The Forefathers of Simony

The class of transgression at the center of our investigation existed long before Simon Magus or the events of Acts 8. In the words of John Major, “this plague was in the church before it was called simony.”¹Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 145vb). One work dedicated to the topic frames it thusly: “Not but that the crime had got footing in the world long before, and was known to the Jews by the name טלימא, and by the Arabians טלם Talm, says Schindler; and both from טלם fraudavit expilavit. The Greeks knew it by the name Περίβολος. And the Latins by the word Ambitus. Which I note, to show ’tis a moral evil, and was troublesome to all nations and religions. But this bold Chapman’s offer, purchased not the grace of God, but disgrace of turning his name into sin, by which he will be justly infamous to the last gasp of time.” Metford, A General Discourse of Simony, 2–3. It existed before the New Testament church and afflicted the Old Testament people of God at least as far back as their wicked prophets.²E.g., “This is evident: it existed in the time of Elisha, and even before him among the wicked prophets; and the church existed then, which began with righteous Abel. But it did not have this specific name before Simon Magus in the eighth chapter of Acts.” Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 145vb).

Writers on this topic rarely committed themselves to a particular individual or specific instance as the origin of simony, but the reality of this sin being an ancient evil led many to regard certain figures from Scripture as the forefathers of simony. These names recur across the literature, though rarely collected into a single list. However, Jan Hus provided an orderly collection and an extended discussion of each. After describing Simon and Gehazi as the chief among these,³Hus, O svatokupectví, 3.A. This is the standard conclusion. See below, ↗. he listed Balaam, Jeroboam, and Judas.⁴“Know that just as from Simon they are called Simoniacs or Simonites, so from Gehazi they are called Gehazites, from Balaam Balaamites, from Jeroboam Jeroboamites, and from Judas Judites.” Ibid., 3.B. These constitute the pedigree of simony, because simoniacs are those “who, as sons with those evil fathers before them, pull on their boots.”⁵Ibid., 3.A. He further wrote, “But if you wish to name them rightly, call them: heirs of Gehazi, Simon, Balaam, and Judas.” Ibid., 3.B.

The figures theologians of the past held up as simony’s exemplars show how they understood the sin. What follows is a survey of each, ordered by frequency of appearance in the literature.

Simon Magus

Simony’s namesake, Simon Magus, is the figure most often named in association with the sin. Having seen the Spirit given through the apostles’ laying on of hands, he offered them money for the same power (Acts 8:18–19). Peter answered, “Your silver perish with you, because you have thought to obtain the gift of God with money” (Acts 8:20). This apostolic rebuke was applied to all who would engage in the same form of commerce. Most treatments of simony invoked Simon to identify him as the paradigmatic buyer of spiritual things, even if only briefly.

A number, however, related the extrabiblical tradition of Simon’s later career and demise in some detail, usually without qualification or skepticism. For example, James Metford provided a concise introduction that records several ancient sources: “Simony is so called from Simon Magus, that famous Samaritan born at Gitton, mentioned in Acts 8, who came to Rome in the reign of Claudius Caesar (says Eusebius) where he was worshipped in an image (says Just. Martyr) between the two bridges of Tiber, with this inscription, Simoni Sancto Deo; yea the Samaritans and many others also, adored him saith Irenaeus.”⁶Metford, A General Discourse of Simony, 2.

