The above recited feats of Dominic the _Cuirassed_, and Rodolph of Eugubio, who have had numerous imitators, together with the very serious endeavours of Men in the station of Cardinal Damian, to recommend such practices, are very extraordinary facts. It really seems that, in our part of the world, where the Arts and Sciences have been promoted to so high a degree, and the powers of the human mind carried to their utmost extent, we have, in regard to the folly and ignorance of our superstitious notions and customs, been equal to any Nation upon earth, to any of those Nations whom we despise most: nay, perhaps it might be strictly proved that we have been worse. [81] It is needless to observe that all this alludes to real penances or practices of the Indian Fakirs. [82] See Voltaire’s Works, translated by _Smollett, Franklin, and others_, Vol. XIII. pag. 23, &c. CHAP. XIV. _The practice of self-flagellation meets with some opposition; but this is soon over-ruled by the fondness of the Public._ Voluntary flagellations, notwithstanding the zeal with which Cardinal Damian endeavoured to promote them, were not, however, admitted, in his time, by all persons, without exception. Thus, Odillon, Abbot of Cluny, and Maurus of Cesena, two Saints whose Lives Cardinal Damian himself has written, forbore the use of flagellations; or at least no mention is made of their having practised them, in the Accounts the Cardinal has given of their actions. Nay, several persons openly blamed the pious ceremonies in question, during the times of Cardinal Damian; for it was too alarming a practice, for Men not to be concerned at its sudden progress; it was an exercise of too ticklish a nature, for them to suffer themselves to fall asleep on its introduction, or too interesting in its consequence, for them not to be roused by the rattling of the blows. Among those who thus condemned voluntary flagellations, the most conspicuous was Peter Cerebrosus, a Monk who lived in those times, and was moreover a friend to Cardinal Damian. This brought on, an epistolary debate on the subject, between Cerebrosus and the Cardinal, as we learn from the Works of the latter. Nor did the Cardinal, it is to be observed, advance in his letters, that self-flagellations were matter of strict duty: he only proved by the authority of the Scriptures, that it was lawful to flagellate persons who were guilty of offences; and he then gave it as his opinion, that it was a laudable act in a Christian, voluntarily to inflict upon himself that punishment which God had awarded against him, and which he ought to suffer from the hands of other persons.