Library › W. K. L. Clarke › The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil: Author’s Preface and Introduction

The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil: Author’s Preface and Introduction

W. K. L. Clarke

VIII. Special Problems

Under this head I propose to discuss certain’ problems which were not adequately treated in my former book.¹

(a) Double Monasteries.

The scanty evidence in the Rules respecting women ascetics can best be understood in the light of (a) the arrangements found in the Pachomian coenobia; (b) Basil’s personal experiences; (c) the principles adopted elsewhere in dealing with double monasteries. Some kind of association between men and women was inevitable at first, for women ascetics could not stand alone. In later times nunneries were generally under the special protection of kings or bishops, but to begin with they were naturally associated with monasteries of men. For the actual form which the association took in Cappadocia and Pontus, Basil seems to have been responsible.

(a) When Pachomius settled at Tabennisi, his sister Mary began to gather disciples on the opposite bank of the Nile. They were soon formed into a nunnery, which was controlled by the Superior of the monks.² This double monastery, together with much else in Pachomius’ system, was imitated by Basil when he came to organise coenobia in his own provinces.

(b) Like Pachomius and Mary on opposite banks of the Nile, Basil and his sister Macrina practised asceticism on the opposite banks of the Iris. Basil lived with Gregory of Nazianzus and others in his famous ‘retreat,” Macrina with her mother, Emmelia, on the family estate at Annesi. The ladies for a time lived a strict life with Peter the youngest child and the maidservants, enjoying periodical visits from Basil. Afterwards they received disciples and were organised as a sisterhood with Macrina as Superior. The close association of men and women in asceticism is presupposed rather than inculcated by Basil. His own early experience provided a model for subsequent arrangements. The safeguards mentioned in the Rules may perhaps be regarded as a substitute for the river Iris.³

(c) The conditions which led to the founding of double monasteries among the Anglo-Saxons seem to have resembled those which obtained in Cappadocia. Dr. Hamilton Thompson has discussed the subject in a convincing essay.⁴ Men in an Anglo- Saxon double monastery were strictly subordinate to women. They were attached to what was essentially a sisterhood in order to administer sacraments as priests, or to do hard manual work as labourers. ‘It is difficult to regard these religious houses in general as anything but communities of brethren to do such work or perform such services as the nuns could not do or perform for themselves.”⁵

Turning to the Rules, we find evidence for Dr. Hamilton Thompson’s contention. In F. 83 the brethren are not allowed to meet the sisters except for the purpose of taking counsel concerning their bodily needs or the care of their souls. Not every time or place is suitable for a meeting, nor can anyone who likes go to meet the sisters. Two, or at most three, seniors are to consult with the same number of senior sisters.⁶ Others, advanced in years and carefully tested, are to serve the bodily needs of the nuns. Further information about spiritual intercourse is given by B. 108-111. The mother-superior is responsible for discipline under the general superintendence of the father-superior. He must not give spiritual counsel to a sister unless she is present. When a senior hears a sister’s confession, a senior sister must be there. He suggests the mode of repentance and correction, she (it is inferred) is responsible for carrying out his recommendations. The senior sister is rightly indignant if orders are given to the sisters against her wish. In B. 281 an abbot (apparently) asks what is to be done with a sister who will not sing. The perplexed mother-superior had doubtless consulted him about this problem. In B. 153 a similar question is asked about the sister in charge of the wool. She occupies a position parallel to that of the master of the workshops, weaving for women taking the place of the many trades for men mentioned in F. 38. The answer speaks of the workers (talc ἐργαζομέναις), and we are led to imagine the women making clothes for the men as well as themselves. B. 154 completes the parallel with Anglo-Saxon conditions. The sisters are more numerous than the men, who, as they serve the women, are obliged to be alone. The situation is fraught with danger, for the ideal of common life is impaired. However, Basil teaches, the spiritual unity of the monks is not affected.

(b) The Officers of the Coenobium.

The organisation of the original⁷ Basilian monastery presents many interesting features, which cannot be understood without careful study.

1. Priests were the exception in all monasteries. Antony must have gone without Communion for very long periods, and the original lay direction of the movement persisted. Cassian implies that ordination was the exception, the thought of it being a temptation to be resisted.? The presence of priests in Basil⁸ s coenobia is asserted in three places only. ἱερεύς is the word used.⁹ Priests are implied by the allusions to the Eucharist,¹⁰ not by those to confession.¹¹ There is no evidence to show whether or not the Superior was normally a priest.

