In respect of the description of the persons, of whom the Jerusalem rulers, exercising authority in their behalf, were composed,--the conformity, as between the several accounts, is altogether entire. In the historical account, it is the authority of the High Priest, and the High Priest alone, that is exercised: in the unpremeditated oratorical account, it is that of the High Priest and all the estate of the Elders: in the premeditated account, it is that of the Chief Priests: nothing said either of High Priests or Elders. Neither, in the supposed unpremeditated oratorical account, is it stated--that, at the time and place of the tumult, the rulers thus called to witness, or any of them, were actually on the spot. But, the spot being contiguous to the Temple--the Temple, out of which Paul had been that instant dragged, before there had been time enough for accomplishing the determination that had been formed for killing him,--the distance, between the spot, at which Paul with the surrounding multitude was standing, Paul being under the momentary protection of the Roman commander--between this spot and the spot, whatever it was, at which the question might have been put to them, or some of them, could not be great. On the part of the historian, the boldness, requisite for the ascribing the correspondent boldness to the orator, may be believed without much difficulty. The materials for writing being at hand, there was no more danger in employing them in the writing of these words, than in the writing of an equal number of other words. Not so on the part of the orator himself. For, supposing the appeal made, the multitude might have saved themselves the trouble of putting him to death: the constituted authorities whom he was thus invoking--those rulers, against whom, by his own confession, he had committed this treason--would have been ready enough to proceed against him in the regular way, and take the business out of the hands of an unauthorized mob. The truth of the story, and for that purpose the trustworthiness of the historian, being to be defended at any rate,--by some people, all this contradiction, all this mass of self-contradiction, will of course be referred to _artlessness_, or, to take the choice of another eulogistic word, to _simplicity:_ and, of trustworthiness, this amiable quality, whatever may be the name given to it, will be stated as constituting sufficient proof. No such design, as that of deceiving, inhabited, it will be said, his artless bosom: no such design was he capable of harbouring: for, supposing any such wicked design harboured by him, could he have been thus continually off his guard?