# Spiritual Words: The Problem with Selling Teaching

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).

---

It is no mystery that my main contention here—and perhaps I can speak inclusively, our main contention here—is that the sale of biblical instruction is simony. That was the thesis of last night’s debate, it’s the thesis of this message, and at the end of the day, it’s the thesis of this entire conference.

Last night, I only had the opportunity to provide a brief opening statement and the handle some objections. In addition, given that the history of the doctrine of simony is so obscure, I was also limited in my freedom to appeal to historical sentiments. In this message, I hope to give a fuller account, both with Scripture and history.

## Does the Sin of Simony Exist Today?

Many who read Acts 8 suppose that Simon’s sin is one few others—if any others at all—will ever commit. This was the case even in earlier centuries, and writers on simony would often start with this observation. The Puritan Henry Burton said, that “in the opinion of many, simony hath lost its being, *in rerum natura*, as being long ago antiquated, and out of date, dead and buried with Simon himself.”[^1] This may be especially true in our own times. Many evangelicals consider themselves protected from temptation to the sin since they operate in an environment relatively clear of institutional bribery.

I would argue that the existence of this passage in Acts 8 implicitly requires us to assume simony exists. Biblical narrative is given as an example to instruct disciples against temptations that continue to ensnare men in every age (1 Cor. 10:6; 2 Tim. 3:16). It is also necessary to assume it exists on account of the danger it entails. If you’ve ever learned anything about gun safety, you know the first rule: treat every gun as if it were loaded. The same goes for simony. In the words of John Wycliffe, “On account of the contagion of this disease, the Church must guard against it all the more warily. In treating simony, then, one must presuppose that it exists.”[^2]

## What Was Simon’s Sin?

We have just heard Michael on the text of Acts 8, so I do not need to belabor the details. Simon’s sin is stated directly by Peter: he thought the grace of God could be bought with a price.

First, that means it’s not just about buying. A number of mideval authors were willing to distinguish between simony (*simonia*) proper and what they called “gehazia” (*gesia*), where simony is buying spiritual thing and gehazia—named after Gehazi in 2 Kings 5—is selling spiritual things.[^3] However, they agreed that both are wrapped up under the name simony because simon sought to buy in order that he could sell.[^4] This isn’t directly stated in the text, but it seems obvious enough, given that Simon asked for the power to lay hands on others (Acts 8:19). The Puritan Henry Burton joked that it bears Simon’s name because it is “sin-money,” which sounds a lot like his name.[^5]

Second that means it’s not just about ordinations. This should be obvious enough, but one who sells any kind of spiritual thing treats the Spirit as salable. Yes, Simon asked for hands to be laid on him, but it wasn’t for church office but the empowerment of the Spirit. Even if the same, external sign of laying on hands is used in each, these are entirely different things. As Chrysostom reported, and others who wrote on simony after him agreed, the empowerment of the Spirit through the laying on hands was unique to the apostles.footnotes:[TODO chrysostom, cf. Burton]

Therefore one commits the sin of simon when he sells or buys—or even just desires to sell or buy—any spiritual thing.

### What Is a Spiritual Thing?

First, a spiritual thing is something that is of the Holy Spirit, it is not a synonym for immaterial things. It is not something of created spirits, like the inventions of an engineer or the judgments of a judge, but things graciously given by the uncreated Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity.

Second, a spiritual thing is not necessarily a spiritual thing in essence. In fact, spiritual things in essence—grace, virtues, the work of the Spirit himself—cannot actually be sold directly. Instead, spiritual things are often causes of things that are spiritual in essence. For example, the sacraments—baptism and the Lord’s supper—are spiritual as means of grace, causes of a gracious benefit from the Spirit to those who receive them by faith. When Peter accused Simon, Simon could not respond, “I was not buying the Spirit, I was only buying the laying on of hands.” The Spirit himself is spiritual by essence, but the laying on of hands are spiritual by cause.

Third, a spiritual thing is something that is spiritual in principle, not just its end. For example, a minister does the work of administering the sacraments or reading the Gospel by a spiritual principle since it proceeds from a spiritual office. But other sorts of activities for noble purposes are only spiritual in end. For example, though one who teaches a subject like grammar or logic does not do so by a spiritual principle even if they have a spiritual purpose like the increase virtue or preparation for theological studies.[^6]

## Is Biblical Teaching a Spiritual Thing?

Now we come to the main question. If biblical teaching is a spiritual thing, than the sale of biblical teaching is simony. If biblical teaching is not a spiritual thing, then selling it is not simony. Which is it?

