A learned and very useful commentary on the whole epistle to the Hebrews wherein every word and particle in the original is explained ... : being the substance of thirty years Wednesdayes lectures at Black-fryers, London / by that holy and learned divine Wiliam Gouge ... : before which is prefixed a narrative of his life and death : whereunto is added two alphabeticall tables ...

§. 189. Of Equivocation.

ABout Rahabs receiving and dismissing the Spies in peace, It is noted in the history, that she answered the Officers, whom the King sent to apprehend the Spies, with these words, I wist not whence they were, and whether the men 〈◊〉〈◊〉, I wot not, Josh. 2. 4, 5.

Hence a question is raised, whither these words may be justified or no?

Answ. Surely no; for she did well know that they came from the Camp of* 1.1 〈◊〉〈◊〉, and she herself directed them in the way, whether they went. So as her answer was against a known truth.

Object. Her example is here produced, even in receiving and dismissing the Spies, as an effect of Faith.

Answ. In the general, that was an act of Faith, and so approved, but not* 1.2 in the particular circumstances thereof. Rahabs answer is somewhat like, to the direction which Rebekah gave to her son Iacob: In the general, Rebekahs dire∣ction and intent was a fruit of great faith, for it had respect unto the promise of of God made unto Iacob, in these words, the elder shall serve the younger, Gen. 25. 23. But in sundry circumstances, it can no way be approved, Gen. 27. 6, 7, &c. It pleaseth the Lord in tender compassion to pass by many infirmities of his Children, when he observeth an upright heart, and an aim to accomplish his promises. Thus did God here accept of Rahabs faith, manifested by many fruits, §. 182. And graciously pass over her infirmities.

There are some that do excuse Rahab, even in the circumstance before noted;* 1.3 and that two wayes.

• ...

  1. By freeing it from all untruth, thus; Rahabs house being a common Inn,

• ...

  and diverse passengers lodging therein, some might then come into her house, and of them she might say, I wist not whence they where: for Inn-keepers do not know, whence all the guess that come to their house, are: she might also say of them, whether the men went, I wot not. Thus by her speaking of other persons, she might speak the truth.

  Answ.

  • 1. There is no expression in the history of any such matter.
  • 2. There is little probabilitie thereof.
  • 3. That had been no direct answer to the question propounded about the Spies; and in that respect an untruth.
• 2. By making up that which Rahab uttered with a mental reservation, thus, I wist not whence they were, to make them known to you, and whither the men went, I wot not, to betray them to you.

This Iesuites call Equivocation.

Because in these latter yeares a great controversie hath been raised by Popish Iesuites about Equivocation, I will endeavour plainly to set down the state of the question, and arguments, pro and con.

Equivocation taken in the most antient and accustomed sense, is, an ambigu∣ous* 1.4 signification of a word, or a doubtfull disposition of a sentence. To equivo∣cate is in general, to use a word, or sentence so ambiguously, as it may be taken diversely, in this sense, or that sense. Thus saith Christ, Lazarus sleepeth, John 11. 11. Christ meaneth the sleep of death: the disciples take it of the natural sleep of the body. Equivocation in a sentence, is, when a sentence is so composed, a•…•… it may be diversly taken. Thus it is said, That Ahaziah was forty and two year•…•…s old, when he began to raign, 2 Chro. 22. 2. This may be taken either of Aha∣ziahs own person, or otherwise of the stock whence he came by the mothers side, which had continued till that time forty and two yeares.

This kind of Equivocation is a Rhetorical figure, and intendeth the same that* 1.5 an homonumie doth.

This figure is frequently used in Scripture; It is nothing but an ambiguity in speech; such an one Christ useth in these words, If I will that he tarry till I c•…•…me, what is that to thee, John 21. 22, 23.

These are not unlawfull; for,

• 1. There is no untruth in them.
• 2. There are Rules to find out the true and full sence of them.
• 3. They are of good use to exercise a mans understanding, to sharpen his wit, to make him search after the meaning of what he reads and heares: yea, and to discover mens dulness, as Mark. 8. 17, &c.