The tradition extends beyond his cult in Rome. A widely circulated legend, originating in the Acts of Peter (c. 180–200) and retold by later authors, relates that Simon attempted to prove his divinity by flying over the city. In this account, Peter prays to Christ,⁷In the Acts of Peter, Peter alone is present. Later retellings add Paul. See Lipsius and Bonnet, ed., Acts of Peter and Paul, 75–76 (p. 210). and Simon is cast down, breaking his leg in three places and subsequently dying from his injuries.⁸Lipsius and Bonnet, ed., Acts of Peter, 32 (pp. 83, 85). The legend is retold by Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 6.15 (1, p. 176), Sulpicius Severus, Chronica, 2.28 (CSEL 1, 83), and the Funk, ed., Apostolic Constitutions, 6.9 (pp. 319–21), among others. This legend, while not connected to the sin of simony proper, nevertheless contributed to the infamy of the name. Simon’s fall became a popular subject in Christian art, depicted in paintings, frescoes, and illuminated manuscripts from the medieval period onward.⁹E.g., Gislebertus’s historiated capital at the Cathédrale Saint-Lazare, Autun (c. 1125–45); Initial D: The Fall of Simon Magus from the Stammheim Missal, Hildesheim (c. 1170); Benozzo Gozzoli’s predella panel in the Royal Collection (1461–62); and Pompeo Batoni’s altarpiece for St. Peter’s (1746–55).

Gehazi

Treatments that begin from the name itself rarely stop at Acts 8 without calling attention to the parallel text of 2 Kings 5. While Simon sought to purchase the gift of the Spirit, Gehazi sought to sell the gift of the Spirit, receiving two talents of silver and two changes of clothing from Naaman after he was miraculously cured of leprosy. The prophet Elisha rebuked his servant, transferring to him the leprosy of Naaman (2 Kings 5:20–27).

Gehazites as Sellers

Gehazi is typically presented not merely as a forefather of simony, but as an Old Testament counterpart to the New Testament figure. Where Simon represents buyers, Gehazi represents sellers. The pairing is ancient. In Jerome’s Vita Hilarionis (c. 390), Hilarion rejects gifts given in the context of miracle working: “Have you not read what befell Gehazi and Simon? One of them accepted a price, the other offered it, so that the former might sell the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the latter might buy it.”¹⁰Jerome, Vita Hilar., 18 (PL 23:37C). In the words of Albert the Great, “What Gehazi sells, Simon seeks to procure.”¹¹Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 6, ad 1 (p. 95b).

Buyers and sellers took their names accordingly. As Peter Lombard wrote, “Those who wish to procure priceless grace for a price, in the likeness of Simon Magus, are properly called simoniacs; and those who receive a price for sacred ministry, in the manner of Gehazi, ought to be called Gehazites.”¹²Lombard, Libri IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, c. 2 (p. 909). This naming scheme runs throughout the literature.¹³E.g., Hostiensis, Summa Aurea, ad X 5.3 (fol. 534rb); William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (p. 113); Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, Aureum Sacrae Theologiae Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia; Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (2:9–11).

The question then arises: why is the sin denominated by Simon rather than Gehazi? The scholastic answer is that, while Gehazi only sought to sell, Simon attempted to buy in order to sell. The text does not state this explicitly; the inference rests on Simon’s asking for the power to lay hands on others (Acts 8:19). In the words of Thomas Aquinas,

Simon Magus wished to buy spiritual things so that he might later sell them; and therefore his purchase implicitly contained a sale as well. And on account of this, in ordinary speech, both the buyer and the seller are called simoniacs. Yet if we wish to speak precisely, the buyers are called simoniacs, and the sellers Gehazites, because Gehazi wished to sell spiritual things.¹⁴Aquinas, Scriptum super Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 4. See also Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, Aureum Sacrae Theologiae Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia; Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 145vb); {Thomas of Strasbourg}, Commentaria in IIII Libros Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, q. 1, a. 4, qc. 1, ad 1 (fol. 150r); Albert the Great, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum, IV, d. 25, a. 6, ad 1 (p. 95b).

In the seventeenth century, Henry Burton added his own explanation based on an English pun: “But Simon hath obtained to bear the bell, and to carry the name away for both; sith the money so given and taken becomes Sin-money, bearing the image and superscription of Simon.”¹⁵Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 31.

