Something Spiritual

Because many modern readers know “simony” as a term for the purchase of church office, they may be surprised to learn its classic definition is much broader. Rather than eclipsing every other category, commerce in ordinations falls under the same heading as the sale of sacraments, of prayer, of preaching, and of teaching, which together receive comparable attention.

Pre-Reformation works supply many definitions to this effect, but an initial demonstration may be made from an early Protestant work. In his Loci, the Lutheran scholar Johann Gerhard contended against the Jesuit Robert Bellarmine on the nature of ordinations. Bellarmine argued that ordination must be a sacrament since selling ordination would be simony, but according to Gerhard, this is an insufficient proof since simony is constituted not merely in the sale of sacraments but in the sale of any spiritual thing whatsoever.¹“cujusvis rei spiritualis” Gerhard, Loci Theologici, 23.3.12.150. In the words of one Lollard preacher, if one sells “any ghostly [spiritual] thing, he errs and doth simony.”²Foxe, Actes and Monuments, 5.468.

If simony pertains to any spiritual thing, the natural question arises: what exactly constitutes a “spiritual thing”? To answer this, we will first lay the necessary foundations by examining the distinctions theologians developed to identify a spiritual thing, and then put those foundations to work by surveying the concrete categories to which they have been applied.

Distinctions

We must now proceed according to the scholastic maxim: qui bene distinguit, bene docet—he who distinguishes well, teaches well. These distinctions mark the boundaries of definition for spiritual things.

Created vs. Uncreated

First, the term “spiritual” is not a synonym for “immaterial.” Even ideas themselves are spiritual in the broader sense of being immaterial, and yet if there is any sin in trafficking in such things, it belongs to a different category of concern. For example, it is sinful to provide a civil judgment for a bribe, though such an activity is not strictly sacrilegious.

Rather, in the context of concerns around simony, a thing is “spiritual” insofar as it is a supernatural grace of the Holy Spirit. Parallel vocabulary from soteriology is instructive: we speak of our union with Christ as being “legal” and “spiritual.” The former most immediately effects our justification as our identity with Christ is forensically declared by the Father, and the latter most immediately effects our sanctification as our ingrafting into him is organically wrought by the Holy Spirit. Both these unions are spiritual as regards their immateriality, but only the latter is termed “spiritual” on account of the Spirit’s agency.

The schoolmen distinguished that which is of the Holy Spirit (a spiritu increato) from those things of men and angels (a spiritu creato).³See Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 318b). The former includes saving graces, while the latter encompasses the natural endowments and products of the rational soul. For this reason, in the passage mentioned earlier, Gerhard observed that when any spiritual thing is sold, the Holy Spirit himself is considered to be sold.⁴Gerhard, Loci Theologici, 23.3.12.150.

Right vs. Fact

In discussions about the ability to engage in commerce, a distinction needs to be made between authority and power. When denying that some spiritual thing may be subject to sale, theologians are usually denying that it is morally permitted to buy and sell a thing, but sometimes they are denying that it is possible to sell it at all. Such a thing cannot be sold by right (de jure) or in fact (de facto).⁵See Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 318b).

This is the case with all spiritual things, most properly speaking. Whether things of the uncreated Spirit or things of created spirits, as such things cannot be physically manipulated, they cannot be transferred from one person to another. Neither virtues, nor knowledge, nor any kind of grace actually transmits from one to another when money changes hands. As Martin Luther remarked, “in reality simony is impossible, but in pretense it is most common.”⁶Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 23:3–4 (WA 43, 282:8–9).

Yet this requires us to expand our definition of “spiritual things” beyond those things which are properly spiritual in themselves, otherwise Simon Magus himself escapes the charge of simony. Not only did the sorcerer fail to purchase the gift of the Spirit because of Peter’s obstruction, he also failed because nothing of the Spirit—strictly speaking—may be bought in any sense, either ethically or metaphysically. When Peter denied that Simon could buy the Spirit with money, he did not merely rebuke his activity but declared it futile, such an exchange being impossible (Acts 8:20).

Essence vs. Cause

Things may be spiritual either by essence (per essentiam) or by cause (per causam). Things like grace and virtues are themselves spiritual things and cannot be properly sold. However, other things like the sacraments are identified as “spiritual” on account of their spiritual effects. These, having an outward physical presence, can be sold.⁷Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 3; Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, Aureum Sacrae Theologiae Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia, 1; Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 318b); Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 5, resp. (p. 93a). John Major dismissed these categories in his earlier edition (Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 145va)) but affirmed them in his later one (Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio B), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 183ra)).