1 Corinthians 2:13 makes it clear (“And this is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words”). The precise meaning of the final phrase “πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συνκρίνοντες” remains debated, but in any case, the teacher speaks words taught by the Spirit.

The subject of biblical teaching, regardless of focus or form, is ultimately the Scripture as given by the Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16–17). Furthermore, though it may have reached him through the work of other men, it is at last revealed to the teacher by the Spirit, who enables him to comprehend the thought of God (1 Cor. 2:10–11). The learner, on his side, apprehends it not by his natural capacities alone but by spiritual discernment, since “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). The contrast Paul drew between the spiritual and the natural is not a contrast between the material and immaterial aspects of the human rational mind, but between the operations of the Spirit and the unaided faculties of man. The godly teacher’s proper hope, then, is to be made by grace an instrument through which the Spirit himself works upon the hearer. Such teaching is spiritual in each of the three senses earlier distinguished: as this teaching is derivative of Scripture, it is of the uncreated Spirit (*a spiritu increato*); as it produces a spiritual effect, it is spiritual by cause (*per causam*); and as it proceeds from the Spirit at work in the words of the teacher who has received that same Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12–13), it is spiritual as to its principle (*ex parte principii*). To set a price on it therefore meets the definition of simony, differing in essence not at all from Simon Magus’s original proposal.

The chief objections that the tradition has raised against simony all apply to the case of biblical teaching. We will examine three of those here and, in each, respond to a potential defense of its sale.

### Stewardship of the Word

In any legitimate sale, the seller must have a proper authority to conduct the transaction. If one owns the thing, he can decide of his own accord; if one is a steward, such a sale needs to be authorized by the owner. As we have seen from 1 Corinthians 4:1 (“Let a man so account us as ministers of Christ and stewards [*οἰκονόμους*] of the mysteries of God”), the one who teaches God’s word is a steward rather than an owner. Adam was charged to subdue the earth and exercise dominion over it (Gen. 1:28), and from that grant flows the authority by which men buy and sell the goods of the earth as their own. The content of biblical teaching, however—whether it be the bare words of Scripture or the doctrinal truths contained therein—was not given as part of nature or committed to man under this kind of dominion. These mysteries may be possessed only under a stewardship. The steward answers to the Master, who sets the terms of their administration and has strictly prohibited the sale of his goods.

Paul revisited this truth in 1 Corinthians 9:17 (“If I do this willingly, I have a reward. But if unwillingly, I am still entrusted with a stewardship [*οἰκονομίαν*]”). Many have interpreted this as a contrast between a minimal requirement Paul was under and his chosen approach of going above and beyond.[^7] However, the apostle considered it unthinkable to do anything less (1 Cor. 9:15–16).[^8] To preach the gospel for a price is to do so “unwillingly” (1 Cor. 9:17), the labor being compelled by contract. Because such a man transacts with the Master’s goods as an owner rather than as a steward, he forfeits all reward of stewardship. Thus, Paul presented the gospel free of charge (1 Cor. 9:18).

Paul acknowledged a minister’s right to receive. Moreover, he did not absolutely reject funds on account of the gospel in Corinth; he repeatedly anticipated the Corinthians sending him on his way (1 Cor. 16:6; 2 Cor. 1:16).[^9] Instead, his commitment, as stated here and elsewhere, was to never exchange his teaching for a price (2 Cor. 2:17; 11:7, 12).

In fact, it is that stewardship that makes one fit to live of the gospel; to accept a price for one’s teaching is to forfeit the grounds by which one can rightly receive material support in any measure. Consider Paul’s appeal to the Old Testament priesthood in 1 Corinthians 9:13 (“those who serve at the altar partake of its offerings”). The priests received from the Lord as their inheritance precisely because they did not possess an inheritance of their own (Num. 18:20). To take ownership over that which one was given to steward is to lose the reward the Lord offers for such service. The laborer is worthy of his wages, but the work that God has given is not unspecified; it is the work of stewardship. For this reason, Micah condemned the priests who taught for a price (Mic. 3:11).