2. The Superior is a very powerful person, as is inevitable in early days; later, when the spirit of the founder embodied in the Rule guides the community, his powers are lessened. A new Superior is elected by the heads of the neighbouring monasteries¹² and accepted after probation.¹³ He is responsible for discipline but even more for the pastoral care of the monks. Checks on his power are provided.¹⁴ Various words are used to describe him.

(a) 6 προεστώς is the most common, occurring nearly 50 times.¹⁵ The plural οἱ προεστῶτες occurs frequently, but in every case except one the context shows that a class of leaders within a single monastery is meant. In this case therefore (B. 160) it is best to interpret the plural in the same sense.

(b) Other titles are 6 ἐφεστώς (F. 24), 6 προϊστάμενος (F. 43), 6 προχκαθιστῶν (F. 44), 6 προέχων¹⁶ (F. 49), and various periphrases designating the character of the superior’s work, such as 6 oun φροντίδα πεπιστευμένος (F. 25: of. 80, 54, B. 19, 45, 113).

8. The second in command.—A monk must be in training to take the Superior’s place in an emergency (F. 45). The regulation is dictated by common sense, but the example of Tabennisi may have been in Basil’s mind.¹⁷

4. The Seniors.—I use this word to denote a class of men who are called προεστῶτες or πρεσβύτεροι, or are described by a periphrasis denoting their functions.

(a) In F. 29, 85, B. 96, 105, 106, 119, and probably 160, we read of οἱ προεστῶτες, for the most part with the addition of The ἀδελφότητο ς. F.85 shows how the usage arose. Basil advises the amalgamation of several monasteries, so that ot προεστῶτες of the various brotherhoods become ol προεστῶτες, a class of superiors or seniors in one monastery.

(b) In B. 103 Basil is asked whether obedience unto death is due to οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, seeing that even 6 πρεσβύτερος slips sometimes. In reply he refers to F. 27, where 6 προεστώς is used. The question is most naturally taken as referring to men in a single monastery. 6 πρεσβύτερος is therefore used, like 6 προεστώς, either of the Superior, or of his assessors, the seniors.¹⁸ In F. 33 select πρεσβύτεροι are responsible for conferences with select πρεσβύτεραι of the nunnery. In B. 110 (cf. 111) the sisters confess to 6 πρεσβύτερος in the presence of 7 πρεσβυτέρα. The πρεσβύτερος and πρεσβυτέρα are not necessarily the Father and Mother Superior; rather we have here individuals among the πρεσβύτεροι of F. 33, who confer with the πρεσβύτεραι about the spiritual needs of the sisterhood. The πρεσβύτερος is not a priest, for Basil uses ἱερεύς for priest in the Rules, and the collocation of πρεσβύτερος and πρεσβυτέρα implies that the man and woman hold similar positions. B. 169 mentions Tov πρεσβύτερον τῇ ἡλικίᾳ, whence we deduce that elsewhere age is not necessarily implied.

(c) Elsewhere Basil speaks of those who are entrusted with the care of the weak (I. 26), those who being foremost in age and understanding correct the Superior (F. 27), those who seem to be foremost (προέχειν) in the brotherhood (F. 81) those next to the Superior in position and understanding (F. 48), and the strong who know how to heal (B. 229). In B. 285 Basil tells us there are two classes of monks, the one entrusted with pre-eminence (προστασίαν), the other made for obedience. Confession is ordered to those who are entrusted with the stewardship of the mysteries (B. 288). The phrase would naturally be taken to imply priests, if it stood alone. But the many passages already quoted, and the reference which follows to John the Baptist, make this interpretation unlikely. Two further passages remain, which support my view of B. 288. Changes in regime must be made by those entrusted with the stewardship (οἰκονομίαν, 1.e. practical administration, F. 19). In I.¹⁹ those who are entrusted with the guidance of the many ’ are clearly the same class as are described in the other passages quoted; they are contrasted with the weak.

5. The rank and file—We have already met these contrasted with the seniors as those whose duty it is to be led and to obey. B. 171 speaks of the inferior (6 ἐλάττων) grieved at the advancement of the more religious (6 εὖ λαβέστερος). In two places (F. 49, B. 112) the whole community is mentioned as being consulted.

