is maintained that though the Gospel Narratives are not to be trusted in detail, there can yet be no reasonable doubt what Jesus was; for this is elicited by a “higher moral criticism,” which (it is remarked) I neglect.  In this theory, Jesus is avowed to be a man born like other men; to be liable to error, and (at least in some important respects) mistaken.  Perhaps no general proposition is to be accepted merely on the word of Jesus; in particular, he misinterpreted the Hebrew prophecies.  “He was not less than the Hebrew Messiah, but more.”  No moral charge is established against him, until it is shown, that in applying the old prophecies to himself, he was conscious that they did not fit.  His error was one of mere fallibility in matters of intellectual and literary estimate.  On the other hand, Jesus had an infallible moral perception, which reveals itself to the true-hearted reader, and is testified by the common consciousness of Christendom.  It has pleased the Creator to give us one sun in the heavens, and one Divine soul in history, in order to correct the aberrations of our individuality, and unite all mankind into one family of God.  Jesus is to be presumed to be perfect until he is shown to be imperfect.  Faith in Jesus, is not reception of propositions, but reverence for a person; yet this is not the condition of salvation or essential to the Divine favour.

Such is the scheme, abridged from the ample discussion of my eloquent friend.  In reasoning against it, my arguments will, to a certain extent, be those of an orthodox Trinitarian;[1] since we might both maintain that the belief in the absolute divine morality of Jesus is not tenable, when the belief in every other divine and superhuman quality is denied.  Should I have any “orthodox” reader, my arguments may shock his feelings less, if he keeps this in view.  In fact, the same action or word in Jesus may be consistent or inconsistent with moral perfection, according to the previous assumptions concerning his person.