Expository notes, with practical observations; towards the opening of the five first chapters of the first book of Moses called Genesis. Delivered by way of exposition in several lords-dayes exercises.: By Benjamin Needler, minister of the gospel at Margaret Moses Friday-Street, London.

Qest. 27. vers. 19.

From this Scripture, where it is said, That Lamech tooke unto him two wives, it may be demanded whether Polygamy was a sinne in the time of the Law or not?

This question hath more perplexities [Resp.] twining about it then at first I thought it might have: I shall give you the opinion of learned men concerning it.

1. Some conceive, that Polygamy, was not a sinne in the time of the Law: the reasons they render are these:

Because we finde a Law made by God, as touching those who had more wives then [Arg. 1] one, as in that text, If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have borne * 1.1 him children, both the beloved, and the hated, and if the first borne sonne be hers that was hated, then it shall be, when he maketh his sonnes to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the sonne of the beloved first-borne, before the sonne of the hated, who is indeed the first-borne: Now if the Lord makes a Law concerning those who had more wives then one, how could it then be a sin?

This is a non sequitur: we finde Laws [Resp.]

in Scripture concerning things sinfull; as, If a man strive, and hurt a woman, so that her * 1.2 fruit depart from her, and yet no mischiefe follow, he shall be surely punished, &c. And if a∣ny mischief follow, thou shalt give life for life; So concerning theft, He that stealeth a man, * 1.3 and selleth him, he shall be surely put to death. So concerning the price of an harlot, Thou shalt not bring the hire of an whore, * 1.4 or the price of a dogge into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow. [Arg. 2]

They urge those words of the Lord to David, Thus saith the Lord, I anointed thee * 1.5 King over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul; and I gave thee thy Ma∣sters house, and thy Masters wives into thy bosome; this the Lord reckons as one of the mercies, he had bestowed on David, and therefore it was not a sin.

That phrase say some, I gave thy Ma∣sters [Resp.] wives into thy bosome, is not to be un∣derstood of Gods giving them in a way of marriage unto David, but of giving them into his power. To clear this, consider,

1. This phrase of giving into a mans bosome in Scripture doth not alwayes signifie a marriage-union; Render unto * 1.6 our neighbour seven-fold into their bosome. So in Esay, Your iniquities and the iniqui••

of your fathers together, saith the Lord, which have burnt incense upon the mountaines, and bl••sphemed me upon the Hills therefore will I measure their former worke into their bosome.

2. David had married Sauls Daugh∣ter Mi••hol, so that Sauls wives were Mo∣thers in Law to David; now you have an expresse Law, Thou shalt not uncover the * 1.7 nakednesse of thy Daughter in Law. Now if a father ought not to uncover the na∣kednesse of his Daughter in Law, then certainly a Sonne ought not to uncover the nakednesse of his Mother in Law.

2. Others conceive that Polygamy was a sinne, perswaded thereunto by these rea∣sons.

From the institution of marriage in Pa∣radise, [Argu. 1] Therefore shall a man leave his Father, and Mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and * 1.8 they shall be one flesh.

'Tis not said, they two shall be one fl••sh; [Object.] the word two is not found in the Hebrew text.

Though it be not explicitely, yet 'tis [Resp.] implicitely in the text, and therefore see how our Saviour renders the words, when he urges them, Have ye not read, that he * 1.9 that made them at the beginning, made them male; and female, and said, For this cause

shall a man leave Father, and Mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twaine shall be one flesh?

The word two, or twaine, doth not [Object.] exclude plurality, as you may see in other Scriptures; At the mouth of two witnesses * 1.10 or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death: So in Matthew saith Christ, * 1.11 If two of you shall agree on earth, as touching any thing that they shall aske, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in hea∣ven.

The word two, or twaine, is taken in [Resp.] Scripture inclusively or exclusively: in those places urged it is taken inclusively, but here exclusively.

