Scripture Proofs

Beyond the loci classici of Acts 8 and 2 Kings 5, theologians of past generations have centered on several other passages of Scripture to demonstrate the immorality of trafficking in spiritual things. The breadth of this scriptural witness was recognized early. In the third century, Cyprian compiled at the request of one Quirinus a book of biblical testimonies, including one heading “That the grace of God ought to be without price.” Under this rubric he gathered Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus (Acts 8:20), the dominical command “freely you have received, freely give” (Matt. 10:8), Christ’s denunciation of the merchants in the temple (John 2:16), Isaiah’s call to come and buy without money (Isa. 55:1), and the apocalyptic promise of the water of life freely given (Rev. 21:6).¹Cyprian, Ad Quirinum, 3.100.

This chapter takes up the passages the medieval tradition most often employed in the service of the doctrine of simony, taking each in turn before weighing them together in the conclusion. While theologians adumbrated the figure of the simoniac from the narrative passages covered in Chapter 10, we will here address those scriptural texts which more directly supplied the doctrinal grounds on which his trade was condemned.

Matthew 10:8—Freely Give

The most frequently referenced verse on the topic of simony is Matthew 10:8, cited more often than Acts 8 or 2 Kings 5. In a detailed analysis of Gregory the Great’s corpus of homilies and letters, one scholar concludes that the famous coiner of the term simoniaca haeresis almost never appealed to Acts 8 but appealed far more often to Matthew 10:8.²“In the texts of Gregory the Great, the most astonishing feature is the almost total absence of Simon Magus and of the text of the Acts of the Apostles among the biblical justifications proscribing the simoniaca heresis. […] In Gregory’s writings, Matthew 10:8 (“Freely you have received, freely give”) is, in fact, used much more often than the episode of Simon to proscribe the simoniaca heresis.” Rosé, Simon le Magicien hérésiarque?, 210–11.

Medieval quotations to demonstrate the importance of Matthew 10:8 to the topic of simony could be multiplied ad nauseam, and many have already been provided, but perhaps here it will suffice to include the words of the Glossa ordinaria, which says that in this verse, Christ “condemns the perfidy of the simoniacal heresy.”³Migne, ed., Glossa Ordinaria, Matt. 10:8 (PL 114:118A). Throughout the schoolmen, not only is the dominical command the chief text on simony, but admonition against simony is perhaps the chief application of the dominical command.

This pattern continued into the early years of the Reformation, though with less consistency. Luther opened his annotations on Matthew 10:8 by naming simony among the vices the verse forbids, and went on to urge, “let us gladly and freely serve him and teach the people.”⁴“He prohibits the vice of avarice, simony, and ambition, that is, so that they might teach sincerely, not for the sake of glory, gain, or favor, but freely for the sake of God. For he knew there would be wicked men in the future who would say and do all things for the sake of profit. Therefore, he forewarns them so diligently, that they might sincerely care only for the Kingdom of God. “The words are to be weighed: ‘Freely you have received, freely give.’ He admonishes us to consider how unworthy we were of so great a ministry; and so, mindful of our unworthiness and of his infinite mercy, let us gladly and freely serve him and teach the people.” Luther, Annotationes in aliquot capita Matthaei, 10:8 (WA 38, 496:1–8). While he did not mention simony by name, Calvin made similar comments, arguing that “no one will be a sincere minister of his word and a dispenser of grace unless he is prepared to bestow his labor freely,” and adding immediately that “all mercenaries unworthily corrupt and profane the sacred office of teaching.”⁵Calvin, Harmony of the Evangelists, Matt. 10:8 (CO 45:276).

The children of the English Reformation often denied either that this verse was to be taken as an imperative to more than the first apostles or that it regarded more than the working of miracles.⁶E.g., Keach, The Gospel Minister’s Maintenance Vindicated, 105. This sentiment is often expressed in their contentions with Anabaptists, Quakers, and others who would use this passage to condemn ministerial salaries.⁷See Hall, Sal Terrae, 134–36; Prynne, A Gospel Plea, 35–36; cf. Crosby, The History of the English Baptists, 4.293.

