wers subsequently believed of him, that he was one
of the constituent persons in a divine Trinity, he must have enjoined
his Apostles both to address him in prayer themselves, and to desire
their converts to do likewise. It is quite plain that he did nothing of
the kind, and that they never supposed him to have done so.

Belief in Jesus _as the Messiah_ was taught as the first dogma of
Christianity, but adoration of Jesus _as God_ was not taught at all.

But we are not left in this matter to depend on conjectural inferences.
The words put into the mouth of Jesus are plain. Whenever occasion
arose, _he asserted his inferiority to the Father_, though, as no one
had then dreamt of his equality, it is natural that the occasions should
not have been frequent.

He made himself _inferior in knowledge_ when he said that of the day and
hour of the day of judgment no one knew, neither the angels in heaven
nor the Son; no one except the Father.[132:1]

He made himself _inferior in power_ when he said that seats on his right
hand and on his left in the kingdom of heaven were not his to
give.[132:2]

He made himself _inferior in virtue_ when he desired a certain man not
to address him as "Good Master," for there was none good but God.[132:3]

The words of his prayer at Gethsemane, "all things are possible unto
_thee_," imply that all things were _not_ possible to _him_, while its
conclusion "not what _I will_, but what _thou wilt_," indicates
submission to a superior, not the mere execution of a purpose of his
own.[132:4] Indeed, the whole prayer would have been a mockery, useless
for any purpose but the deception of his disciples, if he had himself
been identical with the Being to whom he prayed, and had merely been
giving effect by his death to their common counsels. While the cry of
agony from the cross, "_My God, my God! why hast thou forsaken
me?_"[132:5] would have been quite unmeaning if _the person forsaken_,
and _the person forsaking_, had been _one and the same_.

_Either, then, we must assume that the language of Jesus has been
misreported, or we must admit that he never for a moment pretended to be
co-equal, co-eternal or consubstantial with God._

It also follows of necessity from _both the genealogies_,[133:1] that
their compilers entertained no doubt that _Joseph_ was the father of
Jesus. Otherwise the descent of Joseph would not have been in the least
to the point. All attempts to reconcile this inconsistency