Something Annexed to a Spiritual Thing

Our definition of simony forbids the buying or selling of anything “annexed” to a spiritual thing. Given that we are using the exact definition of Aquinas, a couple of notes on our translation of the phrase “spirituali annexum” may be helpful.

First, the more literal rendering of the Latin is not “something annexed to a spiritual thing,” but simply “a spiritual annex,” as we will occasionally use throughout this chapter. The “annex” in this context refers to the object to which the spiritual thing has been joined. The fact that this annex is “spiritual” identifies it as having been joined with a spiritual thing.

Second, a number of translations use the word “connected,” but more traditional ones—as ours here—render it “annexed.” This is to be preferred not only because it is the etymological cognate of the Latin term (annexum), but also because it better captures the sense. To be connected might suggest some kind of loose association or juxtaposition, but to be annexed describes a joining together of two into that which becomes functionally one.

For example, many nations are connected to other lands in various geographical and political senses, but when a nation annexes a territory, that region joins with the nation in such a way that one cannot attack it without attacking the nation itself. It is similar with spiritual annexes. One cannot sell something annexed to a spiritual thing without selling the spiritual thing itself. Thus, both are regarded as simony.

Distinctions

Once again, several distinctions will help us understand the notion of a spiritual annex.

Annex vs. Cause

In the preceding chapter, we distinguished between the essence of spiritual things and another thing which functions as its cause. In some ways, this may seem to be identical to the notion of an annex. Indeed, Wycliffe found the term “spiritual things” to be sufficient, preferring not to add on “spiritual annexes” since they are conceptually similar.¹Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (3:8–13). However, he appears to be unique in this regard.

The vast majority of theologians who addressed the topic considered the notion of spiritual annexes to be a helpful category.²E.g., Ames, Conscience, 5.229. These are distinguished from causes of spiritual things in that an annex is one step removed from the notion of a cause. In the words of Aquinas, “some things are spiritual in their own right, such as the sacraments and other things of this kind; however, certain things are called spiritual from the fact that they adhere to such things.”³Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 6.

For example, consider a minister who would provide and officiate baptism freely but only upon purchase of a baptism certificate. The baptism itself is the cause of a spiritual benefit, but the certificate has been joined to baptism, its purpose and value being determined thereby. Baptism is therefore a spiritual thing while the certificate is a spiritual annex.

Dependent vs. Directed

It may appear at first that there are many things annexed to spiritual things that may be sold without charge of simony. For example, church property—whether the land, or the building, or furniture, etc.—is all connected to the worship of God.

However, there are two modes of annexation, one being of more consequence for charges of simony. Something can be annexed to a spiritual thing by being “dependent” (dependens) on that thing, or by being “directed” (ordinatum) to that thing.⁴Ibid., II-II, q. 100, a. 4; Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1. In the case of church property like the land, building, or furniture, these things are merely directed to spiritual things. That is, they are being used for the purpose of worship, etc., but these may be bought and sold so long as it is not for reason of the spiritual.⁵See {Astesanus of Asti}, Summa de Casibus, VI, tit. 55, q. 1 (fol. 165r). Other things are annexed as dependent on a spiritual thing, such as the work of opening the temple doors (Mal. 1:10).⁶Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 3, d.a.c. 1. While this activity is itself merely physical, its importance and value are entirely dependent on sacred activity inside. Furthermore, to access the altar, one must go through the doors, so it would be forbidden to charge for the opening of the doors. On this point, many appealed to a decretal ostensibly of Paschal I:⁷The passage is in fact excerpted from the Epistola Widonis, an anti-simony polemic of the eleventh century. Canonists transmitted it as a decretal of Paschal I, Friedberg, ed., Corpus Iuris Canonici, 1:357n24; the true identity of its author remains uncertain, West, The Simony Crisis. “just as the soul does not live corporeally without the body, whoever sells one of the two, without which the other cannot be had, leaves neither of them unsold.”⁸E.g., Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 3, c. 7; Lombard, Libri IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, c. 4 (p. 910); Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 4; Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25.

Presupposing vs. Preceding

Aquinas offered an additional way to distinguish annexation by dependence or direction by specifying that the second form features a temporal ordering. Those things which are directed toward a spiritual thing precede it. For example, the land a church is built on precedes its use for the congregation. A pastoral salary, on the other hand—inasmuch as it truly is for honor of clergy—presupposes the spiritual office. It is conceptually dependent on the office since any who receive it become clergy and any who become clergy receive it.

