Click *H for Haydock Commentary. *Footnote for footnote etc.
Click any word in Latin Greek or Hebrew to activate the parser. Then click on the display to expand the parser.
* Footnotes
- A.M. 2991, A.C. 1013.
-
*
2_Paralipomenon
1:1
And Solomon the son of David was strengthened in his kingdom, and the Lord his God was with him, and magnified him to a high degree.
-
**
1_Paralipomenon
8:11
And Mehusim begot Abitob, and Elphaal.
*H And the kingdom was established in the hand of Solomon, and he made affinity with Pharao, the king of Egypt: for he took his daughter, and brought her into the city of David: until he had made an end of building his own house, and the house of the Lord, and the wall of Jerusalem round about.
Ver. 1. Solomon. By the death of his enemies, and by his affinity with the king of Egypt, and his friendship with Hiram, king Tyre, who were the most potent princes in the neighbourhood. Eupolemus (ap. Euseb. præp.) has a letter of Solomon to Pharao Vaphres, in which the latter is said to have been the friend of David; (Salien) and S. Clement (Strom. i.) produces the testimony of Polyhistor, saying, that Vaphres sent 80,000 Egyptian workmen to assist Solomon to build the temple. — Daughter. Who, probably, embraced the true religion; so that her praises are supposed to be recorded in the 44th Psalm, and in the canticles; though it seems she afterwards relapsed, and became the chief instrument in the perversion of the king. C. xi. 1. — David. She dwelt in the apartments of Bethsabee, (Cant. iii. 4. and viii. 2,) till a magnificent palace could be built for her reception. C. vii. 8. To marry idolatrous women was strictly forbidden. Deut. vii. 3. 1 Esd. x. 2. 2 Esd. xiii. 26.
*H But yet the people sacrificed in the high places: for there was no temple built to the name of the Lord until that day.
Ver. 2. But yet. It is not clear to what this refers. Heb. "for the rest, (C.) or only;" (as also v. 3,) which may signify that the people, and their king, were blamable; or else, that they zealously offered sacrifices to God, even before the temple was erected. H. — Those who afterwards left that sacred place, to imitate the conduct of idolaters, or of the ancient patriarchs, which was no longer tolerated, are justly condemned. C. — High places. That is, altars where they worshipped the Lord, indeed, but not according to the ordinance of the law; which allowed of no other places for sacrifice but the temple of God. Among these high places, that of Gabaon was the chief, because there was the tabernacle of the testimony which had been removed from Silo to Nobe, and from Nobe to Gabaon. Ch. — Hither David would have gone, as Solomon did, v. 4. C. — Hence this was not, at least, once of those high places, where it was unlawful to offer sacrifice; as the tabernacle was there, and the altar of holocausts, which Moses had erected. The obligation of sacrificing in no place, except in that which the Lord had appointed, regarded the times while the ark was in the desert, (H.) and when it was placed in the temple. While it continued in an unsettled state, people enjoyed more liberty in this respect; (C.) particularly when there was a prophet present, to sanction what they did. H.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 154, Article 5
[II-II, Q. 154, Art. 5]
Whether Nocturnal Pollution Is a Mortal Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that nocturnal pollution is a sin. For the same things are the matter of merit and demerit. Now a man may merit while he sleeps, as was the case with Solomon, who while asleep obtained the gift of wisdom from the Lord (3 Kings 3:2, Par. 1). Therefore a man may demerit while asleep; and thus nocturnal pollution would seem to be a sin.
Obj. 2: Further, whoever has the use of reason can sin. Now a man has the use of reason while asleep, since in our sleep we frequently discuss matters, choose this rather than that, consenting to one thing, or dissenting to another. Therefore one may sin while asleep, so that nocturnal pollution is not prevented by sleep from being a sin, seeing that it is a sin according to its genus.
Obj. 3: Further, it is useless to reprove and instruct one who cannot act according to or against reason. Now man, while asleep, is instructed and reproved by God, according to Job 33:15, 16, "By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep is wont to lay hold of men [*Vulg.: 'When deep sleep falleth upon men.' St. Thomas is apparently quoting from memory, as the passage is given correctly above, Q. 95, A. 6, Obj. 1.] . . . Then He openeth the ears of men, and teaching instructeth them in what they are to learn." Therefore a man, while asleep, can act according to or against his reason, and this is to do good or sinful actions, and thus it seems that nocturnal pollution is a sin.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15): "When the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker presents itself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter is unable to distinguish the imaginary from the real union of bodies, the flesh is at once moved, with the result that usually follows such motions; and yet there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such things while one is awake."
