'guardian of the law,' is used to denote a priest of the Jews. This usage can hardly be explained, except on the supposition that the word was formerly used to denote a native priest of the Germans. It is likely therefore that it was in their capacity of guardians of the law that the priests opened the assembly and had the right of inflicting punishment.
There are, however, two important points of difference between the Druids and the priests of the Germans: (1) In the administration of justice, the latter have rather the semblance of power than the reality. While among the Gauls the whole administration of justice lay exclusively in the hands of the Druids, among the Germans on the other hand this power belonged to the assembled host, the priests being apparently merely the officers of the latter. (2) The German priesthood seems to be exclusively concerned with public duties and to be almost entirely bound up with the 'state,' or tribe. Priests appear not to have been required for private worship. Tacitus (Germ., 10) distinctly states that the casting of lots, which on public occasions devolved on the state-priest, in the private household was performed by the head of the house. It is probable that such was the case also with private sacrifices, though from Tacitus' silence on the subject, and Cæsar's statement[1] that the Germans were not zealous in offering sacrifice, it is likely that such sacrifices were not of frequent occurrence. Again the priestly organisation of the Germans seems not to extend beyond the bounds of each individual state. We hear indeed of religious festivals held in common by confederations of tribes, which were supposed to be connected by blood-relationship;[2] but we have no evidence for believing in any priestly organisation which embraced the whole German people. The priest-
