of them what accusation they bring against their prisoner. They reply, in general terms, that he is a malefactor; but finding that Pilate is not disposed to give them a hearing on so vague a charge, they, as it would seem, by some private communication with him, inform him that he aspires to the kingly office, thus changing entirely the accusation upon which they had previously condemned him; charging him with a political instead of a religious offence, in order to make his crime capital in the eyes of the governor. On being asked by Pilate if he were a king, he at length replies that he was, though in a spiritual sense; whereupon the governor comes forth from the judgment-hall, or forecourt, where Jesus was placed, to the Jews without, and declares to them that he finds in him no fault at all.

Notwithstanding all the circumstances appeared unfavorable to the success of their enterprise, they, nothing daunted by the failure of their first attempt, speedily start new accusations against him. "And then," says the history, "they were the more fierce, saying, he stirreth up the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place." At the mention of this word Galilee, it seems to have occurred to Pilate that he might escape the dilemma in which he was placed, of either offending the Jews, or condemning one who, he was persuaded, was innocent, by turning him over to the governor of that province; accordingly he sends him to Herod, who was at that time at Jerusalem at the feast. Before this new tribunal he is subjected to a similar course of vexatious questioning and rude mocking as before Pilate, and finally is sent back to him arrayed, by way of derision, in a bright colored robe. Pilate now again assures the Jews, that neither he nor Herod finds any fault in him touching the things whereof they accuse him, and proposes, therefore, after having scourged him, to release him according to a custom which they had of releasing a prisoner at the Passover. He, therefore, puts the question to them, whether he shall release him, or a certain other prisoner, a notorious agitator and murderer, called Barabbas, and they reply, "not this man, but Barabbas." Pilate hesitates, both on account of an admonition sent him by his wife, and also from his own sense of his innocence and dignity; but is at length decided in his waverings by the all-powerful argument, "If thou

"Then

let this man go, thou art not Cæsar's friend." delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he, bearing his cross, went forth into a place called the place of a skull, where they crucified him."

Such is a brief outline of this most remarkable transaction, as related by eye-witnesses. That such a trial would not be according to our laws, or the laws of any other nation with whose institutions we are acquainted, we readily perceive; nor can we well imagine how the penal code of any nation, especially of so enlightened a nation as the Jews, could have been so corrupt as to sanction so irregular proceedings, such as employing spies upon his conduct, suborning false witnesses, holding a mock trial upon him, before a tribunal which by its own confession had not the proper cognizance of such causes, and then bringing him before the proper tribunal, but there changing the ground of their accusation, and employing every artifice to procure his condemnation, against the clear convictions. of the judge, and at both trials subjecting him to contumely and insult, how improbable, we say, does it seem that such proceedings should be sanctioned by the laws of so enlightened a nation as the Jews! Every one pronounces them illegal at once.

But what we feel to be true, M. Dupin, in the work before us, has shown to be so. He has discussed the subject in a most masterly and scholarlike manner; taking the very principles laid down by Mr. Salvador, in his chapter on the administration of justice among the Hebrews, he has shown most conclusively, that the trial was every way irregular, and the condemnation unjust.

The first section is very properly devoted to giving an analysis of the above-named chapter of Mr. Salvador. From this and other sources upon which he draws in different parts of his book, our author has, with one slight exception, fully established the following points.

1. That in no nation was liberty of speech more unlimited than among the Hebrews.

2. That the laws of the Hebrews were very far from being sanguinary. In confirmation of this he quotes the opinion of several of their lawyers. This is their language. "A tribunal which condemns to death once in seven years, may be called sanguinary."—"It deserves this appella

tion," says Dr. Eliezer, "when it pronounces a like sentence once in seventy years."