However, they did not absolutely deny its contemporary application and employed it routinely when directly addressing simony. For example, Ralph Cudworth asserted that the command to freely give in Matthew 10:8 is especially to be understood of the working of miracles, but in that very same discourse, argued that the word of God should not be put to sale because “that which God hath given freely, ought not to be sold basely.”⁸Cudworth, The Supplement, 537. He likewise connected the activity to simony, appealing to Peter’s condemnation of Simon Magus.⁹Ibid., 537.

A few directly opposed the limits. The Anatomist wrote, “I shall not say with some, that these words of our Saviour do relate, not to the preaching of the gospel, but to those gifts of working miracles […] nor that these words were intended only for the apostles, and not for the ordinary ministers of the Church.”¹⁰The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 88. In providing rules of interpretation, Jeremy Taylor reasoned from the maxim of Matthew 10:8 to explain why it would apply universally, to ministers of any era:

Thus it was also in the first mission of the disciples (above spoken of) in which the body of precepts was temporary and relative; but yet when our Blessed Lord had inserted that clause [freely ye have received, freely give] we are not to conclude it to be temporary and only relating to that mission, because it is placed in a body of relative commandments: for there is in it something that is spiritual, and of an eternal decency, rectitude and proportion; and we are taught to separate this from the other by the reproof which fell upon Simon Magus, by the separate nature of spiritual things, by the analogy of the Gospel, by the provisions which upon other accounts are made for the clergy and the whole state ecclesiastical, upon the stock of such propositions which provide so fully, that they cannot be tempted by necessity to suppose God left them to be supplied by simoniacal intercourses.¹¹Taylor, Ductor Dubitantium, 2.542. The bracketed clause is original. See also Ames, Conscience, 5.229.

So long as things of the Spirit are freely received, they must be freely given. God has not ceased to give them freely, so the obligation has not lapsed with the apostles.

John 2:16—The Dove Sellers

Many medievals applied the narrative of the temple cleansing to the topic of simony, either explicitly or by way of allusion. Often, rather than introducing their own statements on the matter, they would quote patristic theologians to the same effect. These references go back particularly far, including comments from figures such as Origen¹²“And I think that the word about those who sell the doves fits those who hand the churches over to bishops or presbyters or deacons who are greedy for base gain, tyrannical, ignorant, and irreverent. This is why Matthew and Mark named the chairs of those who sell the doves alone, which they say were overturned by Jesus.” Origen, Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei, 16.22 (GCS 40, 549:22–550:5); cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 16, q. 7, c. 9. and Ambrose.¹³“But why he overturned the chairs of those selling doves, I do not understand according to the letter; for the bird-sellers could not claim for themselves the dignity of any honored seat in the market. For what prerogative of dignity is there in doves? Yet the form of the Lord’s baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended as a dove [Luke 3:22], gives warning—by the figure of merchants of this kind cast out of the temple—that those who traffic in the grace of the Holy Spirit cannot have fellowship in the Church of God. For ‘freely,’ he says, ‘you have received, freely give’ [Matt. 10:8]. Finally, to Simon, who thought the gift of sanctifying could be conferred upon him for a price, Peter replied: ‘May your money,’ he says, ‘perish with you; because you think you can obtain the grace of God with money. There is no part or lot for you in this faith’ [Acts 8:20–21].” Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii sec. Lucam, 9.19 (CSEL 32.4, 444:25–445:11). With some recurrence, the medievals would quote Augustine on the matter: “the dove is not for sale.”¹⁴“Simon […] supposed the apostles to be traders of the sort the Lord drove out of the temple with a whip. For such he himself was, and he wished to buy what he might sell: he was of those who sell doves. For the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove (Matt. 3:16). Who then are those who sell doves, brothers, but those who say, ‘We give the Holy Spirit’? For why do they say this, and at what price do they sell? At the price of their own honor. They receive temporal chairs [seats of authority] as their price, so that they themselves are seen to be selling doves. Let them beware of the whip of little cords. The dove is not for sale: it is given freely, because it is called grace.” Augustine, Tractatus in Evangelium Ioannis, 10.6 (PL 35:1469–70). But most frequently they bolstered this point by referencing the interpretation of Gregory the Great:

We know indeed from the Gospel what our Redeemer did by his own act: that he entered the temple and overturned the chairs of those selling doves [Matt. 21:12]. For to sell doves is to receive a temporal advantage from the Holy Spirit, whom Almighty God, consubstantial with himself, bestows upon men through the imposition of hands. And from that evil, as I said above, it is already indicated what follows: that the chairs of those who presumed to sell doves in the temple of God fell by the judgment of God. And this error, clearly, spreads with increase among those under them. For the man who is brought to sacred honor is himself, too, already tainted at the very root of his promotion, and is the readier to sell to others what he bought. And where is that which is written: “Freely you have received, freely give” [Matt. 10:8]? And since the simoniacal heresy was the first to arise against the holy Church, why is it not weighed, why is it not seen, that the man who ordains another for a price, by promoting him, brings it about that he becomes a heretic?¹⁵Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum, V.58 (1, 369:14–25).

Gratian included this passage in his Decretum,¹⁶Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 117. along with many others to the same effect.¹⁷Ibid., C. 1, q. 1, c. 23 (Jerome); ibid., C. 1, q. 3, c. 8 (Urban II, quoting Augustine); ibid., C. 1, q. 3, c. 9 (Alexander II); ibid., C. 1, q. 3, c. 11 (Bede); ibid., C. 1, q. 7, c. 5 (Leo IV). Later medieval writers, such as Wycliffe and Hus, also followed Gregory on this point.¹⁸Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (4:25–5:20); Hus, O svatokupectví, 2.D; cf. Gregory I, Homiliae in Evangelia, 17.13 (pp. 109–10).

In these readings from Ambrose on, the doves represent the Holy Spirit on account of his appearance at Christ’s baptism,¹⁹Origen considered the doves to represent the faithful. Origen, Commentarium in evangelium Matthaei, 16.22 (GCS 40, 550:20–24). and the sellers of doves are those who trade in spiritual things for temporal gain. The chairs or seats (cathedra) represent the temporal honors that simoniacs receive as the price of their trade. Christ overturning them (Matt. 21:12; Mark 11:15) represents their certain judgment. The Glossa ordinaria consolidated these points in its comments on Matthew 21:12.²⁰Migne, ed., Glossa Ordinaria, Matt. 21:12 (PL 114:153B).

Modern readers committed to the singular sense of Scripture—as affirmed in the Westminster and Second London Baptist confessions²¹{Westminster Assembly}, The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.9; {Particular Baptist Assembly}, Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1.9.—may find these patristic readings difficult to accept. To some, the identification of the doves with the Holy Spirit and the chairs with temporal honors may resemble the kind of allegorical exegesis that the Reformers sought to restrain. However, William Whitaker—himself a critic of the fourfold sense (quadriga)—distinguished: “These things we do not wholly reject: we concede such things as allegory, anagoge, and tropology in scripture; but meanwhile we deny that there are many and various senses. We affirm that there is but one true, proper and genuine sense of scripture, arising from the words rightly understood, which we call the literal; and we contend that allegories, tropologies, and anagoges are not various senses, but various collections from one sense, or various applications and accommodations of that one meaning.”²²Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, 404.

The application of Christ’s temple cleansing to the problem of simony need not be taken as a second “sense” of the text to be dismissed out of hand. It is better read as a legitimate accommodation of the one literal sense: Christ drove out those who profaned the temple with commerce, and simoniacs profane the church in an analogous way. The fathers and medievals after them did not mystically read meanings into the text so much as unfold the entailments of Christ’s zeal for the temple, especially as informed by images invested with significance elsewhere in Scripture.²³For a hermeneutical model of how such typological connections can be drawn with exegetical restraint, see Clowney, Preaching Christ, 32.

