doreancon 2026 · Wednesday, September 30

The Heresy of Simony

If you remember from my opening remarks yesterday, simony did not get its name until the eleventh century. However, it was first called “the simoniacal heresy” (simoniaca haeresis) in {year TODO} by Gregory the Great, the sixth century bishop of Rome.¹Rosé, “Simon le Magicien hérésiarque?” 204–5 Yes, he labeled it a heresy. He spoke of simony this way often,²See ibid., 205–6; 235–38 for the first attestation and a map, then a table, of Gregory’s use of the term in his correspondence. And throughout the centuries, everyone followed him in affirming simony as heresy.

Now maybe you are skeptical of that label. First, why should we listen to a bishop of Rome? If you have never heard of Gregory the Great, he was one of the greatest Latin fathers. In his Institutes of Christian theology, John Calvin cited him second only to Augustine.³Little, “Calvin’s Appreciation of Gregory,” 146. The Reformers generally regarded Gregory as the last true bishop of Rome.⁴E.g., Calvin, Institutio, 4.17.49; Turretin, De Necessaria Secessione, disp. 7, § 15 (p. 155). In other words, all the popes that came after him are bad, but Gregory, he’s a good guy. And he’s not just good, he’s great; it’s right there in his name.

Second, it’s not actions that are heresies, but beliefs. Now that’s a fair point so clearly a qualification is needed, but I want to hold back on that qualification for a moment.

Who Affirmed Simony as Heresy?§

Early medieval sources spoke of simony as a heresy without qualification. This include Peter Lombard’s Sentences⁵Lombard, Sent. IV, d. 25, c. 2 (p. 909); IV, d. 25, c. 5 (p. 910). and Gratian’s Decretum.⁶C. 1, q. 1, c. 21.

Moreover, the fathers and medievals regarded Simon Magus as the first of all heretics⁷Though he included in his description of them more than the commerce of the Spirit, Augustine referred to the “Simonians” (Simoniani) as the first in a catalog of eighty-eight heretical groups. Augustine, De haeresibus, 1 (PL 42:24–26); cf. Aquinas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 1. and the father of all heresies. Cyril of Jerusalem called him “the inventor of all heresy.”⁸Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 6.14 (1, p. 174). Irenaeus referred to him as the one “from whom all heresies originate.”⁹Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus haereses, 1.23.2 (pp. 246–47); cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica, 2.13.6 (GCS 9.1, 136:8–9).

Mediveal sources spoke of simony as not only the first of all heresies but as the foremost among them¹⁰“primos et precipuos hereticos” Deusdedit, Contra invasores, 2.17 (p. 335); cf. C. 1, q. 7, c. 27; Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (4:18–24). A later addition (palea) to the Decretum and subsequent authors wrongly ascribed the passage to “Pascalis Papa.” and therefore is more damnable than the rest.¹¹C. 1, q. 1, c. 21.

On What Basis Did They Make that Identification?§

On what basis did theologians of previous generations identify simony as a heresy? The discourse centered on three contentions: the simoniac prices what is priceless, he makes the Spirit a servant, and he blasphemes the Holy Spirit.

Pricing the Priceless§

Lombard described the sin of simony as the activity of putting a price on a priceless grace.¹²“impretiabilem gratiam pretio conducere” Lombard, Sent. IV, d. 25, c. 2 (p. 909). Because many of the schoolmen addressed simony in the context of commenting on Lombard’s Sentences, this description appears repeatedly. Many made the same observation without using that exact phrase.¹³E.g., Oswald of Laskó, Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia, 2; Cudworth, The Supplement, 537; Ames, Conscience, 5.229. For example, in making this point, Thomas Aquinas appealed to Proverbs 3:15Proverbs 3:15She is more precious than rubies; and none of the things you can desire are to be compared to her. (“she is more precious than all riches: and all the things that are desired are not to be compared with her”).¹⁴Aquinas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 1, corp.. Peter Auriol called it a sin against religion because “the priceless [impreciabile] and incommensurable [inaequabile] is given for something that can never match it.” His example was a sacrament, “which the whole world cannot equal, nor even the least degree of spiritual things.”¹⁵Auriol, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166b).

In the words of the Glossa ordinaria, “Spiritual gifts are cheapened by a price.”¹⁶“Dona spiritualia pretio vilescunt” Glossa ordinaria ad Matt. 10:8 (PL 114:118A). On this count, some described simony as a spiritual harlotry,¹⁷For example, the theologian Nicole Oresme made this analogy while preaching to Urban V on Christmas Eve, 1363. Oresme, “Sermo coram papa et cardinalibus,” 222. For the date, see Mathieu Caesar’s introduction, ibid., 198–99. This sermon, proclaiming the corruption of the papacy directly before the pope (coram papa), Foxe later translated whole into the Actes and Monuments. Foxe, Actes and Monuments, 5.415–16. selling for hire what nature made not for sale. Though not explicitly invoking the name of Simon or the label of “simony,” Augustine explained the problem well:

[The Word] is priceless, because it surpasses all things. For a thing for sale is either matched by its price, or is inferior to it, or exceeds it. When anyone buys for as much as a thing is worth, the price equals the thing bought; when for less, the price falls below it; when for more, the price exceeds it. But nothing can be made equal to the Word of God, nor in any exchange be inferior to it, nor superior.¹⁸Augustine, Sermones, 117, cap. 1 (PL 38:661–62).

In canon law and scholastic theology, the phrase “pricing the priceless” did not merely describe the activity of simony but supplied the basis for its condemnation. By his attempted commerce, the simoniac makes a comparison between the Spirit and wealth, in effect denying the pricelessness of the Spirit. Frequently, this is characterized as a denial of grace, as in the words of Bonaventure: “This is manifest heresy, and this is what Simon Magus thought. For such a man errs in faith, because he believes that grace is not grace.”¹⁹Bonaventure, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 1, q. 4, concl. (p. 648).

A Protestant perspective heightens this concern about pricing the priceless. With the recovery of sola gratia during the Reformation, the false gospel of grace on the basis of works became a chief concern. In this vein, Martin Luther went further, labeling all works-righteousness a form of simony, since it would make grace something exchanged for merit.²⁰“Every man is naturally a simoniac […] he would wish God to be one who would be appeased by human works and merits.” Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 25:31–34 (WA 43, 423:32–424:4). The passage is quoted in Chapter 1.

Making the Spirit a Servant§

The Second Council of Nicaea (787) restored the veneration of images, and with it the communion between Constantinople and Rome. Bishops who had conformed under iconoclasm were charged with having bought their sees, and Tarasius, the patriarch of Constantinople and president of the council, restored some of these after a year’s penance. This cost him monastic support in the east, and a report of his laxity seems to have reached Rome. Tarasius answered with a letter to the pope.²¹Price, Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, 54; 629–31. It carries the following argument:

For the impious heresy of Macedonius and those around him, the attackers of the Holy Spirit, is more tolerable [than simony]. For those men, in their raving, confess the Holy Spirit to be a creature and a slave of God the Father and the Son; but these men make that same Holy Spirit their own slave. For every master sells what he has if he wishes, whether a slave or anything else of those things he possesses. Similarly, he who buys, wishing to be the master of what he has bought, acquires it through the price of money. Thus, those who carry out this iniquitous transaction disparage the Holy Spirit, sinning equally with those who blasphemed, saying that Christ cast out demons by Beelzebub. And, to speak more truly, they are compared to Judas the traitor, who sold Christ to the Jews, the killers of God.²²As recorded in Deusdedit, Collectio canonum, 4.15 (p. 407).

