Pilate knew what was right--what he ought to do. Conscience directed
him to acquit the guiltless. But this did not necessitate him to do
it. He had power to do right. He had power also to do wrong.

Others possess similar power. Every moral agent hath power to obey or
disobey the dictates of his conscience. It is not the method of heaven
to compel men to good, or leave them to be compelled to evil. God
intended man to be a free agent, who should choose for himself the
part he would act; and endowed him with a self determining power, to
capacitate him to choose. Devoid of this power, he could not be
accountable.

Man ought to be governed by reason and conscience. These make known
his duty, and offer proper motives to induce him to discharge it. But
they do not oblige him to it. It is referred to his own choice. If he
prefer doing wrong, to doing right, he may do it.

This is exemplified in the case before us. Sufficient evidence was
given of Christ's innocence. The judge was convinced, and knew that it
was his duty to treat him as innocent. But if to answer worldly ends,
or in any respect to gratify depravity, he preferred crucifying the
guiltless, he had power to do it. Though Jesus was the Son of God, God
had left him in the hands of the enemy. "It was their hour and the
power of darkness." They chose and conspired his death. The Jews would
not receive such a Messias. Pilate did not choose to offend the Jews.
The former urged his crucifixion, for fear "all men would believe on
him." The latter was prevailed with to condemn the guiltless, because
he wished to gratify the chiefs of the nation which he governed. Both
sinned against the light of their own minds, not of necessity, but out