Indeed, Protestant and Puritan authors would continue applying the temple cleansing to simony. John Trapp, glossing Zechariah 14:21 (“there shall be no more the Canaanite”), noted that the Vulgate rendered the word “merchant,” which he identified as “the simoniac, the church-chopper, such money-merchants as Christ whipped out of the temple.”²⁴Trapp, Commentary on the Minor Prophets, 605. Trapp preferred the rendering “Canaanite,” granting that the Canaanites “were indeed great merchants.” Christopher Ness, in a four-volume work given to the interpretation of types, wrote, “So this sorcerer, unsound Simon, hath given the execrable name to that abominable sin of simony, wherewith both the laws of God and men do brand all those that barter for spiritual benefices. N.B.²⁵Nota Bene (“Note well”). This sin is forbid, Lev. 25:34. The Levites’ portion and patrimony was not to be sold, etc. The sellers of doves (in which form the Spirit descended, Matt. 3:16) our Lord did whip out of his temple twice.”²⁶Ness, A Compleat History and Mystery, 4.361. Elsewhere, Ness described himself as “abhorring to destroy the literal sense of the Holy Scriptures by wanton allegories, as some have done, from the frothy exuberances of their own addle brains.”²⁷Ness, A Crystal Mirror, 70. Even those grounded in the literal sense of Scripture could acknowledge the application of the text to the sin of simony.

1 Corinthians 4:1—Stewards of the Mysteries of God

In any legitimate commercial transaction, the owner of a thing must authorize the sale. In the case of spiritual things, men are not owners, but ministers. That is, they are stewards who are bound by the directives of God, the divine proprietor of all grace.²⁸See Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, corp.; Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, Aureum Sacrae Theologiae Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia, 2; Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 146ra). “It is not in man’s power to sell them, seeing he is not Lord over them, but steward and dispenser of them.” Cudworth, The Supplement, 537.

Most commonly in arguing this point, the schoolmen cited 1 Corinthians 4:1 (“Let a man so account us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God”).²⁹Calvin appealed to this verse as the divine complement to ancient canons on simony. Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis, 4.5.9. This apostolic self-description undermines any claim of ownership or authority that would permit commerce in spiritual things. As “mysteries,” they are matters that have been revealed by God and are freely given.

Peter Paludanus put the argument in syllogistic form. Major premise: A sale is illicit when the seller is not the owner but only a minister authorized to dispense a thing. Minor premise: A prelate—i.e., a church authority who might sell ordinations or other things—is only a minister who has only been authorized to give freely. Therefore, his sales are illicit. In support of the minor premise, he cited 1 Corinthians 4:1, 1 Peter 4:10, and Matthew 10:8.³⁰Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (pp. 318b–319a).

As the owner of his storehouse of gifts and graces, God has made it clear how his ministers must steward them. They must be used to serve others (1 Pet. 4:10), and they must be given freely (Matt. 10:8). The sale of spiritual things is therefore forbidden.

Romans 11:6—Graceless Grace

The very word “grace” (gratia) denotes what is freely given. To attach a price to grace is not merely to misuse it but to nullify it, for a grace that is purchased ceases to be grace at all. The simoniacal exchange is therefore incoherent as well as immoral: it requires that one and the same thing be gratuitous and non-gratuitous at once. As Romans 11:6 (“if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace is no longer grace”) confirms, grace that is given on the basis of some exchange is no longer grace.³¹See Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, Aureum Sacrae Theologiae Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia, 2; Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 1, q. 4 (pp. 647–48); Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 1.

Paludanus again developed the point in a syllogism. Major premise: A contract is illicit in which the nature of the thing is repugnant to the nature of the contract. Minor premise: This is the case in the sale or purchase of a spiritual thing because they are an accessory to grace whose nature is to be freely given. Therefore, a contract in spiritual thing is illicit as it is repugnant to buying and selling.³²Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 319a). Repugnance here describes contradictory natures. Grace is repugnant to exchange because it ceases to be grace upon exchange.

What then is exchanged in a simoniacal transaction? Gratian opened the question with a canon he ascribed to Leo the Great: what the simoniac has to give is not the Spirit of truth but the spirit of lies.³³“If grace is not given or received freely, it is not grace. Simoniacs, however, do not freely receive; therefore they do not receive the grace which is especially at work in ecclesiastical orders. But if they do receive, they do not have; and if they do not have, they can give to no one, either freely or not freely. What, then, do they give? Surely what they have. And what do they have? The spirit of lies, without a doubt. How do we prove this? Because if the Spirit of truth (as the Truth itself, from whom he proceeds, testifies) is received freely, then without a doubt that which is not received freely is proved to be the spirit of lies.” Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 1. The simoniac therefore does more than take an unjust price; he promulgates deception. In the case of ordinations, he promises the Spirit of truth but gives the spirit of lies. In any case, he ostensibly offers grace but can only give a semblance.