The heresy Tarasius named might be set beside Arianism: instead of making the Son a creature, it makes the Spirit a creature. Yet simony is even worse by this analysis, making the Spirit so low a creature that he becomes the slave of man. This argument was recorded by Gratian,²³C. 1, q. 1, c. 21. and others repeated it after him, affirming that simony is a sin against the Spirit.²⁴E.g., Hus, O svatokupectví, 9.F; cf. The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 113; Auriol, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166b).

Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit§

While many addressed simony as a sin against the Holy Spirit, John Wycliffe and, after him, Jan Hus described it in a more elaborate Trinitarian framework. For them, simony is not only a heresy but one of three categories of heresy, each offending a distinct person of the Trinity by the nature of its offense. This categorization appears to be unique to them.²⁵Other Trinitarian models exist to describe simony. Robert Holcot described simony as selling the power of the Father, charging for a testimony as selling the truth of the Son, and doing good works for praise as selling the holiness of the Spirit; Holcot, In librum Sapientiae, lect. 132 (sigs. F1r–v). Wycliffe explained that apostasy is a sin against the Father, who binds the bride of Christ to himself; blasphemy is a sin against the Son, who is the power and wisdom of God; and simony is a sin against the Holy Spirit, who orders the peace of the house of God.²⁶“God the Holy Spirit, who, since out of supreme kindness he wisely orders his house in peace, is provoked by simoniacal depravity contrary to his ordinance. For the simoniac, resisting the Holy Spirit, strives blasphemously to dissolve this benign order and thus the peace.” Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (1:3–20); cf. Hus, O svatokupectví, 2.A–B.

This accords with the quotation from Tarasius as found in Gratian’s Decretum, which also describes simoniacs as sinning equally with those who blasphemed by accusing Christ of casting out demons by Beelzebub.²⁷C. 1, q. 1, c. 21. Hus repeated the comparison with Macedonius. Hus, O svatokupectví, 9.F. Wycliffe and Hus pressed these charges to the fullest extent, categorizing simony as the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is “unforgivable both in this world and in the one to come.”²⁸Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (1:21–23); Hus, O svatokupectví, 2.B.

How Did They Qualify It?§

Following Gregory the Great and the testimony of canon law, the medievals were virtually unanimous in identifying simony as heresy. However, writers of the eleventh century introduced a qualification that carried through the following centuries.²⁹See Gilchrist, “‘Simoniaca haeresis,’” 216. For example, in his commentary on the Sentences, Aquinas handled the argument that heresy must be a belief rather than an action and conceded the point in his determination.³⁰The argument: “Every heresy is against some article of faith, about which a correct opinion is not held. But a simoniac can hold a correct opinion concerning all the articles of faith. Therefore, it is not a heresy.” Aquinas, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 2, s.c.. In the strictest sense, simony is not necessarily a heretical belief because it often is not a belief at all. Accordingly, Aquinas elsewhere judged that the sin of simony is not necessarily the unpardonable blasphemy of the Spirit.³¹“Not everyone who sins by choice sins against the Holy Spirit; but only he who chooses sin through contempt for those things which usually hold men back from sinning.” Aquinas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 2.

Among the medievals, even those willing to speak of the heresy of simony without qualification on some occasions admitted the qualification at others. For example, Wycliffe granted that the school of theologians “equivocates” in the name of heresy, calling simoniacal heresy now the will and now the inordinate exchange proceeding from it.³²Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 2 (24:37–25:3). Elsewhere, he described some simoniacs as being able to repent,³³Ibid., cap. 2 (24:10–13). though he had identified simony as the unpardonable sin.³⁴Ibid., cap. 1 (1:21–23). Similarly, Hus opened by sorting the senses in which a man may be called a heretic, counting the one who holds an error by deed alongside the one who holds it by word.³⁵Hus, O svatokupectví, 1.C.

From the eleventh century onward, theologians and canonists managed to offer this qualification without rejecting centuries of canonical tradition by explaining two senses in which simony may be labeled a heresy: the similarity of the action and the enormity of the crime.

The Similarity of the Action§

Aquinas continued in the same article of his Sentences commentary to defend his position, arguing that simoniacs are called heretics on account of the similarity between their actions and formal heresy. He explained that something may be attributed to another without qualification (simpliciter) or on account of a similarity of action (propter similitudinem actus). Accordingly, “simoniacs are not heretics properly and strictly speaking, since they do not hold any false opinion; but they are called heretics on account of a similarity of action, because they act as if they believed the gift of the Holy Spirit could be possessed with money, which belief would be heretical.”³⁶Aquinas, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 2, sol..

Aquinas also compared it to the disparity between one’s outward profession of religion and the faith that resides in his heart: “simony is called a heresy according to an outward profession.” In selling the gift of the Holy Spirit, a man “in a certain way professes himself to be the lord of the spiritual gift, which is heretical.”³⁷Aquinas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 1. By his actions, the simoniac professes the heresy of a salable Spirit, but the typical simoniac is a false professor of this heresy, not truly believing it in his heart.³⁸See Albert the Great, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 3, ad 2 (p. 90b); Innocent IV, Commentaria, ad X 5.3.5 (fol. 498vb). He does not formally embrace the heretical ideas of Simon Magus but materially expresses them. Jeremy Taylor observed the same contrast, explaining that in Simon Magus it was a “false opinion” but that “his followers are rather noted of a vice.”³⁹Taylor, Σύμβολον Θεολογικόν, 947.

In the seventeenth century, John Donne appealed to this distinction in the midst of an English controversy. After the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, James I imposed the Oath of Allegiance (1606), which required the swearer to abjure as “impious and heretical” the position that princes excommunicated by the pope may be deposed or murdered by their subjects. However, some Roman Catholics insisted that they could not take the oath because it belonged only to the pope to pronounce a doctrine heretical. Donne made an effort, with simony among his examples, “to deliver them of that scruple”⁴⁰Donne, Pseudo-Martyr, 372. by showing from the church’s own usage that a thing may be called heresy which “is not itself necessarily heresy, properly understood.” Simony has been called a “true and undoubted heresy,” not because it inherently is, but because it is among the acts that “beget or accompany heresy.”⁴¹Ibid., 387. He continued, “So that we see, such acts as beget or accompany heresy, are called heresy in this mild acceptation, which our law gives it. From which sense the Fathers did not abstain in using that word.” Ibid., 387–88.

The Enormity of the Crime§

Beyond the similarity of the action, the schoolmen and canonists offered a second reason for calling simony a heresy: the two are functionally equivalent in the courts of the church. Simony is so grave an offense that it merits deposition from office and excommunication, the same ecclesiastical punishments as heresy. Panormitanus concluded that “on account of the enormity of the crime it is called heresy.”⁴²Panormitanus, Commentaria, ad X 5.3.5, no. 1 (fol. 69vb).

Some made this point along with the similarity of the action. For example, Bonaventure said of the simoniac who does not truly believe his heresy that he “is not strictly a heretic, but nevertheless is called a heretic by the saints, either because he acts in the manner of a heretic, or because, like a heretic, he is cast out from the service and worship of God on account of his enormous crime.”⁴³Bonaventure, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 1, q. 4, concl. (p. 648). Distinguishing the senses of the word, Gabriel Biel granted that every simoniac is a heretic “since he is excommunicated and a perverter of the sacraments, that is, of spiritual things or of things annexed to them,” subsequently observing that the simoniac is called a heretic “by a certain likeness” because “he acts as if he held an opinion against the faith.”⁴⁴Biel, Collectorium, IV, d. 13, q. 2, a. 3, dub. 1 (sig. m6vb); cf. Richard of Middleton, In Sent. IV, d. 13, a. 5, q. 2 (p. 169a).