For example, someone who sells an ordinance such as baptism is not capable of selling the grace of baptism itself but, by selling the act of baptizing, commits simony. Note that while Peter accused Simon of desiring to traffic in the Holy Spirit, Simon specifically sought to buy—and presumably sell—the physical act of laying on hands.

To Protestant ears, the notion of causing a spiritual thing may suggest the conferring of grace ex opere operato, but this is not intended by the distinction. Rather, it speaks of causes in a more abstract sense as those things which are instrumental in bringing about an effect. The Reformed followed suit in affirming this distinction.⁸Ames, Conscience, 5.229.

Some might regard the sale of such things as either a lesser form of simony or not simony at all, since corporeal signs are not themselves spiritual but one step removed from spiritual things. On the contrary, because outward signs can actually be sold unlike grace itself, it is the worst form of simony.⁹“Imo istud est pessimum genus Simoniae” Auriol, Commentarius in Sent., IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166a).

Of course, no one actually intends to buy something that is spiritual in itself; the simoniacal purchaser always intends to buy some outward operation of a minister as a “sacramental cause of a spiritual reality.”¹⁰Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 3, ad 3. The point in describing the cause as “sacramental” is not to imply that the only thing that could be sold would be a sacrament, properly speaking. Rather, the point is that the purchase occurs in order to receive some grace of the Spirit.

Principle vs. End

A related distinction applies to spiritual actions. An act may be called spiritual either as to its principle, that is, its source (ex parte principii)—belonging to someone from a spiritual gift or office—or as to its end (ex parte finis)—as when something spiritual is attained by means of it. For example, a minister’s work of administering the sacraments is spiritual as to its principle since it proceeds from a spiritual office. However, the giving of alms is spiritual only as to its end. While it has the design of charity, giving money is not itself a spiritual thing.¹¹See ibid., IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 2; Aquinas, Quodlibet, VIII, q. 6, a. 1 (p. 175).

These two categories carry different consequences for commerce. In acts that are spiritual as to their principle, no one may contract to receive anything for performing them without simony. In acts spiritual only as to their end, one may buy and sell the acts themselves because they are not inherently spiritual. For example, one may guiltlessly hire another to distribute alms on his behalf. However, it would be simony for one holding ministerial office to sell his service by arranging for the administration of a sacrament by contract.

Applications

The foregoing distinctions may risk leaving an overly abstract impression of “spiritual things.” To give the category concrete shape, we will survey principal examples of those things to which the label has been applied.

Sacraments

As already observed, sacraments are spiritual things. The prohibition against charging for the sacraments is among the oldest and most frequently repeated injunctions in the history of the church. As early as the Synod of Elvira (c. 305), clergy were formally forbidden from accepting a fee for baptism.¹²Migne, ed., Synod of Elvira, can. 48 (PL 84:307B). In the fifth century, Gelasius I prohibited asking for compensation for baptism or confirmation.¹³Gelasius I, Epistolae, 14.5; cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 99. The Eleventh Council of Toledo (675) extended the prohibition to cover baptizing, confirming, conferring chrism, and ordination.¹⁴Migne, ed., Eleventh Council of Toledo, c. 8 (PL 84:461D–462B); cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 101. Chrism frequently appears in lists of things forbidden to sell.¹⁵Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.8, 16, 21, 36; Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, cc. 101–2, 105–6.

Thomas Aquinas devoted an article to the question of “whether it is always unlawful to give money for the sacraments,” handling a number of objections to the thesis.¹⁶Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 2. Early Protestant Thomas Becon drove the point home by contrasting the sale of the Lord’s supper with the nature of its institution: “Whereas Christ at his supper gave the sacrament of his body and blood freely to his disciples, ye sell your masses, and make merchandise of the sacrament, as the costardmonger doth of his costards and of his other fruits.”¹⁷Becon, Displaying of the Popish Mass, 283. A “costard” is a type of apple.

Ordinations

The sale of ordinations was the most prominent form of simony in patristic and medieval writings. Such activity carries great potential for corruption. If one is willing to sell an ordination, he has no reason to withhold it from unqualified men. If one is willing to purchase his ordination, he cares not for true honor and would as readily corrupt the word and sell the sacraments. One may even conclude that “of all other kinds of simony, this is the most pernicious and damnable.”¹⁸Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 47. This focus in the literature left such an impression that today, many are unaware that the term “simony” refers to anything other than the purchase and sale of ordinations.

