Dr Dunham, who has given a clear and concise account of the Gothic government in Spain, calls it the “most accursed that ever existed in Europe."[4] This is too sweeping a statement, though it must be allowed that the haughty exclusiveness of the Gothic nobles rendered their yoke peculiarly galling, while the position of their slaves was wretched beyond all example.  However, it is not to their civil administration that we wish now to draw attention, but rather to the relations of Church and State under a Gothic administration which was at first Arian and subsequently orthodox.

    [1] See Milman, “Latin Christianity,” vol. iii. p. 60.

    [2] Dozy, ii. 44, quotes in support of this the second canon of
    the Sixteenth Council of Toledo.

    [3] Mason, a bishop of Merida, was said to have baptized a
    Pagan as late as this.

    [4] Dunham’s “Hist. of Spain,” vol. i. p. 210.

The Government, which began with being of a thoroughly military character, gradually tended to become a theocracy—­a result due in great measure to the institution of national councils, which were called by the king, and attended by all the chief ecclesiastics of the realm.  Many of the nobles and high dignitaries of the State also took part in these assemblies, though they might not vote on purely ecclesiastical matters.  These councils, of which there were nineteen in all (seventeen held at Toledo, the Gothic capital, and two elsewhere), gradually assumed the power of ratifying the election of the king, and of dictating his religious policy.  Thus by the Sixth Council of Toledo (canon three) it was enacted that all kings should swear “not to suffer the exercise of any other religion than the Catholic, and to vigorously enforce the law against all dissentients, especially against that accursed people the Jews.”  The fact of the monarchy becoming elective[1] no doubt contributed a good deal to throwing the power into the hands of the clergy.

Dr Dunham remarks that these councils tended to make the bishops subservient to the court, but surely the evidence points the other way.  On the whole it was the king that lost power, though no doubt as a compensation he gained somewhat more authority over Church matters.  He could, for instance, issue temporary regulations with regard to Church discipline.  Witiza, one of the last of the Gothic kings, seems even to have authorized, or at least encouraged, the marriage of his clergy.[2] The king could preside in cases of appeal in purely ecclesiastical affairs; and we know that Recared I. (587-601) and Sisebert (612-621) did in fact exercise this right.  He also gained the power of nominating and translating bishops; but it is not clear when this privilege was first conceded to the king.[3] The Fourth Council of Toledo (633) enacted that a bishop should be elected by the clergy and people of his city, and that his election should be approved by the metropolitan and