Then cried they all again, saying: Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

“Above was set forth the examination by which Pilate examined Christ in the presence of his accusers; but here the Evangelist sets forth how Pilate examined Christ by himself. And first the Evangelist treats of Pilate's interrogation as he examined him; second, of the response of Christ as he was examined, at the place, "Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world." As to the first, he does two things. First he sets forth Pilate's interrogation; second, the cause of the interrogation, or the examination, at the place, "Jesus answered: Do you say this of yourself?" As to the first, it must be known that Pilate, as a just judge, and treating everything with exactness, did not straightway acquiesce in the accusation of the high priest. Exodus 23:2: "You shall not follow the crowd to do evil, nor shall you yield to the judgment of the many in a case, so as to turn aside from the truth." But he entered again into the praetorium and called Jesus, namely apart by himself, because he had a great suspicion concerning him. He called Christ to himself for this reason: that he might more exactly search out everything, and that Christ might answer more quietly, the tumult of the Jews having been removed. Job 29:16: "The cause which I knew not, I searched out most diligently." And then he said to him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" From which it is clear, as Luke relates in chapter 23:2, that the Jews laid this charge against him; although John says only, "If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to you," and they brought many other charges against him. But this one touched Pilate's heart the more, and therefore he questions him about this alone. Matthew 12:34: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Consequently, when he says, "Jesus answered," etc., the examination by questioning is set forth, and first Christ's questioning is set forth; second, Pilate's answer, at the place, "Am I a Jew?" He says therefore, "Jesus answered," questioning in his turn, "Do you say this of yourself?" Here it must be known that a man questions for a twofold cause. Sometimes in order to know a thing which he did not know before, and thus a disciple questions a master; sometimes he questions about a thing already known, in order that he may know the answer of him whom he questions, and thus a master questions a disciple. But the Lord knew both that about which he himself was questioning and that which was to be answered; and therefore he did not question as one ignorant, since "all things are naked and open to his eyes" (Hebrews 4:13), but he questions so that we might know what opinion the Jews and the Gentiles held, and at the same time that we might be instructed concerning that kingdom. Consequently, when he says, "Pilate answered," etc., Pilate's response is set forth. But why does he answer thus? Namely because the Lord had asked him whether he had said this of himself. And so Pilate shows that it did not pertain to him to inquire whether he was king of the Jews, but rather to the Jews, whose king he called himself; giving one to understand by this that this had been told him by others. And therefore he adds, "Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you to me," namely, making this accusation against you. And he says "your own nation," because he had been born of the Jews, according to his humanity. Jeremiah 20:10: "For I heard the reproaches of many, and terror on every side: Persecute him, from all the men that were my familiar friends"; Micah 7:6: "A man's enemies are they of his own household." And he says "chief priests," because the greater they were in power, the more guilty in the crime. 1 Esdras 9:2: "The hand of the princes and of the magistrates has been first in this transgression"; Jeremiah 5:5: "I will go to the great men, and I will speak to them; for they have known the way of the Lord, the judgment of their God: and behold, these have altogether broken the yoke, they have burst the bonds." "If therefore they have delivered you to me, what have you done?" As if he were to say: it is not to be believed that they would have delivered you to me except for a great cause. Here Christ's response is set forth, and first he removes the falsity of the suspicion about his kingdom; second, he establishes the truth, at the place, "Pilate therefore said to him: Are you a king then?" As to the first he does two things. First he excludes the false suspicion; second, he brings forward the proof by a sign, at the place, "If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews." He removes the false suspicion, saying, "My kingdom is not of this world." Understanding this wrongly, the Manichaeans said that there are two gods and two kingdoms: namely a good God, who has his kingdom in the region of light, and an evil God, who has his kingdom in the region of darkness; and they said that this present world is that latter region, because they said all bodily things are darkness. And according to this the sense would be: "My kingdom is not of this world," as if he were to say: the Lord my Father, who is good, and I, do not have our kingdom in the region of darkness. But against this is what is said in Psalm 46:8: "For God