Receiving

The previous chapter showed that ministers may rightly receive support (sustentationem) from those they serve. But the right mode of giving does not by itself vindicate the one who receives. Beyond his qualifications for ministry, a non-simoniacal reception of material things depends on whether his primary purpose in ministry is service to the Lord.¹“And thus any bishop, curate, or priest who accepts that state [of ecclesiastical dignity] chiefly on account of honor or temporal advantage is a simoniac and a heretic, and he continues in that heresy as long as he keeps that state and is unfit for his office.” Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 2 (17:7–11). In the pithy saying that came down from Augustine, we ought to eat that we may evangelize, not evangelize that we may eat.²“Neque enim, verbi gratia, ideo debemus evangelizare, ut manducemus; sed ideo manducare, ut evangelizemus.” Augustine, De Sermone Domini in Monte, 2.16 (PL 34:1292). E.g., Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 146rb).

Thomas Aquinas spelled out the distinction. The spiritual laborer who receives from others “as the principally intended end of his work, he commits simony.”³Aquinas, Quodlibet, VIII, q. 6, a. 1 (p. 175). However, he is innocent “if he has God as the principal end in such an act and looks to such distributions secondarily.”⁴Ibid., VIII, q. 6, a. 1 (p. 175). Explaining that secondary sense, the minister is to receive “that which is necessary for his sustenance [sustentationem].”⁵Ibid., VIII, q. 6, a. 1 (p. 175). For the one who operates with this motives, “it is clear that he is not selling the spiritual act, and thus he does not commit simony, nor does he sin.”⁶Ibid., VIII, q. 6, a. 1 (p. 175).

We need not forbid all financial motivation in ministry. Scholastic sources frequently observe that it is acceptable to preach “for money” in the sense of preaching to encourage generosity for charitable collections.⁷E.g., Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, ad 4; Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 320b). Similarly, one may give something “for” (pro) a spiritual thing so long as the preposition means “on account of”—i.e., in supportive devotion—rather than “in exchange for.”⁸See John of Freiburg, Summa confessorum, I, tit. 1, q. 10 (fol. 2ra). More germane to our concerns, however, a minister’s service may be conditioned upon the supply of sufficient funds. But this may only function as a secondary motivation rather than a primary one. A minister must be enabled by material things rather than driven by them.⁹See also, Turretin, Institutio, 18.28.12.

Canonists and theologians offered four tests of a minister’s intent: the financial burden on the congregation, his rejection of positions, his transferring of positions, and his want of a proper office. Each could provide evidence of a ministry driven by simoniacal ambition.

Financial Burden on the Congregation

If a minister who has enough for himself receives from the poor, it demonstrates that his objectives in ministry are simoniacal. Such men, Aquinas held, “would be bound not only to desist from accepting alms, but also to give their own goods, if they had any, for the support of the poor.”¹⁰Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 187, a. 4, ad 1.

Under different circumstances,this does not forbid the financially self-sufficient from receiving a salary. On a first reading, one canon in Gratian’s Decretum appears to forbid any independently wealthy minister from taking a stipend from the church,¹¹“It is fitting that clerics whom the goods of their parents and relatives do not assist be sustained [sustentari] by the stipends of the Church. But those who can be supported by the goods and wealth of their parents, if they accept what belongs to the poor, certainly commit sacrilege, and by the abuse of such things, they eat and drink judgment upon themselves.” Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 2, c. 6. This is attributed to Jerome’s name, but the passage is apocryphal. “Caput incertum” Friedberg, ed., Corpus Iuris Canonici, 1:409, n68; cf. ibid., 1:784, n730; “Apocryphas illas esse dubium non est” Hinschius, ed., Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianae, xcvii. but later theologians interpreted the restriction narrowly. Aquinas responded to those who would use this to prohibit the rich from taking any stipend, asserting that it applies only in times of need, when the church could not otherwise care for the poor.¹²“It must be said that those authorities are to be understood in a time of necessity, namely, when the poor could not be helped otherwise.” Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 187, a. 4, ad 1; cf. ibid., II-II, q. 185, a. 7, ad 3.

