NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Holy Bible Institute

Ascetic.Children are not to be received from their parents except with full security for publicityin their reception. They are to be carefully instructed in the Scriptures. They are not to beallowed to make any profession till they come to years of discretion (XV.). Temperance isa virtue, but the servants of God are not to condemn any of God’s creatures as unclean, andare to eat what is given them. (XVIII.) Hospitality is to be exercised with the utmostfrugality and moderation, and the charge to Martha in Luke x. 41, is quoted with the readingὀλίγων δέ ἐστι χρεία ἢ ἑνός 548 and the interpretation “few,” namely for provision, and“one,” namely the object in view,—enough for necessity. It would be as absurd for monksto change the simplicity of their fare on the arrival of a distinguished guest as it would befor them to change their dress (XX.). Rule XXI. is against unevangelical contention forplaces at table, and Rule XXII. regulates the monastic habit. The primary object of dress issaid to be shewn by the words of Genesis, 549 where God is said to have made Adam andEve “coats of skins,” or, as in the LXX., χιτῶνας δερματίνους, i.e. tunics of hides. This useof tunics was enough for covering what was unseemly. But later another object was added—thatof securing warmth by clothing. So we must keep both ends in view—decency,and protection against the weather. Among articles of dress some are very serviceable; someare less so. It is better to select what is most useful, so as to observe the rule of poverty, andto avoid a variety of vestments, some for show, others for use; some for day, some for night.A single garment must be devised to serve for all purposes, and for night as well as day. Asthe soldier is known by his uniform, and the senator by his robe, so the Christian ought tohave his own dress. Shoes are to be provided on the same principle, they are to be simpleand cheap. The girdle (XXIII.) is regarded as a necessary article of dress, not only becauseliiiappeal. In Letter xlvi. the reproach is not addressed merely to a “religieuse échappé de son cloitre,” as De Brogliehas it, but to a nun guilty of unchastity. Vows of virginity were among the earliest of religious obligations. (cf.J. Martyr, Apol. i. 15, Athenvaras, Legat. 32, Origen, C. Celsum. vii. 48.) Basil (Can. xviii.) punishes a breach ofthe vow of virginity as he does adultery, but it was not till the Benedictine rule was established in Europe thatit was generally regarded as absolutely irrevocable. (cf. D.C.A. s.v. “Nun,” ii. p. 1411, and H. C. Lea’s History ofCelibacy, Philadelphia, 1867.) As a matter of fact, Basil’s cœnobitic monasticism, in comparison with the “wilderand more dreamy asceticism which prevailed in Egypt and Syria” (Milman, Hist. Christ. iii. 109), was “far moremoderate and practical.” It was a community of self-denying practical beneficence. Work and worship wereto aid one another. This was the highest life, and to quit it was desertion of and disloyalty to neighbour andGod. To Basil, is it not rather the violation of holiness than the technical breach of a formal vow which is sacrilege?Lea (p. 101) quotes Epiphanius (Panar. 61) as saying that it was better for a lapsed monk to take a lawfulwife and be reconciled to the church through Penance. Basil in Can. lx. (p. 256) contemplates a similar reconciliation.548 Supported by , B, C, and L.549 iii. 21.91