6. Other officers.—Special mention is made of an almoner (B. 100), a schoolmaster or novice master (I. 53), a cellarer (B. 148, 156), an overseer of work (B. 141, 142), and a steward (F. 34, B. 149). These would be chosen from among the seniors.

The evidence is insufficient to warrant a convincing explanation of the curious position occupied by the seniors, but I submit the following suggestions.

(a) Basil attached great importance to spiritual gifts (see next section). The dividing line for him ran between those who possessed them and those who did not, rather than between Superior and brethren.

(b) So long as Basil lived, he as founder (and afterwards bishop) exercised a controlling influence. The practical difficulties which would be expected from divided authority were not serious in his lifetime.

(c) The organisation of asceticism undertaken by Basil entailed the amalgamation of small monasteries described in F. 85. The Superiors of the suppressed monasteries retained their former rank. So far as this was a cause, the “seniors²⁰ would be a temporary and local institution.

(d) Basil owed much to Pachomian coenobitism. Now in Jerome’s version of Pachomius’ Rules the praepositi domorum are the Superiors of the various houses within the big monastery.²¹ Something similar may help to account for the state of things in Basil’s monasteries.²²

It seems to me probable that Basil designated the same group of men προεστῶτες or πρεσβύτεροι, but with a different shade of meaning. When he thought of their rank in the suppressed monasteries or their practical equality with the Superior, he called them προεστῶτες: when he thought of their spiritual experience, which was frequently associated with age, πρεσβύτεροι seemed most appropriate.

The conclusions reached above are supported by:

(a) the similar state of things on the women’s side of the double monastery; (b) Rufinus’ version.

(a) We read of W προεστῶσα, ἣ πρεσβυτέρα, and al πρεσβύτεραι (F. 33, B. 108-111), which are used in the same sense as the equivalent masculine nouns. Gaudentius of Brescia found at Caesarea in a Basilian convent ‘certain handmaids of God, the most worthy mothers of a convent of holy virgins,”²³ 7.e. the very seniors or Superiors we have been discussing.²⁴

(b) Rufinus made a Latin version of the Rules for Urseius, abbot of Pinetum. He would be loath to embarrass his friend by introducing local Cappadocian customs which tended to lessen the power of the Superior. Accordingly we find him omitting many of the Rules upon which we relied for an account of the seniors —F. 19, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 35, 43, B. 103, 235, and altering τοῖς προεστῶσι of B. 119 into huic qui praeest. In B. 110, by translating πρεσβυτέρῳ... THY πρεσβυτέραν presbytero... matrem monasterii he turns the Greek monastic type of confession into the ordinary Western form.

(c) Spiritual Gifts.²⁵

This section and the next are of great importance for the understanding of Basilian monasticism and deserve a full monograph in English. All we can do here is to expound Basil’s position as seen in the Rules with some completeness, giving a short summary of the antecedents of his ideas and their subsequent history. German writers would describe the subject as Enthusiasmus. Spiritual gifts, however, is a phrase which conveys the idea better to English readers. “Sir,” said Bishop Butler to John Wesley, “the pretending to extraordinary revelation and gifts of the Holy Ghost is a horrid thing, a very horrid thing.” The dominant motive in Greek monasticism was this very ‘pretending²⁶’ which Butler abominated. But there were no Butlers then. The Church outside the monasteries gloried in the conviction that the monks at least were possessed by the Spirit.

By the third century primitive enthusiasm had died down in the rank and file. But it survived in “holy” men and women, ascetics who lived a virgin life, and especially in martyrs and confessors. Clement of Alexandria describes the true “gnostic.” He is one who does not rush rashly into martyrdom but willingly obeys the call when it comes. He is an “athlete,” and in him passions are transcended.) We meet already the characteristic marks of the later monks, who prized²⁷ apathy²⁸ above all other states, and were conscious of being athletes contending in the arena against the hostile powers of darkness.²⁹ If Clement was critical of the desire for martyrdom, public opinion generally honoured martyrs and confessors³⁰ without reserve. The martyr is “a receptacle of the Holy Spirit”³¹; he need not be ordained unless to the episcopate. The possession of, or by, the Holy Spirit was conceived of in realistic fashion. A powerful quasimaterial influence was poured into the man, making him strong against the evil spirits.

