_The substance of the reasons given by the Abbé Boileau, for
writing his Book. He seems to have been of opinion that voluntary
flagellations were no very antient practice._
I am not, I confess, without fear that the design I have formed of
tracing the origin of those Flagellations which have in process of
time been introduced among Christians, will be looked upon as a rash
undertaking, and that I may be accused of having, in that respect,
fallen into the errors of the Protestants, whether Lutherans, or
Calvinists.
In fact, those two Sects, under pretence of shewing their obedience
to the commands of God, who orders the Israelites _not to make
incisions in their own flesh for the sake of the dead_, trample
upon all laws concerning Penitence, extinguish that kind of virtue
which consists in repressing the lustful appetites of the flesh,
and ridicule those mortifications and penances to which Tertullian
advises us to submit.
Indeed, I am far from wishing to favour the relaxed Doctrine of
Heretics. That kind of enthusiastic fury which the Calvinists
manifestest, in the last Century, against the laborious exercises of
the Monastic life, rather heightens, in my opinion, the glory of the
Catholic Church. I think that the manner of the antient Anchorites
of Syria, of Thebaid, and of Egypt, the purity of their virtue, and
the surprising penances to which they submitted, deserve our utmost
reverence, however impossible it may be for us to imitate them.
I have no other object in view, on this occasion, than to bring
back those happy times of the primitive Church, in which the true
Science of conquering lustful appetites flourished among our holy
Forefathers. All I propose to myself, is, to render it manifest to
every candid Reader, that those methods of doing Penance, which
are in our days called _Disciplines_[4], were unknown in the
happy periods of the primitive Church. By Disciplines I mean here
to speak of those voluntary Flagellations which Penitents inflict
upon themselves with their own hands; lashing their own backs, or
posteriors, either with scourges or whips, or willow and birch rods.
A practice this, which, we are not to doubt, prevails much in the
Societies of modern Monks and Nuns, especially among those who, under
pretence of reformation, have abolished their antient Rules, and
substituted new Constitutions in their stead.
But before I enter upon this subject, I must inform the Reader of
two facts, which it is necessary he should know, at the same time
that they are undeniable, and confirmed by every day’s practice.
The first is, that Penitents, as we have above-mentioned, both
inflict those Disciplines on themselves with their own hands, and
receive the same from other persons, either with scourges, or rods,
or whip-cords. The second is, that those chastisements are inflicted
on them, either on the bare back or shoulders, or on the posteriors:
the former method is usually called the _upper_, and the latter, the
_lower_ discipline[5].
Now, that this latter kind of Discipline is a contrivance of modern
times, is what I positively aver. It was unknown, as I shall
demonstrate to the Reader, among the first Christians; and it is
moreover repugnant both to true Piety, and to Modesty, for several
reasons which I shall deduce hereafter. I propose, besides, to shew
that this practice is an offspring of Idolatry and Superstition; that
it ought to be banished from among Christians as an erroneous and
dangerous exercise; and that it has only been introduced into the
Christian Church by ignorant persons, under the specious appearance
of Piety and more perfect Mortification.
Painters, it seems, have not a little helped to establish and
strengthen the practices we mention, by their pictures, of which
Pope Gregory the Great says, in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of
Marseilles, that they were “the Libraries of ignorant Christians.”
In fact, we see they have never represented any of the antient
Anchorites, without leaving some spare corner on their canvas,
whereupon to place either whips or rods; instruments of which those
holy Hermits had not probably made the least use during their lives,
and about which they perhaps had never so much as entertained a
thought.
A number of able Writers in the last century have, it must be
confessed, also contributed to bring into credit the practice we
mention. Considering voluntary flagellations in the same light
as they did all methods in general of mortifying the flesh, they
commended them, and procured them to be admitted. My design here is
not by any means to question the good intentions of so respectable
persons, who held the first rank among the Society of the Fathers
Jesuits, and were looked upon, if I may so express myself, like so
many Heroes in the Republic of Letters: but yet, on the other hand,
I cannot be persuaded that it is unlawful to animadvert upon the
ignorance and impudence of Painters, of which Lucian says that they
were “as licentious as the Poets[6];” and to endeavour, if possible,
to obtain from the Prelates of the Church, that, since pictures are
the books of ignorant Christians, no Fables and lies be represented
in them; and that such as contain notorious falsehoods be banished
from those Churches and Chapels in which Jesus Christ, who was truth
itself, is daily adored. At least this will be admitted, that truth
has no need of the assistance of falsehood to protect it: supported
by its own strength, it sets at defiance the attacks of both Folly
and Sophistry.