"Do therefore this," Acts 21:23, continues the speech attributed to these elders, "do therefore this that we say to thee: we have four men which have a vow on them:--Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly and keepest the law.--As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood and from fornication.--Then Paul," it is added, "took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them." In the terms of the historian, the matter of the accusation in question is this: namely, "that thou," speaking to Paul, "teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses": it then divides itself into two branches: one is--that "they ought not to circumcise their children"; the other is--that "they ought not to walk after the customs":--_i. e._, conform to any part of the habitual observances--acts and forbearances together--prescribed by the Mosaic law. Such is the accusation: such the act charged upon him, in the character of an offence:--the teaching of the doctrine in question. In regard to the question--whether the doctrine he is thus said to have taught, had really ever been taught by him,--much will depend upon the difference between simple _permission_ and _prohibition_: in English, upon the difference between _need not_ and _ought not_. If,--in the doctrine, the teaching of which is thus charged upon him as a crime,--simple _permission_ was included--if, in speaking of the converts in question, the saying was--that they _need_ not circumcise their children--that they _need_ not walk after these customs--this and no more;--in this case, that the charge, such as it is, was true, is altogether out of doubt:--if, on the other hand, the act he was charged with, went so far as to the teaching that they _ought_ not to circumcise any of their children, or that they _ought_ not to walk after the customs prescribed in the Mosaic law--on this supposition, the truth of the charge will at any rate not be quite so clear as in the other case. According to the English translation, that which is charged as an offence, was not committed, unless, in the doctrine taught, a direct _prohibition_ was contained: to a doctrine importing nothing more than a simple _permission_ to abstain from the acts and forbearances in question, the charge would not have any application. Not thus unambiguous, however, is the Greek original; either by prohibition, or by ample permission, might the doctrine charged as criminal have been taught.