# Parachurch Problems in the Thirteenth Century Conley Owens *Tuesday, September 29* *Given at doreancon 2026 — Retrieving a Doctrine of Simony. Silicon Valley Reformed Baptist Church, Sunnyvale, California, September 28–30, 2026.* Written alongside *The Doctrine of Simony* (https://simony.info). --- A final indicator of simoniacal motivation is the absence of a proper call. If a minister’s right to maintenance flows from his ordination and office rather than from a commercial transaction, then one who claims maintenance without ordination has no right to it at all. His receipt of it is, at best, irregular and, at worst, evidence that gain rather than service is his object. But in order to understand this, we need to first go back to the fifth century ### How did the Monks Come About? ### What Was Augustine’s Response? In *De opere monachorum* (On the work of monks), Augustine distinguished between physical labor and spiritual labor, speaking of the natural exchange of the former for physical food, but reserving to “evangelists and ministers of the word of God” the authority “to live by the gospel, performing only spiritual works.”[^1] Paul refused funds at Thessalonica, Augustine explained, so that by his example “those might be restrained who, though not so ordained in the church, deemed the like to be due to themselves.”[^2] He returned to the point later, objecting to monks who claimed the authority to live by the gospel without holding any ordained office. These brethren claim more than their right, he wrote, “for if they are evangelists, I confess, they have it; if ministers of the altar, dispensers of the sacraments, they rightly do not arrogate this authority to themselves, but plainly claim it as their due.”[^3] ## How Did the Friars Come About? The opening of the thirteenth century saw the rise of a new form of religious life. Francis of Assisi, having renounced his family’s wealth, first withdrew as a hermit but soon embraced what came to be called the “apostolic life” (*vita apostolica*), a life of itinerancy and evangelism modeled on Christ and the apostles. In 1209, he went with his small party to Rome and secured formal approval from Innocent III. Around the same time, Dominic of Caleruega gathered a band of preachers to confront the Cathars, also known as the Albigenses, a dualist sect in southern France. The communities that grew up around these founders styled themselves not as monks but as friars (that is, brothers). Francis’s followers became the Order of Friars Minor, Dominic’s the Order of Friars Preachers. To the Franciscans and Dominicans would be added the Augustinians and the Carmelites.[^4] These were similar to the monastic orders that preceded them, but differed on account of their mendicancy. Not merely swearing off personal property, they abandoned communal property as well. The poverty of these new orders could not square with the vow of stability in the Rule of Benedict of Nursia. Rather than keeping to themselves in a monastery, the friars took to the cities both on account of their mission to preach and their need to beg.[^5] The friars received charity primarily through their religious activity. For example, one who gave alms to them might expect them to give prayers on account of the charity. Their preaching likewise was attended with calls for alms either before or after. Remarking on how this formalized mendicancy had normalized the practice of begging, one nineteenth-century scholar wrote, “Many a man who would have been ashamed to dig was not ashamed to beg.”[^6] The friars quickly made their way into the universities. On August 15, 1217, Dominic sent seven of his followers to Paris, at least two of them to study.[^7] The Franciscans followed, more gradually, in the years thereafter.[^8] Within decades they had attracted some of the greatest minds of the age, such as Bonaventure among the Franciscans and Thomas Aquinas among the Dominicans. So successful was their recruitment that by the fourteenth century wealthy families had grown reluctant to send their sons to the schools at all, lest they be lost to the mendicant orders.[^9] Their advance was reinforced by papal privilege. In 1231, Gregory IX required bishops to grant the friars an almost unlimited freedom of action for the sake of their pastoral mission, effectively erecting a parallel hierarchy alongside the secular clergy.