The Puritan William Ames described annexes as things so adjoined to a spiritual function or office that they “go before, accompany, or follow after it, that they can no ways be separated from it.”⁹Ames, Conscience, 5.229. However, his description of variable ordering does not undermine the other. In speaking of things which might go before a spiritual thing, he did not refer to an independent existence, but that which might be received before the performance of a spiritual service.

Applications

In the literature, a number of examples make repeated appearances to illustrate the nature and boundaries of annexation. While a number of the assumed premises may not be agreeable to a Protestant audience, the important thing to note is the application of the principles of annexation to the premises rather than the premises themselves.

Consecrated Things

Among the most frequently discussed applications of annexation is the case of consecrated things—vessels, buildings, and land that have been blessed and set apart for sacred use. Because these things are directed toward holy purposes, they are annexed to spiritual things, constraining the terms under which they may be appropriately sold.

Church vessels that are consecrated—e.g., chalices and trays for the Eucharist—may not be sold. However, the material that composes them may be sold for a proper cause.¹⁰Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 4, ad 2; Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, In sententias theologicas (Redactio C), IV, d. 25, q. 3 (fol. 315r); John of Freiburg, Summa confessorum, I, tit. 1, q. 16 (fol. 2vb). Breaking them first, in order to desecrate them, was typically recommended to guarantee that they are being sold as merely material things.¹¹{Thomas of Strasbourg}, Commentaria in IIII Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 1, a. 4 (fol. 150r); Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, resp. (p. 93a). On this point, many appeal to Ambrose, who practiced the same.¹²Ambrose, De Officiis Ministrorum, 2.28.136 (pp. 167–68). He enumerated three purposes—redeeming captives, building churches, and enlarging burial grounds—for which “it is lawful to break, melt down, and sell even the consecrated vessels of the church.”¹³Ibid., 2.28.142 (p. 170); cf. ibid., 2.28.143 (p. 170).

Church buildings and land function similarly to consecrated vessels. They are directed toward holy purposes such that upon consecration, they may not be sold. However, properly desecrated, they may be sold. Aquinas explained, “It is also lawful now to sell or buy the land where a church formerly stood, in a case of necessity: just as was said concerning the material of sacred vessels.”¹⁴Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 4, ad 3. The implication seems to be that just as with vessels, the church would need to be destroyed in order for the material and land to be sold. English writings maintained a concern over the sale of church property, but the debate ceased to be framed in terms of simony but rather in terms of sacrilege.¹⁵E.g., Warner, Church-Lands Not to Be Sold, ch. 5 (p. 15ff.).

Burial grounds—a cemetery or tomb—are likewise directed toward a sacred use. If unconsecrated land is sold for the purpose of being put to holy use, it is permitted. If the land is sold at a certain value on account of it being holy, it is simony.¹⁶See Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 3, ad 2. Abraham’s purchase of the tomb of the patriarchs from Ephron the Hittite (Gen. 23) provided a common example for consideration among the schoolmen. Because Abraham bought the land as an ordinary piece of ground, and Ephron sold it as an ordinary piece of ground, no simony was committed, though it could not be made subject to sale afterward.¹⁷Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 4; Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 147ra); Gratian, Decretum, C. 13, q. 2, c. 12–13. The burial site temporally precedes its use for burial, having its own value apart from any interment. Protestants who addressed the matter concurred with this judgment.¹⁸“Must Abraham therefore be called a Simoniac, since a burial place is among sacred things, and the buying or selling of sacred things is called Simony? But we have heard that the field that was bought was a secular thing, subject to an earthly lord. And the selling of a field is altogether a civil transaction. Therefore, Abraham did not sin when he bought the field and established a tomb there; otherwise, whatever is bought by Christians for necessary uses would be simoniacal—bread, meat, wine, all of which are turned to the use of the saints—which is absurd.” Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 25:31–34 (WA 43, 420:26–34). He continues by affirming the canon law and theologians who rejected selling such things as cemeteries after having been established for a sacred use. Ibid., 25:31–34 (WA 43, 420:35–40). See also, Spelman, De Sepultura, 2–4.