is king of all the earth." And again: "Whatsoever the Lord pleased, he has done, in heaven and in earth." And therefore it must be said that Christ said this on account of Pilate, who believed that Christ aspired to an earthly kingdom, by which he would reign bodily, as earthly men do; and that on this account he would be liable to death, because he had illicitly aspired to a kingdom. Now it must be known that "kingdom" is sometimes said of that people which reigns, sometimes of the royal power itself. Taking "kingdom" in the first way, Augustine expounds it, and says "my kingdom," that is, my faithful ones — Revelation 5:10: "You have made us a kingdom to our God" — "is not of this world." He does not say: is not in this world; above, John 17:11: "and these are in the world," but it "is not of this world," by affection and imitation, having indeed been snatched away by the election of grace. For thus God rescued us from the power of darkness, and transferred us into the kingdom of his charity. But Chrysostom expounds it taking "kingdom" in the second way, and says: "my kingdom," that is, my power and authority by which I am king, "is not of this world," that is, it does not have its origin from worldly causes and the choice of men, but from elsewhere, namely from the Father himself. Daniel 7:14: "His power is an everlasting power that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom that shall not be corrupted." Here he brings forward evident signs to prove that his kingdom is not of this world, and first he sets forth the sign; second he concludes what he intends, at the place, "but now my kingdom is not from here." As to the first, it must be known that whoever has an earthly kingdom, whether justly or by violence, must have companions and servants, by whom he is upheld in his power. The reason for this is that he is not powerful of himself, but through his servants. 2 Kings 3:1: "There was a long war between the house of Saul and the house of David: David prospering and growing always stronger and stronger, but the house of Saul decaying daily." But the King on high, since he is powerful of himself, bestows power upon his servants; therefore he does not need servants for his kingdom. And therefore he says that his kingdom is not of this world: "for if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews." Whence also Peter, wishing to fight for Christ, did not perceive that he himself was not of this world — see above, at the same place. Yet the Lord did have other servants, namely the Angels, who could have snatched him from the hands of the Jews; but the Lord did not wish to be snatched away. Matthew 26:53: "Can I not ask my Father, and he will give me more than twelve legions of angels?" "But now my kingdom is not from here." That is, since he does not seek such servants, he concludes that his kingdom is not from here, that is, it does not have its beginning from this world; yet it is here, because it is everywhere: for "it reaches from end to end mightily, and orders all things sweetly" (Wisdom 8:1); Psalm 2:8: "Ask of me, and I will give you the nations for your inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for your possession"; Daniel 7:14: "He gave him power and glory and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and languages shall serve him." Here the Lord manifests the truth about his kingdom, that it exists, and first the occasion of the manifestation is set forth; second, the manifestation itself, at the place, "Jesus answered him," etc.; third, the effect of the manifestation, at the place, "Pilate said to him, What is truth?" As to the first, it must be known that Pilate, understanding from the Lord's aforesaid words that the kingdom was, as it were, carnal and yet removed from those regions — as in 1 Corinthians 2:14: "The sensual man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God" — nonetheless longed to know the truth; and therefore he says, saying, "Are you a king then?" Namely, even the Lord. Consequently, answering, he says, "You say that I am a king," where first he confesses himself to be a king; second, he shows the ground of his kingship, at the place, "For this I was born... that I should give testimony to the truth"; third, he intimates over whom he reigns, at the place, "Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice." As to the first, it must be known that the Lord, answering the question about the kingdom, so tempered his answer that he neither openly confessed himself to be a king — since he was not a king in the way Pilate understood — nor denied it, since he was spiritually King of kings. He says therefore, "You say that I am a king," namely, carnally, in which manner I am not a king, but in another manner I am a king. Isaiah 32:1: "Behold a king shall reign in justice, and princes shall rule in judgment." But he shows the manner and ground of his kingdom, saying, "For this I was born, and for this I came into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth"; which is expounded in two ways. In one way, according to Augustine, so that the kingdom of Christ consists of the faithful, as was said above; and thus Christ reigns over the faithful, and he came into the world for this, that by gathering the faithful to himself he might acquire a kingdom for himself. Luke 