During the period to which this part of our narrative refers, the supreme power among the Hebrews was occasionally exercised by judges,--an order of magistrates to which nothing similar is to be found in any other country. The Carthaginians, indeed, had a description of rulers, whose names, being derived from the same oriental term, appear to establish some resemblance in their office to that of the successors of Joshua. But it will be found upon a comparison of their authority, both in its origin and the purposes to which it was meant to be subservient, that the Hebrew judges and the suffites of Carthage had very little in common. Nor do we find any closer analogy in the duties of a Grecian archon or of a Roman consul. These were ordinary magistrates, and periodically elected; whereas the judge was never invested with power except when the exigencies of public affairs required the aid of extraordinary talents or the weight of a supernatural appointment. On this account the Hebrew commander has been likened to the Roman dictator, who, when the commonwealth was in danger, was intrusted with an authority almost unlimited; and with a jurisdiction which extended to the lives and fortunes of nearly all his countrymen. But in one important particular this similarity fails. The dictator laid down his office as soon as the crisis which called for its exercise had passed away; and in no circumstances was he entitled to retain such unwonted supremacy beyond a limited time. The judge, on the other hand, remained invested with his high authority during the full period of his life, and is therefore usually described by the sacred historian as presiding to the end of his days over the tribes of Israel, amid the peace and security which his military skill, aided by the blessing of Heaven, had restored to their land.[21] The Hebrew judges, says Dupin, were not ordinary magistrates, but men raised up by God, on whom the Israelites bestowed the chief government, either because they had delivered them from the oppressions under which they groaned, or because of their prudence and equity. They ruled according to the law of Jehovah, commanded their armies, made treaties with the neighbouring princes, declared war and peace, and administered justice. They were different from kings,-- 1. In that they were not established either by election or succession, but elevated to power in an extraordinary manner. 2. In that they refused to take upon them the title and quality of king. 3. In that they levied no taxes upon the people for the maintenance of government. 4. In their manner of living, which was very far from the pomp and ostentation of the regal state. 5. In that they could make no new laws, but governed according to the statutes contained in the Books of Moses. 6. In that the obedience paid to them by the people was voluntary and unforced, being at most no more than consuls and magistrates of free cities.[22]