Benefices and Tithes

Two closely related applications of annexation are benefices and tithes. A benefice is an income attached to a spiritual office—the salary of a minister, potentially attended by other benefits. Tithes are the funds given by the people that are dedicated to the good of the church. These notions overlap since a benefice is typically constituted of tithes. Each is annexed to something spiritual, but on different grounds and in different ways.

A benefice is annexed to an ecclesiastical position, and it is annexed by dependence: one cannot buy the rights to the income without buying the office.¹⁹See Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 145v). In such an exchange, the spiritual office and the material sustenance have been so joined together that to trade in the one is to trade in the other. Commerce in benefices was condemned as simoniacal by both the medievals and later theologians.²⁰Quoting Gratian, Burton wrote, “Simony is committed both in respect of orders, and in respect of the benefice itself.” Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 2; cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 3, d.a.c. 1.

Tithes, on the other hand, are annexed to spiritual things on account of being dedicated to God and set apart for sacred purposes.²¹See Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 4, ad 3; William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (p. 114); The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 21. Theologians and canonists frequently objected to selling tithes²²E.g., Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 4; cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 3.—i.e., redirecting them from their proper purpose for the sake of money. Being annexed by direction rather than dependence, it may seem that there would be a way to dissolve that annexation, but this never appears to be entertained, perhaps on account of them not merely being dedicated for a particular use, but actually having been given to God.

The authors at issue here wrote under an established church, where the term “tithes” typically refers to funds compelled by civil law rather than given voluntarily. In other words, they are functionally a tax imposed by the civil magistrate. Since the agency in such dedication of resources is thereby complicated, this matter was debated extensively, at least in the English system. John Milton was arguably the loudest opponent of all such compulsory support for ministry, denouncing it as simony.²³Milton, Hirelings, 66–67. Wycliffe had similarly maintained that tithes ought to be voluntary and withheld from unworthy clergy.²⁴Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 5 (56:3–4). Ironically, in his defense of an imposed tithe, Thomas Hall observed that independent churches were more prudent in ensuring their own ministers were sufficiently provided for than those who relied on public funds.²⁵Hall, Sal Terrae, 107–8.

The Right of Patronage

When land carrying a right of patronage was sold, that right naturally transferred to the new owner. In other words, by purchasing the property, the buyer also acquired the power to nominate the cleric who would hold the associated office or benefice. On this question, the schoolmen typically concluded that such real estate transactions were not necessarily simony. The right of patronage was seen as a non-essential feature of the property. One who buys the land—so long as his intent is pure—does not attempt to purchase the right of patronage.²⁶E.g., Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 4; {Thomas of Strasbourg}, Commentaria in IIII Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 1, a. 4 (fol. 150r); William of Auxerre, Summa Aurea, III, tr. 21 (fol. 230ra–230rb). However, many only arrived at that conclusion after substantial deliberation and hesitation.²⁷See esp. Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 146vb).

On this point, the proto-Reformers differed. If the property comes with such spiritual powers, it cannot be sold apart from being divested of those associated privileges.²⁸Hus, O svatokupectví, 8.F; Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 3 (36:5–16). Wycliffe went as far as to suggest the abolishment of all rights of presentation, observing that the primitive church operated by congregational suffrage. While patrons should still exist and grant their endowments to the church, men should be appointed to church office by an election among the laity.²⁹Ibid., cap. 3 (36:19–30).

Regardless, this practice continued into the English Reformation, only to be opposed by some later Anglicans.³⁰Simony, 286; The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 29,34. In English ecclesiastical law, the operative right flowing from patronage—that of presenting a clerk to a vacant benefice—was termed an advowson. Part of the cause for concern was because the complexities of this mechanism permitted the Puritans to significantly advance their influence.³¹Willis, Simony: In Two Parts, 127–46. See also, Kirby, The Lay Feoffees. At the instigation of John Preston, the Feoffees for Impropriations pooled funds to purchase advowsons and install Puritan lecturers, ministers who preached outside of the primary services of the church. The saleable advowson entered its sunset in 1898, as a series of restrictions curtailed the transfer and use of the right of patronage.³²Benefices Act 1898. This process was completed only when the sale of advowsons was abolished altogether by the Patronage (Benefices) Measure 1986.

