Accusations And Silence

Mirum forsitan videatur vobis, fratres, cur Dominus apud praesidem Pilatum a principibus sacerdotum accusetur, et taceat, nec nequitiam eorum sua responsione convincat, cum utique ingestam accusationem nonnisi refellere soleat subsecuta defensio. Mirum, inquam, fiat, fratres, quod arguatur Salvator, et taceat; taciturnitas enim interdum pro consensu habetur; videtur namque confirmare, quod objicitur, cum non vult respondere, quod quaeritur. Accusationem ergo suam Dominus tacendo confirmat? Non plane accusationem suam tacendo confirmat, sed despicit non refellendo; bene enim tacet, qui defensione non indiget. Ambiat defendi, qui metuit superari. Festinet loqui, qui timet vinci. Christus autem cum condemnatur, et superat; cum judicatur, et vincit, sicut ait propheta: Ut justificeris in sermonibus tuis, et vincas cum judicaris. Quid ergo opus erat ei loqui ante judicium, cui ipsum judicium erat plena victoria. Vincit enim cum judicatur Christus, quia sic innocens approbatur; unde ait Pilatus: Innocens ego sum a sanguine hujus justi. Melior est igitur causa, quae non defenditur, et probatur; plenior justitia est, quae non verbis astruitur, sed veritate fulcitur. Taceat lingua necesse, ubi ipsa aequitas sibi adest; taceat in bono negotio, quia et malas causas obtinere consuevit. Nolo sic defendi justitiam, sicut solet iniquitas excusari. Quod vincit Christus, non orationis est, sed virtutis; scit enim Salvator, qui est sapientia, quomodo tacendo vinceret, quomodo non respondendo superaret: atque causam suam mavult comprobare quam dicere. Quae enim res illum compelleret ad loquendum, cum silentium satis sufficeret ad vincendum? Sed fortasse metus eum cogeret, ne salutem perderet, nisi quod ipsa erat tota causa victoriae; suam enim salutem perdidit, ut salutem omnium lucraretur; in se vinci maluit, ut victor esset in cunctis. Sed quid de Christo loquar? Susanna mulier apud inimicos suos tacuit, et vicit. Non enim apud Danielem judicem verborum se ratione defendit, non patrocinii sermone tutata est; sed in sancta femina, tacente lingua, pro ea castitas loquebatur. Castitas enim Susannae adfuit in judicio, quae eam defendit et in paradiso; ibi enim pudori ejus consuluit, 143 hic saluti; ibi ne macularetur pudicitia, hic ne innocentia damnaretur. Castitas ergo Susannae et presbyteros, et impudicos convicit in paradiso, et in judicio falsos accusatores obtinuit, bisque victrix reos facit testimonii, quos reos fecerat adulterii. At quem tandem judicem meretur castitas? Danielem puerum juniorem, nec dum pubescentis aetatis. Multum igitur de Deo pudicitia consequitur, cum judicem virginem promeretur; secura enim est de victoria castitas, cui est judicatura virginitas. Pudicitiae autem causam, nisi vir pudicus audire non debuit; talem enim arbitrum meretur castimonia, apud quem non periclitetur verecundia. Cognito igitur Daniel Susannae negotio, cum eam falsis accusationibus vellet plebs imperita damnare, ait idem: Mundus ego sum a sanguine hujus. Quo dicto peccantis populi revocavit errorem. Hac ergo voce circa Susannam Daniel utitur; qua circa Dominum usus est Pilatus; ait enim Pilatus: Mundus ego sum a sanguine hujus justi. Eadem igitur sententia solvitur pudicitia, qua est absoluta justitia. Sed Daniel melius quam Pilatus; ille enim pudicum sanguinem non condemnat, sed liberat; hic autem justum sanguinem et confitetur, et tradit. Quid enim profuit testimonium perhibuisse innocentiae, et velut reum addixisse nequitiae, nisi quod gravius peccatum est, unum eumdemque et pronuntiare justum, et tradere quasi criminosum? Ipse enim iniquitatis suae testis est, qui ore absolvit, et corde condemnat. Laverit licet manus suas Pilatus, tamen sua facta non diluit; et quamvis abstergere se putaverit justi sanguinem de suis membris, eo tamen sanguine mens ejus tenetur infecta. Ipse enim occidit Christum, qui eum tradidit occidendum; judex enim constans et bonus, ne sanguinem innocentis addiceret, nec invidiae cedere debuit, nec timori. Daniel ergo melius quam Pilatus: ille peccantis populi revocavit errorem; hic autem furentis Synagogae sacrilegium confirmavit. Sanctus Maximus Taurinensis, Homilia XLVI , De accusato et judicato Domino apud Pilatum Source: Migne PL 57.331c-334b

