all ages will lament.

In one sense Solomon left nothing to his nation but monuments of
despotic power, and trophies of a material civilization which implied
the decay of primitive virtues. He did not perpetuate his greatness; he
did not even enlarge the boundaries of his kingdom. Like Louis XIV. he
simply squandered a great inheritance. He did not leave his kingdom
morally so strong as it was under David; it was even dismembered under
his legitimate successor. The grand Temple indeed remained the pride of
every Jew, but David had bequeathed the treasures to build it. The
national resources had been wasted in palaces and in court festivities;
and although these had contributed to a material civilization,
especially the sums expended on fortresses, aqueducts, reservoirs, and
roads for the caravans, this civilization, so highly and justly prized
in our age, may--under the peculiar circumstances of the Jews, and the
end for which, by the Mosaic dispensation, they were intended to be kept
isolated--have weakened those simpler habits and sentiments which
favored the establishment of their religion. It must never be lost sight
of that the isolation of the Hebrew race, unfavorable to such
developments of civilization as commerce and the arts, was
providentially designed (as is evidenced by the fact of accomplishment
in spite of all obstacles) to keep alive the worship of Jehovah until
the fulness of time should come,--until the Messiah should appear to
establish a new dispensation. The glory and grandeur of Solomon did not
contribute to this end, but on the other hand favored idolatrous rites
and corrupting foreign customs; and this is proved by the rapid decline
of the Jews in religious life, patriotic ardor, and primitive virtues
under the succeeding kings, both of Judah and Israel, which led
ultimately to their captivity. Politically, Solomon may have added to
the temporary power of the nation, but spiritually, and so