Micah 3:11—The Example of the Prophets

In rejecting simony, the schoolmen appealed to the example set by the prophets. Before a consideration of particular prophets, they usually anticipated the objection that the prophets did charge, giving the examples of payments prepared by Saul and the wife of Jeroboam. Their answer began from Micah 3:11 (“her priests teach for a price, and her prophets divine for money”).³⁴E.g., “It does not seem that one falls into any sin by selling a gift of the Holy Spirit, because it is said in 1 Kings 9 [1 Sam. 9:8] concerning Saul, and 3 Kings 14 [1 Kings 14:3] concerning the wife of Jeroboam, that both brought a price to the holy prophets for a prophetic manifestation; and it is established that prophecy is a gift of his: therefore, etc. […] But to the objection that it is not a sin to sell on the example of the prophets, it must be said that no prophet who was good and holy sold the gift of prophecy, but only the wicked, as such are expressly rebuked in Micah 3[:11–12]: Her judges judged for bribes, and her priests taught for hire, and her prophets divined for money; and below: For this reason, because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field, etc.” Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 1, q. 4 (pp. 647–48). See also Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, d.p.c. 22; Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2.

Part of the reason for this structure is that the tradition frequently—either explicitly or implicitly—refers back to Jerome’s commentary on Micah 3:9–12 to handle the particular cases of the distinct prophets. His exposition touches a number of passages relevant to our study, but we will limit ourselves particularly to those comments most frequently recited by later theologians.

And let it not disturb anyone, that which we read in the first book of Kings, that Saul, wishing to go to Samuel, said to his servant that he could not go to him because he did not have a price to offer for the prophecy, and the servant answered: “Behold, there is found in my hand a fourth part of a shekel of money, and I will give it to the man of God, and he will declare to us our way” [1 Sam. 9:8]. For it is not written that Samuel accepted it, or that they offered it: but rather they are fed by the prophet, and invited to a meal. But suppose he did accept it; what he took is to be reckoned alms for the tabernacle rather than a fee for prophecy. For a shekel has twenty obols, and a fourth part of a shekel is five obols. And therefore, if our priests wish to sell prophecy, and set forth doves on their chairs—the doves the Lord overturned with a whip [John 2]—let them accept five obols, not the prices of estates. This same thing applies also in the third book of Kings, that the wife of Jeroboam, her son being sick, proceeds to Ahijah the man of God, bringing him loaves and raisins, and a small vessel of honey [1 Kings 14:3]. For it is said what she carried with her, and yet the prophet is not written to have accepted it: indeed, since he both rebuked her and predicted the coming mourning. Granted, those who had been accustomed to go to soothsayers (since there were many diviners and soothsayers in Israel) may by a bad habit have supposed the same of the prophets too, and may have wished to offer holy men what they were accustomed to offer diviners; and granted that Scripture merely reports what they intended. Even so, it does not say that they dared to offer it, or that the prophets accepted it.³⁵Jerome, In Proph. Min., In Mich. I, 3:9–12 (cols. 471–72).

On Jerome’s reading, Scripture nowhere records a prophet accepting payment; it merely narrates what supplicants intended to bring, not that they offered it or that the prophets received it. Even if Samuel had taken what was offered, he would only have done so as receiving alms for the tabernacle rather than as a fee for prophecy. Subsequent writers on simony overwhelmingly adopted this line of reasoning, treating Jerome’s argument—and authority—as decisive.³⁶See e.g., Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, d.p.c. 24; Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 4; Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, ad 3. For an example of one who cites Gratian, see Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 53. For an example of one who makes the same argument with no citation, see Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 147vb).