The fourth-century monk was heir to the various characteristics as well ag to the prestige of the third-century martyr, confessor, and ascetic. The practical cessation of persecutions facilitated the development. But the really decisive factor was the life of Antony. In him the vague ideals of the age were gathered up and received concrete embodiment. The Life of Antony was the historic beginning of monasticism. St. Augustine was amazed at the marvel which had occurred in his own time.³² Antony was possessed by the Spirit and had power over evil spirits. After nearly twenty years retirement he came forth as from a holy of holies, filled with heavenly secrets and possessed by the Spirit of God.” Besides his great powers of exorcising, he had gifts of healing and clairvoyance. His contemporaries were chiefly impressed with the gift of discerning of spirits (διάκρισις πνευμάτων) εἰ Two passages may be quoted to show how the monks stepped into the shoes of the martyrs. St. Athanasius in his Life of Antony says Antony prayed to be a martyr, and when the persecution ceased he withdrew to his cell and³³ was there a martyr to his conscience and contending in the conflicts of faith.” And Cassian tells us that monks are³⁴ crucified daily to this world and made living martyrs.”³⁵

Basil on his return from Egypt brought to the Church of Asia Minor a new vision of Christianity. He was familiar from childhood with the presuppositions of third-century or pre-Antonian asceticism. Martyrdom was a tradition in his family and his sister Macrina was an ideal example of asceticism practised without withdrawal from the world. The magnitude of the change in his outlook appears in De Iudicio. We may sum up Basil’s gift to Cappadocia by saying that he brought the spirit of Antony and the forms devised by Pachomius, fused into an harmonious whole by their passage through a brilliant Greek brain. With a significant exception to be mentioned presently, Basil reproduced the spirit of the Vita Antonii. But he added something of the utmost importance—a profound knowledge of the letter and spirit of Scripture. Enthusiasm³⁶’ for him meant the reproduction of the first ages of the Church, when Pentecost was a living memory and the baptized were all filled with the spirit. Let us look at the relevant passages in the Rules, remembering that the writer is the brilliant theologian to whom we owe De Spiritu Sancto. Is not the living power of that book due to the fact that its author knew his Subject experimentally as well as theoretically?

The coenobium deliberately sets itself to reproduce the conditions of the primitive community, where all things were held in common, distribution was made to each according to his need, and the gifts of one were available for all (F. 7, 19, B. 39³⁷). Only in a coenobium is this state of things possible. The individual has his spiritual gift; he cannot have all gifts, but the community has them, and the charisma of each is available for all. The brotherhood is in microcosm the body of Christ. The members form the limbs, and the life that animates each and all is the Holy Spirit (F. 7). Obedience has an overwhelming sanction, for the Superior represents Christ, and in withstanding him one withstands Christ and God. The monk must have the mind of Christ, Who was obedient unto death. The Basilian monk was not called upon to die literally. We must therefore take these expressions mystically. He was called upon to identify himself, as did the martyrs of old, with the crucified Saviour and to live a dying life, ever mortifying his will by obedience. “Murmuring³⁸ in these circumstances is tantamount to apostasy (F. 28, B. 88, 89, 116).

One answer (B. 204) suggests that not all the monks were charismatics. By keeping the Commandments one becomes worthy to be “partaker of the Holy Spirit.” In the light of the distinction described above between the superiors or seniors and the inferiors, it is natural to explain this of the inferiors becoming by steady obedience worthy of a place among the superiors or spirit-possessed. Basil states clearly that the Commandments can be kept, and the heart can be pure from sin (B. 280, 296). In another writer this judgment might seem shallow. Coming from Basil, who had the tenderest of consciences and raised the devotional standard considerably, it is very remarkable. In this respect his spiritual outlook is Perfectionist. He believes intensely in sanctification. In and by the Spirit the Christian, living under the favourable conditions of a monastery, can avoid sin.

