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.’