The Apostolic Canons—a fourth-century work of Syrian origin—declares, speaking in the voice of the apostles, “If any bishop obtains possession of that dignity by money, or a presbyter or deacon, let him be deposed, both he and the one who ordained him, and let him be cut off entirely from communion as well, as Simon Magus was by me, Peter.”¹⁹Funk, ed., Canones Apostolorum, can. 29 (p. 572). Similarly, the Council of Chalcedon (451) stipulated that when money changes hands for an ordination, both the ordainer and the ordained must forfeit their rank.²⁰Schwartz, ed., Canones Concilii Chalcedonensis, can. 2 (ACO II.2.2, 125); cf. Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 113. In the early church, none can compare to Gregory the Great, whose fight against simoniacal ordinations was persistent. In a homily delivered at the Lateran on March 11, 591, he made his first known use of the term “simoniacal heresy”: “I speak in grief to you who are bishops, because we have learned that some of you make ordinations for payment, sell spiritual grace, and heap up temporal gains from others’ iniquities at the cost of sin. […] the sacred canons condemn the simoniacal heresy and command that those who seek a price for conferring orders be deprived of the priesthood.”²¹Gregory I, Homiliae in Evangelia, 17.13 (p. 109).

At the beginning of the classical period of canon law, Gratian devoted eight consecutive canons to simoniacal ordination, drawing primarily from Gregory the Great’s letters and homilies for his authority.²²Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, cc. 113–20. At the end of that period, the Liber extra opens its De Simonia with Gregory’s synodical prohibition and returns to the question of ordinations repeatedly throughout its forty-six chapters.²³Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.1, 5, 18, 20, 22, 35, 37, 39, 45.

Canon law likewise addressed entry into orders that paralleled formal offices of the church. Entry into religious life—profession in a monastery, in a mendicant order, or in a house of canons—was deemed simony if it was granted for a price.²⁴Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 2. Lynch, Simoniacal Entry provided an exhaustive history of the question. For universities, similar laws governed admission into the ranks of masters. Because authority to teach in a university should be granted on merit alone, the sale of teaching licenses (licentia docendi) was banned,²⁵See Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.5.3. but in the particular case of theological teaching licenses, imposed fees were additionally labeled as simoniacal.²⁶E.g., Huguccio of Pisa, Summa Decretorum, D. 37, c. 12 (fol. 48rb); cf. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 2.83n50. Peter the Chanter took the charge a step beyond, applying it to licenses in the liberal arts as well on the ground that the arts prepare for theology.²⁷Ibid., 1.123; 2.83n51.

A related concern is simony in the resignation of an office. The medieval canonists addressed this in some measure, concluding that those who would renounce their title for a sum are guilty.²⁸E.g., “if a pact goes before […] that resignation is simoniacal.” Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus), Commentaria, ad X 5.3.8 (fol. 70rb). The seventeenth-century clergyman James Metford summarized the position: a resignation is only lawful provided one makes “no corrupt bargain, nor reserve no pension; for that would make the resignation unlawful both in law and conscience; as the canonists generally conclude.”²⁹Metford, A General Discourse of Simony, 79. Early in English Protestantism, William Tyndale observed hypocrisy in the matter and framed it thus: “it is simony to sell a benefice (as they call it) but to resign upon a pension and then to redeem the same, is no simony at all. Oh crafty jugglers and mockers with the word of God.”³⁰Tyndale, Obedience of a Christian Man, fol. 27r. Later literature more frequently addresses the notion of a bond of resignation, which established financial penalties for clergymen who would not resign when requested by their patron.³¹See Willis, Simony: In Two Parts, 123–25. Simon Degge observed that the difference between such a bond and outright payment is negligible: “for what difference is there between a bond expressly to pay money, and a bond to resign, which is to pay money, if the patron say, either pay me so much or resign, when all the world knows in such a case the parson must pay the money, or resign and be undone?”³²Degge, The Parson’s Counsellor, 50.

