CHAP. IX.
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].’