But though obscured, the treasures were there nevertheless. It were impious to doubt or deny it. When, then, we hear it asked, as sometimes in these latter days of almost unlimited free enquiry it is, Are we to imagine that in that little infant was centred the knowledge of all history, all learning, all the secrets of nature as we term them, all the devices of art, all the developments of science? I think we cannot doubt that the answer is, There was. For what is there in any kind or department of knowledge or science, or of things past, present, or to come, which we can suppose the Almighty not to know? This would be to deny His attribute of Omniscience; and, therefore, to deny it of Christ, God and Man, would be to deny His Godhead. People think to escape this consequence by saying that it is merely His human nature which was ignorant,—that whilst as God He knew, yet as Man He did not know,—not seeing that thus immediately they must fall into that other error before mentioned. For if they do not deny the Godhead, they must divide the Substance of the Son. Perhaps in their defence they will urge such passages of Holy Scripture as that in which it is written, “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature;” {142a} or where He Himself said, concerning the Judgment, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father,” {142b} of which it may be sufficient to remark to-day, that the first passage seems to imply no more than that His wisdom, as He grew in years, and of course appeared to acquire human knowledge, increased, in the sense of its being more manifested in the eyes of men, just as His bodily stature increased in visible presence before them: whilst of the other, (without going into all which may be said on a passage confessedly difficult,) it may be enough to point out that He does not say even of the Day of Judgment, that He, the God-Man, Christ Jesus, ever undivided in His divinity and humanity, did not know it: but that the Son (Who must be taken of course here to be the Son of Man), knoweth it not. And if it be thought that this admission grants all that the objector asked, and is in fact but the enunciation of his own view, I should maintain that it is not so, and for this reason, that it is a very different thing to say of the One Person, Jesus Christ, that He, thus one and undivided, was ignorant of anything, and to _contemplate apart_ His Godhead and His Manhood, and so, in some sort, their attributes apart. And I conceive that here our Blessed Lord using the term “the Son” (not ‘_I_ know not,’ but _the Son_ knoweth not,) contemplates Himself as the Son of Man, and speaks of Himself as viewed in that relation. What modern unbelief seems to delight to assert, is, that our Blessed Lord, as He stood and talked and reasoned with the people, was ignorant or mistaken. What we affirm to be the really just and consistent sense of the passages adduced, is,