These two grounds—the similarity of the action and the enormity of the crime—stand together rather than as alternatives. The label of “heretic” applies to the simoniac both because his conduct professes heretical opinions and because he is punished as one.

Should We Agree?§

Does this same reasoning apply to modern simony, the sale of biblical teaching? And is “heresy” even the proper category to apply here? I would argue “yes.” consider

Divine revelation is priceless, and that the teaching of the word is priceless with it. When the psalmist counted the law of God’s mouth better than thousands of gold and silver (Ps. 119:72Psalms 119:72The law of your mouth is better to me than thousands of gold and silver. YODH.), he did not simply rank the word above them; he denied that it could be weighed against them at all. Nothing a man may desire can be compared with such wisdom (Prov. 3:15Proverbs 3:15She is more precious than rubies; and none of the things you can desire are to be compared to her.). To sell Scripture—or teaching derived from it—is therefore to put a price on that which is priceless.

Moreover, the teaching of the word of God does not merely describe but communicates the Infinite One himself. It would be manifest heresy to deny God’s eternity or immensity—that he transcends both time and space—because it ascribes creatureliness to the Creator. This denial is precisely what is implied in idolatry (Isa. 40:18, 25Isaiah 40:18To whom then will you liken God? or what likeness will you compare to him?). Therefore, to treat divine revelation as salable is to treat God himself as salable, valued along with creation.

Heresy is at bottom a denial of the gospel, and the sale of biblical teaching functions as such a denial. Though this may not be obvious at first, it follows from two observations. First, right biblical teaching—whatever its scope—necessarily communicates the gospel. Second, the proclamation of the gospel is not a mere vessel for its message; the “word of his grace” (Acts 14:3Acts 14:3Therefore, they stayed a long time, speaking boldly in the Lord, who bore witness to the word of his grace, granting signs and wonders to be done by their hands.; 20:32Acts 20:32And now I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build [you] up, and to give [you] the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.) is itself given by that grace. To borrow Marshall McLuhan’s famous phrase, the medium is the message.⁴⁵McLuhan, Understanding Media, 7. It is not merely that the word of God ought to be offered “without money and without price” (Isa. 55:1Isaiah 55:1“Ho! Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters, and he who has no money; come, buy, and eat; yes, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.; cf. Rev. 21:6Revelation 21:6And he said to me, “They are done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him who is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.; 22:17Revelation 22:17And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come.” And he who hears, let him say, “Come.” And he who is thirsty, let him come: he who will, let him take the water of life freely.), but that what is offered for a price must be something other than the gospel. This is not to claim absolutely that no one could learn the saving message through paid instruction, only that such understanding comes despite the sale, not on account of it.

Simony is, moreover, the unpardonable sin, even as Wycliffe and Hus observed. Consider the two kinds of temporary faith delineated in the parable of the sower with the rocky soil and the thorny soil. The rocky soil falls away on account of difficulty (Matt. 13:21Matthew 13:21yet he does not have root in himself, but endures for a while; and when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, he immediately stumbles.; Luke 8:13Luke 8:13And those on the rock [are] they who, when they have heard, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.), while the thorny soil falls away on account of the pleasures of this life (Matt. 13:22Matthew 13:22And he who was sown among the thorns, this is he who hears the word; and the care of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.; Luke 8:14Luke 8:14And what fell among the thorns, these are those who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of [this] life, and bring no fruit to perfection.). It is this second failure that Hebrews 6:6Hebrews 6:6and [then] fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; since they crucify to themselves the Son of God again and put him to an open shame. marks as impossible to renew to repentance, speaking of the land that “bears thorns and thistles” (Heb. 6:8Hebrews 6:8but if it bears thorns and thistles, it is rejected and near to being cursed; whose end is to be burned.). The distinction is further demonstrated in Peter and Judas, the former corresponding to the rocky soil and the latter to the thorny. Peter denied his Lord out of fear but was later restored; Judas delivered him up out of greed and perished. The simoniac sins in the manner of Judas.

All of this requires qualification. Simony exists in outward action, typically without the inward conviction that would make it heresy in all the aforementioned senses. The idea of a practical heresy is not foreign to Scripture, which even speaks of the fool who says in his heart, “There is no God” (Pss. 14:1Psalms 14:1The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; there is none that does good.; 53:1Psalms 53:1The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity; there is none that does good.). This is not a settled creed of atheism but a practical disregard of divine judgment. Though Judas was the son of perdition, Simon Magus himself received the hope of forgiveness at the words of Peter (Acts 8:22Acts 8:22Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of your heart will be forgiven you.). Regardless, the sin of simony remains a grave danger as does any sort of heresy. Even those who only outwardly commit it play with fire.

How Great is the Sin of Simony?§

Throughout the relevant literature, simony ranks among the gravest of all sins, both in its aggravations and effects. While not all theologians agreed, many spoke of simony simply as the greatest of all sins. Beyond the common observation that Simon Magus is the first of all heretics, the canonical locus classicus for this claim stands in the Liber extra: simony is an offense “in comparison with which other crimes are reckoned as practically nothing”;⁴⁶X 5.3.32. it is a plague that “surpasses other diseases in its magnitude.”⁴⁷X 5.3.6. This often serves as the standard point of departure for later treatments. For example, William Peraldus began with the same dictum in presenting eight things that make simony detestable and twelve insults that simony inflicts upon God.⁴⁸William Peraldus, Summae virtutum, 2.7 (pp. 108–13).

Other authors likewise developed extensive catalogs of the ways in which simony is uniquely grievous. In addressing simony, William of Saint-Amour cataloged five perils that attend a preacher’s receiving gifts, even unasked: he is blinded by what he takes, he comes to please those who give, he is drawn into the business of worldly men, he makes himself their slave, and he loses his own heart.⁴⁹William of Saint-Amour, Si quis diligit me, §§ 11–15 (186:14–187:6). On similar grounds, simony has been associated with various judgments. Henry III declared it manifest that because of simony, famine, pestilence, and sword had come upon the sons of men.⁵⁰Raoul Glaber, Historiarum libri quinque, 5.5.25 (pp. 133–34). The speech is quoted in Chapter 1, pp. 11–12.

Many recorded execrations of its effect on the church at large. Wycliffe put it sharply, calling simony “the cause why a great part of what is called the Church lies scattered and dead.”⁵¹Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (14:9–10). Henry Burton devoted an entire chapter to “the miserable fruits and effects of simony,” beginning with these words: “The effects and fruits of simony are no less miserable, than the censures are grievous, and the punishments thereof intolerable. For as Simon is the father of all simonists, so simony is the mother of all mischiefs in the church.”⁵²Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 93. These writers traced the church’s disorders back to avarice in holy things.

A Two-Table Offense§

Occasionally, theologians asked whether simony is a first-table or second-table offense. That is, is it a wrong committed against God or man? Generally, they concluded that simony is a sin against both tables. William Ames captured both dimensions together, condemning the exchange of “a holy and spiritual [thing] for a temporal.”⁵³Ames, Conscience, 5.229. First, holy things are polluted by worldly temporal contracts, since “it is against the religion and reverence which is due to holy things.”⁵⁴Ibid., 5.229. Second, according to Matthew 10:8Matthew 10:8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely you received, freely give., “it is injustice to sell those things which are to be bestowed on free cost.”⁵⁵Ibid., 5.229. Simony transgresses both religion (first table) and justice (second table).

Two arguments will demonstrate this: Aquinas on the first table and Alexander of Hales on the second. As with most discussions of the matter, these two address the two-table nature of simony in considerations of the eighth commandment (“you shall not steal”),⁵⁶In medieval literature, this is the seventh command, following the traditional Augustinian enumeration. where simony is typically categorized along with usury.⁵⁷E.g., Biel, Collectorium, IV, d. 15, q. 3 (sig. q5vb).

