As to "_The Jews of Asia_,"--and the mention made of this class of men, as the instigators of the tumult--can any support be derived from it, for the inference, that it was by something else in Paul's conduct, and not by any such perjury as that in question, that the vent, thus given to the indignation, was produced?[59] No, assuredly: altogether inconsistent would any such supposition be, with the main part of the narrative. Whoever were the persons with whom the manual violence originated;--whatever were the reproaches cast upon the invader on other grounds;--the purpose--the sole purpose--for which he entered upon the ceremony, is rendered as plain as words can make it. It was the clearing himself of the charge of teaching Jews to forsake Moses: and, supposing the fact admitted, everything, in the way of justification, being, before such a tribunal, manifestly inadmissible,--of no such charge was it possible for him to clear himself, without denying the truth of it. But, according to the historian, to confirm this denial, by the solemnity, whatever it was,--was the purpose, and the sole purpose, of it: of this, the negative assertion, contained in the denial, being untrue, and, by him who made it, known to be so,--confirming such denial, by the solemnity,--call it _oath_--call it _vow_--call it anything else,--was committing an act of perjury: and, to believe that such his denial was false, and yet not believing him guilty of perjury--at any rate, on the supposition of the accomplishment of the solemnity--was not possible. How numerous so ever may have been the other causes of provocation, given by him--how numerous so ever, the different descriptions of persons to whom they had been given;--no disproof could, by all of them put together, be given, by this solemnity, to the denial in question,--supposing it false. To the present purpose, the only question is--whether, by Paul, on the occasion in question, an act of perjury was, or was not, committed? not--what was the cause, whether that, or any other, of any indignation of which he was the object. Even therefore, might it be allowed, that a _vow_, in the sense of which it is contradistinguished from an _oath_, was performed by him, or about to be performed,--still it would not be the less undeniable, that it was for the purpose of converting the simple declaration into a declaration upon oath, that he entered upon the solemnity: and that, therefore, if in the simple declaration there was anything to his knowledge false, the consequence is--that by his converting it into a declaration upon oath, he rendered himself guilty of perjury.