Note 929 — Chapter IX · THE CLERGY AND MONKS.

The great argument of the clergy in later times,—in the twelfth century particularly, when all over Europe the attempt was made to exempt them from secular jurisdiction,—“that no one ought to be punished twice for the same offence,” had apparently not yet been thought of. The penances of the church, by which the sinner was to be reconciled to God, were still held quite distinct from the sufferings by which he expiated his violation of the law. Theodore alleviates, but does not remit, the penance of those whose guilt has bent their heads to human slavery. Theod. Poen. xvi. § 3. See this argument stated in the quarrel between Henry II. and Becket: “In contrarium sentiebat archiepiscopus, ut quos exauctorent episcopi a manu laicali postmodum non punirentur, quia bis in idipsum puniri viderentur.” Rog. Wendov. an. 1164. vol. ii. 304. But this was a two-edged argument, as its upholders soon found, when the laity on the same grounds claimed exemption from secular punishment for offences committed upon the persons of the clergy; justly urging, upon the premises, that they were excommunicated for their acts, and ought not to be subject to a second infliction. Accordingly in 1176, we find Richard archbishop of Canterbury attempting to explain away what Becket had so vigorously advanced: “Nec dicatur quod aliquis bis puniatur propter hoc in idipsum, nec enim iteratum est, quod ab uno incipitur et ab altero consummatur,” etc. See his letter to the bishops in An. Trivet. 1176. p. 82 seq. We shall readily admit that the laity ought not to have been let loose upon the clergy; but upon the same grounds we shall claim the subjection of the clergy to the secular tribunals for all secular offences.