I do not think it useless here to repeat (though not for my friend) concise reasons which I gave in my first edition against admitting dictatorial claims for Jesus. First, it is an unplausible opinion that God would deviate from his ordinary course, in order to give us anything so undesirable as an authoritative Oracle would be;—­which would paralyze our moral powers, exactly as an infallible church does, in the very proportion in which we succeeded in eliciting responses from it.  It is not needful here to repeat what has been said to that effect in p. 138. Secondly, there is no imaginable criterion, by which we can establish that the wisdom of a teacher is absolute and illimitable.  All that we can possibly discover, is the relative fact, that another is wiser than we:  and even this is liable to be overturned on special points, as soon as differences of judgment arise. Thirdly, while it is by no means clear what are the new truths, for which we are to lean upon the decisions of Jesus, it is certain that we have no genuine and trustworthy account of his teaching.  If God had intended us to receive the authoritative dicta of Jesus, he would have furnished us with an unblemished record of those dicta.  To allow that we have not this, and that we must disentangle for ourselves (by a most difficult and uncertain process) the “true” sayings of Jesus, is surely self-refuting. Fourthly, if I must sit in judgment on the claims of Jesus to be the true Messiah and Son of God, how can I concentrate all my free thought into that one act, and thenceforth abandon free thought?  This appears a moral suicide, whether Messiah or the Pope is the object whom we first criticize, in order to instal him over us, and then, for ever after, refuse to criticize.  In short, we cannot build up a system of Oracles on a basis of Free Criticism.  If we are to submit our judgment to the dictation of some other,—­whether a church or an individual,—­we must be first subjected to that other by some event from without, as by birth; and not by a process of that very judgment which is henceforth to be sacrificed.  But from this I proceed to consider more in detail, some points in the teaching and conduct of Jesus, which do not appear to me consistent with absolute perfection.

The argument of Jesus concerning the tribute to Caesar is so dramatic, as to strike the imagination and rest on the memory; and I know no reason for doubting that it has been correctly reported.  The book of Deuteronomy (xvii. 15) distinctly forbids Israel to set over himself as king any who is not a native Israelite; which appeared to be a religious condemnation of submission to Caesar.  Accordingly, since Jesus assumed the tone of unlimited wisdom, some of Herod’s party asked him, whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Caesar.  Jesus replied:  “Why tempt ye me, hypocrites?  Show me the tribute money.”  When one of the coins was handed to him, he asked:  “Whose image and superscription is this?” When they replied:  “Caesar’s,” he gave his authoritative decision:  “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.”