[^10] Because they were permitted to preach, hear confessions, and the like, they often even had their own churches that competed with the parish churches. Their gains in the university were so great that by 1254, the secular masters at Paris would hold only three of the fifteen chairs in the faculty of theology.[^11] Such gains bred friction, as did the independence with which the friars operated within the university. Since their vows committed them to a life apart from the world, immersion in the secular arts was for them incompatible with their religious calling, and so they trained within their order, circumventing the arts faculty.[^12] They likewise bypassed the inception by which the masters regulated admission into their own ranks and declined to swear the oaths that would bind them to the statutes of the university.[^13] In 1252, the secular masters at Paris attempted a statute capping the number of mendicant chairs,[^14] but matters boiled over in March of the next year, when a student was killed in a clash with the town watch. The secular masters called a strike to compel redress from the civil authorities, but the friars refused the oath and continued lecturing.[^15] The dispute was carried to Rome in 1254, where Innocent IV sharply restricted the mendicants’ pastoral privileges. However, he died sixteen days later, and his successor, Alexander IV, reversed this judgment within a fortnight of his election and decided the university dispute in the friars’ favor the following April.[^16] The Parisian conflict was reproduced, on a smaller scale, at Oxford and Cambridge.[^17] ## What Was William of Saint-Amour’s Response? The antifraternal movement swiftly took on an apocalyptic framing. This owed partly to the contemporary anticipation of the year 1260,[^18] but was also brought on in 1254 by a Franciscan who himself had claimed that his order heralded a third age of the Holy Spirit.[^19] In 1256, William of Saint-Amour, a leading secular master of theology at Paris, gave the antifraternal cause its founding text in *De periculis novissimorum temporum* (“Concerning the Perils of the Last Days”). Its final and most influential chapter enumerated forty-one signs of false apostles,[^20] and the twentieth joined his two primary contentions with the friars: their mendicancy and want of a proper office. He held begging from those to whom one preaches to be indicative of simony; a pastor may receive from his flock with authority, but the friars have no such claim.[^21] The mendicants had appealed to the biblical principle that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1 Cor. 9:14).[^22] Yet for William, the performance of labor did not by itself make a worker worthy; without formal standing none was granted the authority to make such a request. This consideration of church office represented a substantial development over previous approaches to the doctrine of simony. William’s work was met with considerable resistance. Aquinas responded that same year with *Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem* (“Against Those Who Attack the Worship of God and Religion”), devoting a whole chapter to defending the friars’ reception of alms.[^23] Alexander IV condemned *De periculis* in October, and because William posed an obstacle to the reconciliation of the warring parties at the university, he was forbidden in August of the next year to return to Paris.[^24] Though this dealt a blow to the movement, the vocabulary and framing of *De periculis* would furnish the controlling categories of antifraternal polemic for the remainder of the Middle Ages.[^25] Beyond the many dedicated treatises against the friars, this rhetoric also worked its way into celebrated literature, such as Chaucer’s *Canterbury Tales* and Dante’s *Divine Comedy*.[^26] John Foxe would later reproduce William’s signs of false apostles in his *Acts and Monuments*.[^27] The movement spread across Europe, and popular sentiment soured to the point that the friars suffered a number of physical attacks.[^28] ### William of Saint-Amour and the Friars In the thirteenth century, William of Saint-Amour extended Augustine’s argument to the new mendicant orders, the friars.