Chapter I: Part 1

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have
been placed at the end of each chapter. Many of the footnotes are
long and spread over several pages. Several footnotes have footnotes
themselves.

In this book the Table of Contents is at the end of the book.

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.

MEMORIALS

OF

HUMAN SUPERSTITION;

Being a Paraphrase and Commentary on the
_HISTORIA FLAGELLANTIUM_ of the
Abbé Boileau, Doctor of the Sorbonne, Canon
of the Holy Chapel, &c.

By One who is not Doctor of the Sorbonne.

_Honni soit qui mal y pense._

THE SECOND EDITION.

LONDON:

Printed for G. ROBINSON, N^o 55, Pater-noster Row.

M DCC LXXXIV.

THE

INTRODUCTION

OF THE

PARAPHRAST AND COMMENTATOR.

The Abbé Boileau, the author of the _Historia Flagellantium_, was elder brother to the celebrated Poet of that name. He filled, several years, the place of Dean of the Metropolitan Church of Sens, and was thence promoted to the office of one of the Canons of the Holy Chapel in Paris, which is looked upon as a great dignity among the French clergy.

While he was in that office (about the year 1700) he wrote, among other books, that which is the subject of this work[1]. This book, in which the public expected, from the title of it, to find an history of the particular sect of Hereticks called Flagellants, only contained an aggregation of facts and quotations on the subject of self-disciplines and flagellations in general among Christians (which, if the work had been well done, might however have been equally interesting) and a mixture of alternate commendation and blame of that practice.

The Theologians of that time, however, took offence at the book. They judged that the author had been guilty, in it, of several heretical assertions; for instance, in saying, as he does in two or three places, that Jesus Christ had suffered flagellation against his will: and they particularly blamed the censures which, amidst his commendations of it, he had passed upon a practice that so many saints had adopted, so many pontiffs and bishops had advised, and so many ecclesiastical writers had commended.

In the second place, they objected to several facts which the author had inserted in his book, as well as to the licentiousness of expression he had sometimes indulged; and they said that such facts, and such manner of expression, ought not to be met with in a book written by a good Christian, and much less by a Dean of the Metropolitan Church of Sens, a Canon of the Holy Chapel, and in short by a man invested with an eminent dignity in the Church; in which latter respect they were perhaps right[2].

Among the critics of our author’s book, were the Jesuits of Trevoux; the then conductors of a periodical review, called the _Journal de Trevoux_. The poet Boileau, taking the part of his brother, answered their criticisms by the following epigram.

_Non, le livre des Flagellans
N’a jamais condamné, lisez le bien mes Peres,
Ces rigidités salutaires
Que pour ravir le Ciel, saintement violens,
Exercent sur leurs corps tant de Chrétiens austères.
Il blâme seulement cet abus odieux
D’étaler & d’offrir aux yeux
Ce que leur doit toûjours cacher la beinséance,
Et combat vivement la fausse piété,
Qui, sous couleur d’éteindre en nous la volupté,
Par l’austérité même & par la pénitence
Sait allumer le feu de la lubricité._

The first opportunity I had to see the Abbé Boileau’s book, which is pretty scarce, but which I knew from the above epigram, and other books that mention it, was about ten years ago, in a town of Italy, where it was shewn to me by a Quaker, an Englishman, who lived there; not a Quaker, however, of the common sort, that is, a scrupulous observer of the duties prescribed by his sect; for he wore laced cloaths, and played admirably well on the flute.

Having since lighted again on a copy of the same book, I judged that its singularity, and the nature of the facts it contains, rendered it worthy to be laid before the public; and I had the thought of dressing it in vulgar tongue with the less reluctance, as, conformably to the confession I have made in the title-page, I have not the honour to be a doctor of the Sorbonne. However, I found, upon a more attentive examination of the book, that the obscurity and want of meaning of that part of it which properly belongs to the author, who seems to have been as defective in point of clearness of head as his brother the poet was remarkable for that qualification, rendered a translation, impracticable.

The singular contradiction, for instance, between most of the conclusions our author draws from the facts he relates, and the facts themselves, is, (when it is possible to ascertain the meaning of such conclusions) really matter of surprise. The critics of our author, who were sensible of this inconsistency, had derived comfort from it, and hoped that the book would propagate but little heresy, since hardly any body could understand it. However, this very manner in which our author has composed his work, wherein he contradicts not only the facts he relates, but even his own assertions, sometimes two or three times in the same page, leads us to the discovery of his real design in writing it, and clears him from having entertained any views of an heretical or dangerous nature. He only proposed, it appears, to compile together facts and quotations which amused him, and which he thought would also amuse the public; and he terminated them (or sometimes whole strings of them) with seeming conclusions and random assertions, in order to make the reader judge that he had a serious and even theological design, in making his compilation.