The First Table§

If simony is treated under the command not to steal, this raises the question of how it could be regarded as matter pertaining to the first table of the law. Aquinas remarked on this in his Quodlibet where he handled the question of whether offenses against the second table are greater than offenses against the first. In particular, he responded to the argument that they are because simony is the greatest offense and, as a species of avarice, is a second-table offense.

This hypothesis fails, Aquinas contended, because simony is not exclusively a violation of the second table. The man who commits it “behaves irreverently toward sacred things, in which he touches upon the sins which are against the precepts of the first table.”⁵⁸Aquinas, Quodlibet, V, q. 10, a. 2, ad 2 (p. 114). While simony was often regarded as the greatest sin, Aquinas denied that it may be regarded so in any absolute sense. However, he pointed out that it is considered so great in part because of its connection to the first table, being a profaning of holy things.

The Second Table§

Conversely, Alexander of Hales responded to the opposite notion, that simony is only a first-table violation.⁵⁹The objection: “And since simony consists in selling or buying a spiritual thing, or something annexed to a spiritual thing, and since by this an injury is committed against God in itself, not against the neighbor, it seems that simony is forbidden among the precepts of the first table, not the second. Therefore it is not forbidden by this commandment.” Alexander of Hales, Summa Halensis, III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4, n. 1 (p. 569). He proceeded in the same way, framing the objection as a false dichotomy that acknowledges one offense without the other. When it comes to selling or buying a priceless, divine thing “an injury is committed against God and it is a sin against the worship of God and against the first precept of the first table.”⁶⁰Ibid., III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (pp. 569–70). But when it comes to receiving temporal things, which cannot be justly possessed by the recipient, one violates the command against theft.⁶¹Ibid., III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (p. 570).

Alexander distinguished between the exchange (“selling or buying”) of the spiritual thing and the exchange (“receiving”) of the material thing. The first is a first-table offense, since God has exclusive ownership over divine things. However, in the case of the material thing, one has wrongly received something that someone else should instead have. This constitutes a second-table offense.

Alexander grounded this assertion of an unjust deprivation in Augustine’s maxim that “everything that is wrongfully possessed is another’s.”⁶²Ibid., III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (p. 570); Augustine, Ep. 153.6.26 (CSEL 44, 426:9–10). He continued from there to make the direct connection to the sin of theft: “that is, it is to be reckoned as another’s property. And in this way, in this respect, simony is theft, inasmuch as it is drawn to the special name of sacrilege.”⁶³Alexander of Hales, Summa Halensis, III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (p. 570). One may ask from whom anything has been stolen, given that the purchaser willingly parts with his money. But Augustine spoke of a more general wrong being done to the faithful, to whom belong all things. While this idea is present in other passages (Prov. 13:22Proverbs 13:22A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children; and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the righteous.; Eccles. 2:26Ecclesiastes 2:26For to the man who pleases him [God] gives wisdom, and knowledge, and joy; but to the sinner he gives labor, to gather and to heap up, that he may give to him who pleases God. This also is vanity and a striving after wind.; 1 Cor. 3:211 Corinthians 3:21Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours;), he remarked on a Septuagintal addition to Proverbs 17:6Proverbs 17:6Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers., “The whole world of riches belongs to the faithful man, but to the unfaithful not even a penny.”⁶⁴Augustine, Ep. 153.6.26 (CSEL 44, 426:4–6). In other words, if both parties are wrong, then the money still counts as being “stolen,” belonging to the faithful.

Simony is a first-table offense because it transgresses God’s statutes regarding worship and spiritual things. It is a second-table offense because it disenfranchises the godly.

Associated Corruptions§

While simony is associated with a constellation of other corruptions,⁶⁵For an overview of the medieval rhetoric against simony, see Cushing, Reform and the Papacy, 117–20. two in particular are worth examining. The first is a direct consequence as sin begets sin: the commercialization of the ministry corrupts the word itself, whether by natural incentive or by divine judgment. The second is sodomy, an analogous corruption of nature for simony’s corruption of grace.

False Doctrine§

Among the corruptions attending simony, false doctrine is the most pronounced. When the ministry of the word is motivated by money, the word itself is corrupted. Theologians identified two aspects of this phenomenon, the natural and the supernatural. On one hand, corruption flows from human incentives, and on the other hand, on account of simoniacal dealings, God himself takes away truth and permits it to be replaced by error.

The association goes back to the second century, when Irenaeus declared broadly that “all who in any way adulterate the truth, and do harm to the preaching of the Church, are disciples and successors of Simon the Samaritan magician.”⁶⁶Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus haereses, 1.27.4 (p. 274). While Irenaeus was not speaking explicitly of selling the word, his observation establishes a pattern: the spirit of Simon stands behind every corruption of Christian proclamation.

The Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 100–160) provides a natural explanation for why the paid prophet corrupts his message. Hermas contended that one who requires payment to prophesy attaches to the empty people, “speaking to them all things emptily, according to their desires; for he answers the empty with empty things.”⁶⁷Hermas, The Shepherd, Mand. 11.13. The prophet for hire gravitates toward those willing to pay, who are themselves empty vessels. Having no substance of their own, they readily receive whatever he supplies, and he supplies whatever they desire to hear. An empty vessel might otherwise be broken, but, put with other empty vessels, it finds itself in agreement with them.⁶⁸Ibid., Mand. 11.13. The prophet requiring payment necessarily follows money rather than truth.

Jerome offered a more striking explanation that operates on a supernatural plane. Commenting on the mercenary prophets of Micah 3:11Micah 3:11The heads of it judge for reward, and its priests teach for a fee, and its prophets divine for money; yet they lean on Jehovah, and say, “Is not Jehovah in the midst of us? No evil will come on us.”, he observed that Scripture never takes the word “divination” in a good sense.⁶⁹“But the prophets of Jerusalem also divined for money, not knowing that prophecy is one thing and divination another: for divination is never taken in a good sense in the Scriptures. ‘There shall not be,’ it says, ‘augury in Jacob, nor divination in Israel’ [Num. 23:23Numbers 23:23Surely there is no enchantment with Jacob; nor is there any divination with Israel: now shall it be said of Jacob and of Israel, what has God made!].” Jerome, In proph. min. In Mich. I, 3:9–12 (col. 471). From this, he concluded that “they seemed to themselves indeed to be prophets, but because they were taking money, their prophecy became divination.”⁷⁰Ibid., In Mich. I, 3:9–12 (col. 471). Jerome made this remark immediately before likening prophesying for money to the offer of Simon Magus. The implication is not merely that mercenary preachers tend toward falsehood through natural incentive but that the prophetic character of their utterance is exchanged for divination through divine judgment.

We have already remarked on how frequently later authors referenced Jerome on this passage.⁷¹See Chapter 11, pp. 186–87. Where William of Saint-Amour quoted Jerome to this effect, he also gave the complementary natural explanation. Preachers may not receive large gifts “lest by this they burden their hearers; or lest the Gospel become hateful; or lest the preachers themselves lose the freedom of rebuking.”⁷²William of Saint-Amour, Collectiones, D. 4, sign. 40 (p. 453). Gifts function as bribes. The preacher who accepts them becomes obligated to his benefactor and can no longer rebuke freely. The word is corrupted by human constraint; the preacher says what his patron wishes to hear rather than what God has given him to say.⁷³Paludanus made a similar comment in his discourse on simony: “One must not make the collection of money the end of preaching, like those who estimate godliness to be a gain [1 Tim. 6:51 Timothy 6:5wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain.], preaching for no other purpose than to collect money: for which purpose they even fabricate indulgences, and in their preaching they compose many lies.” Paludanus, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 5, concl. 2 (p. 320b).