The Reformed maintained the same balance between overburdening a congregation and financially neglecting its ministers. In describing what kind of pay might be “simoniacal” or “mercenary,” Francis Turretin warned against salaries burdensome to a congregation,¹³“Indeed, if no wage were owed to them for the work they do […] then it would not be lawful to bargain for stipends, and such a stipulation would be base and simoniacal. But, because they are owed most justly by the prescription of God and Christ, it is lawful to bargain for them […] nor in this is there any blemish or stain or suspicion of a mercenary spirit, provided they are moderate, not so large as to burden the flock, and sufficient for the honorable support of the pastor and his family.” Turretin, Institutio, 18.28.12. though he held that independently rich ministers should be supported rather than left to labor at their own expense.¹⁴Ibid., 18.28.8; 18.28.13.

Rejecting Positions

If a minister declines a position because the stipend is smaller than he had hoped, this too may demonstrate simoniacal intention. Of course, a position could simply not come with a sufficient stipend to support the minister,¹⁵See ibid., 18.28.8; 18.28.13. but his rejection of the position is further evidence bearing on his motives.

Concern over one who would reject a calling was most clearly stated by authors in the Reformed tradition. For example, Thomas Boston warned those that “close with no call upon the account of stipend.”¹⁶Boston, A Soliloquy on Man-Fishing, 49. He continued, “Woe is me if a stipend should be that which would engage me to a place.” See also Keach, The Gospel Minister’s Maintenance Vindicated, 105–7. In his judgment, “This is direct simony; selling the gift of God for money.”¹⁷Boston, A Soliloquy on Man-Fishing, 49. Alluding to a number of relevant passages in sequence, he continued decrying this sin: “Let their money perish with themselves that will adventure to do so. Such are buyers and sellers, that God will put out of his temple. Such are mere hirelings, working for wages; and too much of Balaam’s temper is to be found there.”¹⁸Ibid., 49.

If the purpose of the stipend is maintenance to uphold the minister and his proper dignity, but not more, a man who haggles over the figure has some other purpose in view.

Transferring Positions

Canon law routinely prohibits ministers from transferring between posts on their own initiative, particularly when that transfer is from a lesser see to a greater one. The earliest conciliar legislation on this point comes from the Council of Nicaea (325), which decrees that “neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon should pass from city to city.”¹⁹Bruns, ed., Council of Nicaea (325), can. 15 (p. 18). From there, many councils included similar laws, from the Synod of Antioch (341)²⁰Bruns, ed., Synod of Antioch (341), can. 21 (p. 86). to the Council of Sardica (343)²¹Bruns, ed., Council of Sardica (343), can. 1 (p. 88). and beyond. Eventually, this prohibition made its way into the Liber extra:

For there are some who resign their prebend and renounce their right, in order that they might obtain a greater prebend, or that from this they might acquire a certain sum of money—which is indeed contrary to honor, and without doubt contains simoniacal depravity. Therefore, you should hold as a general rule that exchanges of prebends cannot lawfully be made, especially where a pact has preceded, which, concerning spiritual things or things annexed to spiritual things, always contains the stain of simony.²²Gregory IX, Liber extra, 3.19.5; This framing is Urban III’s extension of a canon from the Council of Tours (1163) beyond the ecclesiastical position itself to the prebend funding it. cf. Mansi, ed., Council of Tours (1163), 1 (Mansi 21:1176B–C).

The schoolmen approved these canons as readily as the jurists.²³For example, Aquinas cited this prohibition positively to the same effect, Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 5. The proposed remedy in these laws is not to forbid all transfers; superiors may still reassign clergy for necessary reasons. Rather, it is to strip the individual minister of the initiative because self-directed movement so readily becomes a vehicle for covetousness. The theme that runs through these sources, even when “simony” is not expressly mentioned, is suspicion of simoniacal ambition.²⁴E.g., Henry of Ghent judged it a mortal sin to leave a people in great need of preaching for one that needed it less “on account of more abundant victuals expected elsewhere.” {Henry of Ghent}, Quodlibeta, VII, q. 19 (fol. 271v).

