Yet he perseveres in asserting that it is beyond all reasonable question _what_ Jesus _was_; as though proven inaccuracies in all the narratives did not make the results uncertain.
He says that even the poor and uneducated are fully impressed with "the majesty and sanctity" of Christ's mind; as if _this_ were what I am fundamentally denying; and not, only so far as would transcend the known limits of human nature: surely "majesty and sanctity" are not inconsistent with many weaknesses.

But our judgment concerning a man's motives, his temper, and his full conquest over self, vanity and impulsive passion, depends on the accurate knowledge of a vast variety of minor points; even the curl of the lip, or the discord of eye and mouth, may change our moral judgment of a man; while, alike to my friend and me it is certain that much of what is stated is untrue.
Much moreover of what he holds to be untrue does not seem so to any but to the highly educated.

In spite therefore of his able reply, I abide in my opinion that he is unreasonably endeavouring to erect what is essentially a piece of doubtful biography and difficult literary criticism into first-rate religious importance.
I shall however try to pick up a few details which seem, as much as any, to deserve credit, concerning the pretensions, doctrine and conduct of Jesus.
_First_, I believe that he habitually spoke of himself by the title "_Son of Man_"-- a fact which pervades all the accounts, and was likely to rivet itself on his hearers.

Nobody but he himself ever calls him Son of Man.
_Secondly_ I believe that in assuming this title he tacitly alluded to the viith chapter of Daniel, and claimed for himself the throne of judgment over all mankind .-- I know no reason to doubt that he actually delivered (in substance) the discourse in Matth.xxv.

"When the Son of Man shall come in his glory,...