English divines recognized the same connection. Henry Burton described simony and sacrilege as having different immediate effects but working together to one ultimate ruin: “both together cause prophesyings to fail, the people to perish, and idolatry to spread itself.”⁷⁴Burton, Israels Fast, 29. To sell the word corrupts it as much as failing to fund it takes it away.

Simony turns ministers into merchants (a natural corruption) and causes prophecy to fail (a supernatural one). As Jerome observed centuries earlier, the mercenary prophet’s word ceases to be prophecy at all.

Sodomy§

In Chapter 10, we discussed the association of simony with leprosy.⁷⁵See pp. 167–70. Medieval literature links simony to sodomy as well. This association is less prevalent than that of leprosy, but it still constitutes a recognizable strand of the tradition.

Consider the Summoner and the Pardoner of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. They are both simoniacs. Though it is his duty to call parishioners to appear before the archdeacon’s court, the Summoner turns a blind eye for a fee: for a quart of wine he lets a man keep his concubine for a year.⁷⁶Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 649–58 (pp. 19–20). The Pardoner sells indulgences brought from Rome and a bag of feigned relics, accruing more wealth in a day than a poor parson earns in two months.⁷⁷Ibid., 686–706 (p. 21). “The grossest form of simony was exactly what the Pardoner does: the selling of indulgences.” Patterson, “Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch,” 664.

Both possess features that reinforce the picture of their spiritual corruption. Chaucer described the Summoner as leprous, with a disgusting visage, red and purulent.⁷⁸Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 623–33 (p. 19). The Pardoner’s effeminate behavior and relationship with the Summoner are suggestive of sodomy. The Pardoner is a beardless man with a high-pitched voice who sings a love song while the Summoner carries the bass; the narrator declines to say whether he is “a gelding [castrated horse] or a mare.”⁷⁹Ibid., 672–91 (pp. 20–21). Chaucer chose marks that already signified simony: the Summoner’s leprosy manifests it,⁸⁰“The Summoner’s leprosy identifies him as an established threat to society because he is a simoniac.” Grigsby, Pestilence, 87. and the Pardoner’s suggested sodomy does the same.⁸¹“We can now infer that the Pardoner may be thought to be a mare—a sodomite—because he is a simoniac.” Patterson, “Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch,” 666; “if the Pardoner is indeed a sodomist, this would be a perfect sign of his ‘character’ as a simoniac.” Vance, “Chaucer’s Pardoner,” 736–37.

One twentieth-century scholar wrote, “Not merely does an analogy exist between simony and leprosy, between simony and sodomy, but an identification. The simoniac is a leper; the simoniac is a sodomist.”⁸²McVeigh, “Chaucer’s Portraits of the Pardoner and Summoner,” 58. Peraldus explained the reason for this association:

The second thing that makes simony detestable is that it is a spiritual sodomy. Just as in bodily sodomy he who is the work of nature acts against nature, so in simony he who is the work of grace acts against grace, because he has been redeemed by grace. And just as on the day of judgment the sodomite will be struck speechless according to the meaning of his name,⁸³Jerome gives the meaning of the name as “cattle, silent, or blindness, or their likeness.” Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, De Genesi, S (PL 23:828). Peraldus’s point is that the sodomite will fittingly have nothing to say in his own defense at the judgment. because he was an enemy of nature, which had made him—for as far as in him lies, the sodomite destroys the human race—so the simoniac will be struck speechless, who was an enemy of the grace by which he had been redeemed. And just as under the natural law sodomy is judged either the greatest sin or one of the greatest, because it is against nature, so in the time of grace, under the evangelical law, simony is judged the greatest sin, because it is properly contrary to grace. For properly it acts against that word of Matt. 10Matthew 10¹And he called to him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness.²Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his brother;³Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the tax collector; James the [son] of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus;⁴Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.⁵These twelve Jesus sent out, and charged them, saying,⁶but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.⁷And as you go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.⁸Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely you received, freely give.⁹Get you no gold, nor silver, nor bronze in your purses;¹⁰no wallet for [your] journey, neither two tunics, nor sandals, nor staff; for the laborer is worthy of his food.¹¹And into whatever city or village you will enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide until you go out.¹²And as you enter into the house, greet it.¹³And if the house is worthy, let your peace come on it; but if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you.¹⁴And whoever will not receive you, nor hear your words, as you go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet.¹⁵Indeed I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.¹⁶“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves: be therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.¹⁷But beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and in theirs synagogues they will scourge you;¹⁸yes and before governors and kings will you be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles.¹⁹But when they deliver you up, do not be anxious how or what you will speak; for it will be given to you in that hour what you will speak.²⁰For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaks in you.²¹And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child; and children will rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death.²²And you will be hated by all men for my name’s sake, but he who endures to the end will be saved.²³But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next; for indeed I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel, until the Son of man be come.²⁴“A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord.²⁵It is enough for the disciple that he be like his teacher, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household!²⁶Do not fear them therefore. For there is nothing covered, that will not be revealed; and hidden, that will not be known.²⁷What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim on the housetops.²⁸And do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.²⁹Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall on the ground without your Father,³⁰but the very hairs of your head are all numbered.³¹Do not be afraid therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.³²Everyone therefore who will confess me before men, him I will also confess before my Father who is in heaven.³³But whoever will deny me before men, him I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven.³⁴“Do not think that I came to send peace on the earth: I did not come to send peace, but a sword.³⁵For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.³⁶And a man’s foes [will be] those of his own household.³⁷He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.³⁸And he who does not take his cross and follow after me, is not worthy of me.³⁹He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.⁴⁰“He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me.⁴¹He who receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and he who receives a righteous man in the name of a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward.⁴²And whoever will give one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, in the name of a disciple, indeed I say to you he will by no means lose his reward.”: “Freely you have received, freely give.” Whence simoniacs are rightly signified by the Sodomites who wanted to break down the doors of Lot, of whom it is said in Gen. 19Genesis 19¹And the two angels came to Sodom at evening, and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom. And Lot saw them and rose up to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth.²And he said, “Behold now, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and remain all night, and wash your feet, and you will rise up early, and go on your way.” And they said, “No; but we will abide in the street all night.”³And he urged them greatly, and they turned aside to him and entered into his house. And he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.⁴But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter;⁵and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.”⁶And Lot went out to them to the door and shut the door after him.⁷And he said, “Please, my brothers, do not so wickedly.⁸Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; please let me bring them out to you, and do* to them as is good in your eyes: only to these men do nothing, since they have come under the shadow of my roof.”⁹And they said, “Stand back.” And they said, “This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he acts like a judge. Now we will deal worse with you, than with them.” And they pressed hard on the man, Lot, and drew near to break the door.¹⁰But the men stretched out their hand, and brought Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door.¹¹And they struck the men who were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves to find the door.¹²And the men said to Lot, “Have you here any besides? Son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, bring them out of the place,¹³for we will destroy this place, because the cry of them has grown great before Jehovah; and Jehovah has sent us to destroy it.”¹⁴And Lot went out, and spoke to his sons-in-law, who married his daughters and said, “Up, get out of this place, for Jehovah will destroy the city.” But he seemed to his sons-in-law as one who mocked.¹⁵And when the morning arose, the angels hastened Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters that are here, so you are not consumed in the iniquity of the city.”¹⁶But he lingered. And the men laid hold on his hand, and on the hand of his wife, and on the hand of his two daughters, Jehovah being merciful to him; and they brought him forth, and set him outside the city.¹⁷And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, “Escape for your life; do not look behind you or stay in all the Plain; escape to the mountain, so you are not consumed.”¹⁸And Lot said to them, “Oh, not so, my Lord!¹⁹Behold now, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have magnified your lovingkindness, which you have shown to me in saving my life; and I cannot escape to the mountain, or evil will overtake me, and I will die.²⁰Behold now, this city is near to flee to, and it is a little one. Oh let me escape there (is it not a little one?), and my soul will live.”²¹And he said to him, “See, I have accepted you concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.²²Hurry, escape there, for I cannot do anything until you be come there.” Therefore the name of the city was called Zoar.²³The sun had risen on the earth when Lot came to Zoar.²⁴Then Jehovah rained on Sodom and on Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Jehovah out of heaven;²⁵and he overthrew those cities, and all the Plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.²⁶But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.²⁷And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before Jehovah.²⁸And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the Plain, and saw, and behold, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace.²⁹And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, that God remembered Abraham and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt.³⁰And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt on the mountain, and his two daughters with him, for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.³¹And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on the earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.³²Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.”³³And they made their father drink wine that night. And the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.³⁴And it came to pass the next day, that the firstborn said to the younger, “Behold, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also, and go in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.”³⁵And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she arose.³⁶Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.³⁷And the firstborn bore a son and called his name Moab: he is the father of the Moabites to this day.³⁸And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi: he is the father of the children of Ammon to this day.: “And they were now on the point of breaking down the doors of Lot,” etc.⁸⁴William Peraldus, Summae virtutum, 2.7 (p. 108).