Perhaps it seems a wonder to you, brothers, why the Lord at the court of Pilate, when He was accused by the chief priests, was silent, and did not convict their wickedness with His own answer, 1 when an accusation is not customarily allowed unless it is possible that it might be refuted by a subsequent defence. Let there be wonder here, brothers, that the Saviour is accused and is silent, for silence is held to be consent, since it seems to confirm what is asserted when one chooses not to answer what is asked. Did, then, the Lord confirm his own accusation with silence? No, plainly His silence did not confirm His accusation, but he scorned a rebuttal, for he is wisely silent who is in no need of defence. He who is keen to defend himself fears that he shall be overcome. He makes haste to speak who fears to be overthrown. But when Christ is condemned, He overcomes, and when He is convicted He conquers, as the prophet says, 'That you be justified in your words, and triumph when you are judged.' 2 What need, then, was there for Him to speak before judgement, when that judgement was full of victory? For Christ triumphs when he is judged because He is proved innocent, whence Pilate says, 'I am innocent of the blood of this righteous man.' 3 Thus better is that cause which is not defended and is proved. Greater is the righteousness which no words prop up but which the truth supports. It is necessary that the tongue be silent when justice is near, for the tongue is silent in good affairs and accustomed to labour for bad cases. Righteousness is not defended in the way that wickedness is customarily excused. Christ does not conquer with speeches but with virtue. The Saviour, who is wisdom, knows how to conquer by silence and how to overcome without answering, and in this way He prefers to prove His own case than to speak. What is it that would compel one to speak when silence is sufficient to conquer? But perhaps fear compels, lest safety be lost? Yet that was the whole cause of victory, that He should lose his safety so that He might advance the salvation of everyone. He preferred for Himself to be conquered so that He might be a victor for everyone. But why do I speak of Christ? Susanna was silent before her enemies and triumphed. 4 For it was not until Daniel that her cause was defended with words, nor was she protected with speech by lawyers, but in holy womanhood, with a silent tongue, she spoke for her chastity. Susana was chaste in judgement, which she defended in the garden. There she looked to her modesty, here to her salvation. There lest her modesty be defiled, here lest innocence be damned. Therefore the chastity of Susanna convicted the wicked elders in the garden, and in court revealed false accusers, and twice the victorious woman makes them guilty by witness who would have made her guilty of adultery. But what judge should chastity have? Daniel, a youth, who had not yet reached the age of maturity. Therefore modesty receives much from God when it merits a virginal judge. For chastity is certain of victory when it is judged by virginity. But the cause of modesty should not be heard unless before a modest man, for chastity merits such a judge, and it will be endangered without it. Thus Daniel understood Susanna's case, and when the unlearned people wished to condemn her with false accusations, he said, 'I am clean of this blood.' Which saying he exposed the error of a people at fault. With this voice Daniel was of use to Susanna, which then Pilate employed for the Lord, for he said: 'I am clean of the blood of this righteous man.' Thus modesty quashed the same sentence with its perfect justice. But Daniel was better than Pilate, since he did not condemn modest blood, but freed it, while the latter confessed blood to be righteous and then handed it over. What use to have held to the witness of innocence and then to have assented to the guilt of wickedness, unless that the sin is heavier to pronounce one and the same man just and then to hand him over as a criminal? He is a witness of his own wickedness who with his mouth absolves and with his heart condemns. Pilate may wash his hands, but he cannot make his act clean. Though he thinks to scrub the blood of a righteous man from his members, yet his mind is stained with it. For he kills Christ who hands him over to his killers. The good and constant judge, lest he abandon innocent blood, should not be overcome by envy or fear. Therefore Daniel was better than Pilate, for the former exposed the error of a people in fault, and the latter confirmed the sacrilege of the enraged Synagogue. Saint Maximus of Turin, Homily 46, On the Accusation And Judgement of the Lord before Pilate 1 Mt 27.12 2 Ps 50.6 3 Mt 27.24 4 Dan 13