_Corrections of a flagellatory kind, inflicted by force, were
however, though in very early times, the common method of
correcting offences of a religious nature; and the power of
inflicting them was possessed alike by Bishops, and the Heads of
Monasteries[51]._
It must be confessed, however, that though self-flagellations
made no part of the rules or statutes belonging to the different
monastic Orders, founded in those early ages of Christianity, the
same cannot be said of that method of correction, when imposed by
force upon such Monks as had been guilty of offences, either against
the discipline of the Order, or against piety: an extensive power
of inflicting such salutary corrections, having, from the earliest
times, been lodged in the hands of Abbots, and the _Superiors_ of
Convents.
Nay more, we find that Bishops, during the very first times of
Christianity, assumed the paternal power we mention, even with
regard to persons who were bound to them by no vow whatever, when
they happened to have been guilty either of breaches of piety, or
of heresy. Of this, a remarkable proof may be deduced from the 59th
Epistle of St. Augustin, which he wrote to the Tribune Marcellinus,
concerning the _Donatists_. St. Augustin expresses himself in the
following words: ‘Do not recede from that paternal diligence you have
manifested in your researches after offenders; in which you have
succeeded to procure confessions of such great crimes, not by using
racks, red-hot blades of iron, or flames, but only by the application
of rods. This is a method of coercion which is frequently practised
by Teachers of the fine Arts upon their Pupils, by Parents upon their
Children, _and often also by_ Bishops _upon those whom they find to
have been guilty of offences_[52].’
Another proof of this power of flagellation, assumed by Bishops in
very early times, may be derived from the account which Cyprianus
has given of Cesarius, Bishop of Arles; who says, that that Bishop
endeavoured as much as possible, in the exercise of his power, to
keep within the bounds of moderation prescribed by the law of Moses.
The following are Cyprianus’s words. ‘This holy Man took constant
care, that those who were subjected to his authority, whether
they were of a free, or a servile condition, when they were to be
flagellated for some offence they had committed, should not receive
more than thirty-nine stripes. If any of them, however, had been
guilty of a grievous fault, then indeed he permitted them to be
again lashed a few days afterwards, though with a smaller number of
stripes.’
From the two passages above, we are informed that the power of
whipping, possessed by Bishops, extended to persons of every
vocation, indiscriminately; and with much more reason may we think
that those persons who made profession of the Ecclesiastical Life,
were subjected to it. In fact, we see that even the different
dignities which they might possess in the Church, did not exempt them
from having a flagellation inflicted upon them by their Bishops, when
they had been guilty of offences of rather a grievous kind; and Pope
St. Gregory the Great moreover recommended to the Bishops of his
time, to make a proper use of their authority. In his sixty-sixth
Epistle, he himself prescribes to Bishop Paschasius, the manner in
which he ought to chastise Deacon _Hilary_, who had calumniated
Deacon _John_, ‘Whereas (he says) guilt ought not to pass without
adequate satisfaction, we recommend to Bishop Paschasius to deprive
the same Deacon Hilary of his office, and, after having caused him to
be publickly lashed, to confine him to some distant place; that the
punishment inflicted upon one, may thus serve to the correction of
many.’
This power of inflicting the brotherly correction of whipping,
was also possessed by the Abbots and Priors in all the antient
Monasteries; though, at the same time, it was expressly provided by
the _Rules_ of the different Orders, that the same should be assumed
by no other persons. ‘Let no Man, except the Abbot, or him to whom
he has intrusted his authority, presume to excommunicate, or flog, a
Brother.’
When the faults committed by Monks were of a grievous kind,
the Abbot was not only charged to correct them by means of his
discretionary power of flagellation; but he was moreover expressly
directed to exert that power with rigour. In the _Rule_ framed by
St. _Fructuosus_, Bishop of _Braga_, it is ordained with respect to
a Monk who is convicted of being _a Liar, a Thief, or a Striker_,
‘That if, after having been warned by the elder Monks, he neglects
to mend his manners, he shall, on the third time, be exhorted, in
the presence of all the Brethren, to leave off his bad practices.
If he still neglects to reform, let him be flagellated with the
utmost severity[53].’ The above Rule of St. Fructuosus is mentioned
by Ecbert, in his Collection of Canons, which, together with the
_Councils_ of England, has been published by Spelman.