Wycliffe affirmed this judgment, adding this simple explanation: “For just as in bodily sodomy seed is lost against nature, the seed from which an individual of the human race would be formed, so in that [spiritual] sodomy the seed of the word of God is cast away, through which a spiritual generation in Christ Jesus would be created.”⁸⁵Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (8:27–30). The seed of the word of God is to be given freely, but the simoniac ministers fruitlessly.

Forgiveness§

Later decrees excommunicated the offender. The English canonist John Godolphin summarized that canon law “excommunicates all simoniacs to that degree as not to be absolved but by the pope himself, nor by him till at the point of death.”⁸⁶Godolphin, Repertorium Canonicum, 556; cf. Extravag. comm. 5.1.2 (col. 1289). The propriety of such regulations was generally affirmed by the schoolmen and canonists.⁸⁷E.g., Panormitanus, Commentaria, ad X 5.3.22 (fol. 74rb); Major, In Sent. (red. B), d. 25, q. 7 (fol. 189va).

Proto-Reformers and Protestants rejected any framework that hinged absolution on an earthly head of the church. Beyond the illegitimacy of the pope’s authority, the particular claim regarding simony is ironic. Among the “errors” of Wycliffe and Hus condemned at the Council of Constance is the charge that “the pope does not dispense from simony, nor from a rash vow, since he is himself the chief simoniac.”⁸⁸Council of Constance (1414–1418), sess. 15 (Mansi 27:749C).

Instead, we may ask whether divine forgiveness is available. Peter gave Simon a qualified command to repent “if perhaps” (εἰ ἄρα; si forte) his intention may be forgiven (Acts 8:22Acts 8:22Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perhaps the thought of your heart will be forgiven you.). This conditional was taken by many as an indication that forgiveness for simony is exceedingly difficult to obtain.⁸⁹E.g., William Peraldus, Summae virtutum, 2.7 (pp. 112–13). Wycliffe argued that to be cleansed of simony requires an “extraordinary miracle.”⁹⁰Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (1:24–2:1); cf. ibid., cap. 2 (24:10–13).

This difficulty of forgiveness is not on account of any miserliness in God but on account of the ensnarement of the sin and man’s weakness in turning from it. Peraldus compared the simoniac to a fish in a trap: he cannot easily exit the way he came and resign his benefice; the only other way out is by being caught. Because he does not easily renounce what he has taken, he has one foot in hell.⁹¹William Peraldus, Summae virtutum, 2.7 (p. 112).

Several likewise noted that many exposed simoniacs profess repentance but withhold what they ought to give in true repentance.⁹²E.g., “there are many who say they repent, yet retain what they have taken.” Vermigli, Loci Communes, 3.8.38 (p. 613). Vermigli pointed out that failure to restore goods is the mark of false repentance before giving the example of Simon as one whose repentance is uncertain. In recounting the life of the hermit Romuald of Ravenna, Peter Damian remarked on Romuald’s difficulty restoring simoniacs to repentance from “that poisonous heresy.” The bishops were “forever promising, forever putting it off from one day to the next and deferring it to a time still to come,” so that “a Jew could sooner be brought to the faith than a heretical brigand could be fully roused to repentance.”⁹³Peter Damian, Vita beati Romualdi, cap. 35 (PL 144:987A). The simoniac professes to repent but perpetually defers his conversion to a tomorrow that never comes.

Righteous Indignation§

It is not sufficient merely to abstain from the earnest desire to buy or sell spiritual things; one must actively hate simony. As Gregory the Great admonished, “whoever does not burn vehemently to amend this crime out of regard for his office, let him not doubt that he will have his portion with him from whom this defiling outrage first arose.”⁹⁴Gregory I, Ep. 12.9 (2, 357:3–5). Later writers cite it in the form that carried into canon law: “Whoever, therefore, does not burn vehemently against the simoniacal and neophyte heresy [the ordination of novices (1 Tim. 3:61 Timothy 3:6not a novice, so that he does not, having been puffed up, fall into the condemnation of the devil.)] according to the station of his office, let him not doubt that he will have his portion with him who first committed this defiling outrage.” C. 1, q. 1, c. 5; cf. Wido, Widonis monachi epistola, 5:10–13. In binding the duty to the office one holds, Gregory indicated that those in higher positions must exhibit a greater passion against the sin. Yet that is not to suggest that those who hold no particular office have no responsibility to burn against simony. The duty is measured by capacity: inasmuch as one has a voice against this sin, he must proportionally have the heart to use it in earnest.

Like many works on simony, The Anatomy of Simon Magus quotes this remark from Gregory,⁹⁵The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 70. but it additionally returns to emphasize the same point repeatedly. For example, the Anatomist wrote, “If the heinousness and impiety of this sin of simony were seriously considered, it could not but beget a perfect detestation and abhorrency thereof, in the heart of any true Christian.”⁹⁶Ibid., 98. A lack of disgust proceeds from too little meditation on the sin, or from no conversion at all. Again, he exhorted the reader, “Wherefore I beseech you, if ever any man shall henceforth come to tempt you to such a simoniacal bargain, by the offer of money, or any bribe, let your indignation evidence your abhorrency of such a sin, and your detestation of such a person; and say to him as Simon Peter said to Simon Magus, ‘Thy money perish with thee.’ And I’m sure the reward of such honest zeal shall meet you in heaven.”⁹⁷Ibid., 188–89.