[^29] Glossing Augustine’s remarks, he wrote: > The false [preachers], even though they are not so ordained in the Church that they can live from the Gospel […] nevertheless wish to live from the Gospel, receiving their sustenance from those to whom they preach, as if they were their evangelists or ministers of their altar. […] If they do not hold these offices in the churches of those from whom they receive, they do not have the authority to take sustenance from them either. For it is certain that sustenance from the Gospel is owed only to those who preside ordinarily in governance and teaching by the dignity of their office, and who are bound to the care of souls by the duty of their office.[^30] He went on to read the phrases of 1 Thessalonians 5:12 as marks of pastoral office rather than descriptions of mere labor,[^31] then concluded, “Therefore those who do not have the dignity or the proper office of governing souls cannot claim sustenance as owed to them.”[^32] He objected to their receiving food from their hearers even when it was offered, and the more to their demanding it as owed: the false preachers “not only receive food from those to whom they preach if it is offered to them, but also sometimes importunately demand it, although it is not owed.”[^33] Such preachers, if they regularly ask for such gifts before or after their preaching, hoping to obtain them the more easily on its account, “seem to commit simony.”[^34] In *De valido mendicante* (The able-bodied mendicant), William asserted that nothing should be given to those who beg before or after their preaching.[^35] Only a teacher who holds the apostolic authority—a bishop or one he has sent—is owed a share by those he teaches,[^36] and what such a man asks he asks by that authority and not as a beggar.[^37] William therefore tied proper financial support to mission.[^38] Sustenance is owed by “the people to whom they preach as their own charges,”[^39] that is, “those whom he feeds as a flock, or whom he cultivates as a vineyard.”[^40] To gather support beyond that boundary is to “make prey of congregations not their own.”[^41] Regarding those preachers who visit a congregation, William made the proper source of their support depend on who had commissioned them. If a bishop or lesser prelate sent a preacher to visit, he should also fund him.[^42] He allowed an exception where such a visit met a specific need, and then only on judicial inquiry or at the parish priest’s own request.[^43] He regarded the contrary rule as untenable, since “if an unlimited number of persons were to have the authority of preaching in any given church, every church would owe unlimited procurations, which is absurd to say.”[^44] ### The Protestant Reception The institutional dispute itself ended in a measured settlement, Boniface VIII’s *Super cathedram* (1300), which regulated the friars’ preaching, confession, and burial: it preserved free preaching in their own churches and public squares but required parish priests’ consent in parish churches and mendicant confessors to be presented to local bishops for approval.[^45] But William’s cause outlived the legal compromise. Late in the next century, it found a champion in John Wycliffe. Many of Wycliffe’s works were explicitly titled as polemics against the friars, but even his other writings frequently mentioned their errors and identified their begging as simony. One famous anecdote records that four doctors—one from each of the mendicant orders—visited Wycliffe when he fell deathly ill in 1379. At his bedside, they urged him to retract his attacks while there was still time, but he raised himself up and answered, “I shall not die, but live, and declare the worst deeds of the friars.”[^46] In 1382, a council in London drew up charges of heresy and errors against the Oxford master, recording as a final point his identification of the friars’ begging as simony.[^47] When a major earthquake interrupted the proceedings, Wycliffe read this as the earth crying out where the faithful would not and took to calling it the “Earthquake Council” (*concilium terraemotus*).[^48] He continued writing against them until his peaceful death on the eve of 1385,[^49] and his followers, the Lollards, carried on his campaign against the simony of the friars. As noted above, William’s positions were condemned by the papacy and answered by Aquinas, but they found purchase among proto-Reformers and those Reformers who still faced the mendicants. Addressing the monastic orders that held the revenues of parish churches while leaving the cure to vicars, John Wycliffe observed that “a benefice and its corresponding office inseparably follow each other.”