On the question of the king’s right to control episcopal appointments the _King’s Mirror_ is also in agreement with the earlier _Address_. On the death of Archbishop John, the _Address_ tells us, “Inge appointed Eystein, his own chaplain, to the archiepiscopal office[103] ... without consulting any cleric in Trondhjem, either the canons or any one else; and he drove Bishop Paul from the episcopal throne in Bergen and chose Nicholas Petersson to be his successor.” Doubtless the philosopher 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 the hierarchy as inferior to the secular government. A bishop, who unrighteously excommunicates a Norwegian king and attempts in this way to render him impossible as a ruler, forfeits not only his office but his life. Footnote 103: Archbishop Eystein was consecrated in 1161. There was another problem in the middle ages which also involved the question of ecclesiastical authority as opposed to secular jurisdiction, the right of sanctuary. There can be no doubt that in the unsettled state of medieval society it was well that there were places where 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 invoked 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.[104] 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 Joab’s blood, for it will be shed in righteous punishment.”[105] And the author is careful to emphasize the fact that God’s tabernacle was the only house in all the world that was dedicated to Him, and must consequently have had an even greater claim to sacredness than the churches of the author’s own day, of which there was a vast number.[106] Footnote 104: C. lxvi. Footnote 105: C. lxix. Footnote 106: C. lxvii.