Simoniacs as Lepers

Because of Gehazi’s punishment (2 Kings 5:27), simony is frequently associated with leprosy. While writings often made remarks to this effect without reference to any source, many went back particularly to Ambrose,¹⁶E.g., Humbert of Silva Candida, Libri Tres adversus Simoniacos, 1.16 (p. 128); Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 14; Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 52. who wrote:

You have the Lord’s command and the prophet’s example: freely to receive, freely to give; not to sell the ministry, but to offer it; for God’s grace is not appraised by a price, […] Leprosy quickly follows a shameful reward, and ill-gotten money stains both body and soul. “You have received money,” it says, “and from it you shall possess a field, a vineyard, olive groves, and flocks; and the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and to your seed forever.” You see that the doer’s act condemns the heir’s succession; for the guilt of selling a mystery is unatonable, and the heavenly vengeance for [selling] grace passes on to posterity. In short, the Moabites and others shall not enter [the assembly] even unto the third and fourth generation¹⁷Deuteronomy 23:3 reads “tenth” in the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Vulgate. Ambrose’s “third and fourth” is the formula of Exodus 20:5, on the idolaters he sets against Gehazi’s seed two sentences later.—namely for so long (to interpret it simply) until a succession of many generations might abolish the guilt of the doers.

But since those who have transgressed against God in the error of idolatry seem to be punished unto the fourth generation, certainly the sentence seems harsher by which the seed of Gehazi is condemned forever by prophetic authority for the greed of possessing—especially since our Lord Jesus Christ, through the washing of regeneration has given the remission of sins to all—unless you understand the “seed” to be of vices rather than of birth. For just as those who are children of the promise are reckoned as good seed, so also those who are children of error are reckoned as bad seed. For even the Jews are from their father the devil, certainly not by succession of the flesh, but of crime. Therefore all the covetous, all the greedy possess the leprosy of Gehazi along with their riches; and with an ill-gotten reward they have gathered not so much an inheritance of wealth as a treasury of crimes, for eternal punishment and brief enjoyment.¹⁸Ambrose, Expositio Evangelii sec. Lucam, 4.52–54 (CSEL 32.4, 164:16–166:11).

If the punishments for idolatry only fall to several generations, but Gehazi’s seed is afflicted forever, then the offspring in mind must be spiritual rather than physical. All who follow in Gehazi’s sin contract his disease.

Associations between leprosy and the sin of Simon exist in patristic literature, but these become exceptionally frequent in the Middle Ages with both the development of the notion of simony and with the actual widespread presence of pestilence across Europe.¹⁹See Bryon Lee Grigsby, Pestilence, 42. Due to the latter, the medievals often regarded leprosy as more than a metaphor for simony—a literal form of divine retribution on the simoniac.²⁰See ibid., 87–88.

The idea that the simoniac will inherit Gehazi’s punishment is likewise recorded in canon law. The Third Lateran Council (1179) said that the simoniac “will have his portion with Gehazi, whose deed he imitates by exacting a shameful reward.”²¹Mansi, ed., Third Lateran Council, 7 (Mansi 22:222A); cf. Gregory IX, Liber extra, 5.3.9. Gratian wrote that “He who ordains for a price confers leprosy, not an office.”²²Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 14.

The imagery is common enough, but the proto-Reformers seized on it and drew out its implications. John Wycliffe opened his work on simony by describing it as a leprosy that cannot be cured apart from a miracle,²³Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (1:21–2:2). Hus added these same thoughts, Hus, O svatokupectví, 2.B. and from there, the remainder of his work is replete with this language. Comparing Gehazi and the pope, he took the matter further:

Leprosy, I say, according to the saints mystically signifies simony, because just as no disease is more infectious than this, more deforming for dissolving unity and form, or more horrible for cohabiting because of the stench or voice, so is the simoniacal heresy. For no sin is more infectious than this, since the simoniac infects first himself, secondly the one above him who confers [the office], and thirdly the people below him, to whom he administers ecclesiastical sacraments, indeed he infects the people on all sides by consent. And as to the second [point], it is clear that he excessively dissolves the unity of the members of the church, since those whom he ought to unite with Christ according to the form of the gospel, he separates and deforms according to the law of the devil. And this is the reason why it is called heresy, which is interpreted “division.” So no monster is more deformed before God, even if he seems to be the head of the church. Whence Aaron is expressly reproved and Miriam his sister was struck with leprosy as is clear in Numbers 12[:10]; “Behold,” it says, “Miriam appeared white with leprosy like snow.” And consequently Aaron entreats Moses on her behalf, that she may not become as one dead and as a stillborn child that is cast out from its mother’s womb. For such people are cast out before God out of mother church, even if they seem to rule her. And as to the third [point], it is clear that every faithful person should shudder at this leprosy more than at the devil himself; indeed their reputation infects many, they emit the voice of an asp and not of a trumpet; and therefore they were appointed under the old law, as is clear in Numbers 5, to remain outside the camp as men not to be endured.