Another cause of surprise in our Author’s book, is, the prodigious incoherency of the facts themselves he has linked together. But in this respect, likewise, we discover, after a little examination, that his views were of a perfectly harmless kind, and that this singularity was not owing to any design of his own, as might at first sight be imagined, but only to the manner in which he proceeded in his work. His practice was, it appears, to lay down, at the same time, upon the paper, all the facts to his liking he found related in the productions of the same author; and at other times also, he introduced together, we may suppose, all the stories and quotations the discovery of which he had made in the course of the same morning[3].

A translation of a book thus made, was therefore, as hath been above said, impracticable. And as a number of the facts and quotations it contains are curious, either in themselves, or on account of the authors from whom they are extracted, I have at once enlarged my first plan, and thought of writing another book with the materials contained in that of the Abbé Boileau.

With the facts and quotations, therefore, supplied by the Abbé Boileau’s book, I have undertaken to compose this History of the Flagellants. With these materials, the quantity or number of which I determined neither to increase or decrease, I attempted to write a book; proposing to myself a task of much the same nature with that kind of play which sometimes serves to amuse companies of friends in winter evenings, in which sets of words in appearance incompatible with one another, are proposed, and, without any of them being left out, or even displaced, are to be made into some consistent speeches, by the help of intermediate arguments. Such task I have, as I say, tried to perform, without setting aside any of the facts contained in the Abbé Boileau’s book: only I have taken great liberty with respect to placing and displacing such facts, as, without that indulgence, the task, on this occasion, was not to be performed. The work or problem, therefore, I proposed to myself, instead of being that which more commonly occurs, and may be expressed in the following terms: _Certain arguments being given, to find the necessary facts to support them_? was this: _A certain number of facts, pretty well authenticated, being given, to find the natural conclusions and inductions which they suggest_?

To this paraphrase thus made on the materials afforded by the Abbé Boileau, and to a few occasional sentences of his, which I have preserved, I have added an ample Commentary, in which I have introduced not only such facts as either my own memory, or other authors, supplied me: so that the Abbé’s work, a twelves book, printed on a very large type, has swelled into the majestic octavo which is now laid before the public.

In composing this octavo, two different parts I have performed. In the Paraphrase on the Abbé Boileau’s work, I have, keeping to the subject, and preserving as much as I could the turn of my Author’s book, expressed myself in that style and manner, in which it was not unlikely a doctor of the Sorbonne, and a dean of the church of Sens, might have written: in the Commentary, I have followed my own inclination. Conformably to that which is often practised on the Stage, where the same player fills two different parts at the same time, by speedily altering his dress, I have, in the present work, acted in two different alternate capacities, as I changed sides: in the text, I acted the part of a doctor of the Sorbonne; and then, quickly resuming my former station, I expatiated and commented, in the note, upon what the doctor had just said in the text.

Thus much for the manner in which I have accomplished this work. With respect to giving any previous delineation of the substance of it, it is what I find some difficulty in doing; and which, besides, I think would be useless, since I suppose the reader will, as readers commonly do, peruse this Preface only after he has turned the last leaf of the book: taking it therefore for granted that the reader knows, by this time, what the present performance is, I proceed to give an account of my views in writing it.

In the first place, I proposed to myself the information of posterity. A period will, sooner or later, arrive, at which the disciplining and flagellating practices now in use, and which have been so for so many centuries, will have been laid aside, and succeeded by others equally whimsical. And while the men of those days will overlook the defects of their own extravagant customs, or perhaps even admire the rationality of them, they will refuse to believe that the practices of which accounts are given in this work, ever were in use among mankind, and even matter of great moment among them. My design, therefore, was effectually to remove all their doubts in that respect, by handing down to them the flower and choice part of the facts and arguments on the subject.

This book will likewise be extremely useful to the present age; and it will in the first place be so, the subject being considered in a moral light. The numerous cases that are produced in this book, of disciplines which offenders of all classes, kings as well as others, have zealously inflicted upon themselves, will supply a striking proof of that deep sense of justice which exists in the breasts of all men; and the reader will from such facts conclude, no doubt with pleasure, that even the offenders of the high rank we have just mentioned, notwithstanding the state by which they are surrounded, and the majestic countenance which they put on, sometimes in proportion as they more clearly know that they are wrong, are inwardly convinced that they owe compensation for their acts of injustice.