Marriage and Burials

Both marriage and burials frequently feature in lists of things for which charging would constitute simony.³³E.g., Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.8, 9, 29, 42; Hus, O svatokupectví, 7.H; Tyndale, Obedience of a Christian Man, fol. 77r. But it is not enough to know that medieval writings forbade selling such things; we must also know why they did so. The common pre-Reformation view of marriage and burials was sacramental; matrimony itself was regarded as a sacrament, and last rites were a series of sacraments administered to the dying. If these proscriptions were motivated by their sacramental nature, then we are not observing anything more than we have already with baptism and communion. If they were motivated by something more, then the nature of spiritual things may be further elucidated.

Regarding marriage, scholastic theologians acknowledged that marriage is established in nature itself, and therefore reciprocal transactions made in its context—whether for a dowry, a civil officiant’s fee, or the like—may be perfectly valid.³⁴“Marriage is not only a sacrament but also an office of nature. Therefore, on the side on which it is a sacrament, […] he commits simony who exacts money for the blessing of those marrying. But on the side on which it is an office of nature, nothing prevents accepting a price for marriage.” Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 1, ad 2. However, in the ceremony of Christian marriage, there is something spiritual that is given. While the literature addresses the sacramental nature of marriage, almost always the remarks turn to the distinct notion of the blessing of nuptials. On account of selling that spiritual blessing, the priest who would officiate for a price commits simony. For example, Bonaventure, defending the practice of a dowry as being non-simoniacal, explained, “the spiritual character consists principally in the priestly blessing.”³⁵Bonaventure, Commentaria in Quatuor Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 26, q. 2 (p. 669). Later, he wrote, “grace is not given in the same manner as in the other sacraments, […] unless perhaps by reason of the added blessing, which would make the seller simoniacal.” Ibid., IV, d. 30, a. un., q. 3, ad 3 (p. 711).

Regarding burials, the concern often centered on the sale of the plot,³⁶This will be addressed in the next chapter, ↗. but canonists asserted that any associated religious service should be performed freely.³⁷Among others Hostiensis made the distinction of the use of the term “burial” (sepultura) to refer to the plot of land and the services performed in the process; the latter may not be sold. Hostiensis, Summa Aurea, ad X 3.28 (fol. 387rb). The English antiquary Henry Spelman invoked Hostiensis in the seventeenth century to argue that burial services must be given freely. Spelman, De Sepultura, 18–20. These services are not merely anything that might be considered sacramental, but even things like reading a psalter are included among that which must not be sold in the process.³⁸Hostiensis, Summa Aurea, ad X 5.3 (fol. 535ra). Those who would hold a body hostage for payment (funus arrestare) were plainly labeled simoniacs.³⁹E.g., Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 321a); Gratian, Decretum, C. 13, q. 2, c. 12; cf. Gregory I, Registrum Epistolarum, VIII.35. One story that appears repeatedly in later literature is that of Giovanni Maria Visconti, the fifteenth-century Duke of Milan who discovered a widow in distress with the corpse of her husband in her home because the priest refused to perform the burial service apart from payment. The duke commanded that the avaricious clergyman have a deep pit dug and, upon its completion, had him tossed in ahead of the body of the deceased, burying the living along with the dead.⁴⁰See Castiglione, Ricordi, 119. This appears to be the earliest telling in print.

Excommunication and Absolution

The church’s power to bind and loose—to discipline and restore—is spiritual. To sell the exercise of that power, or to sell its suspension, is therefore simoniacal. Activities wrongly exchanged for a fee may include concealing sin, restoring without due penance, or even restoring with due penance.⁴¹Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.14, 24. John Wycliffe observed that imposing an annual fine to punish sinners is an especially damnable simony.⁴²Wycliffe, Tractatus de Blasphemia, cap. 10 (153:21–30). Likewise, it is simoniacal to pay for an offense to be punished less severely.⁴³Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 320b).

This prohibition extends into the domain of ecclesiastical visitation—the formal process by which a bishop inspected a parish or diocese for needed corrections. To require or give money for this process was regarded as simony, although theologians and canonists had some allowance for fees to be required for the visitor’s board and lodging.⁴⁴Ibid., IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 320b); Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, Aureum Sacrae Theologiae Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia, 3. The Glossa ordinaria on the Decretum warns about “fraudulent” claims to such expenses, Johannes Teutonicus, Glossa Ordinaria, C. 1, q. 1, c. 115.