But the whiteness of the leprosy signifies the whiteness of hypocrisy, by which they feign holiness in the eyes of the faithful; and from the first simoniac pope²⁴Wycliffe identifies John XXII (r. 1316–34) as the first simoniac pope, Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 5 (58:14–30). even to the last of this generation, all are struck almost irremediably by this leprosy. And thus it makes unworthy those who were previously worthy; it does not promote but condemns, and more grievously than Gehazi, in that, like another god, [the simoniac] blasphemously justifies a more dangerous sin against Christ, and thus he steals from the goods of the church, not his own, most sacrilegiously, like the chief antichrist.²⁵Ibid., cap. 5 (61:8–62:9).

This association continued beyond the Reformation, later authors making similar observations and speaking of “the leprosy of simony.”²⁶E.g., Burton, Israels Fast, 29; Fuller, The History of the Worthies of England, 2.333.

Judas

Beyond Simon and Gehazi, Judas is most frequently presented as the forefather of simoniacs. Gratian placed him between Gehazi and Simon, observing that he “sold the redeemer of all” and died without redemption, because one cannot retain what he has sold.²⁷Gratian, Decretum, C. 1, q. 1, c. 11. At this point, Gratian quotes whom he believes to be Gregory of Nazianzus, but is likely Alger of Liège, Friedberg, ed., Corpus Iuris Canonici, 1:360n109. The comparison is not merely that Judas is greedy as simoniacs are greedy or even that Judas devalues spiritual things as simoniacs devalue spiritual things. Rather, the repeated point is that Judas is guilty of selling Jesus as simoniacs are guilty of selling Jesus.

This notion of trading in the things of God being the equivalent of selling Jesus is an ancient one; the word “christmonger” (χριστέμπορος) appears in Christian writings going as far back as the Didache (c. 50–120).²⁸Funk, ed., Didache (Doctrina duodecim apostolorum), 12. See also Theodoret of Cyrus, Historia Ecclesiastica, 1.3 (PG 82:889). Writings associating Simon and Judas also date back to the early centuries of the church. In his homilies on Matthew, John Chrysostom preached, “Let no Judas, therefore, approach this table, let no Simon; for both of these perished on account of avarice.”²⁹Chrysostom, Homiliae in Matthaeum, 50.4 (PG 58:508). Cyril of Jerusalem called Simon “a second Judas.”³⁰Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 16.10 (2, p. 216). However, with the development of a formal notion of simony, the identity of Judas with those who traffic in spiritual things became more frequent and pronounced.

William Peraldus pushed the comparison beyond equivalence, arguing that simoniacs are worse than Judas:

It ought to suffice for such men that Christ was sold once for their sins. These sellers seem to be worse than Judas in these five [ways]: They sell him immortal and now glorified whom Judas sold mortal and in a state of humility: an insult offered to a knight is greater than one offered to a squire. Nor do they sell him only once like Judas, but more than a hundred times. They sell him for an even smaller price than Judas. They also believe him to be God, which Judas did not believe when he sold [him] for thirty denarii. Judas also, when he was penitent for this sin, led by penitence, returned the thirty silver pieces for which he had sold Christ: but simoniacs cannot be brought to penitence, so as to restore what they gained through simony.³¹William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (p. 109). Wycliffe appealed to Peraldus to make the same point. Wycliffe named the author “Parisiensis”—William of Auvergne, bishop of Paris—following a misattribution common in his day. Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (11:18–22; 8:24n).