Want of Office

A final indicator of simoniacal motivation is the absence of a proper call. If a minister’s right to maintenance flows from his ordination and office rather than from a commercial transaction, then one who claims maintenance without ordination has no right to it at all. His receipt of it is, at best, irregular and, at worst, evidence that gain rather than service is his object.

Augustine and Monks

In De opere monachorum (On the work of monks), Augustine distinguished between physical labor and spiritual labor, speaking of the natural exchange of the former for physical food, but reserving to “all evangelists and ministers of the word of God” the authority “to live by the gospel, performing only spiritual works.”²⁵Augustine, De Opere Monachorum, 7.8 (p. 543). Paul refused funds at Thessalonica, Augustine held, so that by his example “those might be restrained who, though not so ordained in the church, deemed the like to be due to themselves.”²⁶Ibid., 3.4 (p. 537); cf. 2 Thess. 3:6–12. He returned to the point later, objecting to monks who claimed the right to live by the gospel without holding any ordained office: “But these brethren of ours rashly arrogate to themselves, as far as I can judge, an authority of this kind. For if they are evangelists, I confess, they have it; if ministers of the altar, dispensers of the sacraments, they rightly do not arrogate this authority to themselves, but plainly claim it as their due.”²⁷Ibid., 21.24 (pp. 569–70). Augustine’s “evangelists” (euangelistae) denotes the commissioned role of Ephesians 4:11 (cf. Acts 21:8), not merely one who evangelizes.

William of Saint-Amour and the Friars

In the thirteenth century, William of Saint-Amour developed Augustine’s argument in order to apply it to the new mendicant orders, the friars.²⁸William acknowledged the centrality of De opere monachorum to his project in the prologue of the Collectiones, {William of Saint-Amour}, Collectiones, prol. (p. 125). Glossing Augustine’s remarks, he wrote:

The false [preachers], even though they are not so ordained in the Church that they can live from the Gospel […] nevertheless wish to live from the Gospel, receiving their sustenance from those to whom they preach, as if they were their evangelists or ministers of their altar. […] If they do not hold these offices in the churches of those from whom they receive, they do not have the authority to take sustenance from them either. For it is certain that sustenance from the Gospel is owed only to those who preside ordinarily in governance and teaching by the dignity of their office, and who are bound to the care of souls by the duty of their office.²⁹Ibid., D. 4, sign. 41 (pp. 457–58).

He went on to interpret the various phrases in 1 Thessalonians 5:12 as indicating pastoral office rather than similar labor apart from the office,³⁰“We beseech you, brothers, that you know (that is, that you show yourselves to know, namely by the furnishing of sustenance) those who labor among you. Gloss: In your governance and teaching. And who are set over you. Gloss: By dignity. And this, in the Lord. That is, by the ordination of the Lord. And who admonish you. Gloss: By the duty of their office.” Ibid., D. 4, sign. 41 (p. 458). then concluded, “Therefore those who do not have the dignity or the proper office of governing souls cannot claim sustenance as owed to them.”³¹Ibid., D. 4, sign. 41 (p. 458). He objected to their reception of alms, but found especially heinous their insistence on it as an imposition of duty: the false preachers “not only receive food from those to whom they preach if it is offered to them, but also sometimes importunately demand it, although it is not owed.”³²Ibid., D. 4, sign. 41 (p. 458). He identified all such reception as manifest simony:³³“If therefore any preachers (whose canonical vocation or mission is not established) should, as a regular practice, receive from their hearers such gifts as are described above, they seem to be in the occasion of avarice; they also seem to preach for the sake of gain, not for the salvation of souls. And if they should, as a regular practice, ask or cause to be asked for such things, whether in their preaching, or before their preaching, or after it, hoping to find them more easily on account of their preaching, they seem to commit simony.” Ibid., D. 4, sign. 40 (p. 456).

In De valido mendicante (The able-bodied mendicant), William asserted that none should be given to those who beg before or after their preaching.³⁴{William of Saint-Amour}, De Valido Mendicante, 85. Only a teacher who holds the apostolic authority—a bishop or one he has sent—is owed a share by those he teaches,³⁵Ibid., 87. and what such a man asks he asks by that authority and not as a beggar.³⁶{William of Saint-Amour}, Collectiones, D. 1 (p. 156).

