Judges, chief priests in council assembled: present, the high priests. Prosecutors, the said judge: other prosecutors, as far as appears, none. In modern Rome-bred law, this mode of procedure, in which the parts of judge and prosecutor are performed by the same person, is styled the _inquisitorial_: in contradistinction to this, that in which the part of prosecutor is borne by a different person, is stiled the _accusatorial_. Charges or questions put, not stated. _Defendant._ "I am a Pharisee ... the son of a Pharisee. Of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." Thereupon, ver. 9, "great cry" ...--"Great dissention." "Chief captain, fearing lest," Defendant, "Paul should have been pulled in pieces of them," inuendo the said judges, "commands soldiers," who take him back into the castle. "Cry? dissention?"--whence all this? Acts has not here been explicit enough to inform us. As to Defendant's plea, that it was for believing in the resurrection that he was prosecuted,--what could not but be perfectly known to him was,--that it neither was true, nor by possibility could be so. Among said Judges, parties two--Pharisees and Sadducees: Pharisees the predominant. "The Sadducees," on this occasion, says ver. 8, "say there is no resurrection, neither angel nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both." Prosecuting a Pharisee for preaching the resurrection, meaning always the general resurrection, would have been as if a Church-of-Englandist Priest were indicted in the King's Bench, for reading the Athanasian creed. Accordingly--it was a stratagem of the Defendant's--this same misstatement: such it is expressly stated to be:--when defendant "_perceived_," ver. 6, "that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees,"--then it was that he came out with it: and, already it has been seen, how effectually it answered its purpose.