reserve the correction of the clergy to the discretion of the bishop;
but in the novels of Justinian a distinction is drawn between
ecclesiastical and civil transgressions. With the former the Emperor
acknowledges that the civil power has no concern: the latter are
cognisable by the civil judge. Yet before his sentence can be
executed, the convict must be degraded by his ecclesiastical superior;
or, if the superior refuse, the whole affair must be referred to the
consideration of the sovereign. That this regulation prevailed among
the western nations, after their separation from the Empire, is proved
by the canons of several councils; but the distinction laid down by
Justinian was insensibly abolished, and, whatever might be the nature
of the offence with which a clergyman was charged, he was, in the
first instance at least, amenable to none but an ecclesiastical
tribunal.

It was thus that on the Continent the spiritual courts were first
established, and their authority was afterward enlarged; but among the
Anglo-Saxons the limits of the two judicatures were intermixed and
undefined. When the Imperial government ceased in other countries, the
natives preserved many of its institutions, which the conquerors
incorporated with their own laws; but our barbarian ancestors
eradicated every prior establishment, and transplanted the manners of
the wilds of Germany into the new solitude which they had made. After
their conversion, they associated the heads of the clergy with their
nobles, and both equally exercised the functions of civil magistrates.

It is plain that the bishop was the sole judge of the clergy in
criminal cases: that he alone decided their differences, and that to
him appertained the cognizance of certain offences against the rights
of the Church and the sanctions of religion; but as it was his duty to