The most obvious gift of the Spirit-filled monks is that of utterance, whereby they can edify their fellow-monks and visitors (KF. 32). But the administration and discipline of the coenobium under the Superior is also a charisma (F. 84, 35). In F. 35 (3808) “the superiors of the brotherhood” are described as being in some cases “equal in spiritual gifts.” This bears out what was said above about the identity of the Spirit-filled and the superiors. The Superior par excellence needs another gift, that of foreseeing the future; is he not the eye of the body? (F. 24, 48).³⁹

Basil had drunk too deeply of the well of Gospel truth to make mistakes about the charismata. In IF. 8, where he is discussing the N.T. evidence, not from an academic standpoint, but as describing something which applied to his own time, he says that the Lord asked for love as the sign and test of discipleship, not signs and wonders, though He did give these in the Holy Ghost. We conclude that Basil did not deny the existence of such gifts but ranked them far below love. The longest of all the answers is F. 55, which deals with medicine and doctors. Basil argues the matter at such length that we are led to conclude he found it a matter of controversy among the monks. Probably spiritual healing was a charisma in Basil’s coenobia and some concluded that it was the normal treatment of disease. Basil, whose own health was notoriously bad, treated their view sympathetically but summed up in favour of the doctor.

Basil seems to have recognised the existence of ‘spiritual men ’ outside his monasteries. The monks ask whether they are to invite the laity who visit them to join them in prayer. Yes, the answer runs, if they are “friends of God” (B. 812). We are to understand by this technical term laity who are living an ascetic life similar to that of the coenobites but outside a monastery.

With all his accurate following of the New Testament and fine spiritual perception, Basil nevertheless lacked the Pauline spirit in one particular. St. Paul had the charismata and held them in relatively low estimation. Basil and the other great monks strove after them and regarded them as the crown and reward of persistent ascetic effort. Few have tried so faithfully as Basil to reproduce the spirit of the New Testament. But in this respect he misses the mark.

(d) Confession of Sin.

Here again an apology is due to the reader for the very inadequate treatment of the subject before and after Basil. My purpose is to say only so much as will put the otherwise very puzzling teaching of the Rules in their historical background.

The official penitential discipline of the Church in early times was administered by the bishop normally, though the priest or deacon could represent him. It was valued as a ministry of binding rather than loosing, an indispensable aid towards keeping the Church free from stain. From Hermas we learn that some teachers admitted no repentance for grave sins except through baptism. After Hermas public confession existed at Rome, but penance for post-baptismal sin was normally allowed once only. The three “capital sins “—idolatry (practically apostasy), porneia, and murder—were generally left to the mercy of God, and our modern “venial ’ sins hardly came within the scope of penance. The Decian persecution marked a change in the Church’s theory and practice. The prerogative of granting forgiveness to those who had failed was definitely asserted, and from 252 onwards, the date of the Novatianist schism, the Church gave absolution to sinners who had previously been left to the mercy of God. When persecutions ceased in the fourth century discipline ceased to be effective “except for (a) those who voluntarily sought it and (b) a few exceptional and notorious cases indicated for punishment by authority.”⁴⁰ Basil lived in a part where graded penance was the rule, though as we see from his Canonical Epistles grave difficulties stood in the way of enforcement.⁴¹

We must now follow the other line of thought which ran parallel to that just described. Unofficial care of the strong for the souls of the weak existed from the beginning, but for our purposes we need not go further back than Origen. He insisted on confession to a spiritual man⁴² and gave instructions for a method of confession independent of public penance. The physician of souls is not termed a priest, “but the sort of experience which he is required to have could seldom fall to a layman.”⁴³

The popular view was somewhat different from Origen’s. The rigour of the official system led men to seek unofficial helpers in the Spirit-filled ascetics. But the supreme example of these was the martyr. He was endued with the Spirit to enable him to contend against evil spirits in the conflict of faith. If he died, he was brought into the immediate presence of his King, where his prayer would doubtless be heard.⁴⁴ The transference of the prerogatives of the dead martyr to the living man who had suffered torment for the faith was inevitable, and confessors came to share the prestige enjoyed by martyrs. The controversy in which Cyprian was involved during and after the Decian persecution is too well known to need description. The claim of the confessors to give certificates was in effect an intervention from the nonofficial side to enable sinners to enjoy the benefit of official reconciliation. It had little connexion with the recommendations of Origen regarding recourse to a physician of souls.

The spiritual revival led by Antony raised the standard of moral earnestness very considerably. Antony insisted on the discipline of the thoughts, and even counselled the keeping of a spiritual diary. As we learn from the pages of Cassian, the Egyptian Fathers plumbed the depths of the human heart in a way rarely equalled since. The ideas expressed by Origen were developed by the monks, and for all except a few solitaries a spiritual guide was an essential part of the monastic system. But monasticism was a lay movement and it would have occurred to no one to suggest that the priest who offered the holy Sacrifice and the spiritual guide or soul-doctor ought to be the same person.