To this head may be referred all manner of tropes; as

Metonymies, when a place is put for the Inhabitants. Lam. 1. 1, 2.* 1.6

Ironies, when the contrary is then expressed, 1 King. 18. 27. and 22. 15.

Metaphors, to which may be referred all sorts of Parables.

Synecdochies, as when the general is put for some particulars. Christ healed all sicknesses, and all diseases, which is, all kind of sicknesses, Matth. 24. 23.

So Figures, as Prosopopies, when persons are brought in speaking, which do not so speak; as in the story of Dives and Lazarus. Luk. 16. 24, &c.

Aposiopesies, when a sentence is broken off, and a part thereof left to be un∣derstood; which was usual in formes of oaths.

Psal. 95. 11. I sware in my wrath, if they enter into my rest; this was Gods oath. A like is noted of mans oath; See chap. 3. v. 11. §. 115.

The like may be said of concealing a part of truth; which the Prophet did, Ier. 38. 27. And of riddles, Iudg. 14. 14. and of Hyperbolies. See v. 12. §. 60.* 1.7

Jesuites besides these and others like unto them, have invented and broached another kind of equivocation, which they themselves do tearm, a mental equi∣vocation; that is, when a false speech is uttered, yet so as something is reserved in the mind, which if it were offered, would make the speech true. An instance hereof is thus given; One is asked concerning another, whom he hath oft seen, oft talked with, and with whom he hath been very familiar, whether he ever

〈◊〉〈◊〉 him or no; he answereth, that he never saw him. This is a cleer untruth: but to make that answer true, this clause, in heaven 〈◊〉〈◊〉 is reserved in his mind: which, expressed, would make the answer full and true, thus, I never saw him in heaven. We cannot find thorowout the whole Scripture one proof for such a mentall equivocation.

Because at the first hearing of it, it seemeth very strange, they propound sundry* 1.8 cautions thereabout: such as these,

• 1. The mentall reservation must be such, as it may make the sentence true, if it were uttered. Yet by the way, that great Iesuit and Priest called by them Fa∣•…•… Parsons, giveth an instance, that though it were uttered, yet cannot make a 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sence. It is this; A man being desired to lend his friend an horse, answe∣•…•…eth, that he hath never a one: meaning, an oxe. Put this reservation to the sen∣•…•…ence uttered, and then marke what truth, yea what congruity there is therein.
• 2. Equivocation must be before an incompetent Judge: which is (as they ex∣•…•…ound it) any Magistrate that is not of the Catholique, whereby they mean the Romish Religion. By the way, let me here again note, that some of their Priests have affirmed, that Iesuites have used mentall equivocation before the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself, and before Cardinalls.
• 3. Equivocation must be in weighty causes, namely, to conceal a Priest or o∣•…•… Papist, to keep him from taking, or to save the credit of such as have entred into their holy Orders, or any way to succour the Romish Faith. Yet some of them permit it in a money matter, as if one should came to borrow an hundred pound, who is not like to repay it, he may be put off with an equivoca∣•…•…ion.

They go so far in this point of equivocation, as if they be demanded whether* 1.9 they do equivocate or no, they may answer by another equivocation, that they do not. If they be demanded the third time, whether they do not then equivocate, they may answer the third time negatively by a third equivocation, and thus proceed without stint.* 1.10

Yea further they avouch, that a man may not only of simply equivocate, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 confirm his equivocation by oath.

As for our parts, though we grant, that ambiguity of speech, which is a verbal equivocation, may be used, as hath been before proved, yet there are restraints and limitations to be added thereto, such as these,

• 1. That the ambiguity be such as may by due observation of some circumstance* 1.11 〈◊〉〈◊〉 other be discerned, as where Christ said, Take ye unto you of the leaven of the P•…•…arisees and Sadduces. (Matth. 16. 6.) Though at first the Disciples mistook •…•…im, yet Christ putting them in mind of his miracles in feeding five thousand •…•…ith five loaves, they presently perceived that he meant the leaven of doctrine. All the ambiguous speeches in Scripture are such, as by diligent observation of the words and circumstances about them, may be found out.
• 2. That the ambiguity of speech be not against the intent and conceit of him who propounds the question: especially if it be propounded by a Magistrate, or by one that is in authority to require an answer; yea also if it be propounded by any to whom I think it meet to give an answer. Thus the Baptist, though he answered by ambiguity of speech, when he denied that he was that Prophet (Iohn 1. 21.) Yet he answered according to the true intent of them who pro∣pounded the question.
• 3. That it be without any purpose of any wrong: for a malicious end turnes that action, which might otherwise be good, into sin.