One might counter that Paul spoke of “preaching,” not teaching more generally. Yet the concern over stewardship does not lie in what the steward does, but in what he offers. The truths of Scripture preached in sermonic fashion remain just as much “mysteries of God” as those taught otherwise. Thus, while there may be factors that make charging to hear preaching in the formal worship of God more reprehensible than charging for biblical teaching in other forms, nothing differs in the violation of one’s own status as a steward.

### The Grace of the Word

Typically appealing to Romans 11:6 (“And if by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise grace is no longer grace”), medieval theologians contended that simoniacal transactions undermine the grace they ostensibly communicate. Requiring some payment—whether of the hand (*munus a manu*), the tongue (*munus a lingua*), or service (*munus ab obsequio*)—violates the nature of the gift by subjecting it to the terms of a commercial transaction. This is as true for biblical teaching as it is for the sacraments or church office. The “word of his grace” (Acts 14:3; 20:32) is not only the word *about* the grace of God, but is a word that is given *by* the grace of God. A teaching of free grace must itself be free of charge, or it runs the risk of communicating a different gospel.

Paul described the truths of God the Spirit illuminates as “freely given” (1 Cor. 2:12), and Jesus appeals to the same free receiving in Matthew 10:8 as the grounds for proclaiming the kingdom freely to others. What has been graciously received must be graciously given. To do otherwise suggests it was never graciously received in the first place. The same is illustrated in forgiveness: the one who is forgiven much loves much, and to love little exposes a lack of forgiveness (Luke 7:47).

It may be objected here that those who charge for biblical teaching—especially of the more advanced or specialized variety—do not charge for the gospel. In fact, almost all of these would give the gospel for free to any who ask. Yet this objection presumes a distinction the apostles rejected. The gospel should not be seen as introductory or separable from other truth in the course of proper biblical teaching.

First, apostolic teaching regards Christ crucified as the essence of all true teaching. Paul knew nothing among the Corinthians except Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2) yet told the Ephesian elders that he would have blood on his hands had he shrunk from declaring the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:26–27). In 1 Corinthians 2, Paul was not confessing that he had shrunk from the fullness of his task; he was showing that true biblical teaching resides in the power of the Spirit rather than the wisdom of man. Similarly, to the Colossians, he summarized the nature of his teaching with the phrase “him we proclaim” (Col. 1:28). Jesus himself instructed the apostles that to understand Scripture rightly it must be interpreted concerning himself (Luke 24:44–45). Rightly proffered, doctrinal teaching communicates the gospel.

Second, when the apostles distinguished between levels of instruction, using the terms “milk” and “meat,” they did not isolate the gospel to one or the other. The author of Hebrews called his audience to move beyond the milk (Heb. 5:12), giving examples of these elementary doctrines of Christ: repentance, faith, washings, laying on hands, resurrection, judgment (Heb. 6:1–2). These are things that relate in some ways to Christ, but the particular instance of “meat” that prompted his comments was the relation between Christ and Melchizedek, the superior nature of his priesthood that guarantees an eternal salvation (Heb. 5:10; 7:1–28). Similarly, when Paul chided the Corinthians for not being ready for solid food (1 Cor. 3:2), he confessed no failure of his own to provide advanced teaching beyond the gospel, but charged them with a failure to receive the full teaching of the gospel. The notions of “flesh” and “merely human” in 1 Corinthians 3:3–4 are designed to contrast with the mind of the Spirit in the preceding chapter of the epistle, where he already demonstrated that the full understanding of spiritual truth depends on the work of the Spirit. The “solid food” is nothing other than the essential message of Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2).

Third, such a distinction between introductory teaching that must be graciously given and advanced teaching that may be sold suggests that the Spirit’s work is only required to understand the former. If 1 Corinthians 2 were not enough to demonstrate otherwise, the apostle John taught that the anointing of the Spirit teaches “all things” (1 John 2:27).[^10] The one who claims to distinguish his own theological instruction from the gospel in order to absolve its sale from charges of simony must likewise assert that it lies outside that which the Spirit would teach. While we may concede that John did not employ the term “all things” (*πάντων*) to include every range of secular expertise, the term cannot be narrowed so as to exclude any area of biblical revelation or Christian faith.

