constitution of the monarchy. It is possible that the author of the _King’s Mirror_ states an alien principle; but it is more probable that he merely gives form to a belief that had been growing among Northmen for some time. Footnote 96: C. xliii. Footnote 97: C. xxviii. Footnote 98: “Studier angaaende Kongespeilet”: _Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed_, 1896, 189. Footnote 99: _Norges gamle Love_, II. 23; Gjerset, _History of the Norwegian People_, I, 463. On the question of the validity of excommunication the teachings of the _Speculum Regale_ are in perfect accord with those of the _Address_. The uncompromising position and methods of Innocent III had given point to an exceedingly practical question: was a Christian permitted to obey a king who was under the ban of the church? Generally the church held that obedience under the circumstances would be sinful. The author of the _Speculum_ distinguishes closely, however, between just and unjust sentences of excommunication. God has established two houses upon earth, the house of the altar and the house of the judgment seat.[100] There is, therefore, a legitimate sphere of action for the bishop as well as for the king. But an act is not necessarily righteous because it emanates from high authority either in the church or in the state. If the king pronounces an unjust judgment, his act is murder; if a bishop excommunicates a Christian without proper reasons, the ban is of no effect, except that it reacts upon the offending prelate himself.[101] Footnote 100: C. lxix. Footnote 101: C. lxx. After the author has thus denied the right of the church to use the sword of excommunication in certain cases, there remains the question: has the king any superior authority over the church? The answer is that the king has such authority; and the author fortifies his position by recalling the story how Solomon punished Abiathar the high priest, or bishop as he is called in the _King’s Mirror_. In reply to the young man’s inquiry whether Solomon did right when he deprived Abiathar of the high-priestly office, the father affirms that the king acted properly and according to law. The king is given a two-edged sword for the reason that he must guard, not only his own house of judgment, but also the house of the altar, which is ordinarily in the bishop’s keeping. Abiathar had sinned in becoming a party to the treasonable intrigues of Adonijah, who was plotting to seize the throne of Israel while his father David was still living. Inasmuch as the high priest had attempted to deprive the Lord’s anointed of his royal rights, Solomon would have been guiltless even if he had taken Abiathar’s life. The author also calls attention to the fact that Abiathar was elevated to the high-priestly office by David himself.[102] Footnote 102: C. lxx.