By those words, two shall be one flesh, [Object.] is onely noted unto us, the entire love that should be between man and wife: that a man should love his wife, as his own flesh; But this doth not exclude plurality of wives. A man may love his neigh∣bour as himselfe, and yet may love many neighbours.

There may be conjunctio animorum; ma∣ny [Resp.] may be united in regard of their spi∣rits, but in marriage there is not onely conjunctio animorum, sed corporum: an uni∣on of spirits, but of bodies.

God commends this unto us, as that [Object.] which is well pleasing to him, that an Husband should have but one wife, but he doth not command it.

Neg. For, Matthew 19. 5. The [Resp.] question was asked, Is it lawfull for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Christ urges, in answer to this question, Gen. 2.24.

Lamech primus Polygamus; Polygamy had [Argu. 2] its rise from Cains wicked race; there∣fore likely sinfull, and displeasing to God.

3. There is a third opinion, which I finde some learned persons inclinable to close with, viz. That though Polygamy was a sin under the Law, that is to say, to Lamech and to the rest of Cains wicked progeny; yet it was not a sinne to the Patriarchs: and that though there was a law from the be∣ginning, that one man should have but one wife, as, Gen. 2.24. yet as to the obli∣gation of it, God gave a dispensation to the Patriarchs.

The reasons, that encline them to this opinion, are such as these.

If there were a Law whereby plurality [Argu. 1] of wives were forbidden, either it was known to the Patriarchs, or not.

If it were known to them, then they li∣ved and died in a known sinne without Re∣pentance, as far as we can gather from the Scriptures.

If any say it was not known to them, then this will follow, that holy men from one generation to another lived, and died in a grosse and heinous sin, without having the least intimation of it from God, which will be hard to affirme? especially if you consider, how David, one of these ho∣ly men delighted in the Law of God, and that it was his meditation day and night.

We do not read that any of the Pro∣phets, [Argu. 2] whom God sent on purpose to tell his people of their sinnes, gave them the least notice, concerning the sin of having more wives then one.

Neither do ye read that Lat was repro∣ved [Object.] for his incest.

We may easily gather from the text, that [Resp.] it was known in those dayes, that that kind of incest was a sin; for else why did Lots Daughters make their father drunk? and if Lot knew it to be a sinne, we cannot from thence conclude the Patriarchs knew Poly∣gamy to be so.

Jacob married two sisters, and yet we [Object.] do not read God reproved him for it.

The hand of God was upon Jacob for a [Resp. 1] considerable part of his life; you know his complaint, Few, and evil are the dayes of the yeares of my pilgrimage.

A particular person possibly may com∣mit [ 2] a grosse sin ignorantly, and dye with∣out the knowledge of it; but it is hard to say the same of the whole Church of God.

If having more wives then one, were a [ 3] sin to the Patriarchs, then all their wives but one were harlots, and all their children almost base borne, which assertion sounds so harshly, that a man can take little pleasure in the entertaining of it.

Thus I have given you the severall judgements of learned men concerning this point; I shall now give you my own sense of it, (with submission to others) in severall Propositions.

1. Prop.

That we finde not in the whole book of God, at least in expresse words, that God dispensed with his Law against plurality of wives, as to the Patriarchs, and whether or no it can be proved by consequence, will appeare afterwards.

2. Prap.

That I conceive, there can no reason be rendred why the Lord should be plea∣sed with the Patriarchs having more wives then one; but the same may be urged à fortiori, why it should be so, from the beginning God created but one man and one woman, he could have created more, but it did not please him so to do.

3. Prop.

That text in Malachi, is worthy our con∣sideration in this case, where you have the Lord reproving his people thus. Be∣cause * 1.12 the Lord hath been witnesse between thee, and the wife of thy youth against whom thou hast dealt treacherously, yet she is thy compa∣nion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did he not make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit: and wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed; therefore take heed to your spirit; and let none deale treacherously a∣gainst the wife of his youth; for the Lord the God of Israel saith, he hateth putting away, &c.