Examples exist among English authors as well. The royal chaplain Sampson Price called simoniacal patrons “heirs to Judas, whose Latin goeth no farther than Quid dabis [What will you give?].”³²Price, The Beauty of Holiness, 30. As the English preacher Thomas Adams wrote, “when Judas is the patron, Simon Magus must be the priest.”³³Adams, Commentary on 2 Peter, 451.

Allusions to and citations of the parallel text in Zechariah 11:4–13 indicate that this identification of Judas with simoniacs is further motivated by the typological connections.³⁴E.g., Metford, A General Discourse of Simony, 40; Tuckney, Sermon 38, 645. Like Judas, the prophet is given thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12; Matt. 26:15), which is cast into the temple (Zech. 11:13; Matt. 27:5) and ultimately given to a potter (Zech. 11:13; Matt. 27:7). Zechariah plays the part of a shepherd who is put in charge of sheep that will be slaughtered, and these are his wages. If one might hesitate to compare Judas to a mercenary pastor, Scripture itself compares him to a shepherd for hire by way of shared images.

Balaam

Balaam, the prophet of Yahweh hired by Balak to curse Israel (Num. 22), is commonly regarded as an early simoniac. In fact, the Christian legend regarding Simon’s flight and fall, recounted above, may itself indicate an understood association with the Old Testament figure. In extrabiblical Jewish tradition, Balaam was a sorcerer who possessed the power to fly but fell to earth at the prayer of Phinehas.³⁵See Bamidbar Rabbah, 22.5; Midrash Tanchuma, Matot 4.1; Buber, ed., Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 23.5; Zohar, Balak 11.161. For a summary presentation of these traditions, see Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, 3.410–11. The legend of Simon’s flight and fall runs the same course point for point: both sorcerers fly, both are brought down by the prayer of a chief antagonist,³⁶Peter rebukes Simon (Acts 8:20–23) while Phinehas stops the plague ultimately caused by Balaam’s counsel by his zealous action (Num. 25:7–13; 31:16). both fall to injury and die. The similarity between these two indicates that early Christians took to heart the New Testament authors’ depiction of Balaam as the prophet who loved the wages of unrighteousness (2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11).

Some considered Balaam to be the first simoniac. For example, Hugh of St. Victor devoted a chapter to the “authors of simony” and traced its genealogy back to Balaam.³⁷“The contagion of the simoniacal heresy sprouted long ago in Balaam, who, when the price of divination was offered, set out to curse the people of God.” Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis, II, p. 10, c. 2 (PL 176:477C). Regardless of whether they identified him as the first, many identified him as a simoniac, particularly on account of his willingness to sell the gift of prophecy for money.³⁸E.g., Peter Damian, Liber Gratissimus, c. 14 (p. 406). Major, observing that Balaam wanted to sell the gift of prophecy, considered whether the sin might be named “balaamy” (balaamia) rather than “simony” (simonia).³⁹Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio B), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 182vb).

Hus labeled “Balaamites” those simoniacs “who preach for money and for the sake of money, like those swindlers who grant indulgences for money.”⁴⁰Hus, O svatokupectví, 3.B. From Peter’s description of false teachers in 2 Peter 2:1–15, he cataloged eight marks by which the sons of Balaam may be recognized.⁴¹“Recognize them, for he says: [first,] they shall be liars; second, they shall introduce sects after them and shall be false teachers; third, they deny the one who bought them; fourth, they shall be fornicators, whose fornications many shall follow; fifth, through them the way of truth shall be blasphemed; sixth, with feigned words in covetousness they shall make merchandise of people and profit from them, for they have a heart practiced in covetousness; seventh, they have forsaken the right way and follow the way of Balaam; eighth, he grants them indulgences, saying that they are sons of cursing, and that their judgment does not cease and their damnation does not sleep, that is, does not delay.” Ibid., 3.B. Hus invited the reader to apply these marks to the clergy of his own day: “Those in whom one finds these marks are certainly the ones Saint Peter means.”⁴²Ibid., 3.B. Later, he gave a number of other tests for discerning Balaamites, largely focused on the temptations they would lure people into,⁴³Ibid., 3.G. and offered up an imprecation against them: “O Lord! Will you fight these Balaamites with the sword sharp on both sides, the sword of your mouth?”⁴⁴Ibid., 3.H.

