As long as (in common with my friend) I regard Jesus as a man, so long I hold with _dogmatic_ and _intense conviction_ the inference that he was morally imperfect, and ought not to be held up as unapproachable in goodness; but I have, in comparison, only _a modest_ belief that I am able to show his points of weakness.
While therefore in obedience to this call, which has risen from many quarters, I think it right not to refuse the odious task pressed upon me,--I yet protest that my conclusion does not depend upon it.

I might censure Socrates unjustly, or at least without convincing my readers, if I attempted that task; but my failure would not throw a feather's weight into the argument that Socrates was a Divine Unique and universal Model.

If I write note what is painful to readers, I beg them to remember that I write with much reluctance, and that it is their own fault if they read.
In approaching this subject, the first difficulty is, to know how much of the four gospels to accept as _fact_.

If we could believe the whole, it would be easier to argue; but my friend Martineau (with me) rejects belief of many parts: for instance, he has but a very feeble conviction that Jesus ever spoke the discourses attributed to him in John's gospel.

If therefore I were to found upon these some imputation of moral weakness, he would reply, that we are agreed in setting these aside, as untrustworthy.