Prayer

Given our established distinctions, prayer is spiritual on a number of counts: principle and end,⁴⁵See Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 2, ad 2. essence and cause.⁴⁶See {Richard of Middleton}, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 3, q. 2, ad 8 (p. 387). Its efficacy derives from spiritual devotion, and its aim is a spiritual effect. Therefore, “prayer must not be made for money, but for God and on account of good affection.”⁴⁷Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 320b). Wycliffe described those who trade in prayers as “dull-witted merchants trading in shadows, as the sun is sinking toward evening.”⁴⁸Wycliffe, De Oracione et Ecclesie Purgacione, cap. 3 (347:13–14).

A question arises at this point regarding the practice of giving alms to the poor so that they will pray for the giver. The schoolmen occasionally provided justifications for this in their writing, similar to those given for indulgences: the money is not a payment in exchange for prayer, but an act of charity meant to give rise to prayer.⁴⁹E.g., Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 2, ad 2; Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 100, a. 3, ad 2.

However, this line of logic was rejected by the proto-Reformers and Reformers. Wycliffe described such subtleties as a mockery of God.⁵⁰Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 7 (86:12–28). In his Decades, Heinrich Bullinger addressed the monks and priests who would take a fee to pray: “I know what these word-jugglers bring forward here, and plead in defense of prayers hired out for a fee; but in a few words I set before them this knot to untie. These men who pray either have faith and charity or they do not: if they have them, they pray freely, out of charity; if they do not, their prayers are empty, and so with a false show they deceive the stupid crowd, which lays out its money for just prayers, while these men pay out unjust ones. And even if they were just, they were nonetheless neither to be sold nor to be bought.”⁵¹Bullinger, Decades, V.5 (foll. 311v–312r).

Preaching

Preaching is a spiritual thing. Therefore, the sale of sermons or the activity of preaching as such is forbidden. This has been the judgment of theologians from the early church to the Reformers. The literature raises fewer grievances against the sale of preaching than against other forms of simony, but still does so in abundant measure. And with minimal variation, the response has been that ministers must not charge for the proclamation of the word.

The early church spoke on the matter directly on a few occasions. The Didache warns of prophets who would expect payment for their message,⁵²Funk, ed., Didache (Doctrina duodecim apostolorum), 11.4–6, 12. and the Shepherd of Hermas warns that one who charges for his prophecy has an earthly spirit rather than the divine Spirit.⁵³“He takes payment for his prophesying, and if he does not receive it, he does not prophesy. Can a divine spirit, then, take payment and prophesy? A prophet of God cannot possibly do this; the spirit of such prophets is earthly.” Hermas, The Shepherd, Mand. 11.12. The schoolmen arrived at similar judgments. John Major, a Scottish master at Paris, appealed to Matthew 10:8 in his assertion that “it is simoniacal to accept anything for preaching.”⁵⁴Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 148ra). The word he used for “accept” (capere) might suggest a requirement/demand rather than a passive reception, but in context, he was constructing an argumentum a fortiori to forbid selling a church office. The argument from the lesser to the greater against all reception in exchange for church office only works if he is forbidding all reception in exchange for preaching.

The proto-Reformers concurred on this point.⁵⁵E.g., William Swinderby, Foxe, Actes and Monuments, 5.468. Jan Hus numbered preaching among the spiritual gifts the devil counsels priests to sell, casting the trade as a satanic inversion of Matthew 10:8.⁵⁶Hus, O svatokupectví, 7.H. In a sermon on the same text, Wycliffe preached: “For Christ says thus: You took of God freely, and therefore give freely your labor to the people; and then it shall be meritorious—and otherwise it is simony. And here the begging of preachers is forbidden by God, since it is a hidden selling of the preaching of God’s word.”⁵⁷Wycliffe, Sermons, serm. LXIV (1, p. 200). Elsewhere, he wrote similarly, “he bade not only preach to men that gave to them, but to all manner of men, without respect of persons. And so, in a quiet manner, Christ forbade simony and begging and covetousness to all his preachers. For as they freely took their knowledge from God, so should they freely deal it to the people.” Wycliffe, Of the Seven Deadly Sins, cap. IX (p. 130).

This prohibition was maintained by the Reformers. Luther argued that “True simony, therefore, is commerce exercised in the Word of God, in the Sacraments, in the Church, and in the Saints.”⁵⁸Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 25:31–34 (WA 43, 422:10–11). He commented to this effect often throughout his works, and in surprising places. On Psalm 104:12 (“the birds […] sing among the branches”), he remarked that preachers ought to preach without charging because “even the little birds sing for free.”⁵⁹Luther, Dictata super Psalterium, 103 (WA 4, 182:28–30).