Many regard the Reformation as a battle over the nature of the gospel, and rightly so. Yet two details tether our present topic to the Reformation as more than an incidental thread of its narrative. The first is that—as we have seen—simony prompted the Reformation. Though ignorant of the three-way financial arrangement orchestrated by Albert and the Fuggers,⁹⁸Lea, A History of Auricular Confession, 392. Luther aimed his objection at the sale of spiritual things, later identifying the sale of indulgences as “simony proper” (simonia propria) in comparison to other forms nominally labeled as simony by canon law.⁹⁹Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 23:3–4 (WA 43, 281:37–42); cf. ibid., 25:31–34 (WA 43, 424:5–6). The second is that the notion of simony cannot be cleanly separated from the matter of the gospel. For Luther, simony was a denial of the gospel, the root from which all false religion grew. He spelled this out most clearly in his lectures on Genesis:

But one may see how wretched and how dangerous a thing it is to have fallen away from the chief doctrine of justification by faith apart from works. For once it is obscured and extinguished, the whole world becomes simoniacal. Thus even the Turks strive to appease God with their own works and to buy spiritual things for money and for merits. Therefore this simony exists in name only, like the simony described in canon law. For they redeem nothing and obtain nothing by price and by merits. But that zeal and will has driven its roots deep into the human heart by which every man is naturally a simoniac, by which he would wish God to be one who would be appeased by human works and merits, to whom he could protest: “I have done many things; I have fasted much; look upon these things, and sell me salvation and eternal life.” But God neither acknowledges nor hears such workers of iniquity. And he sets forth his will in the apostolic doctrine: “By grace and freely [gratia et gratis] you have been justified, apart from all works” [Eph. 2:8–9Ephesians 2:8–9⁸for by grace have you been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God;⁹not of works, that no man should boast.]. Once that grace is taken away, there is no longer any distinction between the Turk and the Pope, heathen and Jew; all are simoniacs and goat-milkers, Bockmelker.¹⁰⁰Ibid., 25:31–34 (WA 43, 423:32–424:4). See also Luther, Operationes in Psalmos, 13 (WA 5, 397:10–39). The pejorative at the end comes from the legend that nightjars—a kind of nocturnal bird—suck milk from the udders of goats, withering the udder and blinding the goat (see Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, 10.56). While their Latin name (caprimulgi) literally means “goat-milkers,” Luther repeated it with his own German translation in order to provide the gendered “buck-milkers.” In other words, the simoniac is quixotically parasitic.

The Gravity of Modern Simony§

We have already surveyed how previous generations spoke of simony and weighed it against other sins. However, we have yet to provide our own assessment of these conclusions, especially as they relate to the sale of biblical teaching today.

The Greatest Sin§

A number of theologians identified simony as not only a great sin, but the greatest sin. In part, the comments above on simony’s relation to the unpardonable sin bear that judgment out. Those who would count the things of this earth as having a value comparable to Christ such that he could be traded for them “crucify again to themselves the Son of God” (Heb. 6:6Hebrews 6:6and [then] fell away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance; since they crucify to themselves the Son of God again and put him to an open shame.).

Not all who sell holy things truly intend to prize the world above their Lord, but the severity of the expression remains. Whatever the inward reservation, no deed declares a knowing and culpable devaluation of the gospel more openly than fixing a literal price on it. Scripture names the love of money a root of all kinds of evil and places the service of mammon in direct competition with service to the Lord (1 Tim. 6:101 Timothy 6:10For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil: which some reaching after have been led astray from the faith, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.; Matt. 6:24Matthew 6:24No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to one, and despise the other. You* cannot serve God and money.). In the sale of biblical teaching, a man places Christ below material things in the plainest sense.

Alarm over the sale of religion tends to settle on those who actively promote false teaching.¹⁰¹See 2 Pet. 2:1–32 Peter 2:1–3¹But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there will be false teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.²And many will follow their sensuality; because of whom the way of the truth will be evil spoken of.³And in covetousness will they with false words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old does not linger, and their destruction does not slumber.. The profiteering of prosperity preachers, for example, is frequently singled out for special condemnation, yet our findings here should lead us to question this judgment. We must resist the urge to weigh sin only by the harm done to man and not by the offense given to God. The false teacher’s lies are a separate matter. On that narrower question of the sale itself, pricing what is worthless is a mote beside pricing what is priceless. We should not suppose that Demetrius the silversmith sinned more grievously in selling false gods (Acts 19:24Acts 19:24For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana, brought no little business to the craftsmen,) than did Judas in selling the true God. After all, the New Testament regards Balaam as chief among deplorable mercenary prophets (2 Pet. 2:152 Peter 2:15forsaking the right way, they went astray, having followed the way of Balaam the [son] of Beor, who loved the wages of wrong doing;; Jude 11Jude 11Woe to them! For they went in the way of Cain, and ran riotously in the error of Balaam for a fee, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.), but all his words were true (Num. 22:38Numbers 22:38And Balaam said to Balak, “Behold, I have come to you; have I now any power at all to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, I will speak it.”; 23:12Numbers 23:12And he answered and said, “Must I not take heed to speak what Jehovah puts in my mouth?”).

Epithets§

The charge of heresy and the condemnation that went with it are only a sample of the language the ancients turned against simony. One seventeenth-century minister writing on the topic remarked, “I could amass many other sharp invectives of the fathers against this crime; but I forbear, lest this article swell to too great a bulk.”¹⁰²Gordon, Reformed Bishop, 98. Few today have the palate for this sort of rhetoric, but modern sensibilities aside, we must ask whether there is truth to some of the more severe appellations, especially in regard to the sale of biblical teaching. Two of them, leprosy and sodomy, warrant revisiting.

As for “leprosy,” the standard observation was of its contagion: as one simoniac ordained another, the corruption of office perpetuated itself. The concern may seem to weaken once the doctrine is applied to the sale of biblical teaching, but in practice it is no different. Those raised into ministry under men who sell their teaching learn to sell in turn. Much of the training for ministry in our day takes place in seminaries where professors are funded by tuition rather than by churches. Implicitly, the men set before students as models endorse the sale of biblical teaching. Beyond the seminaries, the local church often redirects its members to parachurch ministries that charge those seeking instruction. When those so raised take up the work of teaching, they commonly practice—or at least condone—what was modeled for them. Moreover, we should heed Ambrose’s argument: biblical patterns permit and perhaps even require understanding Gehazi’s curse as applying not to his physical descendants but to those who follow him in his sin.

As for “sodomy,” the rationale was one of perversion: as the sodomite perverts natural acts, so the simoniac perverts gracious acts; one spills the seed of the body, the other spills the seed of the word. While this metaphor is the least likely to survive modern scruples, it applies strikingly well to the varieties of simony that exist most commonly today. A teacher labors at great pains over the word, develops his teaching, and then places it behind a paywall, undermining the spiritual fruitfulness that might have resulted.

Before dismissing the use of such polemical language, we should remember that Peter was willing to pronounce a curse against Simon: “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money” (Acts 8:20Acts 8:20But Peter said to him, “Your silver perish with you, because you have thought to obtain the gift of God with money.). Christ himself was willing to overturn tables on account of commerce in the house of God. Those who stand in a position to correct teachers who sell their instruction must be prepared to “rebuke them sharply” (Titus 1:13Titus 1:13This testimony is true. For which reason reprove them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,).

The Cure for Modern Simony§

What, then, is the remedy? The twin needs of the hour are zeal and knowledge, or more specifically, zeal according to knowledge.

Zeal§

Recall the admonition of Gregory the Great: whoever does not “burn vehemently” against simony according to his station will have his portion with Simon.¹⁰³C. 1, q. 1, c. 5. The Lord calls his people, and most especially his ministers, to vigorously oppose the sale of spiritual things. Not only are we to take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but we are to expose them (Eph. 5:11Ephesians 5:11and do not participate in the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather even expose them;). Many biblical passages may be added to reinforce this point.¹⁰⁴E.g., Lev. 5:1Leviticus 5:1‘And if anyone sins, in that he hears the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not tell it, then he shall bear his iniquity.; Prov. 24:11–12Proverbs 24:11–12¹¹Deliver those who are carried away to death, and those who are ready to be killed see that you hold back.¹²If you say, “Behold, we did not know this”; does not he who weighs the hearts consider it? And he who keeps your soul, does not he know it? And will not he render to every man according to his work?; Ezek. 33:8Ezekiel 33:8When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man will die in his iniquity but his blood I will require at your hand.; Rom. 1:32Romans 1:32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with those who practice them.; James 4:17James 4:17To him therefore that knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin..