William therefore tied proper financial support to mission.³⁷“They must take their expenses in different ways, according to the different missions.” Ibid., D. 1 (p. 154). Sustenance is owed by “the people to whom they preach as their own charges,”³⁸Ibid., D. 1 (p. 153). that is, “those whom he feeds as a flock, or whom he cultivates as a vineyard.”³⁹Ibid., D. 1 (p. 156). To gather support beyond that boundary is to “make prey of congregations not their own.”⁴⁰Ibid., D. 4 (p. 466). Regarding those preachers who visit a congregation, William determined that the proper source of their support was conditioned on their commission. If some prelate would send a preacher to visit, then he should likewise fund him.⁴¹“Those sending them must furnish necessities to those they send, or assign them prebends from which they may be competently sustained in the office committed to them.” Ibid., D. 1 (p. 153); “those bishops themselves—not the priests nor the lay faithful—ought to furnish them with the necessities of life.” {William of Saint-Amour}, De Periculis, cap. 2 (p. 26). He allowed an exception where such a visit met a specific need, and then only on judicial inquiry or at the parish priest’s own request.⁴²{William of Saint-Amour}, Collectiones, D. 1 (p. 154). He regarded the contrary rule as untenable, since “if an unlimited number of persons had the authority of preaching in any given church, every church would owe unlimited procurations, which is absurd to say.”⁴³{William of Saint-Amour}, De Periculis, cap. 2 (p. 26).

The Protestant Reception

As noted in Chapter 1,⁴⁴See ↗. William’s positions were far from universally adopted within the prevailing institutions, but they found purchase among proto-Reformers and also those Reformers who continued to feel the need to respond to the mendicants. Addressing the friars’ encroachment on parish ministry, John Wycliffe observed that “a benefice and its corresponding office inseparably follow each other.”⁴⁵Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 8 (107:20–21). Elsewhere, he identified their collection of funds through a counterfeit office as simony.⁴⁶“The sixth abuse of the friars is the simoniacal collection of temporal goods through the office of preaching carried on in this counterfeit way.” Wycliffe, Trialogus cum Supplemento Trialogi, lib. IV, cap. 34 (p. 368). William Tyndale adopted these arguments in The Obedience of a Christian Man, speaking of those who would ask for money for labor in the word outside of the office of a preacher as being robbers of widows.⁴⁷“Likewise doeth a Christian man give to his brethren and robbeth them not as friars and monks do. […] They preach (sayest thou) and labor in the word. First I say they are not called and therefore ought not for it is the curate’s office.” Tyndale, Obedience of a Christian Man, fol. 126v. John Calvin contended similarly, lamenting that the collation of benefices, formerly joined with ordination, had become wholly separate,⁴⁸Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, 4.5.6. and that those who have no work or income but the sale of Masses have no legitimate office to perform.⁴⁹Ibid., 4.5.9.

Even after the mendicant orders ceased to be a live controversy for them, Protestant theologians continued to recognize that the office, not merely the actual work, legitimized ministerial maintenance. Matthew Poole, arguing against the congregationalist notion of a “gifted man”—i.e., a congregationally approved lay-preacher—built his argument on a shared foundation: only those who hold the office may be paid for it.⁵⁰He offered the following syllogism: “All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance: But all gifted men (though preaching) cannot challenge maintenance, Therefore they are no Scripture-Preachers.” Poole, Quo Warranto, 114. He further contended that to fund all those who are gifted and do the work in some measure “would be both absurd and impossible.”⁵¹Ibid., 115. Holding the office without doing the work incurred the same charge of simony. Ministers who receive a stipend but do not do the work of preaching “are by strong presumption deep simonists.”⁵²Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 43.

Conclusion

A minister whose primary end is gain rather than service corrupts an otherwise licit arrangement. The tradition therefore supplied four diagnostic tests: the financial burden placed on a congregation, the rejection of a position for its stipend, the transfer to a more profitable one, and the absence of a proper call. Each may expose whether a minister’s true master is the Lord or his own appetite.