Being considered in the same moral light, this book will be useful to the present age, by the instances it gives of corrections by which different offences against the peace of mankind have been requited; the consequence of which will be the preventing of such offences. Slanderous wits, for example, to mention only offenders of that class, writers of satires, epigrams, and lampoons, dealers in bon-mots, inventors of anecdotes, by reading the instances of disciplines by which such ingenious pastimes have, on different occasions, been repaid, will naturally be led to recollect, that all possible flagellations (to use the expression of the Alguazil introduced in a certain chapter of Gil Blas) have not been yet inflicted; and sudden considerations like this, which this book will not fail to suggest to them, will be extremely apt to check them the instant they are preparing to make their excursions on the reputation of their neighbours; and by that means the good name of many an innocent person will be preserved.

To the persons themselves who actually suffer from the injustice or wantonness of others, this performance will be of great service. Those, for instance, who smart under the lash of some insolent satirist, those who are disappointed in their expectations, those whose secrets have been betrayed, nay, even ladies, treacherously forsaken by those who had given them so many assurances of fidelity and eternal constancy, will find their misfortunes alleviated by reading the different instances and facts related in this book: they will take comfort from the thought, that what has already happened may happen again; and cheer themselves with the hope, that flagellations will sooner or later be the lot of those persons who cause their uneasiness.

Being considered in a philosophical light, this work will be useful to the present age, in the same manner as we have said it would be to posterity. The present generation, at least in this island, will find in it proofs both of the reality of the singular practices which once prevailed in their own country, and are still in full force in many others, and of the important light in which they have been considered by mankind. They will meet with accounts of bishops, cardinals, popes, and princes, who have warmly commended or blamed such practices; and will not be displeased to be moreover acquainted with the debates of the learned on the same subject, and with the honest, though opposite, endeavours, of a Cerebrosus and a Damian, a Gretzer and a Gerson.

To the critical reader this book will likewise be serviceable, by giving him an insight into the manner of the debates and arguments, and into the turn of the erudition, of foreign Catholick divines, at the same time that the information will be conveyed to him amidst other objects that will perhaps better amuse him: to secure this advantage, I have, as much as I could, preserved the appearance of our Author’s book, using, for that purpose, the titles of several of his chapters; only taking care to keep more to the subject than himself had done.

To the same critical reader this performance will also recommend itself, by the numerous passages from certain books which it gives him an opportunity to peruse. And the generality of readers will not be displeased to meet with a number of short specimens of the style of several authors whose works they never would have read, though they were once conspicuous on the particular line which they followed, and to be thus brought to some slight acquaintance with St. Austin, St. Jerom, and Tertullian, of whom they knew only the names, and with St. Fulgentius, and Peter Chrysologus, of whom they knew nothing at all.

In fine, to these capital advantages, possessed by this work, I have endeavoured to add the important one of affording entertainment; for, entertainment is a thing which is not by any means to be despised in this world. In order the better to attain this end, I have avoided offending against decency or religion; I had of myself too little inclination to be witty at the expence of either, especially the latter, to avail myself of the opportunities which the subject naturally offered; and I should think it a great praise of this book, if I were hereafter informed, that the graver class of readers have read with pleasure the less serious part of it, and that the other class have gone with pleasure likewise through that part which is less calculated for amusement.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The title of the book is _Historia Flagellantium, de recto & perverso flagrorum usu apud Christianos_, 12mo. Parisiis, apud J. Anisson, Typographiæ Regiæ Præfectum, MDCC.

[2] Our author, who was rather singular in the choice of his subjects, had written another treatise _De tactibus impudicis prohibendis_, and another on the dress of clergymen, wherein he attempted to prove that they might as well wear it short as long.

[3] The same manner of writing is also to be met with in most of the treatises that were written in England, France, and especially Germany, about an hundred years ago, or more, when a mechanical knowledge of Latin and Greek books, and making compilations from them, was the kind of learning in vogue.

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

FLAGELLANTS.

CHAP. I.

_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.

FOOTNOTES:

[4] The word _Discipline_ originally signified in general, the censures and corrections which persons who were guilty of Sins, received from their Superiors; and when _Flagellation_ was to be part of those corrections, it was expressly mentioned; and they called such Discipline, as the Reader will see in the Sequel of this Book, “the discipline of the whip,” (_disciplina flagelli_). As Flagellation grew afterwards to be the common method of doing penance that prevailed among persons in religious Orders, the bare word _discipline_ became in course of time the technical word to express that kind of chastisement: thus, the Reader will find hereafter an instance in which Flagellation, when too long continued, is called “the madness of too long discipline,” (_longioris disciplinæ insania_). And at last, those kinds of whips made of knotted and twisted cords, commonly used for the above pious exercises, have also been called by the same name; and the word _discipline_ has become in French, for instance, the appropriated word to express the instrument of religious flagellation. Thus, in Molière’s Play, called the _Tartuffe_, or the Hypocrite, Tartuffe tells his Man, “Laurent, lock up my hair-cloth, and discipline, and pray that Heaven may always illuminate you.”

