The monk who relinquishes his status after solemn
profession and adoption is to be regarded as guilty of sacrilege, and
the faithful are warned against all intercourse with him, with a
reference to 2 Thess. iii.
14. With this
may be compared the uncompromising denunciation in Letter
cclxxxviii., and what is said in the first of the three Tractatus
Prævii. It has been represented that St. Basil
introduced the practice of irrevocable vows. cf. Dr.
Travers Smith, St. Basil, p. 223. De Broglie,
L’Eglise et l’empire, v. 180:
“Avant lui, c’était, aux yeux de beaucoup de
ceux même qui s’y destinaient, une vocation libre,
affaire de goût et de zèle, pouvant être
dilaissée à volonté, comme elle avait été
embrassée par chois. Le sceau de la perpetiuté
obligatoire, ce fut Basile qui l’imprima; c’est à
lui réellement que remonte, comme règlé commune, et
comme habitude générale, l’institution des vœux
perpétuels. Helyot, Hist. des ordres
monastiques, i. § 3, Bultean, Hist. des moines
d’orient, p. 402, Montalembert, Hist. des moines
d’occident, i. 105, s’accordent à
reconnaitre que l’usage général des vœux
perpétuels remonte à St. Basil.” To St.
Basil’s posthumous influence the system may be due. But
it seems questionable whether St. Basil’s Rule included formal
vows of perpetual obligation in the more modern sense. I am
not quite sure that the passages cited fully bear this out. Is
the earnest exhortation not to quit the holier life consistent with
a binding pledge? Would not a more distinctly authoritative
tone be adopted? cf. Letters xlv. and
xlvi. It is plain that a reminder was needed, and that the
plea was possible that the profession had not the binding force of
matrimony. The line taken is rather that a monk or nun
ought to remain in his or her profession, and that it is a
grievous sin to abandon it, than that there is an irrevocable
contract. So in the Sermo asceticus (it is not
universally accepted), printed by Garnier between the Moralia
and the Regulæ, it is said: “Before the
profession of the religious life, any one is at liberty to get the
good of this life, in accordance with law and custom, and to give
himself to the yoke of wedlock. But when he has been enlisted,
of his own consent, it is fitting (προσήκει) that
he keep himself for God, as one of the sacred offerings, so that he
may not risk incurring the damnation of sacrilege, by defiling in
the service of this world the body consecrated by promise to
God.” This προσήκει
is repeated in the Regulæ. Basil’s
monk, says Fialon (Et. Hist., p. 49) was irrevocably bound by
the laws of the Church, by public opinion, and, still more, by his
conscience. It is to the last that the founder of the
organisation seems to appeal. In Letter xlvi. the
reproach is not addressed merely to a “religieuse
échappé de son cloitre,” as De Broglie has 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 of the vow of virginity as he does adultery, but it was not till
the Benedictine rule was established in Europe that it was generally
regarded as absolutely irrevocable. (cf. D.C.A. s.v.
“Nun,” ii. p. 1411, and H. C. Lea’s History of
Celibacy, Philadelphia, 1867.) As a matter of fact,
Basil’s cœnobitic monasticism, in comparison with the
“wilder and more dreamy asceticism which prevailed in Egypt and
Syria” (Milman, Hist. Christ. iii. 109), was “far
more moderate and practical.” It was a community of
self-denying practical beneficence. Work and worship were to aid
one another. This was the highest life, and to quit it was
desertion of and disloyalty to neighbour and God. 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 lawful wife and be reconciled to the church through
Penance. Basil in Can. lx. (p. 256) contemplates a similar
reconciliation.