THE KING'S MIRROR 47 



of the King's Mirror, when he wrote of the fall of 

 Abiathar, was also thinking of the many Abiathars of 

 Norwegian history in the twelfth century, especially, 

 perhaps, of the bishops of Sverre's reign, who had striven 

 so valiantly to rid the nation of its energetic king. There 

 can be no doubt, however, that he regarded t.fip 

 frrr^y as jnf pri ' nr to thp secular government. 

 who iinright.pni]fi1.y excommunicates a Norwegian king 

 and ai.t.emptsjjnjjbis way to render hi iTnp ftfiS j^1p as a 

 rnW r fojfci'tff pnt nnly his nffW hut Lie lifp 



There was another problem in the middle ages which. 

 also involved the question of jecclesiastical authority] as 

 opposed to[secular jurisdictionj the rjght of 

 There can be no doubt that " 



it. wa,s,wp11 that tbflfi 



an accused might find security for a time at least; but 

 the right of sanctuary was much abused, too frequently 

 it served to shield the guilty.. The King's Mirror teaches 

 unequivocally that the right of sanctuary cannot be in- 

 yoked against the orders of the king. As usual the author 

 finds support for his position in the Scriptures. Joab fled 

 to God's tabernacle and laid hold on the horns of the altar ; 

 nevertheless, King Solomon ordered him to be slain, and 

 the command was carried out.* Solomon appears to 

 have reasoned in this wise: "It is my duty to carry out 

 the provisions of the sacred law, no matter where 

 the man happens to be whose case is to be determined." 

 It was not his duty to remove Joab by force, for all just 

 decisions are God's decisions and not the king's; and 

 " God's holy altar will not be defiled or desecrated by 

 *C.kvi. 