Certificates

Ceremonies of spiritual significance, such as ordinations or baptisms, often came with a certificate or letter of confirmation. These documents are annexed to the spiritual act they serve by dependence. The certificate only has meaning in light of the ceremony, and acquiring the certificate is necessary in order for the ceremony to be recognized as actually inducting someone into church membership or church office. Therefore, it is simony to charge for such certificates or anything pertaining to the certificates: ink, paper, the labor of producing it, etc.

In a synodal address in July 595, Gregory the Great provided this foundational prohibition:

Following the ancient rule of the fathers, I decree that nothing is ever to be received for ordinations, neither from the giving of the pallium, nor from the delivery of documents, nor from that which a new pretense born of ambition has devised under the name of a writing-tablet. For in ordaining a bishop, the pontiff lays on his hand; the minister reads the Gospel lesson; and the notary writes the letter of confirmation. And just as it is not fitting for the pontiff to sell the hand he lays on, so neither should the minister or the notary sell his voice or his pen in the ordination. Therefore for ordination, or for the pallium, or for documents and the writing-tablet, I entirely forbid the one who is to be ordained or who has been ordained to give anything. If anyone presumes to exact or seek anything under the name of profit from the aforesaid things, he shall be subject to guilt at the strict judgment of Almighty God.³³Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum, V.57a.5 (1, 364:23–365:8); cf. Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.1; Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 2, c. 4.

This passage became the standard authority on the subject. Many subsequent authors who addressed fees for ordination documents made reference to this particular letter.

This prohibition was nonetheless widely flouted. Wycliffe gave the following picture of fees exacted for ordination: “the clerk of the pontiff who inscribes the name of the candidate, the barber even if he has not shaved the candidate—which is more astonishing—and the one presenting letters dimissory will not get them back until the tax has been paid to the devil, so that when all the simoniacal takings of the lesser ministers are collected, in the bishop’s annual ordination there accumulates a great heap of simony amounting to many pounds.”³⁴Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 6 (78:10–17). After appealing to the passage from Gregory, he explained that “infinite excuses could be fabricated” that one does not purchase a spiritual thing, apart from recognizing that “an exchange is made regarding the temporal thing annexed to it.”³⁵Ibid., cap. 6 (79:19–24).

Books

Books are likewise annexed to spiritual things. Often, the schoolmen spoke of them similarly to consecrated things, subject to the same rules.³⁶E.g., Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, resp. (p. 93a). Other times, they were described in relation as annexed merely to things of the human spirit.³⁷E.g., Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 146ra); Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio B), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 183rb). Rarely was the distinction between natural science and theology discussed in the context of concerns around the sale of books, but occasionally it was addressed indirectly.

A quote from Richard of Middleton provides a representative example: “Concerning things annexed to spiritual things with reference to the human spirit, it can be said that things annexed to teaching of natural philosophy—such as schools, books, and similar things—can be sold as far as common law is concerned, unless the church supplied such things to a teacher for the instruction of clerics; in that case, he would not be permitted to exact any price for them.”³⁸{Richard of Middleton}, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 3, q. 3 (p. 388a). Richard positively asserted that the books “annexed to teaching of natural philosophy” (annexa doctrine physice) may be sold. He seemed to be operating on the assumption that this describes all books, implying that different rules may apply to books of theology. However, it is not clear what these rules would be; perhaps they are the same as his stated rules on books dedicated by the church for the education of clergy, treated as consecrated things with the aforementioned constraints.

Several of the English Reformers commented on the sale of books as well, albeit not frequently in the context of defining simony.³⁹The historian Thomas Fuller explicitly rejected that selling books constituted simony, giving examples of several famous theologians who doubled as their own publishers, Fuller, The Church-History of Britain, 8.36 (p. 36). In identifying books as only being holy in a sense of being directed to a particular use, the Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs likened it to special days of thanksgiving or fasting: they are made holy by their use, not by any inherent property. The day has no inherent holiness and is set apart by man for God rather than directly by God himself. Similarly, the paper that makes up a book has no inherent holiness.⁴⁰With days of thanksgiving or fasting, “there is a holiness in them when out of their use, as in ministers etc., but there no more holiness in days and times set apart by man for God, than there is holiness put upon the paper which the Bible is printed upon; the printer takes out so many reams of paper from his heap, and sets them apart to print the Bible; now will any man think this paper is more holy than the rest.” Burroughs, Hosea 4–7, 661. The Puritan Benjamin Needler used books as an illustration to explain the financial maintenance of ministers. The gospel cannot be put to sale, but Bibles can because you are not selling the truth but the cover, paper, and binding. Similarly, when one supports a minister, he is not buying the truth that the minister gives.⁴¹“But is it not a wicked thing to set the gospel to sale? Yes, without question: but pray mark, you say sometimes you have bought a Bible; the truth is, a Bible in some sense cannot be said to be bought; what then do we buy? I answer, you buy the cover and the paper, and the binding, and the printing, but the Bible itself is God’s gift: So people do not buy the gospel, nor ministers sell it.” Needler, Genesis, 136–37.

