even as late as the end of the sixth century,[3]
but that there were any large numbers of them as late as the eighth
century is improbable.

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. Witiz