### The Pricelessness of the Word

The chief ground on which the tradition identified simony as heresy was that it puts a price on that which is priceless. Like Simon, who believed the gift of God could be purchased with money (Acts 8:20), the simoniac confesses by action that God’s immeasurable gift is not immeasurable. This same observation applies to the teaching of the word. The word of God is more desirable than gold and better than thousands of pieces of gold and silver (Pss. 19:10; 119:72), and wisdom is more precious than rubies such that nothing compares (Prov. 3:15).

Some may object to a broad prohibition on the sale of the teaching of the word of God that it fails to distinguish between that which is necessary in the Christian life and that which is optional. This distinction seems to factor into how one should value a thing. Things like baptism would be wrong to sell because they are necessary, but not all need additional theological instruction, especially at the higher academic levels. Yet if the core crime of simony is the activity of placing a price on the priceless, this distinction between necessary and optional is irrelevant. Both produce spiritual development in the believer, and therefore both are priceless.

If, however, we are to entertain the necessary/optional distinction for a moment, we will see how quickly it breaks down, depending on what is meant by “necessary.” First, one may refer to that which is required for the Christian life. It is true that advanced theological education is not needed in an absolute way by anyone, but neither is baptism. Baptism is normative and beneficial in the Christian life, but those who find themselves providentially hindered from baptism will not thereby lack salvation.

Second, one may refer to that which would be unavailable elsewhere—e.g., “you don’t have to come here for theological instruction, you have other options.” Once again, the same is true for baptism, and it is on this count that many of the schoolmen directed a man to seek the sacrament elsewhere rather than pay the priest who withheld it. Yet while the rightly practiced baptisms of true churches are identical in benefit, teaching differs from teacher to teacher. On this point, theological instruction is actually *less* interchangeable than baptism.

Third, one may refer to those activities that are required for a church to be faithful. Indeed, churches must baptize, and they are under no universal obligation to begin higher-level academic institutions, but how would such a distinction apply to other varying functions of churches? Those who would make such an argument would likely recoil at the idea of charging for a midweek prayer meeting, though it is an optional activity of the church, subject to the discretion of the leadership.

## Historical Testimony

While theologians of the past addressed simony in preaching and teaching, their primary concerns lay with the issues of their own day. Accordingly, the literature dwells on simony in ordinations more than on any other kind. For many, questions regarding charging for the preached or taught word were more theoretical than practical.

This was especially the case in the time after the Reformation. John Godolphin exemplified this in his survey of canon law on simony when he declined to wade through the details of “whether it be simony in ecclesiastics to take money for sermons or theological doctrines,” having no desire to “abuse the reader in perplexing him with exotic questions.”[^11] Some after the Middle Ages still addressed the matter, but such treatments grew increasingly rare.

In our own day, a different picture appears. Simony in ordinations has all but ceased to be a present danger among Protestants, and related matters such as systems of patronage hardly arise, even in established (i.e., national) churches where the practice had once been common.

{ TODO: move a lot of this to 13th century talk? }

How far the foregoing proscriptions reach depends on how we interpret the vocabulary of “preaching” and “the word of God.” Taken narrowly, they govern only the formal activity which takes place in a worship service or distinctly evangelistic encounters, but many authors seemed to apply these terms to doctrinal instruction more generally. Regardless, some authors were explicit in their condemnation of the sale of teaching.

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.[^12] In the following century, Aphrahat the Persian opened his *Demonstrations* by committing himself to freely teach the one who requests it.[^13]

The 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.[^14]

## The Scope of Application

Having identified the sale of biblical teaching as a species of simony, we may now consider where this prohibition bears on contemporary practice. The examples below do not exhaust potential application, but they do cover a number of the more common venues where spiritual teaching is presently offered for sale.

### Biblical Counseling

Biblical counseling is a form of teaching where one applies the truths of Scripture to the personal life of another. Distinguished from Christian therapy, where Christian principles may be applied but the teaching of the word does not define the practice, biblical counseling seeks to give that which is priceless. Beyond the pricelessness of scriptural wisdom shown above, many who have received biblical counseling have personally found it invaluable.

None can appeal to the fact that the Bible is already available; presumably, such counsel is sought because understanding of it is lacking. Furthermore, it would be misguided to justify commerce in counseling by claiming to place the price on time rather than instruction. If the counselor is called to “reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all patience and doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2), then both time and teaching must be given graciously. How can the counselor who charges by the hour be said to exhort with all patience?