Laurent, serrez ma haire avec ma discipline,
Et priez que toujours le Ciel vous illumine.
TART. A. III. Sc. 2.

[5] _Sursùm & deorsùm disciplina._----All the Women (as the Writer of this Commentary has been told, when in Catholic Countries) who make self-flagellation part of their religious exercises, whether they live in or out of Convents, use the _lower discipline_, as defined above: their pious and merciful Confessors having suggested to them, that the _upper discipline_ may prove dangerous, and be the cause of hurting their breasts, especially when they mean to proceed in that holy exercise with unusual fervour and severity. A few Orders of Friars, among whom are the Capuchins, also use the lower kind of discipline; but for what reason the Commentator has not been as yet informed.

Perhaps it will be asked here, how Priests and Confessors have been able to introduce the use of such a painful practice as flagellation, among the persons who choose to be directed by them in religious matters, and how they can enforce obedience to the prescriptions they give them in that respect. But here it must be remembered, that _Penance_ has been made a Sacrament among Catholics, and that _Satisfaction_, as may be seen in the Books that treat of that subject, is an essential part of it, and must always precede the _Absolution_ on the part of the Confessor. Now, as Confessors have it in their power to refuse this Absolution, so long as the Penances or Satisfactions of any kind, which they have enjoyed to their Penitents, have not been accomplished, this confers on them a very great authority; and though, to a number of those who apply to them, who care but little for such Absolution, or in case of refusal are ready to apply to other more easy Confessors, they scarcely prescribe any other kind of _Satisfaction_ than saying a certain number of prayers, or such like mortification; yet, to those persons who think it a very serious affair when a Confessor in whom they trust, continues to refuse them his absolution, they may enjoin almost what kind of penance they please. And indeed since Confessors have been able to prevail upon Kings to leave their kingdoms and engage in perilous wars and croisades to the Holy Land, and to induce young and tender Queens to perform on foot pilgrimages to very distant places, it is not difficult to understand how they have been able gradually to prevail upon numbers of their Devotees of both Sexes, to follow practices which they had been so foolish as to adopt for themselves, and to practise, at their own choice, either the lower, or the upper, discipline.

[6] Dial. Ὑπὲρ τῶν Εἰκόνων--Καὶ τοὶ παλαιὸς οὕτος ὁ λόγος, ἀνευθύνους εἶναι Ποιητὰς καὶ Γραφέας. The Greek word ἀνευθύνους, used here, literally signifies that Poets and Painters are not obliged to give any account of their actions. Horace has also expressed a thought of the same kind with regard to them, in his _Ars Poetica_, “Painters and Poets have always equally enjoyed the power of daring every thing.”

_Pictoribus atque Poëtis
Quidlibet audendi semper fuit æqua potestas._
A. P. v. 9, 10.

The complaints of our Author with respect to the loose which Painters have been used to give to their own fancy, when they have treated religious subjects, are well grounded; and persons who have travelled in Catholic Countries cannot but have taken notice of the freedom that prevails in their Church-pictures: hence a number of stories are related among them of Nuns, or other Women, who have fallen in love with naked figures of Angels and Saints, and of Men who have been led into extravagances by the passion they had conceived for certain statues, or pictures. As to errors concerning facts merely, and faults against the _Costume_, which our Author seems more particularly to allude to, in this Chapter, they are certainly very frequent in the works of Painters: even the first among them, such as Paul Veronese and others, are reproached with capital ones. On this occasion the Writer of this Commentary thinks he may relate what he himself has seen in a Country Church in Germany, in which a Painter, who had intended to represent the Sacrifice of Isaac, had so far availed himself of the _potestas quidlibet audendi_, mentioned above, that he had represented Abraham with a blunderbuss in his hand, ready to shoot his son, and an Angel, suddenly come down from Heaven, pouring water on the pan.

CHAP. II.

_No persons, under the antient Law, inflicted on themselves, with
their own hands, voluntary flagellations, or received them from the
hands of other persons._

Flagellation, there is no doubt, is a method of coercive punishment very antiently used among Men. We find it mentioned in the Old Testament, in the fifth chapter of _Exodus_: it is said in that chapter, that the Ministers of Pharaoh, who required from the Israelites a certain number of bricks every day, having found them to have failed in supplying the usual number, ordered them to be flogged; and that the latter complained of this harsh usage.

V. 14. “And the officers of the children of Israel, which Pharaoh’s Task masters had set over them, were beaten[7], and demanded, Wherefore have you not fulfilled your task in making brick, both yesterday and to-day, as heretofore?”