English writers likewise appealed to Balaam as a proto-simoniac. The Lollard tract The Lanterne of Liȝt (c. 1409–15) invokes the name of Balaam repeatedly, likening Balaam to Gehazi⁴⁵Swinburn, ed., The Lanterne of Liȝt, 120:26–34. and accusing merchandizing priests of beguiling the people “with the foul sin of Balaam.”⁴⁶Ibid., 84:32. Later authors continued to name Balaam alongside Gehazi and Simon as the scriptural archetypes of the simoniac.⁴⁷E.g., Godolphin, Repertorium Canonicum, 556–57; Metford, A General Discourse of Simony, 61; The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 112–13; Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 58.

Jeroboam

A further Old Testament forefather is Jeroboam, the king of Israel who split the kingdom and “filled the hand of whoever desired it, and he became a priest of the high places” (1 Kings 13:33). The connection to simony is, in part, motivated by the rendering of the Vulgate, which translates the Hebrew idiom for consecration literally as “fill the hand” (implebat manum suam). On this account, Latin theologians routinely interpreted the phrase as a financial transaction, Gregory’s munus a manu.⁴⁸E.g., William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (p. 113).

The comparison asserts an analogy not only in the sin of contemporary simoniacs and the sin of Jeroboam but in their destruction. Jeroboam was destroyed because he made two golden calves and “second, because he bestowed the priesthood over those calves for money.”⁴⁹Hus, O svatokupectví, 8.A. The thrust of these observations is a fortiori: “If the selling of the priesthood of idols was thus avenged by the Lord, how will the selling of the true priesthood be avenged?”⁵⁰William Peraldus, Summae virtutum ac vitiorum, 2.7 (p. 113). See also Hus, O svatokupectví, 8.A; Major, In Quartum Sententiarum (Redactio A), d. 25, q. 1 (fol. 148ra). Wycliffe prophesied “that wars shall continue […] as long as this plague of simony endures,”⁵¹Wycliffe, Tractatus de Simonia, cap. 1 (9:24–26). and then, turning to Jeroboam, concluded, “He who thus avenged the selling of the priesthood of idols must therefore avenge the selling of the priesthood of Christ.”⁵²Ibid., cap. 1 (10:4–6). Hus applied the same reckoning to his own generation and closed with a prayer: “Those who thus take money and make bishops and priests, or grant others benefices, are followers of Jeroboam, and God grant that they not be destroyed as he was.”⁵³Hus, O svatokupectví, 3.D.

Burton applied this name to the Pope, calling him “that grand Jeroboam of Rome,” who “for base bribes, admits into the priesthood the basest of the people.”⁵⁴Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 50. He further contended that the corruption of Israel under their king indicates that simoniacal corruption inevitably corrupts the whole people: “What other ministry can be expected in a church, where simony reigneth, than such as was under Jeroboam?”⁵⁵Ibid., 103. He quoted the pseudo-Ambrosian De dignitate sacerdotali to the same effect: “What wonder is it if [King Jeroboam] alone made the entire Israelite nation sinful? […] In a priesthood vitiated by the corruption of simony, you search in vain for a pious and upright people.” Ibid., 96.

Conclusion

These five figures form a composite portrait of the simoniac. The chief two—Simon and Gehazi—represent buyer and seller. Beyond that, Judas trades in Christ, Balaam trades in the word, and Jeroboam trades in the priesthood. Theologians across many centuries returned to the same handful of names. Where the gifts of God are treated as articles of commerce, the same sins recur and the same judgments follow.