I know the Lord urges this against a mans

putting away his wife, but marke from whence he takes his rise, viz. from the primitive institution of marriage: and God argues à fortiori; If the Lord was pleased, that one man should have but one wife at first, and made a law to that end and purpose; and if a man deales treache∣rously against his wife by marrying ano∣ther, though he lives with them both, how treacherously hast thou dealt with the wife of thy youth, in putting her away from thee? you may be sure the Lord hates putting away.

4. Prop.

That that text of Scripture, where God reckons it as a mercy, that he gave David * 1.13 his Masters wives into his bosome, must not so be expounded, as if it were a mercy in it self to have many wives, but in regard of the concomitants of it: I gave thee thy Ma∣sters wives into thy bosome, viz. I gave thee the Kingdome.

For it was a custome among the Jews, when a King died, and another succeeded in his stead, for the successor to have the deceased Kings wives: which was the rea∣son why Solomon was so exceedingly incen∣sed against Adonijah, for moving to have

Abishag to wife, because she accompanied David, as his wife, and it was the same, as if he should aske the Crown, and so by con∣sequence was guilty of treason; for marke what Solomon saith, And King Solomon answered, and said unto his Mother, And * 1.14 why doest thou aske Abishag, the Shunamite for Adonijah? aske for him the Kingdome al∣so.

There were two reasons why Achito∣phel perswaded Absalom to lie with his fa∣thers wives on the house top, in the sight of all Israel.

1. That he might engage him into the commission of such a crime, that David neither in honour nor justice could passe by, and by consequence that himselfe and his party might not be brought to condigne punishment, which might come to passe by a close between David and Absalom.

2. Because by this act he did virtually proclaime himselfe King to all Israel.

And therefore by the way I crave leave to demurre to the two answers given by learned men to this argument, urged for∣merly.

For the first, 'tis true, this phrase of giving into a mans bosome, doth not al∣wayes in Scripture signifie a marriage-uni∣on,

but for all that hath yet been said, it may signifie so, if the phrase will beare it, and so it is in this case.

For the second, Though the Law of God might be against marriage with Mo∣thers in Law, yet this might lye hid to the Patriarchs, it being onely deducible by consequence, and not expressely interminis in the text.

5. Prop.

That the holy Patriarchs might live, and dye in the continuall practice of this sinne, and yet be saved, because known sins re∣quire particular repentance; but if sinnes be unknown, or unconsidered, by reason that men are carried away with the sway of the times (as the Patriarchs were) then a generall repentance sufficeth as David, Who can understand his errours? cleans thou me from secret faults. * 1.15

6. Prop.

That which is a grosse sin under the Go∣spel, when God hath clearly revealed un∣to us his minde in this Case, might be a sinne of a lesser size under the Law yea, e∣ven under the dispensation of the Gospel;

that which was an Errour of Infirmity in the time of the Apostles, at the first pro∣mulgation of it, viz. that the Messiah should not suffer death, is now, after a more full, and clear discovery of the minde of God, a most grosse, and horrid blasphemy.

7. Prop.

That although the holy Patriarchs knew that there was such a Law, that a man should leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh, yet it might not be cleare that the sense and meaning of that Law, was that one man should have but one wife.

8. Prop.

That Polygamy under the Law, being nothing near so heinous a sin, as Polygamy under the Gospel, the inconveniences fol∣lowing thereupon, were not so great then as those which would follow now, viz. dis∣grace, and reproach upon the persons com∣mitting this sin, and upon their seed.

9. Prop.

That though having of many wives were

a fault, yet it would be something an unsa∣voury speech to affirme, that Abraham, and the holy Patriarchs were Adulterers; I con∣ceive the Poligamy of the Fathers may be placed in the middle, between adultery and holy wedlock; they took not wives of a lewd minde, for the satisfying of their lust, but of a conscience not rightly informed in this point.