19:12: "A certain nobleman went into a far country, to receive for himself a kingdom." And thus the sense is: "For this," that is, unto this, "I was born," namely by carnal birth. And he expounds this, saying, "and for this I came into the world," by being born carnally; for thus he came into the world — Galatians 4:4: "God sent his Son into the world" — "that I should give testimony to the truth," namely to myself, who am the truth (above, John 14:6). "And if I bear witness of myself, my witness is true" (above, John 8:14). And insofar as I manifest myself as the truth, so far do I acquire a kingdom for myself. For this cannot come about except through the manifestation of the truth, and it was not fitting that this manifestation should be made except through me, who am the light. Above, John 1:18: "The only-begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him." Hebrews 2:3: "Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing witness by signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and distributions of the Holy Spirit." In another way Chrysostom expounds it thus: you ask if I am a king, and I say that I am; but by divine power, because "for this I was born," by an eternal birth from the Father, so that as God from God, so King from King; Psalm 2:6: "But I am appointed king," and he adds, "This day have I begotten you." But as for what he adds, "and for this I came into the world," this is not put expositively, but is understood of the temporal birth; as if he were to say: although I am an eternal king, nevertheless I came into the world for this, that I should give testimony to the truth — namely, to myself, that I am king from God the Father. Here he shows over whom he reigns. Where it must be noted that above, John 10:1, he called himself a shepherd, and called his subjects sheep, which is the same as what he here calls himself a king and his subjects a kingdom: because the proportion of a king to his subjects is the same as that of a shepherd to his sheep; and just as a shepherd feeds his sheep — Ezekiel 34:2: "Should not the flocks be fed by the shepherds?" — so too a king sustains his subjects. And especially, among other things, he said, "My sheep hear my voice"; whence here too he says, "Everyone that is of the truth hears my voice," not only outwardly, but by believing inwardly and by loving and by fulfilling in deed. Above, John 6:45: "Everyone that has heard from the Father and has learned comes to me." But whence does a man have this, that he should hear my voice? From this, namely, that he is of the truth, which is God. But since all are from God, all are of the truth and hear his voice. I answer. It must be said that some are from God by creation, and thus all are from God. Some are also said to be from God by affection and imitation; whence above, John 8:47, it is said: "You are not of God," namely according to affection, though you are of him by creation. He, therefore, hears the voice by believing and loving, who, namely, is of the truth, that is, who has received this gift, that he should love the truth. But note that he does not say: everyone who hears the voice is of the truth, because it would follow that we would be of the truth because we believe; whereas rather we believe because we are of the truth, inasmuch, namely, as we have received the gift of God by which we believe and love the truth. Ephesians 2:8: "By grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: for it is the gift of God"; Philippians 1:29: "To you it is given, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him." He sets forth the effect of the response, in which it is given to be understood that Pilate, the suspicion of an earthly kingdom having been driven off, and understanding Christ to be a king in the doctrine of truth, desires to know the truth, and to become part of his kingdom; whence he says, "What is truth?" Not asking what the definition of truth might be, but what truth was, by whose power he might become part of his kingdom: giving one to understand by this that truth was unknown to the world, and had almost vanished from all, since they were unbelieving. Isaiah 59:14: "Truth has fallen down in the street, and equity could not come in"; Psalm 11:2: "Truths are decayed from among the children of men." But Pilate did not wait for the answer. And therefore, as regards this question, it must be known that we find a twofold truth in the Gospel: one uncreated and making; and this is Christ — above, John 14:6: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" — the other made, above, John 1:17: "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." For truth, by its very nature, imports a commensuration of the thing to the intellect. Now the intellect is compared to things in two ways. For a certain intellect exists as the measure of things, namely that which is the cause of things; while another is measured by the thing, namely that whose knowledge is caused by the thing. Truth, therefore, is not in the divine intellect because it itself is made equal to things, but because things are made equal to the divine intellect itself. But in our intellect there is truth for this reason, that it understands things as things are. And thus the uncreated truth, the divine intellect, is a truth not measured nor made, but a truth