Catholic Charity Complaining and Maintaining that Rome is Uncharitable, Title page – Publisher to the reader
CATHOLICK CHARITIE: COMPLAINING, AND MAINTAINING, That Rome is uncha…itable to sundry Eminent parts of the Catholick Church, and especially to Protestants, and is therefore Uncatholick: And so, A Romish Book, called CHARITIE MISTAKEN, though undertaken by a Second, is it selfe a Mistaking.
By F. ROUS.
OPTATUS Lib. 2.
Quia noluerunt fratres agnoscere, nullam habuerunt charitatem.
LONDON, Printed by R. Young, for Iohn Bartlet, at the signe of the gilt Cup, neer S. Austins gate. 1641.
REcensui Librum hunc, cui Titulus CATHOLICK CHARITY, in quo nihil reperio fidei orthodoxae, aut bonis moribus contrarium, quo minus summâ cum utilitate Typis mandetur.
JOH. HANSLEY, R. P. Episc. Lond. Capel. Domest. Decemb. 2. 1640.
The Publisher to the READER.
IT might well have beene wished, that the growth of Romish errours and superstitions (the complaint of this time) had not made this Worke too seasonable: True it is, though it doe but now see the light, yet it came to the birth before any other Answer of Charity Mistaken was knowne to the Authour; it came indeed to the birth, but there was no strength to deliver; the judgement of those times not giving way to any other besides those whose Answers have beene already made publick. But though they have run before like Cushi;2 Sam. 18. this, like Ahimaaz, (yet perchance not altogether without tidings) may run after: and with Ahimaaz, it may make the better speede, because, with him, it goes the way of the Plaine; it goes a plaine way, speaking plainely the Protestant Shiboleth; and it useth plainnesse and evidence of speech, in which way it is likely to meet with most Readers. Neither doth it come altogether without tidings; for it brings with it the tidings of Truth and Love, and, by both, a remedy against error and uncharitablenesse. And, as it is a worke of charity, so is it sutably fitted with charitable expressions; for it doth not take up those sharpe arrowes which in these Concertations too often are shot at mens persons, besides the Marke of the Matter. True it is, that where the Writer doth put his faults into the matter of his Booke, and doth publish them of purpose to have them seene, and by the sight of them to make others faulty, there it will bee a duty of obedience, as well as of necessary providence (for the Readers safety) to take notice of them. Controversies certainely looke like breaches of love, and therefore the Authour hath not been much in love with them: But if love will bee lost, except it be kept by a Controversie, there the Controversie that keepes it, is a worke of love: To strive against uncharitablenesse, that it may be removed, and charity put in the roome of it, is an act of charity; and this charity is the businesse of this work.
The Reader may also take notice, that divers passages not insisted on by the other, are here examined, because this worke surveyeth the whole Booke, which it answers more particularly then the other.
There hath indeed come forth a Reply in defence of Charity Mistaken: But both the one and the other turne mainely on these two hinges; That there must be an entire unity of faith in all Truths revealed by God, and proposed by the Church: And, That if unity were to be held by the faith of Fundamentals, a perfect and uniforme List should be given of those Fundamentals. Now these two hinges being taken off in this Book, I hope it may give a fall to the maine matter of them both.
And whereas the Replyer strives to divide our unity by this Engine,Page 81. That some Protestants directly, wittingly, and willingly dis-beleeve what others do beleeve to bee testified by the Word of God; and herein is no difference between Fundamentall and not Fundamentall: It is rejoyned for a defence against this Engine of division, That if herein be no difference betweene the one and the other in Fundamentals, there is no proofe that they are not united members in the body of Christ: For, hee that wittingly and willingly dis-beleeves that which the other beleeves to bee testified by the Word of God, may know, (as the terme wittingly seems to import) that the point dis-beleeved is not testified by the Word of God; and so hee may bee safe, and is still one with Christ and his Members: Againe, the other who beleeves it to bee testified by the Word of God, may bee deceived: yet the point not being fundamentall, his errour may not divide him from the other which is a member of Christ. Indeed, if a Protestant should know a point to be testified by the Word of God, and then dis-beleeve it, that might prove him not to be in the Body of Christ; but first, This would bring him within the difference of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals, contrary to the Replyers Affirmation: for it is a maine Fundamentall to beleeve God; whom that man beleeves not, who wittingly and willingly denyes the Word of God. And secondly, It is meerly inconsistent and incompossible, That hee who beleeves Fundamentals, should wittingly and willingly dis-beleeve what hee knows the God of Truth hath spoken. And, if out of weaknesse, errour, and ignorance hee doth not beleeve that God hath spoken it; this ignorance, if it be not in Fundamentals, doth not inforce a disunion from other Members of the Body of Christ. Thus the Replyers objected Not-beleeving, either falls under Fundamentals, and then his case is not rightly put; or else it falls not under Fundamentals, and then it doth not conclude a disunion betweene Protestants. This having received my selfe, I impart to the Reader, with a Prayer, that in reading this Worke, hee may bee enlightned with that Spirit of Truth which alone can kindly discover both the Mystery of godliness, and the Mystery of iniquity; and that the same Spirit may hold him in the one, and keep him from the other.