There is great variety, in books both printed and in manuscript, concerning the author of this homily. In some—the Vaticanus 1270, page 27, and the Laurentianus I, Plut. XIV, page 290—it bears the name of Saint Ambrose; in certain others, that of Saint Augustine. Jean Gillot, in the Paris edition of the works of Saint Ambrose, published it as sermon number 49. Following Gillot under the name of that same holy archbishop were the men of the Sixtine edition of the same works of Saint Ambrose. But that Gillot fell into error is established by the illustrious testimony of Gennadius, a writer both ancient and accurate, who counts this homily among the little works of Saint Maximus, and records that it was inscribed: 'On the Lord accused and condemned before Pilate.' To this is added the authority of manuscripts.
the authority of four most ancient manuscripts. For in the Sangallensis, in two of the Holy Cross in Jerusalem, 90 and 99, and in the Taurinensis, the same homily is noted in the sequence among the sermons of Saint Maximus, following the preceding one—though the inscription is somewhat divergent: in 90 of the Holy Cross it reads thus: 'Here begins concerning the Lord accused before Pilate, and concerning Susanna.' In 99: 'On the Lord accused before Pilate.' In the Taurinensis: 'Likewise on the Lord accused and judged.' In the Sangallensis, as in 99 of the Holy Cross, this very homily follows the previous one. The Benedictine monks of the Congregation of Saint Maur, in the appendix to the fifth volume of the Works of Saint Augustine, advise that this sermon is attributed to Saint Maximus, using the testimony of the Louvain scholars, and they inscribe it 'On the Passion of the Lord, and Susanna.'
With the Louvain scholars agree the editors of the homilies of Maximus—Gymnicus, Galesinius, Cumdius, Raynaudus, Margarinus—with the single exception of Combefis, who passed it over. But there is no reason why I should think I ought to dissent from them. It may perhaps seem wonderful to you, brethren, why the Lord, when He is accused before the governor Pilate by the chief priests, is silent, and does not by His answer convict their wickedness, since surely an accusation once brought forward is wont to be refuted only by a defense that follows. Wonderful, I say, may it appear, brethren, that the Savior is arraigned, and is silent; for silence is sometimes taken for consent, since it seems to confirm what is objected when one is unwilling to answer what is asked.
Does the Lord, then, by keeping silent confirm the accusation against Him? By no means does He by His silence confirm the accusation against Him, but He despises it by not refuting it; for he keeps silence well who has no need of a defense. Let him be eager to defend himself who fears to be condemned. Let him hasten to speak who fears to be overcome. Christ, when He is condemned, even triumphs; when He is judged, He conquers, as the prophet says: 'That Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, and mayest overcome when Thou art judged' (Ps. 50). What need, therefore, was there for Him to speak before the judgment, for whom the very judgment was a full victory? For Christ conquers when He is judged, because thus He is proved innocent; whence Pilate says: 'I am innocent of the blood of this just man' (Matt. 27). Better, therefore, is the cause which is defended, and is proved;
a fuller justice it is, which is not built up by words, but is supported by truth. It is necessary that one be silent where equity itself is present to him; let him be silent in a lawsuit, since even bad causes are wont to prevail. I do not wish justice to be so defended as iniquity is wont to be pleaded. That Christ conquers is not a matter of oratory, but of virtue; for the Savior, who is Wisdom, knows how by keeping silence He might conquer, how by not answering He might overcome; and He prefers to prove His cause rather than to plead it. For what thing would compel Him to speak, when silence sufficed for victory? But perhaps fear might force Him, lest He lose His life—except that this very thing was the whole cause of His victory; for He lost His own life, that He might gain the salvation of all;
He preferred to be overcome in Himself, that He might be victor in all. But why do I speak of Christ? Susanna, a woman, kept silence among her enemies, and conquered (Daniel 13). For she did not defend herself before Daniel the judge by the reasoning of words, nor did she shield herself with the speech of an advocate; but in the holy woman, though her tongue was silent, her chastity spoke for her. For the chastity of Susanna was present in the judgment, which had defended her also in paradise; for there it took counsel for her modesty, here for her safety; there that her purity might not be stained, here that her innocence might not be condemned. The chastity of Susanna, therefore, both convicted the impudent elders in paradise, and prevailed over the false accusers in the judgment, and, twice victorious, made those guilty by testimony whom they had made guilty of adultery.
But what judge, in the end, does chastity deserve? Daniel, a younger boy, not yet of the age of puberty. Much, therefore, does modesty obtain from God; it earns a virgin as its judge; for chastity is secure of victory, when virginity is to be its judge. The cause of modesty, moreover, none but a modest man ought to have heard; for the testimony of chastity deserves such an arbiter, before whom modesty is not endangered. When Daniel, therefore, had recognized the case of Susanna, since the ignorant people wished to condemn her with false accusations, the same said: 'I am clean of the blood of this woman' (Daniel 13:46). By which saying he recalled the sinning people from their error. With this cry, then, Daniel acted concerning Susanna, which Pilate used concerning the Lord; for Pilate says:
'I am clean of the blood of this just man' (Matt. 27:24). By the same sentence, therefore, is modesty acquitted, by which justice was absolved. But Daniel did better than Pilate; for the one does not condemn the chaste blood, but frees it; the other, however, both confesses the just blood, and hands it over. For what did it profit to have borne witness to innocence, and to have delivered up as though guilty to wickedness, except that the sin is graver—to pronounce one and the same man just, and to hand him over as though a criminal? For he is himself a witness of his own iniquity, who acquits with the mouth, and condemns with the heart. Though Pilate wash his hands, yet he does not wash away his own deeds;
and although he thought he had wiped away the blood of the just man from his own members, yet by that blood his mind is held covered over. For he himself slew Christ, who handed Him over to be slain; for a steadfast and good judge, so as not to deliver up the blood of an innocent man, ought neither to have yielded to malice nor to fear. Daniel, therefore, did better than Pilate: the one recalled the sinning people from their error; the other confirmed the sacrilege of the raging Synagogue.