We now reach St. Basil. To understand his position we mu t study De Iudicio carefully. A hasty reader might think it a Christian homily, earnest but platitudinous, but the thrill of passion pervading this carefully written treatise forbids us to dismiss it thus. It is a precious piece of autobiography, neglected unfortunately by the saint’s biographers. Basil tells of his upbringing in a Christian home, of his reaching man’s estate and growing experience of the world. The state of the Church filled him with horror. What was the cause of this party passion and indiscipline? Darkness settled down upon his soul for a time. Then the light came, as he realised God’s plan for the Church, that men should keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, and fulfil the conditions of harmony set forth in the early chapters of the Acts. Bat at this point he was confronted with the problem of sin in all its seriousness. Human sin was hindering the fulfilment of the divine purpose. He studied the Scriptures and came to a conclusion which he evidently regards as epoch-making. All sins are capital sins, sins unto death. A single sin provokes the wrath of God. There is no difference, no discrimination, no reservation.” Several answers in the Shorter Rules illustrate this position. The monks are influenced by the popular view which practically excluded venial sins from the scope of repentance at one end of the scale, as trivial, and capital sins at the other end as outside the scope of human help. He declares, as against those who think it unkind to make a fuss about little sins, that there are no such things as little sins (B. 4). He has studied the New Testament and cannot find the alleged distinction in its pages (B. 293). Again, there is no distinction to be found between ordinary serious sins and those for which there is no forgiveness (B. 15). Despair can never be justified. There is no limit to God’s mercy (B. 13).

The only time in Basil’s life to which this spiritual awakening to the meaning of sin can be ascribed is the period 856-358, when

L Cf. Vit. Ant. 23. 55. 2224. he returned to Caesarea and went through the experiences described in Epistle ccxxiii. In spite of his strict life at Athens, his religion had been conventional, and the term conversion⁴⁵ is as applicable to him as to St. Augustine. Basil at once sought spiritual guidance at the fountain head in Egypt. His new vision of the possibilities of Christian holiness, the necessity of watchfulness, and the unmeasured mercies of God, was doubtless derived from the Egyptian ascetics who had already seen the same vision. But Basil put his own stamp upon the ideas he was introducing in Cappadocia. Every detail of penitence was thought out by him in the light of Scripture. The Shorter Rules are really a treatise on Moral Theology. The questions about the meaning of Scriptural terms are not put from curiosity. Those who ask are directors of souls, and to distinguish, for example, between reviling and evil-speaking is a matter of every-day importance for them.

As a result, then, of his conversion Basil put in hand a “zealous amendment of his whole life,” and in the Rules we see him commending it to others. The greatest practical help towards a holy life was confession. The importance of Basil in the history of confession lies in this, that as bishop he administered the official penitential system in its highly developed Asia Minor form (see the Canonical Letters to Amphilochius⁴⁶), and simultaneously he inculcated in his coenobia regula confession as a means of grace and an outward expression of the spirit of community life. There is no attempt to connect the two.

I cannot accept either Holl’s or Hörmann’s account of confession in the Rules as wholly satisfactory. Holl distinguishes two kinds of confession⁴⁷: (a) regular confession of the thoughts of the heart, every evening if necessary; (b) confession of greater sins before the Superior or his delegate. Hörmann finds three kinds⁴⁸: (c) a kind of culpa before the brethren; (d) an opening of conscience to the Superior; (e) confession before a soul-doctor. But (a) is based mainly on the non-Basilian Sermo Asceticus,⁴⁹ (b) and (d) mainly on the title of F. 26, which is not original and is contradicted by the answer. It will be best to set out the evidence in full, without any rearrangement such as might prejudice the reader’s judgment.

(1) F. 10.-—Novices are to be carefully watched to see whether they confess their sins.

(2) F.15.—Novices are to be frequently questioned as to their thoughts.

(8) F. 24.—The Superior being the eye of the body must see all that goes on.

(4) F. 25.—The Superior must watch for the souls of his brethren.