_I answer that,_ Nocturnal pollution may be considered in two ways. First, in itself; and thus it has not the character of a sin. For every sin depends on the judgment of reason, since even the first movement of the sensuality has nothing sinful in it, except in so far as it can be suppressed by reason; wherefore in the absence of reason's judgment, there is no sin in it. Now during sleep reason has not a free judgment. For there is no one who while sleeping does not regard some of the images formed by his imagination as though they were real, as stated above in the First Part (Q. 84, A. 8, ad 2). Wherefore what a man does while he sleeps and is deprived of reason's judgment, is not imputed to him as a sin, as neither are the actions of a maniac or an imbecile.
Secondly, nocturnal pollution may be considered with reference to its cause. This may be threefold. One is a bodily cause. For when there is excess of seminal humor in the body, or when the humor is disintegrated either through overheating of the body or some other disturbance, the sleeper dreams things that are connected with the discharge of this excessive or disintegrated humor: the same thing happens when nature is cumbered with other superfluities, so that phantasms relating to the discharge of those superfluities are formed in the imagination. Accordingly if this excess of humor be due to a sinful cause (for instance excessive eating or drinking), nocturnal pollution has the character of sin from its cause: whereas if the excess or disintegration of these superfluities be not due to a sinful cause, nocturnal pollution is not sinful, neither in itself nor in its cause.
A second cause of nocturnal pollution is on the part of the soul and the inner man: for instance when it happens to the sleeper on account of some previous thought. For the thought which preceded while he was awake, is sometimes purely speculative, for instance when one thinks about the sins of the flesh for the purpose of discussion; while sometimes it is accompanied by a certain emotion either of concupiscence or of abhorrence. Now nocturnal pollution is more apt to arise from thinking about carnal sins with concupiscence for such pleasures, because this leaves its trace and inclination in the soul, so that the sleeper is more easily led in his imagination to consent to acts productive of pollution. In this sense the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 13) that "in so far as certain movements in some degree pass" from the waking state to the state of sleep, "the dreams of good men are better than those of any other people": and Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15) that "even during sleep, the soul may have conspicuous merit on account of its good disposition." Thus it is evident that nocturnal pollution may be sinful on the part of its cause. On the other hand, it may happen that nocturnal pollution ensues after thoughts about carnal acts, though they were speculative, or accompanied by abhorrence, and then it is not sinful, neither in itself nor in its cause.
The third cause is spiritual and external; for instance when by the work of a devil the sleeper's phantasms are disturbed so as to induce the aforesaid result. Sometimes this is associated with a previous sin, namely the neglect to guard against the wiles of the devil. Hence the words of the hymn at even: "Our enemy repress, that so our bodies no uncleanness know" [*Translation W. K. Blount].
On the other hand, this may occur without any fault on man's part, and through the wickedness of the devil alone. Thus we read in the _Collationes Patrum_ (Coll. xxii, 6) of a man who was ever wont to suffer from nocturnal pollution on festivals, and that the devil brought this about in order to prevent him from receiving Holy Communion. Hence it is manifest that nocturnal pollution is never a sin, but is sometimes the result of a previous sin.
Reply Obj. 1: Solomon did not merit to receive wisdom from God while he was asleep. He received it in token of his previous desire. It is for this reason that his petition is stated to have been pleasing to God (3 Kings 3:10), as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15).
Reply Obj. 2: The use of reason is more or less hindered in sleep, according as the inner sensitive powers are more or less overcome by sleep, on account of the violence or attenuation of the evaporations. Nevertheless it is always hindered somewhat, so as to be unable to elicit a judgment altogether free, as stated in the First Part (Q. 84, A. 8, ad 2). Therefore what it does then is not imputed to it as a sin.
Reply Obj. 3: Reason's apprehension is not hindered during sleep to the same extent as its judgment, for this is accomplished by reason turning to sensible objects, which are the first principles of human thought. Hence nothing hinders man's reason during sleep from apprehending anew something arising out of the traces left by his previous thoughts and phantasms presented to him, or again through Divine revelation, or the interference of a good or bad angel. _______________________
SIXTH
*H And Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the precepts of David, his father; only he sacrificed in the high places, and burnt incense.
Ver. 3. Only, &c. Which David had not done, though it was lawful. Pineda. — Yet we read that he offered victims on Sion, &c. 2 K. vi. 18. H.
*H He went therefore to Gabaon, to sacrifice there: for that was the great high place: a thousand victims for holocausts, did Solomon offer upon that altar, in Gabaon.
Ver. 4. Victims. These he accompanied with most fervent prayer. Wisd. vii. 7. 2 Par. i. 9.
*H And the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night, saying: Ask what thou wilt that I should give thee.
Ver. 5. In a prophetic dream, or ecstasy. His mind had been so filled with the desire of wisdom, that the same thoughts recurred to him while he slept; and, as he had entertained them voluntarily before, he acquired fresh merit even during that time; as a man, who indulges sensual affections, becomes responsible for the accidents of the night. S. Tho. 1. 2. q. 113. a. 2. and 2. 2. 9. 154. a. 5. S. Aug. de Gen. ad lit. xii. 15. C.
