conquests which fell to Judah; and at the trading port of Elath he revived the commerce which Solomon had created.  The prosperity of his long reign was uninterrupted till in his later years he was smitten with leprosy, and found it necessary to hand over the affairs of the kingdom to his son Jotham.  But Jotham appears to have died about the same time as his father,—­his successor, still in very early youth (Isaiah iii. 12), being Ahaz ben Jotham ben Uzziah.

If Judah could not compare with Israel in political and general historical importance, it nevertheless enjoyed more than one considerable advantage over the larger kingdom.  It was much safer from foreign foes; for the Egyptians, as a rule, were not dangerous neighbours.  But its chief advantage consisted in the stability of its dynasty.  It was David who had elevated Judah and Jerusalem to a position of historical significance, and the prosperity of his house was most intimately connected with that of the town and territory, and even with that of religion.  On two separate occasions it occurred that a king of Judah was murdered by subjects, but in both cases the “people of the land” rose up against the assassins and once more placed a member of the Davidic family upon the throne.  The one actual recorded revolution was that against Athaliah, which had for its object the restoration of the throne to the legitimate heir.  Under shelter of the monarchy the other institutions of the state also acquired a measure of permanency such as was not found at all in Israel, where everything depended on the character of individuals, and the existing order of things was ever liable to be subjected to fresh dispute.  Life in Judah was a much more stable affair, though not so exciting or dramatic.  Possibly the greater isolation of the little kingdom, its more intimate relations with the neighbouring wilderness, and the more primitive modes of life which resulted, were also factors which contributed to this general result.

In the capital of course the life was not primitive, and its influence was undoubtedly greater than that of the country.  Successive kings exerted themselves for its external improvement, and in this respect Hezekiah ben Ahaz was specially distinguished.  Above all they manifested sincere interest in the temple, which from an early period exerted a powerful force of attraction over the entire mass of the population.  They regulated the cultus according to their individual tastes, added to it or curtailed it at their pleasure, and dealt with the sacred treasures as they chose.  Although the priests had in a certain sense great power—­the conspiracy against Athaliah was led not by a prophet but by a priest,—­they were nevertheless subjects of the king, and had to act according to his orders.  That the cultus of Jehovah at Jerusalem was purer than that at Bethel or at Samaria is an assertion which is contradicted by more than one well-attested fact.  In this