(5) F. 26.—The title (non-original) says that all must be told the Superior. The answer refers to the rank and file only. Each of the subordinates⁵⁰ must confess ‘to those brethren who are entrusted with the task of caring for weak souls tenderly and sympathetically.” To paraphrase this by “delegates of the Superior” is rash. The Superior’s doubtless was the predominating voice. But the “entrusters” would seem to be the whole body of superiors or seniors who after testing (δοκιμασία) decided that these brethren had a charisma for such work.

(6) F. 44.—After returning from a journey monks must tell the Superior what they have done, said, and thought.

(7) F. 46.—Everything is to be revealed to the Superior either by the sinner himself or by others who know of the fault.

(8) B. 15.—Forgiveness depends on the penitent’s obeying his spiritual guide.⁵¹

(9) B. 28.—A skilled observer sees sin in a man as a doctor sees disease—without his knowing.

(10) B. 106.—Penalties are to be assigned by the superiors (of a brotherhood) according to circumstances.

(11) B. 110.—A sister confesses to a senior brother in the presence of a senior sister. See above⁵² for the meaning of “senior.”

(12) B. 227.—Are we to keep our thoughts to ourselves 2 No, we must disclose them “to those who are like-minded and have given proof both of faith and understanding.” TI take these to be identical with those mentioned in F. 26.

(13) B. 229.—Are we to confess to all, or to some only?⁵³ Nothing would have been easier than for Basil to answer ‘to priests,” had such a thought been in his mind. What he actually says is that, as we reveal bodily diseases to doctors, so we confess before those who are able to treat our sins, that is soul-doctors.

(14) B. 288.—Confession is made “to those who are entrusted with the stewardship of the mysteries of God.” This is the only passage which in the least suggests priests as the recipients of confessions. Against such an interpretation these considerations are urged: (a) One passage cannot outweigh the many passages suggesting that priesthood was immaterial; (b) the question, whether confession should be made to any or every one,⁵⁴ could easily have been answered by a definite limitation to priests, had Basil so wished; (c) the exact words of a Biblical quotation⁵⁵ are not to be pressed; (d) the answer goes on to mention confessions made to John the Baptist and the apostles. John is the typical ascetic and desert-dweller, not a priest; (e) ‘entrusted” (πεπιστευμένοις) is the word used in F. 26, and the same persons are seemingly indicated.

(15) B. 301.—If a man cannot discern his own faults he must trust those who can see more clearly than himself.

The evidence seems to me to disclose two main ideas of confession: (a) disciplinary, the Superior having a right to know all that is going on; (b) the opening of grief by those whose conscience smites them to such of the seniors as have a charisma to heal sick souls. One confession might come under both heads, and the Superior probably had the charisma to heal souls, but the two ideas can be distinguished.

Some writers, accepting the facts as given above, safeguard the saint’s orthodoxy (viewed from a later standpoint) by saying that sacramental confession is not found here, and that in any case laymen never gave absolution. It would be difficult to find a meaning in the argument. No [go absoluo te has come down from early times. “No verbal absolution in any form but that of prayer is known to have been preserved.” The supplicatory form is still preserved in the Fast. The indicative appears first in the thirteenth century.⁵⁶

To trace the history of confession to laymen farther is outside our scope. The fascinating story must be read in the pages of Holl and Hérmann. As Dr. Hérmann says, monastic confession reached the world outside by a sort of osmosis. The prestige of the monks became so strong that by the year 1000 in Constantinople they had driven the secular priests off the field as hearers of confessions. Simeon the New Theologian maintained that the power of binding and loosing belonged to the monks as “‘friends of God.” He was tried for heresy on other counts, but this was not brought up against him. In the Western Church the Sacrament of Penance reached its present form by 1215. The souldoctor element in it is far more important than the element derived from the official penitential system of the primitive Church. O. D. Watkins shows how the characteristic features in the Sacrament are traceable to the British Isles. Did Basil’s ideas reach the far West through Rufinus’ Latin version of the Rules, and thus eventually impose themselves on the whole Western Church? A special investigation of Celtic monasticism would be necessary before attempting to answer such a question. We have said enough to show that St. Basil originated the conception of confession as a regular practice and means of grace for those who are striving after holiness. He connects it on the one hand with the doctrine of the Holy Spirit—when we repent we are forgiven, but Spirit-filled men are needed to discern whether repentance is genuine and complete; and on the other hand with the ideal of the common life—if we share all else our thoughts also must be shared.

Previous · Contents · Next