III. So, it is generally assumed that St. Luke made a mistake when he said that the census of the Nativity was made when Cyrenius was President of Syria,--because not Cyrenius but _Varus_ is known to have been President about that time.--Now, there are three fair conjectures,--each of which is sufficient to meet this difficulty: but instead of developing them, I will simply remind you of a minute circumstance in Jewish story which shews how dangerous it is to press a general fact against a particular statement.--In the year 4 B.C., Matthias was undeniably the Jewish High-priest. Now, if St. Luke, describing the events of a certain day in September, B.C. 4, had recorded that the High-priest's name was _Joseph_, you would have thought him guilty of a misstatement: but the error would have been all your own,--for it has been discovered that a person bearing that name held the office of High-priest for _one single day_,--namely, the 10th of Tisri.... "A very unlikely circumstance!" you will exclaim. O yes,--_a very unlikely circumstance indeed_: but, you will have the kindness to observe that _that_ is not exactly the point in question. Why then are difficulties of this, or of any kind, permitted in the Gospel at all? it may be asked.--I answer,--that they may prove instruments of probation to you and to me. The sensualist has _his_ trials; and the ambitious man, _his_. The difficulties in Holy Scripture,--which are numerous, and diverse, and considerable,--are admirable tests of the moral, the spiritual, the intellectual temper of Man[374]. Experience shews moreover that some of the minutest discrepancies of all, if they be but of a character almost hopeless, are more potent to create perplexity in minds of a certain constitution, than the gravest doubts which ever burthened the soul of Speculation. I have confined myself to one class of objections, for an obvious reason. Difficulties which arise out of the _matter_ of Scripture, as it is emphatically embodied in quotations from the Old Testament made in the New, must be separately considered in one or more Sermons on _Interpretation_. I must be content to-day with repudiating, in the most unqualified way, the notion that a mistake of _any kind whatever_ is consistent with the texture of a narrative inspired by the Holy Spirit of GOD. The allusion in St. Stephen's speech to "the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the son" (not _the father_, but _the son_) "of Sychem," is a good example of confusion apparently existing in an inspired speaker; but, in reality, only in the writings of those who have sat in judgment upon his words[375].