As the noble is to the freeman, so in some respects is the King to the noble. He is the summit of his class, and completes the order of the freemen. Even in the dim twilight of Teutonic history we find tribes and nations subject to kings: others again acknowledged no such office, and Tacitus seems to regard this state as the more natural to our forefathers. I do not think this clear: on the contrary, kingship, in a certain sense, seems to me rooted in the German mind and institutions, and universal among some particular tribes and confederacies. The free people recognize in the King as much of the national unity as they consider necessary to their existence as a substantive body, and as the representative of the whole nation they consider him to be a mediator between themselves and the gods[220]. The elective principle is the safeguard of their freedom; the monarchical principle is the condition of their nationality. But this idea of kingship is not that which we now generally entertain; it is in some respects more, in others less, comprehensive. ----- Footnote 220: There is a tradition among the Swedes that if the gods expressed their anger with the people by scarcity, or ill success in war, the most acceptable offering to them was the King. See Yngling, Sag. c. xviii. (Laing, i. 230); again, c. xlvii. (vol. i. p. 256), where the scene is laid in Norway: because, says the Yngl. Sag., the Swiar were wont to attribute to their kings the fruitfulness or dearth of the seasons. Yet they did not interfere with the succession in the son of the sacrificed king. See Geijer, Hist. i. 404. ----- And here it seems necessary to recur to a definition of words. With us, a king is the source both of the military and the judicial powers; he is chief judge and general in chief; among protestants he is head of the church, and only wants the functions of high priest, because the nature of the church of Christ admits of no priestly body exclusively engaged in the sacrifices, or in possession of the exclusive secrets, of the cult[221]. But in the eye of the state, and as the head of a state clergy, he is the high priest, the authority in which ultimately even the parochial order centres and finds its completion. He is an officer of the state; the highest indeed and the noblest, but to the state he belongs as a part of itself: with us a commission of regency, a stranger or a woman may perform all the functions of royalty; the houses of parliament may limit them; a successful soldier may usurp them. With the early Germans, the king was something different from this. ----- Footnote 221: 1 Peter, ii. 5, 9. -----