Of the perjuriousness of Paul's intent, a short proof, namely of the circumstantial kind, is thus already visible, in the indignation excited,--its intensity, its immorality, and the bitter fruits of it. Will it be said no? for that the indignation had, for its adequate cause, his being thought to have spoken slightingly of the law in question--it being the law of the land,--and that, to this imputation, the ceremony, it being, as above the performance of a _vow_, had no reference? Assuredly no: no such interpretation will be found tenable. True it is, that, by the persuasion, that he had thus been dealing by the Mosaic law,--by this persuasion, without need of anything else, the indignation may well have been produced: but it could only have been by the knowledge, that, upon his having been called upon to confess the having so done, or to deny it, he had, in this most extraordinary and universally conspicuous mode, given continuance and confirmation to his denial--it could only have been by _this_ knowledge, that the excitement was raised up to so high a pitch. For, What was it that the information had charged him with? It was the forsaking Moses. What was the purpose, for which the recommendation was given to him--the recommendation to perform this ceremony? It was the _purifying_ himself, "that all might know" that the information was groundless. "That those things," say the Apostles with the Elders to him, "whereof they," the thousands of Jews which believe, ver. 20, "were informed against thee were _nothing_:"--"to _purify thyself_," says the official translation: more appositely might it have said _to clear thyself_: for in that case, the idea of an _imputation_ would clearly enough, though but implicitly, have been conveyed: whereas, to some minds, the idea conveyed by the word _purify_ may perhaps be no other than that of some _general_ cleansing of the whole character, by means of some physical process, to which, in so many minds, the psychological effect in question has, by the influence of artifice on weakness, been attached. Such then, namely, the clearing himself of the imputation by so solemn a confirmation of the denial of it,--such was the purpose, for which, in the most unequivocal terms, his performance of the ceremony was recommended: such, therefore, was the purpose for which it was commenced; such, accordingly, was the purpose for which it would have been consummated, but for the interruption which it experienced: experienced not from his hands, but from hands among which, there seems sufficient reason to believe, were the hands, if not of the very persons by whom it had been recommended, at any rate of those who till that time had been in use to be guided by their influence. To this interpretation, what objection is there that can be opposed? If any, it can only be that which to some minds may perhaps be suggested by the word _vow_.