measuring and making a twofold truth: one, namely, in things themselves, insofar as it makes them according as they are in the divine intellect; and another which it makes in our souls, which is a truth only measured and not measuring. And hence it is that the uncreated truth of the divine intellect is appropriated to the Son, who is the very conception of the divine intellect and the Word of God. For truth follows upon the conception of the intellect. Then, when he says, "And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews," he treats of Pilate's judgment concerning Christ, and first he declares his innocence; second he intends to extend mercy, at the place, "Now there was a custom that I should release one to you at the Passover." As to the first, it must be known that Pilate, as Augustine says, gladly wished to free Christ, and when he had asked Christ, "What is truth?" it suddenly came into his mind how, by a certain custom, he could free Christ — the custom by which it was usual for one to be released to them at the Passover; and so, not waiting entirely for the answer, he betook himself to procuring this, and therefore he says, "And when he had said this." He heard the tumult of the Jews, and believing that he could restrain it and afterward more quietly hear the answer to the difficult question, he went out again to the Jews, and setting forth Christ's innocence, said to them, "I find no cause in him," namely, of death. 1 Peter 2:22: "Who did no sin." And yet, if there were some cause in him, I, in whom the power resides, and especially the power of judging those things which are done against the king, wish to free and absolve him. Whence he says, "Now there is a custom that I should release one to you at the Passover." Where first he offers Christ's release; second the Evangelist sets forth the Jews' response. Now it must be known that this custom was introduced by Pilate, or by other Roman governors, for the favor of the people. And so, according to this custom, wishing to release him, he says, "Will you, therefore, that I release to you the king of the Jews?" He does not say this as though he had found him guilty concerning the kingdom of the Jews, but in order to aggravate their malice; as if he were to say: even if he is king of the Jews — which it does not pertain to you to judge, but to me — nevertheless, if you wish, I will release him to you. But the Jews themselves cried out again, all saying, "Not this man, but Barabbas." And in order to show the malice of the Jews, he immediately adds the crime of him whom they were asking to be freed, saying, "Now Barabbas was a robber." Isaiah 1:23: "Your princes are faithless, companions of thieves." In this is fulfilled that saying of Jeremiah 12:8: "My inheritance has become to me as a lion in the forest"; Acts 3:14: "You denied the Holy One and the Just, and desired a murderer to be given to you."”

“Then cried they all again,.... For it seems that Pilate had made this proposal once before, and that this was the second time, though not mentioned; yet some copies, and the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions, leave out the word "again": they all, priests and people, in a very clamorous manner, cried out as one man, with one united voice, all at once; saying, not this man, but Barabbas; now Barabbas was a robber; who was an emblem of God's elect in a state of nature, released and set free when Christ was condemned. These, as he, many of them at least, are notorious sinners, the chief of sinners, robbers and murderers; who have robbed God of his glory, and destroyed themselves; are prisoners, concluded in sin and unbelief, and shut up in the law, and in a pit, wherein is no water, in their natural state; and were, as this man, worthy of death, and by nature children of wrath; and yet children of God by adopting grace, as his name Bar Abba signifies, "the son of the father": these, though such criminals, and so deserving of punishment, were let go free, when Christ was taken, condemned, and died; and which was according to the wise and secret counsel of Jehovah, and is a large discovery of divine grace; and what lays those who are released under the greatest obligations to live to him, who suffered for them, in their room and stead. Next: John Chapter 19”

“Barabbas was a robber - See Mat 27:16. The later Syriac has in the margin, αρχιλῃστης, a chief robber, a captain of banditti, and it is probable that this was the case. He was not only a person who lived by plunder, but shed the blood of many of those whom he and his gang robbed, and rose up against the Roman government, as we learn from Luk 23:19. There never existed a more perfidious, cruel, and murderous people than these Jews; and no wonder they preferred a murderer to the Prince of peace. Christ himself had said, If ye were of the world, the world would love its own. Like cleaves to like: hence we need not be surprised to find the vilest things still preferred to Christ, his kingdom, and his salvation. 1. It is not easy to give the character of Pilate. From the manner of his conduct, we scarcely can tell when he is in jest or in earnest. He appears to have been fully convinced of the innocence of Christ; and that the Jews, through envy and malice, desired his destruction. On this ground he should have released him; but he was afraid to offend the Jews. He knew they were an uneasy, factious, and seditious people; and he was afraid to irritate them. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum! was no motto of his. For fear of the clamors of this bad people, he permitted all the forms and requisitions of justice to be outraged, and abandoned the most innocent Jesus to their rage and malice. In this case he knew what was truth, but did not follow its dictates; and he as hastily abandoned the author of it as he did the question he had asked concerning it. Pilate, it is true, was disposed to pity - the Jews were full of malice and cruelty. They both, however, joined in the murder of our Lord. The most that we can say for Pilate is, that he was disposed to justice, but was not inclined to hazard his comfort or safety in doing it. He was an easy, pliable man, who had no objection to do a right thing if it should cost him no trouble; but he felt no disposition to make any sacrifice, even in behalf of innocence, righteousness, and truth. In all the business Pilate showed that he was not a good man; and the Jews proved that they were of their father, the devil. See Joh 19:8. 2. As Dr. Lightfoot has entered into a regular examination of when and how the Jews lost the power of life and death in criminal cases, it may be necessary to lay before the reader a copious abstract of his researches on this subject, founded on Joh 18:31. "It cannot be denied that all capital judgment, or sentence upon life, had been taken from the Jews for above forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem, as they oftentimes themselves confess. But how came this to pass? It is commonly received that the Romans, at this time the Jews' lords and masters, had taken from all their courts a power and capacity of judging the capital matters. Let us superadd a few things here. Rabh Cahna saith, When R. Ismael bar Jose lay sick, they sent to him, saying, Pray, sir, tell us two or three things which thou didst once tell us in the name of thy Father. He saith to them, A hundred and fourscore years before the destruction of the temple, the wicked kingdom (the Roman empire) reigned over Israel, fourscore years before the destruction of the temple, they (the fathers of the Sanhedrin) determined about the uncleanness of the heathen land, and about glass vessels. Forty years before the destruction of the temple, the Sanhedrin removed and sat in the Taberne. What is the meaning of this tradition? Rabbi Isaac bar Abdimi saith, They did not judge judgments of mulcts. The gloss is, Those are the judgments about fining any that offered violence, that entice a maid, and the price of a servant. When, therefore, they did not sit in the room Gazith, they did not judge about these things, and so those judgments about mulcts or fines ceased. Avodoh Zarah. fol. 82. Here we have one part of their judiciary power lost; not taken away from them by the Romans, but falling of itself, as it were, out of the hands of the Sanhedrin. Nor did the Romans indeed take away their power of judging in capital matters; but they, by their own oscitancy, supine and unreasonable lenity, lost it themselves, for so the Gemara goes on: Rabh Hachman bar Isaac saith, Let him not say that they did not judge judgments of mulcts, for they did not judge capital judgments either. And whence comes this? When they saw that so many murders and homicides multiplied upon them that they could not well judge and call them to account, they said, It is better for us that we remove from place to place; for how can we otherwise (sitting here and not punishing them) not contract guilt upon ourselves? "They thought themselves obliged to punish murderers while they sat in the room Gazith, for the place itself engaged them to it. They are the words of the Gemarists, upon which the gloss. The room Gazith was half of it within, and half of it without, the holy place. The reason of which was, that it was requisite that the council should sit near the Divine Majesty. Hence it is that they say, Whoever constitutes an unfit judge is as if he planted a grove by the altar of the Lord, as it is written, Judges and officers shalt thou make thee; and it follows presently after, Thou shalt not plant thee a grove near the altar of the Lord thy God, Deu 16:18, Deu 16:21. They removed therefore from Gazith, and sat in the Taberne; now though the Taberne were upon the mountain of the temple, yet they did not sit so near the Divine Majesty there as they did when they sat in the room Gazith. "Let us now in order put the whole matter together. "I. The Sanhedrin were most stupidly and unreasonably remiss in their punishment of capital offenders; going upon this reason especially, that they counted it so horrible a thing to put an Israelite to death. Forsooth, he is of the seed of Abraham, of the blood and stock of Israel, and you must have a care how you touch such a one! "R. Eliezer bar Simeon had laid hold on some thieves. R. Joshua bar Korchah sent to him, saying, O thou vinegar, the son of good wine! (i.e. O thou wicked son of a good father!) how long wilt thou deliver the people of God to the slaughter! He answered and said, I root the thorns out of the vineyard. To whom the other: Let the Lord of the vineyard come and root them out himself. Bava Meziah, fol. 