[^50] Elsewhere, he judged the friars’ office counterfeit and their collection of funds through it simony.[^51] William Tyndale adopted these arguments in *The Obedience of a Christian Man*, speaking of those who would ask money for labor in the word outside the office of a preacher as robbers of widows.[^52] John Calvin contended similarly, lamenting that the collation of benefices, formerly joined with ordination, had become wholly separate,[^53] and that those who have no work or income but the sale of masses have no legitimate office to perform.[^54] Even after the mendicant orders ceased to be a live controversy, Protestant theologians continued to recognize that the office, not merely the actual work, legitimized ministerial maintenance. Matthew Poole, arguing against the congregationalist notion of a “gifted man” (i.e., a congregationally approved lay-preacher), built his argument on a shared foundation: only those who hold the office may be paid for it.[^55] He further contended that to fund all those who are gifted and do the work in some measure “would be both absurd and impossible.”[^56] Failing to do the work of the office was itself read as a sign of simony. Ministers who hold a good benefice and do not preach, Henry Burton wrote, “are by strong presumption deep simonists,” there being no other account of how they came by their preferment.[^57] ### Categorizing Mendicant Support In Chapter 9, we traced William of Saint-Amour’s insistence that sustenance from the gospel is owed only to one who holds church office, particularly from those under his care.[^58] Apart from a special commissioning, one has no right to such support, and to request it on account of his preaching is an act of simony. Some readers may find it difficult to determine whether William’s position truly arises from a contextual understanding of the passages to which he appealed or demands more than they will allow. In either case, his arguments are in substance an appeal to the biblical notion of mediated obligation. Those who had been properly commissioned by the church as ministers or evangelists could require support as an act of co-labor, while the mendicants could only do so as reciprocity. The simony of the mendicants may be considered by how it collapses the two obligations of the triangle. First, it communicates giving as a reciprocal exchange, such that the hearer gives directly rather than to God. Of course, the friars explicitly denied such a thing, but, as their opponents observed, to request money before or after preaching is effectively to suggest an exchange of temporal things for spiritual.[^59] The call for support suggests hearers are immediately obligated to the preacher on account of receiving the message preached. Second, the practice of the mendicants completely bypasses the second half of mediation, where God gives to his minister. If God himself really stands at the apex of this triangle, mediating financial support, we must be able to show that he wills these funds to go to the one who receives them. He commanded that priests receive from the altar and that ministers receive from the people whom they serve (1 Cor. 9:13–14) but named no one else to be provided for similarly. If the New Testament minister receives after the pattern of the Old Testament minister, then he may not take that office to himself autonomously or by virtue of the approval of a different institution (Heb. 5:4). One commissioned by the church, such as an evangelist, receives his funds from those who send him. This follows from both ends of the triangle once again. To receive from those to whom he is sent would be to suggest reciprocity, but if those who wish to send him bear his costs, they give to God by provisioning a servant with whom they co-labor. The apostle John observed the same dynamic: evangelists are worthy of support when they do not receive from those to whom they are sent, and those who support them become fellow workers for the truth (3 John 7–8). ### The Rise of the Parachurch Parachurch organizations, designed to perform ministry tasks outside of the government of any particular church, have a long history.[^60] At the turn of the eighteenth century, Thomas Bray founded both the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (1699) and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts (1701), associations respectively designed to distribute Christian literature and send, equip, and maintain missionaries.