*H And now, O Lord God, thou hast made thy servant king instead of David, my father: and I am but a child, and know not how to go out and come in;
Ver. 7. In. So as to judge with discretion, and to lead my people. C.
* Footnotes
-
*
2_Paralipomenon
1:10
Give me wisdom and knowledge that I may come in and go out before thy people: for who can worthily judge this thy people, which is so great?
*H Give therefore to thy servant an understanding heart, to judge thy people, and discern between good and evil. For who shall be able to judge this people, thy people, which is so numerous?
Ver. 9. Understanding. Lit. "docile." H. — Heb. "willing to hear," and to obey God. M.
* Summa
*S Part 3, Ques 154, Article 5
[II-II, Q. 154, Art. 5]
Whether Nocturnal Pollution Is a Mortal Sin?
Objection 1: It would seem that nocturnal pollution is a sin. For the same things are the matter of merit and demerit. Now a man may merit while he sleeps, as was the case with Solomon, who while asleep obtained the gift of wisdom from the Lord (3 Kings 3:2, Par. 1). Therefore a man may demerit while asleep; and thus nocturnal pollution would seem to be a sin.
Obj. 2: Further, whoever has the use of reason can sin. Now a man has the use of reason while asleep, since in our sleep we frequently discuss matters, choose this rather than that, consenting to one thing, or dissenting to another. Therefore one may sin while asleep, so that nocturnal pollution is not prevented by sleep from being a sin, seeing that it is a sin according to its genus.
Obj. 3: Further, it is useless to reprove and instruct one who cannot act according to or against reason. Now man, while asleep, is instructed and reproved by God, according to Job 33:15, 16, "By a dream in a vision by night, when deep sleep is wont to lay hold of men [*Vulg.: 'When deep sleep falleth upon men.' St. Thomas is apparently quoting from memory, as the passage is given correctly above, Q. 95, A. 6, Obj. 1.] . . . Then He openeth the ears of men, and teaching instructeth them in what they are to learn." Therefore a man, while asleep, can act according to or against his reason, and this is to do good or sinful actions, and thus it seems that nocturnal pollution is a sin.
_On the contrary,_ Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15): "When the same image that comes into the mind of a speaker presents itself to the mind of the sleeper, so that the latter is unable to distinguish the imaginary from the real union of bodies, the flesh is at once moved, with the result that usually follows such motions; and yet there is as little sin in this as there is in speaking and therefore thinking about such things while one is awake."
_I answer that,_ Nocturnal pollution may be considered in two ways. First, in itself; and thus it has not the character of a sin. For every sin depends on the judgment of reason, since even the first movement of the sensuality has nothing sinful in it, except in so far as it can be suppressed by reason; wherefore in the absence of reason's judgment, there is no sin in it. Now during sleep reason has not a free judgment. For there is no one who while sleeping does not regard some of the images formed by his imagination as though they were real, as stated above in the First Part (Q. 84, A. 8, ad 2). Wherefore what a man does while he sleeps and is deprived of reason's judgment, is not imputed to him as a sin, as neither are the actions of a maniac or an imbecile.
Secondly, nocturnal pollution may be considered with reference to its cause. This may be threefold. One is a bodily cause. For when there is excess of seminal humor in the body, or when the humor is disintegrated either through overheating of the body or some other disturbance, the sleeper dreams things that are connected with the discharge of this excessive or disintegrated humor: the same thing happens when nature is cumbered with other superfluities, so that phantasms relating to the discharge of those superfluities are formed in the imagination. Accordingly if this excess of humor be due to a sinful cause (for instance excessive eating or drinking), nocturnal pollution has the character of sin from its cause: whereas if the excess or disintegration of these superfluities be not due to a sinful cause, nocturnal pollution is not sinful, neither in itself nor in its cause.
A second cause of nocturnal pollution is on the part of the soul and the inner man: for instance when it happens to the sleeper on account of some previous thought. For the thought which preceded while he was awake, is sometimes purely speculative, for instance when one thinks about the sins of the flesh for the purpose of discussion; while sometimes it is accompanied by a certain emotion either of concupiscence or of abhorrence. Now nocturnal pollution is more apt to arise from thinking about carnal sins with concupiscence for such pleasures, because this leaves its trace and inclination in the soul, so that the sleeper is more easily led in his imagination to consent to acts productive of pollution. In this sense the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 13) that "in so far as certain movements in some degree pass" from the waking state to the state of sleep, "the dreams of good men are better than those of any other people": and Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15) that "even during sleep, the soul may have conspicuous merit on account of its good disposition." Thus it is evident that nocturnal pollution may be sinful on the part of its cause. On the other hand, it may happen that nocturnal pollution ensues after thoughts about carnal acts, though they were speculative, or accompanied by abhorrence, and then it is not sinful, neither in itself nor in its cause.