10. Prop.

That upon a serious consideration of the premises I think it safest to joyne issue with those who hold, that even the Patri∣archs themselves sinned in having more wives then one.

Learne from hence to detest that dan∣gerous errour of some sort of the Ana∣baptists, who hold plurality of wives un∣der the Gospel.

Though this assertion be so unsavoury, as that I verily beleeve it stinks in the no∣strils of all those that hold Christ to be the Lord; yet because we live in such times when the Serpent casts out of his mouth wa∣ter as a flood after the woman, that he might * 1.16 cause her to be carried away of the flood; I shall endeavour to hold up your head a∣bove water by severall considerations.

1. That all the actions of the holy Pa∣triarchs, though not blame-worthy, are not recorded by the Spirit of God for our imitation, but for other ends and purpo∣ses.

2. That unto the following of the exam∣ple of any holy person, it is not enough that we do what he did, but we must do it upon the same grounds, and for the same ends as he did it. The Apostles did not imitate Elias, by calling down fire from heaven.

3. That in the Gospel, wherever our Lord Jesus, or his Apostles speake of marriage, mention is made but of one man and one woman.

4. That although, Ephes. 5. 22. Col. 3. 18. in those two places of Scripture men∣tion be made of wives, yet there is also mention made of husbands, an ordinary eye may see, haec verba accipi per distribu∣tionem.

5. Our Saviour saith, Whosoever shall put a∣way his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: * 1.17 Now if a man when he puts away his wife, and marries another commits adultery, then if he keeps his wife and marries an∣other, he commits adultery.

Our Saviour there speaks not of marry¦ing [Object.]

more wives then one, but of putting a∣way those whom a man hath married.

The same Argument that our Saviour [Resp.] urges against Divorce, or putting away of wives, the same may be urged against Poly∣gamy: he that puts away his wife, and mar∣ries another, commits adultery: now thus it is in Polygamy in part, though not alto∣gether; there is a kinde of putting off the first wife, in marrying another: the wife hath not the same power over the husband that formerly she had, and so by conse∣quence not the same interest in him.

6. It is said in Timothy, A Bishop must be blamelesse, the Husband of one wife; now we * 1.18 must not think that these words referre ad bigamiam successivam, as some phrase it; to the marriage of a second wife, after the de∣cease of the first: for this kinde of Polygamy is not blame-worthy, but the meaning is this, A Bishop must be blamelesse, the husband of one wife, viz. of one wife at one time.

Polygamy is forbidden to Bishops, there∣fore [Object.] it is granted to other persons.

This is a strange Consequence, as if a [Resp.] man should say, A Bishop must be sober, and of good behaviour, therefore another may be intemperate, &c.

Besides all this, I might adde,

Polygamy is against that naturall princi∣ple, or maxime, Quod tihi fieri non vis alte∣ri ne feceris: Whatever you would o∣thers should do unto you, do ye unto them.

8. Against one main end of marriage, to avoid fornication; If a man had halfe as many wives as Solomon, I would know how the ends of marriage could be accomplish∣ed?

Notes

• * 1.1

  Deut. 21 15, 16.
• * 1.2

  Ex 21.22, 23.
• * 1.3

  Exo. 21.16
• * 1.4

  Deut. 23. 18.
• * 1.5

  2 Sam. 12. 7, 8.
• * 1.6

  Psal 1
• * 1.7

  Lev. 18. 15.
• * 1.8

  Gen. 2. 24.
• * 1.9

  Mat: 19.4, 5.
• * 1.10

  Deu. 17.6.
• * 1.11

  Mat. 18. 19.
• * 1.12

  Mal. 2. 14 15, 16
• * 1.13

  2 Sam. 12. 7, 8.
• * 1.14

  1 King 2. 22.
• * 1.15

  Psa. 19.12.
• * 1.16

  Rev. 12.15
• * 1.17

  Mat. 19.9.
• * 1.18

  1 Tim. 3 2.