83, 2. It is worth noting, that the very thieves of Israel are the people of God; and they must not be touched by any man, but referred to the judgment of God himself! "When R. Ismael bar R. Jose was constituted a magistrate by the king, there happened some such thing to him; for Elias himself rebuked him, saying, How long wilt thou deliver over the people of God to slaughter! Ibid. fol. 64, 1. Hence that which we alleged elsewhere: The Sanhedrin that happens to sentence any one to death within the space of seven years, is termed a destroyer. R. Eliezer ben Azariah saith it is so, if they should but condemn one within seventy years. Maccoth, fol. 7, 1. "II. It is obvious to any one how this foolish remissness, and letting loose the reins of judgment, would soon increase the numbers of robbers, murderers, and all kinds of wickedness; and indeed they did so abundantly multiply that the Sanhedrin neither could nor durst, as it ought, call the criminals to account. The law slept, while wickedness was in the height of its revels; and punitive justice was so out of countenance that as to uncertain murders they made no search, and against certain ones they framed no judgement. Since the time that homicides multiplied, the beheading the heifer ceased. Sotoh, fol. 47, 1. And in the place before quoted in Avodah: When they saw the numbers of murderers so greatly increase that they could not sit in judgment upon them, they said, Let us remove, etc., fol. 8, 2. So in the case of adultery, which we also observed in our notes on Joh 8:3-11. Since the time that adultery so openly advanced, under the second temple, they left off trying the adultress by the bitter water, etc. Mainaon. in Sotoh, cap. 3. "So that, we see, the liberty of judging in capital matters was no more taken from the Jews by the Romans than the beheading of the heifer, or the trial of the suspected wife by the bitter waters, was taken away by them, which no one will affirm. It is a tradition of R. Chaia, from the day wherein the temple was destroyed, though the Sanhedrin ceased, yet the four kinds of death (which were wont to be inflicted by the Sanhedrin) did not cease. For he that had deserved to be stoned to death, either fell off from some house, or some wild beast tore and devoured him. He that had deserved burning, either fell into some fire, or some serpent bit him. He that had deserved to be slain (i.e. with the sword) was either delivered into the hands of some heathen king, or was murdered by robbers. He that had deserved strangling, was either drowned in some river, or choked by a squinancy. "This must be observed from the evangelists, that when they had Christ in examination in the palace of the high priest all night, in the morning the whole Sanhedrin met that they might pass sentence of death upon him. Where then was this that they met? Questionless in the room Gazith - at least if they adhered to their own rules and constitutions: Thither they betook themselves sometimes upon urgent necessity. The gloss before quoted excepts only the case of murder, with which, amongst all their false accusations, they never charged Christ. "But, however, suppose it were granted that the great council met either in the Taberne, or some other place, (which yet agreed by no means with their own tradition), did they deal truly, and as the matter really and indeed was, with Pilate, when they tell him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death? He had said to them, Take ye him and judge him according to your laws. We have indeed judged and condemned him, but we cannot put any one to death. Was this that they said in fact true? How came they then to stone the proto-martyr Stephen? How came they to stone Ben Sarda at Lydda? Hieros. Sanhed. fol. 25, 4. How came they to burn the priest's daughter alive that was taken in adultery? Bab. Sanhed. fol. 52, 1, and 51, 1. It is probable that they had not put any one to death as yet, since the time that they had removed out of Gazith, and so might the easier persuade Pilate in that case. But their great design was to throw off the odium of Christ's death from themselves; at least among the vulgar crowd; fearing them, if the council should have decreed his execution. They seek this evasion, therefore, which did not altogether want some color and pretext of truth; and it succeeded according to what they desired. Divine Providence so ordering it as the evangelist intimates, Joh 18:32, That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spake signifying what death he should die: that is, be crucified according to the custom of the Romans. While I am upon this thought, I cannot but reflect upon that passage, than which nothing is more worthy observation in the whole description of the Roman beast in the Revelation, Rev 13:4. The dragon which gave power to the beast. We cannot say this of the Assyrian, Babylonish, or any other monarchy; for the Holy Scriptures do not say it. But reason dictates, and the event itself tells us, that there was something acted by the Roman empire in behalf of the dragon, which was not compatible with any other, that is, the putting of the Son of God to death. Which thing we must remember as often as we recite that article of our creed, 'He suffered under Pontius Pilate,' that is, was put to death by the Roman empire,"”