In truth, how can we (except by contrary evidence, of which there is none) refuse to place confidence in an historian, who tells us, as Saint John does, with affecting simplicity: "He that saw it bare record, and his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe." John xix. 35.

SECTION I.

SPIES, OR INFORMERS.

WHO will not be surprised to find in this case the odious practice of employing hired informers? Branded with infamy, as they are in modern times, they will be still more so when we carry back their origin to the trial of Christ. It will be seen presently, whether I have not properly characterized

by the name of hired informers those emissaries, whom the chief priests sent out to be about Jesus.

We read in the evangelist Luke, chap. xx. 20: Et observantes miserunt insidiatores, qui se justos simularent, ut caperent eum in sermone, et traderent illum principatui et potestati præsidis. I will not translate this text myself, but will take the language of a translator whose accuracy is well known, Mr. De Sacy: "As they only sought occasions for his destruction, they sent to him apostate persons, who feigned themselves just men, in order to take hold of his words, that they might deliver him unto the magistrate and into the power of the governor." And Mr. De Sacy adds "if there should escape from him the least word against the public authorities."

This first artifice has escaped the sagacity of Mr. Salvador.

SECTION II.

THE CORRUPTION AND TREACHERY OF JUDAS.

ACCORDING to Mr. Salvador, the senate, as he calls it, did not commence their proceedings by arresting Jesus, as would be done at the present day; but they began by passing a preliminary decree, that he should be arrested; and he cites, in proof of his assertion, St. John xi. 53, 54, and St. Matthew xxvi. 4, 5.

But St. John says nothing of this pretended decree. He speaks, too, not of a public sitting, but of a consultation held by the chief priests and the Pharisees, who did not, to my knowledge, constitute a judicial tribunal among the Jews. "Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles." John xi.

47. They add: "If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him," which imported also, in their minds, and they will no longer believe in us. Now, in this, I can readily perceive the fear of seeing the morals and doctrines of Jesus prevail; but where is the preliminary judgment, or decree? I cannot discover it.

"And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, nor consider, that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people,

and he prophesied, that Jesus should die for the nation of the Jews." But to prophesy is not to pass judgment; and the individual opinion of Caiaphas, who was only one among them, was not the opinion of all, nor a judgment of the senate. We, therefore, still find a judgment wanting; and we only observe, that the priests and Pharisees are stimulated by a violent hatred

of Jesus, and that "from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death; ut interficerent eum." John xi. 53.

The authority of St. John, then, is directly in contradiction of the assertion, that there was an order of arrest previously passed by a regular tribunal.

St. Matthew, in relating the same facts, says, that the chief priests assembled at the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and there held counsel together. But what counsel? and what was the result of it? Was it to issue an order of arrest against Jesus, that they might hear him and then pass sentence? Not at all; but they held counsel together, "that they might take Jesus by subtilty, or fraud, and kill him; consilium fecerunt, ut Jesum DOLO tenerent et OCCIDERENT. Matt. xxvi. 5. Now in the Latin language, a language perfectly well constituted in every thing