The Iroquois also had a beneficent being, uniting in himself the character of a god and man, who was called Tarengawagan. He imparted to them the knowledge of the laws of the Great Spirit, established their form of government, &c.[131:3]
Among the Algonquins, and particularly among the Ojibways and other remnants of that stock of the North-west, this intermediate great teacher (denominated, by Mr. Schoolcraft, in his "Notes of the Iroquois," "the great incarnation of the North-west") is fully recognized. He bears the name of Michabou, and is represented as the first-born son of a great celestial Manitou, or Spirit, by an earthly mother, and is esteemed the friend and protector of the human race.[131:4]
I think we can now say with M. Dupuis, that "the idea of a God, who came down on earth to save mankind, is neither new nor peculiar to the Christians," and with Cicero, the great Roman orator and philosopher, that "brave, famous or powerful men, after death, came to be gods, and they are the very ones whom we are accustomed to worship, pray to and venerate."
Taking for granted that the synoptic Gospels are historical, there is no proof that Jesus ever claimed to be either God, or a god; on the other hand, it is quite the contrary.[131:5] As Viscount Amberly says: "The best proof of this is that Jesus never, at any period of his life, desired his followers to worship him, either as God, or as the Son of God," in the sense in which it is now understood. Had he believed of himself what his followers 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.