### Christian Conferences

The same restrictions apply to Christian conferences. By Christian conferences, we have in view those gatherings whose essence is biblical preaching or teaching, not events with a merely Christian tone or cultural veneer. Additionally, none of this bears on third parties who may levy their own incidental charges (for example, a toll for a bridge to reach the conference), nor do the restrictions apply to other factors that may limit attendance (such as a lack of space). However, regarding attendance at the conference itself, to charge for admission is to charge for access to priceless teaching.

It may seem that such charges could be warranted since the venue is a physical thing rather than a spiritual one. However, James’s prohibition of special seating should give us pause (James 2:2–4). Though he may have had in mind worship services proper, the principle behind it is universal: Christians should not show partiality in holding out the faith (James 2:1). A faithful application of this precept does not permit the finance-based partiality that admits to an in-person space those willing to pay and requires others to sit at home, perhaps as they watch online.

The notion of annexation offers further clarity here. Because the nature of a conference is *live* teaching, the physical space is not annexed to the spiritual thing by mere direction (*ordinatum*) but by dependence (*dependens*). Just as a benefice presupposes the office to which it pertains, so a conference space presupposes the gathering it hosts. The distinction between dependence and direction may not be intuitive; considered differently, we might observe that the money of a benefice could have been put to another purpose, as could a conference venue. However, just as the grant of a benefice secures an office that cannot be had without it, presence in the conference space during the event secures a fullness of teaching that cannot be had without that access. Other teaching may pre-exist the medium that communicates it, being captured and reproduced without loss elsewhere, but this is not the case with live teaching. Recall that teaching is a spiritual activity that extends beyond the transmission of raw propositions (1 Cor. 2:13). These details of access are therefore not incidental.

### Seminary Education

No degree of academic sophistication exempts seminaries from the prohibition on the sale of biblical teaching. Charging tuition for such teaching is therefore simony on the ground used by the masters at Paris when they argued that the labor of teaching theology could not be sold. Additionally, as they distinguished, we should not include the liberal arts among the subjects that may not be taught at a price; even instruction in Greek and Hebrew is not a spiritual thing that must be given freely. Likewise, Bible colleges that offer a Christian slant to the humanities need not fall under this regulation, save in those courses that teach the word of God and what arises from it.

Scholarship programs do not resolve the difficulty. They do not extend to every student, and the very requirement to apply for relief is itself a kind of price. The same is true of the common mechanism of having churches pay on behalf of their members who attend. As we have seen, payments on behalf of another still fall under the purview of the doctrine of simony.

The practical concerns of the medievals should instruct us as well. In part, they legislated against both simony in office and simony in theological teaching licenses to ensure that the ranks of bishops and masters were kept pure. Ought we not be concerned that our commercial approach to theological education has lowered the quality of the church’s pastors and professors?

As conceded with conferences, a seminary need not admit all who apply. While a finance-based partiality is prohibited, other forms of partiality may be acceptable. Seminaries would be wise to admit only the best-qualified candidates, or even to restrict admission to students belonging to a particular roster of churches. Regarding additional financial limitations on an institution, we may observe the conclusions of medieval theologians on the same concerns with respect to religious societies. Should the burden of a student’s presence exceed what the institution can absorb, it may gate entry upon his ability to provide for his own space. What it may not do is gate entry upon the willingness to pay for the teaching itself.

### Theological Books

The prohibition on the sale of biblical teaching extends to theological and devotional literature. The spiritual thing under consideration is not a printed volume but the words that compose the teaching. The prices of digital editions often evidence that it is indeed these words that are sold, when they run near the price of print editions. One might suggest that substantial prices reflect the cost of electronic storage and transmission, the convenience of the service, or some feature of the formatting. Yet the similarity in price between print and digital remains best explained by the one quality they share: the words.

For physical books, the notion of annexation is once again helpful. In this case, the printed volume is annexed by direction (*ordinatum*). The essence of the spiritual thing in the book is the words, which are separable from the physical ink and paper, perfectly reproducible elsewhere. This distinguishes books from Christian conferences as treated above. Live teaching is defined by that space wherein it is given, but the written word may be losslessly copied and distributed, even by an independent third party. Therefore, the physical volume might be sold as a purely material thing.