15. “Then the Officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying, Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants?”

16. “There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, Make brick: and behold we are beaten, but the fault is in thine own people.”--Now, I think that no commentary is necessary to prove that the flagellations mentioned here were not in any degree voluntary on the part of those who underwent them.

We also find mention made in Leviticus of the punishment of Flagellation: this is the punishment awarded, in the nineteenth chapter, against those who should be guilty of the sin of Fornication. “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bond-maid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her, she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.”

The Hebrew words in the text, which are commonly translated by these, _shall be scourged_, are justly translated so, though in the version of the LXX. they are only translated by the words, _shall be punished_[8]; for the punishment used on those occasions was inflicted, as the learned Vatable observes, with thongs of ox-leather, that is to say, with scourges. To this I think it is needless to add, that the Israelites did not voluntarily impose on themselves the abovementioned scourgings, and that they never were suffered by any of them but much against their will.

In the xxvth chapter of Deuteronomy, the number of lashes which Offenders of any kind were to receive, was limited to forty. V. 2. “And it shall be, if the wicked may be worthy to be beaten, that the Judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to a certain number.”

3. “Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; but if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.”

Now, it is evident from the above passage, that the Israelites were very far from approving any cruel flagellations, like those which Monks in our days inflict on themselves with whip-cords filled with knots, or sometimes armed with nails or needles; since they were even forbidden to suffer their Brother to be too cruelly lashed in their presence. Nor was it the incisions made on the bodies of innocent persons before the altar of Moloch, or at the funerals of the dead, which God meant here to prevent; He even prescribed tenderness to the sufferings of a convicted offender, though he deserved the stripes that were inflicted on him. Therefore, if the law of God forbad any cruel excess in the chastising of persons who were guilty of crimes, much more did it disapprove that Men should unmercifully lash and flay themselves with rods and whip-cords. Indeed, the modern practice of lashing and whipping one’s self to the effusion of blood, is by no means intitled to our admiration. How could it be possible that an unhappy Friar, who lives in certain modern Monasteries, should not have his skin torn from head to foot, since it is a constant practice among them to discipline themselves three or four times every week, during the whole time that the _Miserere_, the _De Profundis_[9], and the _Salve Regina_, are singing, with a melodious, though slow, voice; and that too so heavily, and in such earnest, that the rattling of the blows resounds on all sides?

Several persons, however, still insist that religious flagellations were in use among the ancient Jews, and draw, it must be confessed, strong arguments from the words of David, in Psal. lxxiii. 14: “_For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning[10]._” But if we consider attentively these expressions of the Prophet, we shall find that they do not by any means signify that he lashed himself with a scourge every day, and all the day long. Those stripes of which he speaks are to be understood only in a figurative sense, and they only mean those misfortunes and tribulations which are frequently the lot of the righteous in this world: and indeed we see that David exclaims elsewhere, ‘_For I am ready to halt, and my sorrow is continually before me._’

Besides, we are to observe that St. Austin, a Writer of the highest authority, paraphrases the above-mentioned passage of Ps. lxxiii. in the following manner: “I am never free from afflictions from God; I discharge my duty, and yet I am beaten, &c.” Indeed the above is only the rational meaning of the passage in question; and we cannot with any degree of probability infer from it (as certain persons do) that the practice of scourging one’s self voluntarily, and lashing one’s hide with rods and whip-cords, was in use among the ancient Hebrews, and that such a whimsical notion ever entered their heads. It is true that Philo _the Jew_, and Eusebius of Cæsarea, relate, that the Esseans, or _Therapeutæ_ (whether they were a particular sect of the Jews, or are to be ranked among the first Christians, is not clear) were celebrated on account of the macerations which they practised; but then we are intirely ignorant of the methods which they used in order to mortify themselves, and we are no where told that they employed for that purpose either _disciplines_ or whips.

Yet, this cannot be disallowed, that after the two Rabbins, _Mayr_, and _Asse the Son_, had compiled the Babylonian Talmud[11] that is to say, about the 476th year from the birth of our Lord, new practices began to prevail among the Jews. Fascinated, I do not know by what kind of superstition, they began to use, contrary to their former customs, a sort of voluntary discipline; though, we are to observe, they never inflicted such discipline on themselves with their own hands. We are informed of the above fact, in the Treatise intitled _Malkos_, in the 3d Chapter of which it is said, that the Jews, after they had finished their prayers and confessed their sins (which were exercises they derived from their ancestors) used to lash one another with scourges.