Few expanded on this analysis, but Girolamo Zanchi, having cited Jerome and followed him closely, went on to answer a further objection that Saul and others brought gifts to the prophets because they knew that they were approaching God and must bring some show of gratitude. Yet, we see that other prophets refused gifts and sometimes accepted them, as with Elisha toward Naaman and the Shunammite woman. These are distinguished because in one he recognied a sale and for the other he recognized that there was no sale, but a desire to meet his needs. “Thus it remains firm: to give and accept gifts for the gifts of the Holy Spirit and for spiritual things, as a wage for such spiritual things or for profit, is mere Simony, and it pertains to the irreverence, contempt, and overthrow of divine worship.”³⁷Zanchi, Tractatus de Redemptione, IV.17.4 (col. 500).

Proverbs 23:23—Sell Not Wisdom

English translations of Solomon’s verse render it as a paired imperative: “Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (Prov. 23:23). The Vulgate keeps both imperatives but attaches the notion of sale directly to wisdom and its companions: “Buy truth, and do not sell wisdom, and instruction, and understanding” (veritatem eme, et noli vendere sapientiam, et doctrinam, et intelligentiam). Modern readers typically take the verse as a warning against parting with wisdom once acquired, but the medieval tradition, reading the Vulgate, more often heard in it a prohibition on charging for wisdom in the first place.³⁸In dividing up the several categories of spiritual things, Peraldus wrote, “Some are called spiritual because by them the Holy Spirit is possessed, as knowledge and virtue are. For by knowledge he is possessed insofar as he illuminates, and therefore knowledge is forbidden to be sold. In Proverbs 23[:23] it is said: ‘Do not sell wisdom, teaching, and understanding.’” William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (p. 114).

Some, like William of Auxerre, extended the prohibition to knowledge of every kind, the liberal arts included, holding that to buy or sell any science whatsoever is simoniacal, the gravity of this sin being proportional to the nobility of the discipline.³⁹William of Auxerre, Summa Aurea, III, tr. 21, cap. 3, q. 2 (fol. 229vb–230ra). Others felt the force of the verse keenly enough to defend the practice of the schools on a careful distinction: masters did not sell wisdom itself, but only the labor of teaching it, which could be remunerated like any other work.⁴⁰E.g., Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, ad 8. The distinction is taken up in Chapter 8, ↗. Others were more explicit in narrowing the verse’s application, concluding from it a prohibition specifically on charging for theological or moral instruction, where the subject matter is most plainly spiritual.⁴¹E.g., Courson, Summa, 10.3 (fol. 47va).

Even apart from this more extreme reading, the principle that what is permissible to buy is permissible to sell required that the first clause of the verse (“buy truth”) be understood coordinately. Since Proverbs 17:16 says that the fool cannot buy wisdom though he has riches, the purchase cannot be made with money; it is a “spiritual purchase,” and its price is the seeking, since wisdom offers itself to whoever will have it.⁴²Prov. 4:7; {Alexander of Hales}, Summa Halensis, II-II, Inq. 3, Tract. 8, S. 1, Q. 3, T. 2, C. 4, A. 3, probl. 2. Wisdom is only to be bought with wisdom, and the fool cannot buy it “because he does not have it.”⁴³William of Auxerre, Summa Aurea, III, tr. 21, cap. 3, q. 2 (fol. 229vb–230ra).

Conclusion

Beneath the variety of passages surveyed here, two concerns recur. The first is the gratuity of grace; what God gives without price cannot be received, held, or transferred on any other terms. The second is the limited authority of the minister; he handles what is not his to sell.

The modern reader will find these arguments uneven in their force. The dominical command of Matthew 10:8 and the stewardship language of 1 Corinthians 4:1 carry their weight on the surface of the text, and the definitional argument from Romans 11:6—that purchased grace ceases to be grace—asks nothing of the reader beyond the meaning of the word. The application of the temple cleansing requires more of the reader to consider the Holy Spirit’s purpose in inspiring the particular images recorded. Jerome’s observations about the prophets rely on the didactic undercurrent of Micah 3:11, but also a pointed omission in the text: the gifts brought to Samuel and to Ahijah are recorded where their acceptance is not. The argument from Proverbs 23:23 rests on a literal understanding of “sell,” on a figurative understanding of “buy” in the same verse, and in part, on the Vulgate’s particular wording.

Regardless of the force of any single text, the cumulative case represented by the tradition is substantial. Read together, these passages testify that spiritual things are not for sale.