This does not, however, dismiss every concern raised by the sale of a physical book. The price set on the bound volume may demonstrate a sale of a spiritual thing. As the schoolmen observed of consecrated vessels, a high price may indicate a simoniacal transaction since it suggests that the thing is not being sold for itself, but for the sake of its annexation, much as Hus remarked on substantial fees for ordination certificates.

## The Advent of Copyright

Having considered these applications, we ought to reflect on what has changed to so increase the sale of biblical teaching in our own day. Many factors might be catalogued, but a primary catalyst appears to be the advent of modern copyright. While there had previously been the occasional regulation of the press that restricted the printing of certain works to named stationers, the Statute of Anne (1710) was the first law that vested a general proprietary right over the text in the author himself. Until then, authors of theological works had been financially supported by their own churches or patrons. As we saw, Luther never received money for his works and even refused to sell a guarantee of first access. However, the Statute of Anne opened a legal mechanism for royalty schemes by which the author could control the work to claim a share of the proceeds rather than rely on the church or patronage. What Luther declined as unconscionable, later authors accepted as default. While the advent of copyright only directly accounts for books in our previous list of examples where teaching is sold today, it is not hard to imagine how the sale of knowledge in book form would normalize the same transaction in any given medium.

Considered in the medieval categories, copyright provides a legal mechanism by which spiritual things may be annexed to temporal things. Recall the right of patronage: when law ties a right of presentation to the ownership of land, a spiritual thing is so annexed to a temporal thing that selling one sells the other. The same happens in print. One who sells a bound volume with “All Rights Reserved” does not merely sell the paper but the right to access its contents, since copying or distributing the contents otherwise could expose one to litigation. In our established technical terms, this converts the book from a directed annex into a dependent annex. No longer are the paper and ink merely directed toward the *use* of reading spiritual words; annexed to them is the *right* of reading spiritual words. In this scenario where rights transfer with the printed volume, simony is not discerned merely by price as discussed previously; the transaction is inherently simoniacal, at least in regard to the seller.

### The Prevention of Alterations

One supposed advantage of copyright is the prevention of alterations. Whether it accomplishes this is its own question; anyone may still introduce corruptions into copies he makes, with or without authorization. Regardless, both Scripture and the Reformed tradition require the adaptation of divine revelation.

Paul instructed the Colossians, “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” (Col. 3:16). The Westminster Confession appeals to this verse to justify Bible translation,[^15] and it does not require a stretch from there to see how it would also motivate additional arrangements, such as setting the Psalms to meter.[^16] On similar grounds, the Second Helvetic Confession affirms that “the preaching of the word of God is the word of God.”[^17]

If the word of God commands adaptations of itself for the sake of pedagogical utility, and it retains power (authority and efficacy) in the process, then that which is derivative of it must be subject to the same, lest the human author sacrifice the authority of his teaching, conceding it to be merely of human wisdom rather than a transmission of divine truth that must be propagated. The use of copyright to restrict the alteration of theological resources does not so much guard the word as it places an obstacle before the obedience the word commands.

### The Prevention of Plagiarism

Another supposed advantage of copyright is the prevention of plagiarism. While Christians have contended for the truth since the apostles, this wrangling over credit, especially in theological works, is a modern development. The synoptic gospels were given to us through authors borrowing from each other without specific attribution.[^18] Chrysostom met the contrary instinct in his own day and lamented that any would compare to a thief the preacher who uses another man’s words without credit.[^19] Even Hus, as scrupulous a witness against simony as this book has quoted, translated large passages of Wycliffe’s earlier work word for word, with no particular acknowledgment.[^20]

### Waiving the Right

Even after the advent of copyright, many Christians have noted its negative effects and made efforts to waive these rights either partially or wholly.[^21] To cite one notable example, Loraine Boettner placed such a notice on the copyright pages of his books. While the wording in some works differs slightly, in *Studies in Theology*, it reads:

> Any one is at liberty to use material from this book with or without credit. In preparing this book the writer has received help from many sources, some acknowledged and many unacknowledged. He believes the material herein contained to be a true statement of Scripture truth, and his desire is to further, not to restrict, its use.[^22]

At least some others followed suit.[^23] More recently, some Christian authors have begun adopting public domain dedications.[^24]

### Large Language Models

A further consideration has arisen in our own generation. Large language models—the artificial intelligences increasingly consulted on every subject, theology included—gather their information from the texts available to them, which is to say, predominantly from texts that are free. From an outside perspective, what any particular training corpus contains is not known, but a work restricted by copyright is almost certainly less likely to be included than one that is not, all else being equal. Therefore, whatever picture of Christian doctrine such a system synthesizes comes disproportionately from those who have made their teaching freely available. If Christ commanded his disciples to teach all nations, and the nations now mediate much of their inquiry through tools fed on open text, a new reason has been added for the Christian to forgo the control copyright affords.

