A Revision of Two Letters from George Morley, Bishop of Winchester, to Jan van Vliet

Tell me then, by what ancient authors do you think so? Who in those first centuries disapproved of the invocation of saints? I do not deny that there were some; I ask who they were. You hesitate, and I am not surprised; they are so infamous, those who alone support you and your fellow-believers in this matter, that they will be a disgrace to you, not an honor. Such were Manichaeus, Eunomius, and Vigilantius. These oppose us, whom the Church of those times rightly condemned and struck with anathema. Such, however, were the types from whom nothing but some great evil could be condemned. As Tertullian said in a similar case.

D. Morley: p. 6. With Melanchthon, I boldly say that this perverse and corrupt custom of invoking saints (however much it later prevailed in the Church to the insult of God and the saints) was, in the first three centuries after Christ, not only unused, but either unheard of or condemned; nor can any certain and undoubted testimony from any of the Fathers who lived before the fourth century of any moment to the contrary be brought forward. Farewell.

Response: It is not only asked what you, or your fellow heralds of the Reformed Church and defenders of the new sect, boldly say; but what you prove. Indeed, it is a perverse and corrupt custom which Jerome, which Augustine, which Chrysostom, which the whole Catholic Church defended. Yet the only patrons of Piety in those centuries are Manichaeus, Vigilantius, and others of the same bran. Is the honor shown to the saints coupled with the insult of God, who testifies that what is done to those whom He calls His heirs, His friends, His brothers, His members, and Himself, is done to Him? For whom the Church venerates in them, whom He has testified by various miracles is pleased by the honor shown to them and their Invocation? You add that they are honored by us to the insult of the Saints? What a stupidity of speech! And yet, in that stupidity, you cunningly lay traps for the unwary Reader, while, having cast upon us, who are the Possessors, the burden of proving, you take upon yourself the role of the Defender; whence we would yield the right acquired by possession over so many centuries, and you would be our equals, you who were born only yesterday, so to speak. And the legal defense would have to be granted to you if we failed in our proof.

You say the same custom was either unheard of or condemned. By what reason these can be reconciled, I do not see. If it was condemned, then it was not unheard of. If unheard of, then not condemned. But that custom was heard, that is, known, as is evident because Manichaeans and Vigilantius disapproved of it. But show by whom, in what place, or at what time it was condemned, and we surrender. I would not, however, wish you to think we are satisfied if you produce men of condemned memory whom I have just named as disapproving of that custom. Nor should you bear with an ill will that we erase the names of such from the ancient Church, who prefer the rages of Calvin to the authority of that same Church.