The English heirs of the Reformation likewise identified the sale of preaching with the sin of Simon. As Thomas Manton said, “This is the true simony, to huck out the gospel, and sell our holy things.”⁶⁰Manton, Sermons upon the Eleventh Chapter, 13.456. Appealing to Proverbs 3:15 (“she is more precious than rubies”) and Acts 8 (Peter’s admonition of Simon Magus), Ralph Cudworth, in completing William Perkins’s commentary on Galatians, wrote that the sale of the preaching of the word is condemned by virtue of its pricelessness.⁶¹“the graces of God exhibited unto us in the preaching of the word are so precious that they cannot be valued at any price, all earthly things a man can desire, are not to be compared to them, as the wise man saith; therefore Peter said to Simon Magus, ‘Thy money perish with thee, because thou thinkest that the gift of God may be obtained by money.’” Cudworth, The Supplement, 537. His contemporaries identified the sale of the word of God as simony, most often in the context of preaching.⁶²E.g., Baxter, A Christian Directory, 4.19.2.34 (p. 119). English authors also occasionally spoke of that simony that occurs when someone preaches with exceptional effort for the sake of praise or preferment.⁶³E.g., Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 42; Boston, A Soliloquy on Man-Fishing, 48–49.

Teaching

How far the foregoing proscriptions reach depends on how we interpret the vocabulary of “preaching” and “the word of God.” Taken narrowly, they govern the formal element of worship and evangelistic encounters, but many authors seem to apply these terms to doctrinal instruction more generally. Regardless, we may also turn to those sources that treat teaching more directly.

As early as the third century, Clement of Alexandria counted “the distributing of both teachings (δογμάτων) and money to those in need” among the sacrifices the true Christian offers.⁶⁴Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, VII.7.49.5 (GCS 17:37). In the following century, Aphrahat the Persian opened his Demonstrations by committing himself to freely teach the one who requests it.⁶⁵“For the things you have asked of me were given freely, and freely they are received as well; and if anyone who has them wishes to withhold them from one who asks, whatever he refuses to give is taken away from him. Whoever receives freely ought to give freely.” Aphrahat, Demonstrationes, 1.1 (PS 1.1:6); cf. ibid., 10.8 (PS 1.1:460–64).

Medieval writings directly identified the sale of doctrinal instruction as simony.⁶⁶A minority identified the sale of any teaching as simony on the claim that knowledge is immediately a gift from God and that the Holy Spirit teaches all things (John 14:26), William of Auxerre, Summa Aurea, III, tr. 21 (fol. 229vb–230ra). According to Geoffrey of Poitiers, the one who teaches theology for a price sells the word of God and falls under the curse of Jeremiah 48:10 (“Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord fraudulently”).⁶⁷“Concerning the master who teaches for the sake of pence, it is asked whether he falls under this curse [the malediction of Jeremiah 48:10, under discussion in the surrounding questions]. We say that if he does not act out of avarice or vainglory, he does not. But of theologians it is said otherwise, since they are publice persone—public persons—and their lecturing bears witness to the truth. Therefore, since they are teachers of the word of God, it is not lawful for them to teach for a reward, lest they be found sellers of the word of God. […] Whence in Micah [3:11] the Lord, recounting other sins, says: ‘Their priests taught for hire.’” Geoffrey of Poitiers, Summa, 39va; cf. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 2.86n69. As was noted in the first chapter, this was first fully expressed by Robert of Courson in his Summa.⁶⁸“As to what Solomon says—‘Do not sell wisdom, doctrine, or understanding’—we say that he is speaking of the understanding, doctrine, and wisdom of spiritual or moral things, which proceed from the Spirit of wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. These things cannot be sold, as we have said before, by right.” Courson, Summa, 10.3 (fol. 47va); cf. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 2.86n70. There, he contended that not only theology, but all moral philosophy proceeds from the Spirit of wisdom, and therefore constitutes simony just as selling Scripture itself.⁶⁹“If anyone with this as his principal end consigns spiritual or moral things to a temporal use so as to gain advantage thereby, then just as simony is committed by the sale of manna—which signifies sacred Scripture—so also is simony committed by the sale of the flour carried in their cloaks from the land of Egypt, which signifies the moral teachings of the philosophers.” Courson, Summa, 10.4 (fol. 47va); cf. Baldwin, Masters, Princes, and Merchants, 2.86–87n71. A century later, Peter Paludanus relayed this as the received opinion, distinguishing between that which comes from man’s spirit and that which comes from the Holy Spirit. Though one cannot sell knowledge itself, one can charge for the act of teaching. However, when it comes to matters of theology—revelation that arises only from the Spirit—one cannot charge.⁷⁰“But there are other acts for which it is lawful to receive [payment] for labor, such as for teaching and other spiritual things from a created spirit. But for teaching itself, some say that it is not simony, because it is not by relation to the Holy Spirit, but to the human spirit; others say that it is. But regarding theology, it is seen as simony.” Paludanus, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 5 (p. 320b).