John Buxtorf the Father, a Protestant Author, in his Book of the _Judaic Synagogue_, printed at Basil in the year 1661, describes the above practice of the Jews at some length, and says, That there are constantly two Men in every Jewish school, who withdraw from the rest of the Company, and retire into a particular place of the room where they are met; that the one lays himself flat on the ground with his head turned to the North, and his feet to the South (or his head to the South, and his feet to the North); and that the other, who remains standing, gives him thirty-nine blows upon his back with a strap, or thong of ox-leather. In the meanwhile, the Man who is lashed, recites three times over the thirty-eighth verse of Psal. lxxviii. This verse, in the Hebrew language, contains just thirteen words; at every word the Patient recites, he receives a lash from the other Man; which, when he has recited the whole verse three times over, makes up the prescribed number of thirty-nine; and at every time he says the last word, he strikes his own breast with his fist[12]. This operation being concluded, the _Agent_ in his turn becomes the _Patient_, and places himself in the same situation as the other had done, who then uses him in the same brotherly manner in which the former had used him, and they thus mutually chastise each other for their sins, and _rub one another_, Buxtorf observes, _like Asses_.

Perhaps the Reader will be surprised that the Rabbins have limited the number of the stripes inflicted in the manner above-described, to thirty-nine, since the Law of Moses had extended their number to forty; but to this the Rabbins answer, that it is owing to the peculiar manner in which the punishment of stripes was inflicted in antient times. The ancient Jews, they say, used a scourge made of three thongs; one of which was very long, and went round the body of the person who was scourged, and the two others were a good deal shorter. Thirteen blows with this _three-thonged_ scourge were given to the Patient; which, according to the Rabbins’ manner of explaining the law, made thirty-nine stripes in all: now, if one stroke more had been given him, he would have received forty-two, which would have been contrary to the law of Moses, which says, “Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed[13].”

FOOTNOTES:

[7] The words of the Vulgate in this place, are, _flagellati sunt_, which signify, were lashed with rods or whips: and in v. 16, _flagellis cædimur_, which has the same meaning.

[8] The Hebrew words in the text are: בקרת תהיה the Greek words for these, in the LXX. are, ἐπισκοπὴ ἔσται αὐτοῖς.--As I do not understand Hebrew, I shall not try to make any remark on the above Hebrew words, but trust for that to the sagaciousness of the reader; however, with respect to the Greek words that follow them, I think I should be greatly wanting in my duty to the Public, in my capacity of Commentator, if I did not communicate to them an observation with which those words supply me, which is, that there is a material error in the passage above recited, in our common translation of the Bible; for the Reader may see that the punishment of scourging, in case of fornication, is confined, in that passage, to the Woman solely; whereas the word αὐτοῖς, which is a plural word, shews that both the Man and Woman were to be punished alike; and instead of _she shall_, as our Bible is worded in that passage, it ought to be, _they shall_ be scourged. This remark on the above singular alteration of the true sense of the Bible, to the prejudice of Women (supposing it is not an error of the press) naturally leads me to take notice here of the unjust disposition of Men towards Women in general, in all that relates to the mutual intercourse of the Sexes: a disposition that has induced them in modern times to impose humiliating penalties on such Women as are guilty of sins which the Men themselves commit with the utmost freedom, and thus to establish a mortifying difference, in that respect, between the two sexes, instead of that amiable equality which obtained between them under the Jewish law, according to which the Man and Woman who had committed together the sin of Fornication, were lashed with equal numbers of stripes.

[9] The _Miserere_ is the 51st Psalm; and the _De Profundis_ is the 130th, which is none of the shortest.

The singing of the _Miserere_ seems to be particularly appropriated, among Catholics, to regulate both the duration of religious flagellations, and the _time_ to which they are to be performed, as we may conclude from the above passage of our Author; and also from a passage of M. de Voltaire in his _Candide_, in which he says, that, when _Candide_ was flagellated at Lisbon, by order of the Inquisition, he was all the while entertained with a _Miserere en faux bourdon_; which is a kind of Church Music.

[10] The expressions of the _Vulgate_ are, _fui flagellatus_, _I have been whipped_. The _Vulgate_ of the Old Testament is a very ancient Latin version of it from the Hebrew, corrected afterwards by St. Jerom, which is followed in all Catholic Countries.

[11] The Talmud is the Tradition, or _unwritten_ law of the Jews, the Law of Moses being their _written_ Law. This Tradition has, in process of time, been set down in writing; and two different Collections have been made of it: the one, in the Jerusalem School, about three hundred years after Jesus Christ, which is called the _Jerusalem_ Talmud; the other, in the Babylonian School, five hundred years after Jesus Christ, and is called, the _Babylon_ Talmud. The latter is that which is usually read among the Jews; and when they simply say, the _Talmud_, they mean the Babylon Talmud.