[^61] Over the following century, Britain produced several missionary, Bible, and tract societies, and American counterparts were soon modeled after them.[^62] In the 1960s, several forces combined to create an explosion of these institutions.[^63] In erecting structures of their own that remain outside any meaningful governance by the church, these institutions bear a marked resemblance to the mendicant orders.[^64] This similarity naturally extends to their fundraising. A local church depends on the weekly giving of the saints; the parachurch organization, lacking any such congregation, must cultivate a distinct generosity among its supporters or else resort to sales. Such organizations are various,[^65] and many of them raise no more concern than any other charity, but those designed to perform the church’s primary functions of preaching and teaching are open to the objections William of Saint-Amour and John Wycliffe raised against the friars. Applied to our own day, the antifraternal arguments yield a surprising implication. Parachurch organizations are forbidden not only to charge for teaching and preaching but even to receive gifts voluntarily given on account of such activity. That is, unless those within these institutions are actually commissioned by their own churches, they do not qualify as the sort of laborer that is worthy of his wages, authorized to receive from the Master. Those who minister have a right to receive from the altar (1 Cor. 9:13–14), but those whom no church has commissioned have not been entrusted with any such stewardship. And even if such a man does indeed labor under a proper calling (e.g., a pastor teaching in a seminary), he should be supported by his own church—or those that would truly partner with that church—rather than soliciting funds from those whom he serves.[^66] None of this settles the appropriate shape of a calling or commission; even within the Reformed tradition, that question has a number of answers. Neither does it settle what sorts of donation-supported organizations may rightly assist the church in her work. Regardless, whoever seeks to do justice to the demands of mediated obligation must wrestle with the nature of these institutions, especially insofar as they are designed to establish those who would be materially sustained on account of spiritual labors. The church is a pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and no other institution has been so appointed. Similarly, when combined with the historical doctrine of simony, this framework helps us to understand matters of our own time. Parachurch organizations designed to establish teachers of the word encourage a reciprocal fundraising similar to that practiced by the mendicant orders. Additionally, the twentieth-century inflation of the term “ministry” flattens the triangle of obligation and removes the categories by which the doctrine of simony was able to flourish, and by which it may do so once again. ## Bibliography Aquinas, Thomas. *Contra impugnantes Dei cultum et religionem*. In *Doctoris angelici divi Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia*, vol. 29, 1–116. Paris: Ludovicus Vivès, 1876. Composed 1256. Augustine. *De opere monachorum*. In *Sancti Aureli Augustini opera*, edited by Joseph Zycha, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, vol. 41, 529–596. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1900. Bale, John. *Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Brytanniae, quam nunc Angliam et Scotiam vocant, Catalogus*. Basel: Ioannes Oporinus, 1557. Bauerschmidt, Frederick Christian. *Thomas Aquinas: Faith, Reason, and Following Christ*. Christian Theology in Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Bonaventure. *Apologia pauperum contra calumniatorem*. In *Opera omnia*, vol. 8, 233–330. Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae, 1898. Burton, Henry. *A censure of simonie, or a most important case of conscience concerning simonie briefly discussed not altogether perhaps unparallell for the meridian of these times*. London: William Stansby for Edmund Weaver and John Smethwick, 1624. Calvin, John. *Institutio Christianae Religionis*. Lausanne: Franciscus le Preux, 1576. The 1559 text. Carpenter, Joel A. *Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism*. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. \*Clementinae*. In *Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 2: Decretalium collectiones*, edited by Emil Friedberg. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1881. Cobban, Alan B. *The Medieval Universities: Their Development and Organization*. London: Methuen, 1975. Foxe, John. *Actes and Monuments*. London: John Day, 1583. Geltner, Guy. *The Making of Medieval Antifraternalism: Polemic, Violence, Deviance, and Remembrance*. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. ———. “William of St. Amour’s *De periculis novissimorum temporum*: A False Start to Medieval Antifraternalism?” In *Defenders and Critics of Franciscan Life: Essays in Honor of John V. Fleming*, edited by Michael F. Cusato and Guy Geltner, 105–117. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Howard, Robert. *The Life and Reign of King Richard the Second*. London: M. L. and L. C., sold by Langly Curtis, 1681. Janin, Hunt. *The University in Medieval Life, 1179–1499*. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2008. Lawrence, C. H. *The Friars: The Impact of the Mendicant Orders on Medieval Society*. Rev. ed. London: I.B. Tauris, 2013. Poole, Matthew. *Quo Warranto; or, A Moderate Enquiry into the Warrantableness of the Preaching of Gifted and Unordained Persons*. London, 1659. Rashdall, Hastings. *The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages*. Edited by F. M. Powicke and A. B. Emden. New ed. London: Oxford University Press, 1936. Scheitle, Christopher P. *Beyond the Congregation: The World of Christian Nonprofits*. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Shirley, Walter Waddington, ed. *Fasciculi zizaniorum magistri Iohannis Wyclif cum tritico*. Rolls Series. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts, 1858. Szittya, Penn R. *The Antifraternal Tradition in Medieval Literature*. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986. Tyndale, William. *The Obedience of a Christian Man*. Antwerp, 1535. First published 1528. White, Jerry E. *The Church and the Parachurch: An Uneasy Marriage*. A Critical Concern Book. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1983. William of Saint-Amour. *Collectiones catholicae et canonicae scripturae*. In *Magistri Guillielmi de Sancto Amore opera omnia*, 111–487. Constance [Paris], 1632. Composed ca. 1266. ———. *De periculis novissimorum temporum*. In *Magistri Guillielmi de Sancto Amore opera omnia*, 16–72. Constance [Paris], 1632. Composed 1256. ———. *De valido mendicante*. In *Magistri Guillielmi de Sancto Amore opera omnia*, 80–87. Constance [Paris], 1632. Composed 1255. Wuthnow, Robert. *The Restructuring of American Religion: Society and Faith since World War II*. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. Wycliffe, John. *Tractatus de simonia*. Edited by Sigmund Herzberg-Fränkel and Michael Henry Dziewicki. London: Trübner & Co., 1898. ———. *Trialogus cum supplemento Trialogi*. Edited by Gotthardt Lechler. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1869. --- [^1]: Augustine, *De opere monachorum*, 7.8 (p. 543). [^2]: Ibid., 3.4 (p. 537); cf. 2 Thess. 3:6–12. [^3]: Ibid., 21.24 (pp. 569–70). Augustine’s “evangelists” (*euangelistae*) denotes the commissioned role of Ephesians 4:11 (cf. Acts 21:8), not merely one who evangelizes. [^4]: For a larger overview of the friars, see Lawrence, *The Friars*. [^5]: Szittya, *The Antifraternal Tradition*, 7–8. [^6]: Rashdall, *The Universities of Europe*, 3.407. [^7]: Bauerschmidt, *Thomas Aquinas*, 20. [^8]: Lawrence, *The Friars*, 130. [^9]: Ibid., 127. [^10]: See ibid., 152. “Secular,” in this context, refers to the parish priests and bishops who served in the world, as distinguished from those living under a religious rule. [^11]: Cobban, *The Medieval Universities*, 92. [^12]: Lawrence, *The Friars*, 133–35; cf. Cobban, *The Medieval Universities*, 93. [^13]: Janin, *The University in Medieval Life*, 82. [^14]: Lawrence, *The Friars*, 154. [^15]: Ibid., 154; Szittya, *The Antifraternal Tradition*, 11, 14; Cobban, *The Medieval Universities*, 92. [^16]: Szittya, *The Antifraternal Tradition*, 15–16. [^17]: Cobban, *The Medieval Universities*, 93. [^18]: See Rev. 11:3; 12:6. [^19]: Szittya, *The Antifraternal Tradition*, 26–28; Lawrence, *The Friars*, 154. [^20]: The