Peter Auriol explained this distinction:

But if we take a freely given grace [gratia gratis data; i.e., a spiritual gift]—for example preaching, teaching, and the like—either it will be taken with respect to the intrinsic act, and here no sale takes place, for I cannot sell you the habit of my knowledge; or it is taken with respect to the extrinsic act—for example the projection of the voice, the movement of the body, and the like—and thus in such things a sale does indeed fall out and have its place; and in this way teaching, counsel, testimony, and the like are sold, and all of these turn out to be sinful.⁷¹Auriol, Commentarius in Sent., IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166a).

While this prohibition on the sale of doctrinal instruction was only occasionally stated so directly, it is intimated frequently by others who specifically excepted instruction in the liberal arts from those things which must not be sold. In each of these cases, the prohibition of merchandising in theology, the queen of the sciences, is simply presumed by the explicit permission to engage in commerce with her handmaidens.⁷²E.g., Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 2, ad 8; Aquinas, Quodlibet, VIII, q. 6, a. 1 (p. 175). In the fifth book of the Liber extra, titles three and five contain the bulk of detail on this topic. As one seventeenth-century resource summarizes, it forbids as simony “masters and preachers to teach for money.”⁷³Ridley, A View of the Civile and Ecclesiasticall Law, 76. A number of commentators on these titles allowed the unbeneficed master to receive a voluntary gift for his teaching, while clarifying that no such gift should be asked of the poor.⁷⁴E.g., {Richard of Middleton}, Commentarius in Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 3, q. 2 (p. 386b); Hostiensis, Summa Aurea, ad X 5.5 (fol. 541r).

For Wycliffe, not only did proper imitation of Christ require teaching freely,⁷⁵“The faithful ought to be mindful that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and in imitation of Christ to give freely and generously spiritual teaching.” Wycliffe, De Fundacione Sectarum, cap. 2 (p. 21). but the sale of teaching was a “nearer and more hateful simony” than the sale of church office.⁷⁶Ibid., cap. 11 (p. 56). In his vernacular treatise on the seven deadly sins, he wrote:

But men that should be professors of the science of God sin many ways about this science [knowledge]. As some men hide this treasure and deal it not about; and yet, the more that it is dealt, the more it increases. And this is much more sin than to hide gold. […] And so, with begging, and pride of their speech, they sell God’s word, as one would sell an ox. Nevertheless, Christ teaches that, since his science is freely given to him, it should be freely dealt. And because the telling of God’s law would most profit his Church, the fiend is full busy to hinder this ghostly [spiritual] profit.⁷⁷Wycliffe, Of the Seven Deadly Sins, cap. III (p. 123).

Reformers were consistent with the proto-Reformers on this point. For Luther, teaching freely was the necessary antithesis to the “Satanic audacity” of offering forgiveness of sins at a price.⁷⁸In the context of simony, Luther wrote, “But this is not lawful, and the Pope with Satanic audacity established this trade. We are commanded to teach, console, [and] absolve all who receive and believe; and they all receive from us freely, according to the saying: ‘Freely you have received; freely give.’” Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 23:3–4 (WA 43, 282:23–26).

Conclusion

The term “simony” embraces far more than commerce in ordinations. While the several scholastic distinctions keep it from applying too broadly to anything immaterial, they do not prevent it from applying to manifold ordinances and activities: sacraments, the solemnization of marriage, funeral services, absolution, prayer, preaching, and teaching. Wherever the Holy Spirit works or his instruments of grace are administered, there stands a spiritual thing that cannot be exchanged for money.