## Conclusion

Theological education, insofar as it teaches the word of God, falls under the various concerns of the medievals who wrote on simony: it fails to recognize man’s stewardship of the mysteries of God, it undermines the nature of grace, and it prices the priceless. This applies to various forms of biblical teaching, from conference tickets to seminary tuition to the price of theological books.

Arguably, the problem as it exists today arose from the legal innovation of copyright in the eighteenth century. Regardless, the history of practices around theological teaching testifies to a commerce that Christians have tolerated only in recent centuries, one requiring a new address that appeals back to the foundations of older sources.

Biblical teaching, properly taught, is not a matter of human wisdom but that which is taught by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13). To sell such a spiritual thing is simony. The dilemma it poses to the would-be seller of theological instruction is therefore unavoidable. Either he confesses his guilt before God, or he pleads that what he sells is merely the wisdom of man. The word is manna from heaven, and those who hoard it by withholding from all but those who pay should not be surprised when they find their surplus to be rot.[^25]

## Bibliography

Albert the Great. *Commentarii in IV Sententiarum*. Edited by Auguste Borgnet. Opera omnia 29–30. Paris: Vivès, 1894.

Aphrahat. *Demonstrationes*. In *Patrologia Syriaca, pars prima, tomus primus*, edited by Jean Parisot, Patrologia Syriaca, vol. 1. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1894.

Aquinas, Thomas. *Quodlibet*. Editio tertia Taurinensis. Vol. 5. Turin: Ex Officina Petri Marietti, 1921.

———. *Scriptum super libros Sententiarum*. Vol. 13. Venice: Joseph Bettinelli, 1750.

Bauer, Walter. *A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature*. Edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Boettner, Loraine. *Studies in Theology*. Phillipsburg, NJ: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1985.

———. *The Millennium*. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1984. First published 1957.

———. *The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination*. Philadelphia, PA: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1974. First published 1932.

Bullinger, Heinrich. *Confessio et Expositio Simplex Orthodoxae Fidei*. Zurich: Froschauer, 1566.

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. *Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians*. Translated by John Pringle. Vol. 1. Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1848. First published 1546.

———. “Epistre au Lecteur.” In *Ioannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia*, edited by Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, vol. 6, 165–172. Brunswick: C. A. Schwetschke et filium, 1867.

Chrysostom, John. *De sacerdotio*. In *Patrologia Graeca*, edited by Jacques-Paul Migne, vol. 48, 623–692. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1862.

———. *Sancti Patris Nostri Joannis Chrysostomi Archiepiscopi Constantinopolitani Interpretatio Omnium Epistolarum Paulinarum per Homilias Facta, Tomus II: Homiliae in Epistolam ad Corinthios Priorem*. Edited by Frederick Field. Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1847.

Clement of Alexandria. *Stromata*. Edited by Otto Stählin. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 17. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1909.

Godolphin, John. *Repertorium Canonicum; or, An Abridgment of the Ecclesiastical Laws of this Realm, Consistent with the Temporal*. London: Printed by S. Roycroft for Christopher Wilkinson, 1678.

Jore, Tim. *The Christian Commons: Ending the Spiritual Famine of the Global Church*. 2nd ed. Distant Shores Media, 2016.

Lombard, Peter. *Libri IV Sententiarum*. Edited by PP. Collegii S. Bonaventurae. 2nd ed. Vol. 2. Ad Claras Aquas prope Florentiam: Ex Typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1916.

Luther, Martin. *Vorlesungen über 1. Mose*. In *D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe*, edited by O. Reichert, vol. 43. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1912.

Major, John. *In quartum Sententiarum (redactio A)*. Paris, 1509.

Oswald of Laskó. *Aureum sacrae theologiae rosarium*. Hagenau: Heinrich Gran for Johann Rynmann, 1508.