St. Ferreol, Bishop of _Usez_, has framed a Rule for Monks, which,
like that above, makes severe provisions against such Monks as are
addicted to the practice of thieving. ‘With regard to the Monk who
stands convicted of theft, if we may still call him a Monk, he shall
be treated like him who is guilty of adultery for the second time;
let him therefore be chastised with the whip, and with great rigour
too: the same punishment ought to be inflicted upon him as upon a
fornicator, since it may be justly suspected that his lewdness has
induced him to commit theft[54].’
Committing indecencies with other Monks, or with Boys, were offences
which the Statutes of Convents likewise directed to be punished by
severe flagellations; and the above St. Fructuosus, Bishop of Braga,
ordered that the punishment should, in the above case, be inflicted
publickly. ‘If a Monk (it is said in his Rule) is used to teaze Boys
and young Men, or is caught in attempting to give them kisses, or
in any other indecent action, and the fact be proved by competent
witnesses, let him be publickly whipped[55].’
Refusing to make proper satisfaction to the Abbot for offences
committed, or in general persevering in denying them, were also
grievous faults in the eye of the first Founders, or Reformers,
of Monastic Orders. In the Rule framed fifty years after that of
St. Benedict, in order to improve it, the following direction was
contained. ‘If the Brothers who have been excommunicated for their
faults, persevere so far in their pride, as to continue, on the ninth
hour of the next day, to refuse to make proper satisfaction to the
Abbot, let them be confined, even till their death, and lashed with
rods.’ Nor is the Rule of the abovementioned Bishop of Braga less
severe against those Monks whose pride prevents them from making a
proper confession of the offences they may have committed. ‘To him
(it is said in that Rule) who, through pride and inclination to
argue, continues to deny his fault, let an additional and severer
flagellation be imparted.’
The habit of holding wanton discourses, or soliciting the Brethren
to wickedness, was also deemed by the Founders of religious Orders
to deserve severe flagellations; and St. Pacom ordered in his Rule,
which, it was said, had been dictated to him by an Angel, that
such as had been guilty of the above faults, and had been thrice
admonished, should be publickly lashed before the gate of the Convent.
Attempts to escape from Monasteries, were, even in very early times,
punished by flagellation. We read in Sozomenius, that St. Macarius of
Alexandria, Abbot of Nitria in Thebaid, who had five thousand Monks
under his direction, ordered that chastisement to be inflicted upon
those who should attempt to climb over the walls of the Monasteries.
‘If any one continues in his wickedness, and says, I can no longer
bear to stay here, but I will pack up my things, and go where God
will direct me[56]; let any one of the Brothers inform the Prior,
and the Prior the Abbot, of the fact; let then the Abbot assemble
the Brothers, and order the offender to be brought before them, and
chastised with rods.’
The holy Founders of religious Orders have also been very severe,
in their provisions, against such Monks as seek for familiarities
with the other Sex. In the Rule of the Monastery of Agaunus, it
was ordained, that, ‘If any Monk had contracted the bad habit of
looking on Women with concupiscence, the Abbot ought to be informed
of the fact, and bestow upon the Monk a corrective discipline; and
that, if he did not mend his manners in conference thereof, he ought
to be expelled from the Society as a scabby sheep, lest he should
ruin others by his example.’ The above Monastery had been built by
Sigismond, King of Burgundy, to the honour of CXX. Martyrs of the
Theban Legion, of which St. Maurice was the Commander, under the
reign of the Emperor Maximinus.
The above-quoted Rule of St. Fructuosus, is no less severe against
those Monks who seek for the Company of Women. In the XVth Chapter,
which treats _of the lewd and quarrelsome_[57], it is ordered, that,
‘if after having received proper reprehensions, they persist in their
wicked courses, they shall be corrected by repeated lashings.’ And
St. Columbanus, who is the first who instituted the Monastic Life
in France, and has written a Rule as a supplement to that of St.
Benedict, also expresses himself with great severity against such
Monks as are convicted of having barely conversed with a Woman in
the absence of witnesses; for though there are faults for which he
orders only six lashes to be given, yet, in the case here mentioned,
he prescribes two hundred. ‘Let the Man who has been alone with a
Woman, and talked familiarly to her, either be kept on bread and
water for two days, or receive two hundred lashes[58].’
[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]