[12] Buxtorf, the Author from whom the above facts are drawn, is mentioned with great praise in the _Scaligerana_, which is a Collection, or mixture, of Notes, partly French, partly Latin, found in the papers of J. Scaliger, and printed after his death. Buxtorf is called, in one of these Notes, the only Man learned in the Hebrew language; and Scaliger adds, that it is surprising how the Jews can love him, though he has handled them so severely; which shews that he has been impartial in his accounts. _Mirum quomodo Buxtorsius à Judæis ametur, in illâ tamen Synagogâ Judaicâ illos valdè perstringit._

[13] It is to be supposed, that the Jew Priests had been well freed for the above benign interpretations they gave of the law of Moses.

CHAP. III.

_Voluntary flagellations were unknown to the first Christians. An
explanation is given of the passage of St. Paul_: I chastise my
body, and keep it under subjection[14].

Flagellations are mentioned so often as eleven times by the Holy Writers of the New Testament.

Of these, five relate to Jesus Christ. The first is in the _xxth chapter_ of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, v. 19; and in the _xxvith_ of the same, v. 26. In the _xvth chapter_ of St. Mark’s Gospel, v. 33. In the _xviith chapter_ of the Gospel according to St. Luke, v. 33; and in the _xixth chapter_ of the Gospel according to St. John, v. 1[15]. No just conclusion, as the Reader may see, can be drawn from the above-mentioned passages, in support of voluntary flagellations, and of those _Disciplines_ which Monks now-a-days inflict on themselves; since it is plain that our Saviour did not whip himself with his own hands: and we might as well say that we ought to inflict death upon ourselves, and nail ourselves to a cross, as that we ought to lacerate our own flesh with scourges, because Jesus Christ was exposed to that kind of punishment.

The other six passages of the New Testament in which whipping is mentioned, are, first, in St. John’s (c. ii. v. 15.) _And when He had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them out of the Temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers of money, and overthrew the tables._ The second chapter is in the fifth chapter of the Acts (v. 40.) _And when they had called the Apostles and beaten them with scourges, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus; and let them go._ The third place in which scourgings are mentioned, is the sixth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians (v. 15.) St. Paul in that Chapter places _Stripes_ among the different methods of persecution which were used against the ministers of the Gospel, and he moreover relates the sufferings to which he himself had been exposed. _Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one_: and in the next verse he says, _Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I have been in the deep_. Fifthly, in his Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 36.) the same Apostle says, speaking in general terms, _And others had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonments_. Now, from all these passages no authority whatever can be derived to justify the practice of voluntary flagellation. All the persecuted persons above-mentioned suffered those beatings with rods, and those scourgings, much against their will.

The sixth and last passage in which whipping is mentioned, in the New Testament, is therefore the only one from which any specious conclusion may be drawn in support of the practice of voluntary flagellation: it is contained in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (ix. 22); St. Paul in it says, _I chastise my body, and keep it under subjection_. Indeed this passage is well worth examining attentively. Several men of great authority have given it as their opinion, that the Apostle expressly meant to say, by the above words, that it was his practice to lash himself, in order to overcome his vicious inclinations. Among others, James Gretzer, an able Theologian and one of the Fathers Jesuits, vehemently asserts that the Greek words in the text literally signify, “I imprint on my own body the stripes or marks of the whip, and render it livid by dint of blows,” and the same Father supports his assertion by the authority of _Septalius_ and _Guastininius_, two celebrated Interpreters of Aristotle, who, in their Commentaries, quote _Gallienus_ as having used the Greek word in question (ὑπωπιάζω) in the same sense which he (Father Gretzer) attributes to St. Paul. To these authorities Gretzer moreover adds those of St. Irenæus, St. Chrysostom, Paulinus, and Theophylactus, who (he says) have all explained the above passage in the same manner as himself does: so that, if we were to credit all the comments of Father Gretzer, there would, indeed, remain little doubt but that St. Paul meant to say, he fustigated himself with his own hands; and that he was thereby left an example which all faithful Christians ought in duty to imitate.