Owens, Conley. *The Dorean Principle: A Biblical Response to the Commercialization of Christianity*. Dublin, CA: FirstLove Publications, 2021.

Reisinger, Ernest C. *God’s Will, Man’s Will and Free Will*. Pensacola, FL: Chapel Library, 1998.

Spinka, Matthew. *John Hus and the Czech Reform*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941.

Thomas of Strasbourg. *Commentaria in IIII libros Sententiarum*. Genoa: Apud Antonium Orerium, 1585.

Westminster Assembly. *The Westminster Confession of Faith*. Edinburgh: Evan Tyler, 1647.

Wycliffe, John. *Tractatus de simonia*. Edited by Sigmund Herzberg-Fränkel and Michael Henry Dziewicki. London: Trübner & Co., 1898.

---

[^1]: TODO

[^2]: Wycliffe, *De simonia*, cap. 1 (2:1–4).

[^3]: Lombard, *Sent.* IV, d. 25, c. 2 (p. 909); TODO wycliffe.

[^4]: Aquinas, *In Sent.* IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 4; Oswald of Laskó, *Rosarium*, IV, s.v. Simonia; Major, *In Sent. (red. A)*, d. 25, q. un. (fol. 145vb); Thomas of Strasbourg, *In Sent.* IV, d. 25, q. 1, a. 4, qc. 1, ad 1 (fol. 150r); Albert the Great, *In Sent.* IV, d. 25, a. 6, ad 1 (p. 95b).

[^5]: “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.” Burton, *A Censure of Simonie*, 31.

[^6]: See Aquinas, *In Sent.* IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 2, qc. 2; Aquinas, *Quodlibet*, VIII, q. 6, a. 1 (p. 175).

[^7]: E.g., “the one is a thing commanded, whereas the other is an achievement of my own choice.” Chrysostom, *Homiliae in epistolam ad Corinthios priorem*, hom. 22.3 (p. 261).

[^8]: E.g., “he did nothing but what the necessity of his office (though it was an extraordinary necessity) demanded.” Calvin, *Commentary on the Corinthians*, 1 Cor. 9:18 (p. 303).

[^9]: The word “send” (*προπέμπω*) used in each of these verses implies a material equipping. Bauer, *A Greek-English Lexicon*, 873.

[^10]: Cf. John 14:26; 16:13.

[^11]: Godolphin, *Repertorium Canonicum*, 557–58.

[^12]: Clement of Alexandria, *Stromata*, 7.7.49.5 (GCS 17, 37:7–9).

[^13]: “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).

[^14]: In 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).

[^15]: “[the Scriptures] are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner.” WCF 1.8.

[^16]: Calvin defended his own psalter on this basis: “For the rest, we must remember what St. Paul says: that spiritual songs cannot be well sung except from the heart. Now the heart requires understanding. And in this (says St. Augustine) lies the difference between the singing of men and that of birds. For a linnet, a nightingale, a parrot will sing well, but it will be without understanding. Now the proper gift of man is to sing knowing what he says: after the understanding must follow the heart and the affection, which cannot be unless we have the canticle imprinted on our memory, that we may never cease from singing.” Calvin, “Preface to the Genevan Psalter,” CO 6:171–72.

[^17]: SHC 1.

[^18]: See Luke 1:1–2.

[^19]: “If any preacher should chance to weave into his own discourses some part of what others have labored to produce, he incurs greater reproach than those who steal money. Often, when he has taken nothing whatever from anyone but lies under mere suspicion, he suffers the fate of one caught in the act.” Chrysostom, *De sacerdotio*, 5.1 (PG 48:672–73).

[^20]: “Hus is indeed guilty of such a practice, for as a matter of fact he seldom mentions Wyclif by name.” Spinka, *John Hus and the Czech Reform*, 12.

[^21]: See Jore, *Christian Commons*.

[^22]: Boettner, *Studies in Theology*, 4; cf. Boettner, *The Millennium*, ii; Boettner, *Reformed Doctrine of Predestination*, 4.

[^23]: E.g., Reisinger, *God’s Will, Man’s Will and Free Will*, Author’s Note.

[^24]: The dedication chiefly adopted is Creative Commons Zero, which provides a license fallback in jurisdictions that do not permit a full waiving of rights. See Owens, *Dorean Principle*, 129–30.

[^25]: Cf. Deut. 8:3; Exod. 16:20.