precise count varies across editions; the numbering followed here is that of the 1632 *Opera omnia*. [^21]: William of Saint-Amour, *De periculis*, cap. 14, sign. 20 (pp. 64–65). [^22]: See, e.g., Bonaventure, *Apologia pauperum contra calumniatorem*, 7.39 (p. 285). [^23]: Aquinas, *Contra impugnantes*, 2.39 (pp. 56b–58a). [^24]: See Szittya, *The Antifraternal Tradition*, 17. [^25]: See ibid., 4–5. For the view that this influence has been overstated, see Geltner, “William of St. Amour’s De periculis”. [^26]: For the extent of such literature, see Szittya, *The Antifraternal Tradition*. [^27]: Foxe, *Actes and Monuments*, 4.319–22. [^28]: For a catalog of the various incidents, see Geltner, *The Making of Medieval Antifraternalism*, 48–50, 140–53. [^29]: William acknowledged the centrality of *De opere monachorum* to his project in the prologue of the *Collectiones*, William of Saint-Amour, *Collectiones*, prol. (p. 125). [^30]: Ibid., D. 4, sign. 41 (pp. 457–58). [^31]: “We beseech you, brothers, that you know (that is, that you show yourselves to know, namely by the furnishing of sustenance) those who labor among you. Gloss: In your governance and teaching. And who are set over you. Gloss: By dignity. And this, in the Lord. That is, by the ordination of the Lord. And who admonish you. Gloss: By the duty of their office.” Ibid., D. 4, sign. 41 (p. 458). [^32]: Ibid., D. 4, sign. 41 (p. 458). [^33]: Ibid., D. 4, sign. 41 (p. 458). [^34]: Ibid., D. 4, sign. 40 (p. 456). [^35]: William of Saint-Amour, *De valido mendicante*, 85. [^36]: Ibid., 87. [^37]: William of Saint-Amour, *Collectiones*, D. 1 (p. 156). [^38]: “They must take their expenses in different ways, according to the different missions.” Ibid., D. 1 (p. 154). [^39]: Ibid., D. 1 (p. 153). [^40]: Ibid., D. 1 (p. 156). [^41]: Ibid., D. 4 (p. 466). [^42]: “Those sending them must furnish necessities to those they send, or assign them prebends from which they may be competently sustained in the office committed to them.” Ibid., D. 1 (p. 153). “Those bishops themselves—not the priests nor the lay faithful—ought to furnish them with the necessities of life.” William of Saint-Amour, *De periculis*, cap. 2 (p. 26). [^43]: William of Saint-Amour, *Collectiones*, D. 1 (p. 154). [^44]: William of Saint-Amour, *De periculis*, cap. 2 (p. 26). [^45]: Clem. 3.7.2 (cols. 1161–64). [^46]: Bale, *Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Brytanniae*, 469. [^47]: Specifically, the article charged Wycliffe with holding that both the giver of alms and the begging or preaching friar who received them were excommunicate, but this has been interpreted as a summary analysis of Wycliffe’s condemnation of the friars’ begging as simony, Shirley, ed., *Fasciculi zizaniorum*, 282; cf. Howard, *The Life and Reign of King Richard*, 43. [^48]: Shirley, ed., *Fasciculi zizaniorum*, 272–73, 283–85. [^49]: Howard, *The Life and Reign of King Richard*, 43. [^50]: Wycliffe, *De simonia*, cap. 8 (107:20–21). [^51]: “The sixth abuse of the friars is the simoniacal collection of temporal goods through the office of preaching carried on in this counterfeit way.” Wycliffe, *Trialogus cum supplemento Trialogi*, 4.34 (p. 368). [^52]: “Likewise doeth a Christian man give to his brethren and robbeth them not as friars and monks do. […] They preach (sayest thou) and labor in the word. First I say they are not called and therefore ought not for it is the curate’s office.” Tyndale, *Obedience of a Christian Man*, fol. 126v. [^53]: Calvin, *Institutio*, 4.5.6. [^54]: Ibid., 4.5.9. [^55]: He offered a syllogism: “All Scripture-Preachers may challenge maintenance: But all gifted men (though preaching) cannot challenge maintenance, Therefore they are no Scripture-Preachers.” Poole, *Quo Warranto*, 114. [^56]: Ibid., 115. [^57]: Burton, *A Censure of Simonie*, 43. [^58]: See pp. 156–58. [^59]: See Chapter 9, pp. 156–58. [^60]: See Scheitle, *Beyond the Congregation*, 19–32; White, *The Church and the Parachurch*, 35–58; Wuthnow, *The Restructuring of American Religion*; Carpenter, *Revive Us Again*. [^61]: Scheitle, *Beyond the Congregation*, 21. [^62]: Ibid., 22–23. [^63]: Wuthnow, *The Restructuring of American Religion*, 115; White, *The Church and the Parachurch*, 55–58. [^64]: See Chapter 1, pp. 25–26. [^65]: For a breakdown into sectors see Scheitle, *Beyond the Congregation*, 60–61. [^66]: See Chapter 9, p. 158.