The third cause is spiritual and external; for instance when by the work of a devil the sleeper's phantasms are disturbed so as to induce the aforesaid result. Sometimes this is associated with a previous sin, namely the neglect to guard against the wiles of the devil. Hence the words of the hymn at even: "Our enemy repress, that so our bodies no uncleanness know" [*Translation W. K. Blount].
On the other hand, this may occur without any fault on man's part, and through the wickedness of the devil alone. Thus we read in the _Collationes Patrum_ (Coll. xxii, 6) of a man who was ever wont to suffer from nocturnal pollution on festivals, and that the devil brought this about in order to prevent him from receiving Holy Communion. Hence it is manifest that nocturnal pollution is never a sin, but is sometimes the result of a previous sin.
Reply Obj. 1: Solomon did not merit to receive wisdom from God while he was asleep. He received it in token of his previous desire. It is for this reason that his petition is stated to have been pleasing to God (3 Kings 3:10), as Augustine observes (Gen. ad lit. xii, 15).
Reply Obj. 2: The use of reason is more or less hindered in sleep, according as the inner sensitive powers are more or less overcome by sleep, on account of the violence or attenuation of the evaporations. Nevertheless it is always hindered somewhat, so as to be unable to elicit a judgment altogether free, as stated in the First Part (Q. 84, A. 8, ad 2). Therefore what it does then is not imputed to it as a sin.
Reply Obj. 3: Reason's apprehension is not hindered during sleep to the same extent as its judgment, for this is accomplished by reason turning to sensible objects, which are the first principles of human thought. Hence nothing hinders man's reason during sleep from apprehending anew something arising out of the traces left by his previous thoughts and phantasms presented to him, or again through Divine revelation, or the interference of a good or bad angel. _______________________
SIXTH
*H Behold I have done for thee according to thy words, and have given thee a wise and understanding heart, in so much that there hath been no one like thee before thee, nor shall arise after thee.
Ver. 12. After thee. Solomon has given us some idea of his wisdom in the works which he has left. They were dictated by the Holy Spirit, who adorned his soul with so many graces. C. iv. 29. 30. H. — His knowledge of nature, and of the art of governing, excelled that of any of the kings of Israel; (Lyran, &c. 2 Paral. ix.) though Moses and the apostles had a more comprehensive knowledge of the mysteries of God. C. — Yet, even granting that no mere man might come up to him, Jesus Christ, in whom the treasures of wisdom were contained, was far superior. H. — General propositions are often to be understood with a limitation. M.
* Footnotes
-
*
Matthew
6:21
For where thy treasure is, there is thy heart also.
*H Yea, and the things also which thou didst not ask, I have given thee; to wit, riches and glory: so that no one hath been like thee among the kings in all days heretofore.
Ver. 13. Heretofore: 2 Paral. (i. 12,) adds, nor after thee. Eccle. ii. 7. This is also limited by some to the kings of that country. But the riches of Solomon were not exceeded by those of the greatest monarchs. Diss. "on the riches which David left." C.
*H And if thou wilt walk in my ways, and keep my precepts and my commandments, as thy father walked, I will lengthen thy days.
Ver. 14. Days. But this he forfeited. M.
*H And Solomon awaked, and perceived that it was a dream: and when he was come to Jerusalem, he stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and offered holocausts, and sacrificed victims of peace offerings, and made a great feast for all his servants.
Ver. 15. Dream. Sent by God, as Gen. xli. 1. C.
*H Then there came two women that were harlots, to the king, and stood before him.
Ver. 16. Harlots. Rather than simply, "innkeepers." Chal. M. — The latter signification of Zona might, however, seem more natural; as harlots seldom have children; or, at least, any affection for them. Neither would such people have dared to appear before the king. Deut. xxiii. 17.
*H And this woman's child died in the night: for in her sleep she overlaid him.
Ver. 19. Him. This she suspected to be the case. They did not then place infants in the cradle, but let them sleep in their bosoms. C.
*H Divide, said he, the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.
Ver. 25. Other. This sentence manifested the wisdom of Solomon, who knew that the real mother would feel the emotions of parental tenderness. By similar experiments, the truth has sometimes been discovered. Claudius obliged a mother to own her son, by ordering her to take him for a husband. Seut. xv. — The king of Trace told three who pretended to be the sons of the deceased king of the Cimmerians, to shoot an arrow at the corpse; which the real son would not do. C. Diod. Sic. — A native of Mexico, reclaiming a horse which a Spaniard pretended was his, as the judge was under some doubts, the American threw his cloak over the horse's head, and asked which eye was blind? The Spaniard replied, the right; and thus was detected. Palafox.