All of the foregoing addresses the sale of physical books as annexed to theological doctrine rather than sale of their contents or the labor involved in their authorship. Such concerns over the sale of theological training were implicitly addressed in the previous chapter under the heading of Teaching, but by way of demonstration, consider one historian’s summary evaluation of the author’s ethos through the time of the Reformation:

Until the middle of the eighteenth century it was considered bad manners to write for remuneration instead of for reputation. Up to that time only a few writers had ever received a fee from their publishers; and if they received it they were anxious to hide the fact. Erasmus, for instance, was deeply hurt when some Italian colleagues hinted that Aldus Manutius had paid him for a book; and he violently defended himself against similar insinuations on the part of Hutten and others. Luther never received so much as a farthing for his hundreds of books and pamphlets. Thomas Murner, the Roman Catholic pamphleteer, seems to have been the first to receive a fee for his Geuchmatt in 1514.⁴²Steinberg, Five Hundred Years of Printing, 145.

An especially notable example can be found in the life of Luther. In 1539, the printers of Wittenberg offered him a supplemental salary that would have tripled his annual income, all merely for the opportunity to be the first to publish his new works—exclusive rights did not exist at the time. Luther rejected the offer; he would not, he said, sell his grace. Remarking on how God had amply provided so that he never needed to resort to such measures, he continued, “I have all my life never sold a single copy [of my writings] nor held a lecture for a fee; and I mean to take that boast with me into the grave, God willing. Having food and clothing, I shall be content.”⁴³Luther, Tischreden, no. 4690 (WA TR 4, 431:27–432:11); cf. Pettegree, Brand Luther, 279.

Price as a Discernment Mechanism

Frequently, the cost of something would be used to either discern or remove doubts of annexation. While true annexation is fundamentally a matter of dependence, whether one can be had without the other, the price often makes the nature of the relationship evident. For the lesser form of annexation—temporal objects directed to spiritual uses—costs beyond the value of the material thing indicate that the spiritual thing is intended in the sale. In the words of Thomas of Strasbourg, “the sale of that which is annexed to a spiritual thing does not constitute simony unless it is sold insofar as it is annexed—that is, if in the sale regard is had to the spiritual thing, and on account of such annexation the temporal thing is sold more dearly.”⁴⁴{Thomas of Strasbourg}, Commentaria in IIII Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 1, a. 4, qc. 1, ad 5 (fol. 150v); cf. ad 4; Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, resp. (p. 93a).

Numerous examples can be given. This applies to the cost of consecrated vessels matching the cost of the metal that composes them,⁴⁵Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, In sententias theologicas (Redactio C), IV, d. 25, q. 3 (fol. 315r). consecrated water being sold at the same price as regular water,⁴⁶Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 5, q. 3 (p. 91a). land with the right of patronage being sold at the same rate as any other land,⁴⁷Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, In sententias theologicas (Redactio C), IV, d. 25, q. 3 (fol. 315r); Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 4 (p. 317a). etc. Wycliffe asserted that excessively high prices for blessings and consecrations indicate that it is the spiritual thing that is being sold rather than any effort on the part of the bishop.⁴⁸“Nor is it valid to say that the bishop’s bodily labor in this is more valuable than so much labor of a layman, because this would have no color [plausibility] except on account of the spiritual thing annexed; and consequently, since so excessive a price is taken on account of it, it seems that principally it is the spiritual thing that is being sold so dearly.” Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 6 (74:32–75:4). Hus observed the same regarding steep and widely varying prices for letters confirming an ordination.⁴⁹“But if one were to insist that the document must be paid for, then I say: a letter costs two pennies; why then must one pay two kopy, another five, another four? No one can truly say that the paper, or the wax, or the writing costs so much; and they give nothing beyond those things except spiritual power. How then can it truly be said that they do not sell that power for money? And that the letter is not so costly is proved by the fact that when he receives it, he afterward throws it in a corner or in the mud.” Hus, O svatokupectví, 7.B.

