An article of evidence, that must not be left unnoticed,--is the part taken, on this occasion, by the historiographer. Nowhere does this eyewitness take upon himself to declare,--nowhere so much as to insinuate--that of the charge, thus made upon his hero, there was anything that was not true: nowhere does he so much as insinuate, that the declaration by which he says Paul had cleared himself of the charge, and, as we have seen, _before_ his entrance into the temple for the purpose of enforcing it by the sanction of an oath,--was anything short of a downright falsehood. After this, he makes a defence for Paul before Felix;[56] he makes a defence for Paul before Festus;[57] he makes a defence for Paul before Festus and Agrippa;[58] and, on no one of all those occasions, is the defence anything to the purpose. He, indeed, makes Paul declare, that he, Paul, had always been a strict observer of the Mosaic ordinances. This may have been either true or false: but, true or false, it was equally foreign to the purpose. Not improbably, it was, in a considerable degree, true: for if, while he gave to other Jews his assurance, that the operations in question, burthensome as they were, were of no use, he himself continued to bear the burthen notwithstanding,--the persuasiveness of his advice would naturally be augmented by the manifestation thus given of disinterestedness. It may accordingly have been true: but, false or true, it was equally foreign to the purpose: the question was--not what he had done himself; but what he had recommended it to others to do. Thus--from everything that appears, by all such persons as had the best means of information--the charge made upon him was _believed_,--let it now be seen, whether we should not be warranted in saying, _known_,--to be true.