Upon these cautions it may be lawfull to use ambiguity of speech, whether it be by tropes or figures.

Our Adversaries positions are clean contrary to these limitations. For they say,* 1.12

• 1. That such ambiguity may be used as is impossible to be found out by any, but by him that utters it. For instance, if a Priest be asked, whether he be a Priest or no, he may answer negatively, with this reservation, of Diana, or of

• the Devils: he is no such Priest; who can unfold this?
• 2. That such ambiguity be used before an incompetent Magistrate. By this* 1.13 rule no Magistrate of another profession shall be competent. Papists hold Pro∣testant Magistrates to be incompetent. What if Protestants hold the like of Po∣pish Magistrates? What if Infidells hold the like of Christian Magistrates? and Christians of Infidells? Nay liberty is hereby given to except against the compe∣tency of Magistrates that are of the same Religion: and to say, they came in by bribery: or they have not sufficient parts for their place: or they are partiall and in just, and therefore not competent.* 1.14
• 3. That if a mans maine intent and principall end be not to deceive, it skil∣leth not, though both he that propounds the question, and the hearers also, be deceived. Thus they profess to deceive wittingly, though not principally.

That their mental equivocation, even as they themselves have set it down, is unlawfull and sinfull, may be proved by these Arguments.* 1.15

• 1. It is a new devise, nor warranted by sacred Scriptures, nor by antient Hea∣then Authors. The great Philosopher that hath written much of sundry kinds of ambiguity, never dreamt of this.
• 2. It justifieth an apparent lie, which is expresly forbidden, Ephes. 4. 25.
• 3. It being confirmed by an oath, will prove to be plain perjury.
• 4. Many gross absurdities do follow thereupon; such as these,
  • 1. Thus all manner of lies may be made truth.* 1.16
  • 2. Thus no man can know whom to believe.
  • 3. Thus all honest and faithfull commerce, contracts, and other like dea∣ling would be destroyed. For all depend upon the truth of mens words. If words be contrary to thei•…•… mind, what shall men rest upon?
  • 4. Thus there could be no end of controversies: at least of such contro∣versies as cannot be confirmed by witness: for the only means to end such controversies is an oath. Heb. 6. 16. But equivocation causeth a Judge to be in doubt, whether that which is sworn be true or no.
  • 5. Christian apology, or open confession of the truth of Religion is hereby taken away. For men are hereby taught by word to deny their Religion, so they have a mental reservation to salve up the matter.
  • 6. Christians hereby make their profession odious to Turks, Jewes, other Infidells and Pagans, who never imagined any such mentall re∣servation, but would take us at our words.

The Arguments which Iesuites produce to prove this absurd position, are such as these,

1. Unreasonable creatures are cunning in deceiving their Hunters, as Foxes,* 1.17 Hares, Badgers, and sundry other; would God then leave man without such cun∣ning evasions, as may deceive their persecutors?

1. Answ.

• It can carry but an unreasonable form of an Argument, that is so taken from unreasonable creatures.
• 2. Unreasonable creatures have no rule prescribed them to go by, as rea∣sonable men have.
• 3. Unreasonable creatures are not called to suffer, as reasonable men are.
• 4. Hunters know, and can find out the means which unreasonable crea∣tures use; but no persecutors can find out the depth of equivocation.
• 5. There are many other means which God hath afforded his servants to escape by, besides mental equivocation.
• 6. God oft calls his servants by suffering to bear witnes to his Truth: should men in such a case equivocate?

2. Arg. Stratagems in war are lawfull. Iosh. 8. 18.

Answ. There is a great difference betwixt stratagems and equivocations,

For,

• 1. Actions, whereof stratagems consist, do expresly affirm nothing, nor

• deny any thing, as words do.
• 2. In a stratagem, there is only a seeming to do this or that, when a contrary is intended: but no express asseveration to do it.
• 3. Stratagems are used by open enemies, who profess to use all the slights they can to overcome. The fault therefore is in the adverse party, if he be deceived, in that he was no more wary and circum∣spect. But in the case of equivocation, a man professeth no deceit, but naked Truth.
• 4. If stratagems be against promise, or performed by lying, they are unlawfull; and this the Heathens themselves have judged.