Positive Law Simony

A second way annexation can be considered beyond those already addressed is in terms of positive law (ius positivum). That is, can temporal things be annexed to spiritual things merely by human regulations?⁵⁰Some historians have framed the term annexation as chiefly addressing this category of human regulation. E.g., Leinz, Die Simonie, 11–12, 39. We might restate the question using several distinctions, such as the difference between something that is intrinsically wrong (malum in se) vs. extrinsically wrong (malum prohibitum). However, the typical scholastic approach on this topic was to contrast things prohibited because they are simoniacal (prohibita quia simoniaca) vs. things simoniacal because they are prohibited (simoniaca quia prohibita).⁵¹E.g., Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio B), d. 25, q. 3 (fol. 185vb).

The general consensus is that the laws of the church do not have the power to make something simony. A number of discussions on this go back to Durandus of Saint-Pourçain. Within a larger discussion on the matter, he wrote, “the prohibition of the law does not change the natures of things so as to make what is temporal spiritual or vice versa; therefore where there is no simony from the nature of the thing, there cannot be simony from the prohibition of the law.”⁵²Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, In sententias theologicas (Redactio C), IV, d. 25, q. 5 (fol. 318r). A minority willingly acknowledged a second species of simony merely by church law, though categorically lesser.⁵³E.g., “another is simony from the prohibition of the church […] such as the exchange of some temporal thing annexed to a spiritual.” {Henry of Ghent}, Quodlibeta, VI, q. 26 (fol. 247v); “this chapter [ruling that penance suffices without restitution] is to be restricted to simony prohibited by the constitution of the church.” Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentaria, ad X 5.3.46 (fol. 83rb). For example, the confessors’ manuals determined that positive law simony required a pact to incur guilt, rather than being established by the will alone.⁵⁴E.g., John of Freiburg, Summa confessorum, I, tit. 1, q. 5 (fol. 1va).

The most comprehensive English-language treatment of this question appears to exist in a tract written by John Cawley, Archdeacon of Lincoln, after his conviction for simony for letting out his archidiaconal jurisdiction to a layman under a yearly pension. Cawley marshaled Durandus and others to defend himself, arguing that his offense was only wrong because it was prohibited (malum prohibitum), not prohibited because it was wrong (prohibitum quia malum).⁵⁵Cawley, Nature and Kinds of Simony, 2–3. Further, he saw his penalty as a continuing tyranny of Rome that managed to work its way into the assumptions of the English Church.⁵⁶Ibid., 3. Later, upon petition, he was reinstated by the crown.

Luther decried the expansion of the definition of simony merely on the basis of human law: “And now to the Papists ‘spiritual goods’ means revenues, taxes, buildings, towns, and territories, which are entirely political things.”⁵⁷Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 23:3–4 (WA 43, 280:11–12). He considered these things to be “a most perverse abuse and horrible blindness in Canon law in the disputations about simony.”⁵⁸Ibid., 23:3–4 (WA 43, 280:16–17). He further gibed that while the Pope was guilty of violating his own laws in seizing physical properties, “our teaching frees him from his own books and decrees and absolves him from the crime of simony.”⁵⁹Ibid., 23:3–4 (WA 43, 280:42–281:2). On this count, Luther offered the following consolation: “we absolve the Pope from this crime according to the true definition, in which he has entangled himself by his own law: because he does not sell spiritual things—properly so called—for he does not have them.”⁶⁰Ibid., 23:3–4 (WA 43, 281:6–8).

Conclusion

The category of spiritual annexes extends the prohibition of simony beyond the sale of spiritual things themselves to include temporal things so joined to them that one cannot be sold without the other. As we have seen, annexation principally comes in the mutually exclusive categories of being annexed by way of dependence or by way of direction, although some have argued for a third category in positive law simony. Standard examples of spiritual annexes include consecrated things, benefices, land with rights of patronage, certificates, and books. In each case, the central question is whether the temporal thing was so bound with a spiritual thing that the latter could not be acquired apart from the former.