3. That they secured to every one, in an eminent degree, the benefit of a fair and equitable trial. Take the following extract upon this point. "The whole criminal procedure in the Pentateuch rests upon three principles, which may be thus expressed; publicity of the trial, entire liberty of defence allowed to the accused, and a guaranty against the dangers of testimony. According to the Hebrew text, one witness is no witness; there must be at least two or three who know the fact. The witness who testifies against a man, must swear that he speaks the truth; the judges then proceed to take exact information of the matter; and if it is found that the witness has sworn falsely, they compel him to undergo the punishment to which he would have exposed his neighbor. The discussion between the accuser and the accused is conducted before the whole assembly of the people. When a man is condemned to death, those witnesses whose evidence decided the sentence, inflict the first blows, in order to add the last degree of certainty to their evidence. Hence the expression, Let him among you who is without sin, cast the first stone."

4. That the Jewish law prohibited all proceedings by night.

5. That it forbade all judicial procedure on a feast-day, under the penalty of being null.

6. That the Jews, at this time, had lost not only the power of condemning to death, but the entire cognizance of capital cases. The common opinion upon this point has been that the Jews had the power of trying even capital offences, but that the execution of the sentence depended upon the will of the Roman governor, in whom alone the executive power was vested. Our author combats this opinion with much plausible though not quite convincing argument, maintaining in its stead the doctrine just announced.

These points being established, he proceeds to test by them the legality of the trial of Jesus. And how will it bear the test? Can Mr. Salvador's conclusion, "that, considered merely as a legal proceeding, it was conformable to the Jewish laws," be sustained; or will it appear that the trial and condemnation of Jesus, like the rest of the

treatment of the Jewish nation towards the Saviour, were both illegal and unjust? It requires no unusual penetration to perceive the utter disagreement between the proceedings at this trial and the laws of the land as here stated that indeed must be a very ingenious pleader, who should be able to show the least congruity between them.

Was it legal, in a country where there was unbounded liberty of speech, to employ spies to seek his company under a false character, "that they might take hold of his words," and even to urge it as a part of his crime, that he "taught the people?" Was it legal, in a country where a tribunal was considered sanguinary if it condemned to death once in seventy years, to drag to death one whom the judge repeatedly declared to be innocent? Was it legal for the accusers, under a government which provided in an eminent degree for the fair and equitable trial of every one who was arraigned, to employ false witnesses against a man, to shift the ground of accusation according as they discovered it would be most likely to secure his condemnation, and, in short, to employ every means with the judge which was calculated to extort from him a sentence of death, contrary to his will? With the laws of the land thus distinctly brought before us, it needs no special pleading to prove the gross illegality of such a trial in nearly all its details from beginning to end.

It would give us pleasure to present some specimens of the very successful manner in which our author conducts the case; but the length to which these remarks have already been extended, must be our apology for referring our readers to the book itself. The book throughout is characterized by great candor and kindness of spirit. The style is sprightly, the legal learning ample, the logic clear, and the conclusions, as a general thing, sound. We have noticed some few instances of deficiency in an exegetical knowledge of the Scriptures. We will mention but one case, and that relates to the character of the force which was employed to seize Christ. He calls it a "ruffian band," and so undoubtedly it was, but he adds, what we do not see sufficient reason for believing, that "if in the crowd there were any Roman soldiers, they were there as spectators, and without having been legally called on duty; for the Roman commanding officer, Pilate, had not yet

heard of the affair spoken of." The reason, therefore, which he assigns for denying that there were any Roman soldiers there, legally called out for the purpose, is, that Pilate, whom he calls the commanding officer, had not yet heard of the affair. And it is true that there is no mention of the previous proceedings when they came before Pilate, and little appearance in any thing which he does or says, of his being acquainted with those proceedings; yet it cannot be denied, that there was a band of soldiers there with a captain over them, as is expressly asserted by John, using the very terms which were technically applied to the Roman army, in his narrative of the proceedings, and that these soldiers appear not to have fallen under the censure of the governor in the least, since they unhesitatingly bore the prisoner into his presence, and guarded him while there. They act, therefore, as if they were on duty, and are treated as though they were.

There is one other circumstance connected with this book, which we must not forget to mention; it is the production of a lawyer, and has received its present English dress from the hand of a lawyer. We must express ourselves greatly obliged to the legal profession, for the service it has thus done the cause of religion, and would hope that it may be often repeated. When they appear in this character, and acquit themselves after this manner, we must cordially extend to them the hand of fellowship, and bid them God speed.