But yet, if, setting aside, for the present, all authorities on this head, we begin with examining attentively into the real meaning of the Greek word which is the subject of the present controversy, we shall see that it cannot have that signification which Father Gretzer pretends. In fact, let us examine if that word occurs in any other place of the New Testament, and in what sense it is employed. We meet with it in the eighteenth Chapter of St. Luke, wherein Jesus Christ says, in the manner of a Parable, that a Widow used to teaze a Judge with her frequent complaints, who was thereby compelled at last to do her justice; and he makes him speak in the following words: “Because this Widow troubles me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming, she _weary_ me (ὑπωπιάζη μὲ.)” Now, who can imagine that this Judge entertained any fear that the Woman should flagellate him? Yet, we must think so, if the Greek word used in the Text (which is the very same as that employed by St. Paul, and on which Father Gretzer builds his system) should always signify, as that Father pretends, to beat, or lash. If a literal explanation of that word, therefore, is in many cases improper and ridiculous, it follows that it is frequently to be understood in a figurative sense, and that it is then only employed to express that kind of hard usage either of one’s self, or of others, which is exercised without any mixture of real violence, or bodily sufferings. To this add, that St. Paul himself, when, on other occasions he really means to speak of blows and actual stripes, never once makes use of the word in question.

Besides, if in order rightly to understand the meaning of St. Paul, we consult the holy Fathers and Interpreters (which certainly is a very good method of investigating the truth), we shall scarcely find one who thought that St. Paul either beat or lashed himself, and in the above passage meant to speak of any such thing as voluntary Flagellation. St. Iræneus, Bishop of Lyons, though he has translated the words in question into these, “_I chastise my own body, and render it livid_,” has made no mention whatever of either scourges, whips, or rods.--St. Chrysostom likewise supposes, that the Apostle in the above passage, only spoke of the pains and care he took, in order to preserve his temperance, and conquer the passions of the flesh; and that it was the same as if he had said, “I submit to much labour, in order to live according to the rules of Temperance. I undergo every kind of hardship, rather than suffer myself to be led astray.” It must be confessed, however, that Benedictus Haeftenus, in his _Disquisitiones Monasticæ_, quotes a passage from the above Author’s 34th Homily, by which he pretends to prove that self-flagellations were in use in that Father’s time; but the words which Haeftenus has quoted in Latin are not to be found in the original Greek of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, and are therefore to be attributed to some modern Flogging-Master (Μαστιγοφόρος) who has lent them to him, by a kind of pious fraud. Other passages to prove our assertion, might be quoted from the words of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, of Oecumenius, as well as several other Greek Fathers.

The Latin have also understood St. Paul’s words in the same sense that the Greek Fathers have done. Indeed I do not find one among them but who thought that St. Paul did not actually lash himself with his own hands. St. Ambrosius, Bishop of Milan, expresses himself on the subject in the following words. ‘He who says (meaning St. Paul) I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection, does not so much _grieve_ (_contristatur_) for his own sins, which after all could not be so very numerous, as for ours.’

St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe, and an illustrious Discipline of St. Augustin, on this occasion treads in the footsteps of his excellent Master, giving the same sense as him to the words of St. Paul. The following is the manner in which St. Fulgentius explains those words, in his Epistle _on Virginity_, addressed to _Proba_. “The spiritual Spouse of Virgins does not seek in a Virgin a body practised in carnal pleasures; but rather wishes she should have chastised it by abstinence. This, the Doctor of the Gentiles used to practice on his own body. _I chastise_ (says he) _my body, and keep it under subjection._ And again, _in watchings often, in thirst and hunger, in fastings often_: let therefore the Virgin of Christ forbear to seek after pleasures which, she sees, are equally with-held from the widow.”

To all the above proofs, I know it will be objected that St. Petrus Chrysologus, archbishop of Ravenna, is clearly of opinion that St. Paul lashed himself with his own hands. The following is the manner in which he expresses himself on this head, at least if we are to credit the account given of his words by that great Patron of flagellations, Father Gretzer, in his Book printed at Ingolstadt in the year 1609. “This St. Paul used to do, who wrote in the following words the title-deed of his own Servitude, _I render my body livid, and bring it into subjection_: like a faithful Slave, himself supplied the rod, (_vindictam_) and severely lashed his own back, till it grew livid[16].” Now, who would not from these words, thus standing alone, as Father Gretzer recites them, conclude that St. Paul really used to cover his back with stripes? But, if we consult the original itself, we shall see that St. Chrysologus meant no more than to borrow a simile from the punishment usually inflicted on Slaves; which punishment he mentions in the beginning of the very passage we discuss here, and of which Father Gretzer has artfully quoted only the conclusion. “After all (says _Peter Chrysologus_) if the Servant does not awake early the next day, and rise before his Master, whether he be weary or not, he will be tied up and lashed. If the Servant therefore knows what he owes to another Man, the Master is thence taught what himself owes to the Lord of Lords, and is made sensible that he also is subject to a Master.” ‘This is what St. Paul practised, who wrote the title-deeds of his own servitude, and exposed himself to thirst, hunger, and nakedness. Like a good slave, he himself supplied the rod, and severely lashed himself.’