The use that has been made of flagellations in public shows and processions, the different Edicts of Princes for prohibiting or permitting such ceremonies, the Bulls issued by different Popes to approve or condemn them, and the decisions and regulations of a number of Men invested with the first dignities in the Church on the subject of voluntary discipline, are not the only circumstances that prove the great importance of which these practices have gradually grown to be in the Christian World: we ought not to omit to say that they have been the cause of much difference in opinion among the Learned; for something essential would certainly be wanting to the glory of flagellations, had they not been the cause of dissentions among Men, and if at least Treatises pro and con had not been written on occasion of them.
Some among the Learned have, it seems, blamed the pious exercises here alluded to, without restriction: such were the Cardinal Stephen, and Peter Cerebrosus, who have been mentioned in a former place, as well as certain learned Ecclesiastics in Rome, against whom Cardinal Damian likewise wrote. Others have condemned the cruelty with which the same exercises were sometimes performed: among them was Gerson, whose arguments, together with those of the Advocate-General Servin in his speech against the Blue Penitents of Bourges, are recited at some length in the Abbé Boileau’s ninth Chapter.
Debates have, moreover, taken place among the Learned, concerning the precise views with which disciplines ought to be performed, as well as on the properest occasions. And disputes have in particular run high, concerning the degree of efficaciousness of such pious exercises: on which the Reader may remember what has lately been said of the doctrines advanced by the Hereticks called Flagellants.
Differences in opinion have also prevailed with respect to the manner in which disciplines are to be executed: some asserting that penitents ought to inflict them upon themselves with their own hands; and others being equally positive that they ought to receive them from the hands of other persons; this was one of the arguments of Gerson.
In fine, debates have taken place concerning the properest situation for penitents to be in, when undergoing such mortifications. Some have objected to the disciplining persons laying themselves bare for that purpose, as being contrary to decency; while others, at the head of whom was Cardinal Damian, have strenuously declared for a state of unlimited nakedness. The following is one of the arguments of the Cardinal on the subject.
‘Tell me, whoever you may be, who are actuated by so much pride as to deride the Passion of our Saviour, and who, refusing to be stripped along with him, ridicule his nakedness, and call his sufferings mere dreams or trifles, tell me, pray, what you prepare to do, when you shall see this heavenly Saviour, who was publicly stripped and fastened to a cross, clad with majesty and glory, accompanied by an innumerable multitude of Angels, surrounded by incomparable and inexpressible splendours, and infinitely more glorious than all visible and invisible things? what will you do, I say, when you shall see him whose ignominy you pretend to despise, seated upon a Tribunal exalted and surrounded by fire, and judging all Mankind in a manner both equitable and terrible? Then will the Sun lose its lustre; the Moon will be involved in darkness; the Stars will fall from their places; the foundations of mountains will be shaken; only a few scarce gloomy rays will be sent from the skies; the earth and air will be consumed by impetuous fires, and all the elements confounded together: what, once more, will you do, when all these things shall happen? of what service to you will these clothes and garments be, with which you now are covered, and which you refuse to lay aside, to submit to the exercise of penitence? with what presumptuous audaciousness do you hope to partake of the glory of Him whose shame and ignominy you now refuse to share?’——The above is certainly the best argument I have hitherto read in favour of nakedness; and it reconciles me to Cardinal Damian, whom I find to have been no bad Writer.
This necessity of nakedness to complete the merit of Penance, has been insisted upon by other Men of importance besides him whom we have just spoken of; and without alledging any further authority on this subject, it will suffice to observe that the greatest personages have submitted to that part of Penitence we mention; several instances of which have been produced in a former Chapter.
Nay, the more complete was this privation of clothes, the more merit there was thought to be in it: hence we find that several Offenders have proportioned their freedom from habiliments, to the greatness of the sense they entertained of their offences; and on this occasion may be recited the penance performed by Fulk, surnamed Grisegonnelle, about the year 1000.
This Fulk, who was a very powerful Man in France, being the Son of the great Seneschal of the Kingdom, had been a most bad and violent Man in those times of feudal Anarchy, when force was almost the only law that existed, and the Nobles and Lords were rather Heads of Robbers, than persons invested with any precise dignity. Among other crimes the above Fulk had committed, he had killed with his own hand Conan, Duke of Britanny. He had performed three pilgrimages to the Holy Land; and on the last, meaning to render his penance complete and perfectly unexceptionable, he caused himself to be drawn naked upon a hurdle, with a halter round his neck, through the streets of Jerusalem. Men who had been directed so to do, lashed him by turns, with scourges; and a person appointed for that purpose, cried at certain intervals, Lord! have mercy on the traitor and forswearer Fulk. He lived very devoutly afterwards, and founded several Monasteries. An account of this Fulk, and his penance, is to be found in Moreri’s Dictionary.