3. Arg. They press the many Rhetorical figures in Scripture.

Ans. There are Rules to find out the full sense of those figures. But for finding out the full sense of mentall equivocation, no rule can be given.

4. Arg. They produce sundry particular instances of Saints that have, as they 〈◊〉〈◊〉, equivocated; as

1. Rebekahs, and Iacobs dissembling with Isaac, Gen. 27. 6, &c.

Ans. That is an instance of their infirmity, and no pattern for imi∣tation. The like may be said of Rahabs answering the Kings Officers, whereof before.

2. Elishas answer to the men of Syria that came to apprehend him, 2 King. 6. 19.

Ans.

• 1. This was a stratagem against a professed enemy.
• 2. He was not demanded any question; and so not bound to an∣swer this or that.

3. Isaiahs message to Hezekiah, Thou shalt dy and not live, Isa. 38. 1.

Ans. There is nothing but plain and open truth herein, for Isaiah spake as he was commanded, and as he himself thought; for Heze∣kiahs sickness was indeed deadly, according to the nature of it. And if God had not extraordinarily wrought upon him, he had died. That Isaiah knew no other, but that Hezekiah should dy of that disease, is evident, in that the Word of God came again to him, when he carried the news of the Kings recovery, v. 4.

4. Ieremiahs answer to the Princes, Ier. 38. 27.

Ans. His answer is plain, no shew of untruth therein: only there was some truth concealed, which makes nothing for equivoca∣tion; because he was not demanded whether the King spake to him of yielding to the Chaldeans, or any other thing, beside what he answered.

5. Iohns answer to the Jews, Iohn 1. 21.

Ans. Iohn answered the truth, and that according to the meaning of the Iews, as this particle of emphasis, that Prophet, implyeth: for Iohn neither was a Prophet, as others, to foretell things to come: nor was he that Prophet which Moses spake of: nor was he Elijah, as they meant, in body or soul: but only in spirit and power. That he spake according to their intent, and that plainly, is evident, in that when they asked who he was, he di∣rectly answered the truth, saying, I am the voyce of one crying in the Wildernes, John 1. 23.

6. The speech of Christ, The Son knoweth not the day and houre of Iudg∣ment, Mark. 13. 32.

Ans.

• 1. Here is no question propounded to our Saviour; so as it ma∣keth nothing to the point in hand.
• 2. Christ declareth the truth plainly; for as he was man, he knew not that day and houre. Many other speeches of Christ are alledged, whereof not one maketh for mental re∣servation: for the ambiguity of them is either in divers ac∣ceptions

• of the word, or in circumstances, which with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and due observation may be found out.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Rahabs failing in her answer to the Kings Officers.
• * 1.2

  God passeth by the infirmi∣ties of the up∣right.
• * 1.3

  How Rahabs words freed from falshood.
• * 1.4

  What equivo∣cation in ge∣nerall is.
• * 1.5

  See the Eng∣lish Annota∣tions on 2 Chro. 22. 1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Aequivocatio.
• * 1.6

  Tropes and Figures the some with e∣quivocation.
• * 1.7

  Popi•…•…h equi∣vocation dete∣stable.
• * 1.8

  Cautions a∣bout Popish equivocation.
• * 1.9

  Equivocation upon equivo∣cation.
• * 1.10

  Equivocation upon oath. See chap. 6. v. 16. §. 125.
• * 1.11

  Limitations about verbal ambiguities.
• * 1.12

  Popish reser∣vations can∣not be found out.
• * 1.13

  Papists equi∣vocate before incompetent Mogistrates.
• * 1.14

  Papists wit∣tingly deceive.
• * 1.15

  Arguments a∣gainst Popish equivocation. Aristotle.
• * 1.16

  Absurdities of equivocation.
• * 1.17

  Arguments for equivo•…•…ation answered.