This zeal requires a courage that is necessarily at odds with the fear of man. Many believed but refused to follow Jesus because they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God (John 12:42–43John 12:42–43⁴²Nevertheless, even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess [it], or they would be put out of the synagogue,⁴³for they loved the glory [that is] of men more than the glory [that is] of God.). Ultimately, this requires a love of God so great that it could even be said to imply a hatred of man (Ps. 139:21Psalms 139:21Do not I hate them, O Jehovah, that hate you? And am not I grieved with those who rise up against you?; Luke 14:26Luke 14:26“If any man comes to me, and does not hate his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers, and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.). But such a posture is in fact a love of man, and even the only genuine kind, since love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor. 13:61 Corinthians 13:6does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth;).

By zeal, Christ cleansed the temple, and it is by zeal that he will continue to cleanse the temple of his church. He calls his people to share in this righteous indignation (Ps. 119:53Psalms 119:53Hot indignation has taken hold on me, because of the wicked that forsake your law.).

Knowledge§

Proper zeal exists and operates according to knowledge (Rom. 10:2Romans 10:2For I testify to them that they have a zeal for God, yet not according to knowledge.). The doctrine of simony supplies that knowledge, appropriately directing zeal.

Where doctrinal knowledge is lacking, practical judgments fill the gap, producing at least two kinds of errors. First, those who lack understanding focus on the most obvious offenders, even when they are not the worst offenders. Consider our earlier comparison between those who would sell false teaching and those who would sell true teaching. The latter is in some ways a greater offense, but those who lack understanding primarily, if not exclusively, direct their attention to the former. Second, those who lack understanding permit practical concerns to excuse sinful behavior in the absence of an immediate solution. Many defend the sale of teaching because they cannot say how teachers might otherwise be supported. Pragmatism cannot be permitted to trump principle, and such compromises in the things of God do not ultimately succeed since he who is sovereign over the outcome will not be mocked (Prov. 11:24Proverbs 11:24There is that scatters, and increases yet more; and there is that withholds more than is right, but [it results] only in want.; Gal. 6:7Galatians 6:7Do not be deceived; God is not mocked. For whatever a man sows, that will he also reap.).

Many think of knowledge as primarily tempering zeal, but right understanding generates zeal. The one who can name a sin is far more capable of burning against it than one who cannot. Only those who study the law deeply can know its breadth (Ps. 119:96Psalms 119:96I have seen an end of all perfection; [But] your commandment is exceedingly broad.), and therefore what it forbids. This is true above all of mental simony, since inward sins are the likeliest to elude the conscience (Rom. 7:7Romans 7:7What will we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! Nevertheless, I had not known sin, except through the law; for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, “You shall not covet.”; Matt. 5:21–22, 27–28Matthew 5:21–22²¹“You* have heard that it was said to them from time past, ‘You shall not kill’; and whoever will kill will be in danger of the judgment,²²but I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be in danger of the judgment; and whoever will say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be in danger of the council; and whoever will say, ‘You fool,’ will be in danger of the hell of fire.). Many justify peddlers of the word on the basis of a supposed sincerity, unaware that a man who holds out his faith to those who pay and withholds it from those who do not pay necessarily reveals an ulterior motive (2 Cor. 2:172 Corinthians 2:17For we are not as the many, corrupting the word of God; but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God, we speak in Christ.; James 2:1, 9–10James 2:1My brothers, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, [the Lord] of glory, with partiality.).

We have made initial steps in providing a right understanding, but our historical survey has implicitly raised a number of questions that it has left unresolved. We have not commented on modern practices of financial exchanges in weddings and funerals, though these were frequently addressed by the medieval theologians and canonists. Medieval and Reformed concerns about pastoral salaries likewise remain unapplied. Even some things to which we have given a closer examination—such as the antifraternal approach to addressing simony—deserve dedicated treatments. Such further recovery of the doctrine of simony will be a great blessing to the church, offering the knowledge necessary to direct righteous zeal.

The identification of simony as heresy rests on three arguments: the simoniac prices the priceless, makes the Spirit his servant, and blasphemes him. Upheld with the necessary qualifications, the charge stands on two grounds, one theological and one juridical. The simoniac professes by his conduct that the gifts of God are subject to human commerce, and his crime is so grave that it warrants the same ecclesiastical punishments as heresy.

Simony is a sin against both tables of the law, offending God by profaning what is holy and offending man by defrauding the faithful. Its gravity is attested across centuries of Christian witness, from the canonical judgment that other crimes are “practically nothing,” to Wycliffe’s lament that it leaves a great part of the church “scattered and dead.” Not even the pope stood exempt from its reach.

The weight of the sin makes repentance all the more urgent. The simoniac must resign what he has wrongly obtained, restore what he has wrongly received, and seek divine forgiveness for what no human penalty can fully address. The tradition insisted on the difficulty of that repentance, but equally on the mercy of the Lord.

Bibliography§

Albert the Great. Commentarii in IV Sententiarum. Edited by Auguste Borgnet. Opera omnia 29–30. Paris: Vivès, 1894.
Alexander of Hales. Summa theologica. Edited by Collegii S. Bonaventurae. Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi): Ex Typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1924–1948.
Ames, William. Conscience with the Power and Cases Thereof. London, 1639.
The Anatomy of Simon Magus: or, the Sin of Simony Laid Open. London: Printed by W. Bowyer for Charles Brome, 1700.
Aquinas, Thomas. Quodlibet. Editio tertia Taurinensis. Vol. 5. Turin: Ex Officina Petri Marietti, 1921.
———. Scriptum super libros Sententiarum. Vol. 13. Venice: Joseph Bettinelli, 1750.
———. Summa theologiae. Leonina ed. Rome: Ex Typographia Polyglotta S.C. de Propaganda Fide, 1895–1899.
Augustine. De haeresibus. In Patrologia Latina, edited by Jacques-Paul Migne, vol. 42, 21–50. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1845.
———. S. Aureli Augustini Hipponiensis episcopi epistulae. Edited by Alois Goldbacher. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 34, 44, 57, 58. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1895–1923.
———. Sermones. Edited by Jacques-Paul Migne. Vol. 38. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1865.
Auriol, Peter. Commentarius in libros Sententiarum. Rome: Ex Typographia Aloisij Zannetti, 1605.
Biel, Gabriel. Collectorium circa IV libros Sententiarum. Tübingen: Johann Otmar, for Friedrich Meynberger, 1501.
Bonaventure. Commentaria in quatuor libros Sententiarum. Opera omnia 4. Ad Claras Aquas (Quaracchi): Ex Typographia Collegii S. Bonaventurae, 1889.
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.
———. Israels Fast, or a Meditation upon the Seventh Chapter of Ioshuah. London, 1628.
Calvin, John. Institutio Christianae Religionis. Lausanne: Franciscus le Preux, 1576. The 1559 text.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales. In The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, edited by Walter W. Skeat, vol. 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894.
Council of Constance (1414–1418). In Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, edited by Giovanni Domenico Mansi, vol. 27, 519–1240. Venice: Antonio Zatta, 1784.
Cudworth, Ralph. The Supplement, or, Continuation of the Commentarie upon the Sixth Chapter. In A Commentarie or Exposition, upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians, edited by Ralph Cudworth, 476–662. Cambridge, 1604.
Cushing, Kathleen G. Reform and the Papacy in the Eleventh Century: Spirituality and Social Change. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005.
Cyril of Jerusalem. Catecheses. Edited by W. C. Reischl and J. Rupp. Munich: Lentner, 1848.
Deusdedit. Die Kanonessammlung des Kardinals Deusdedit. Edited by Victor Wolf von Glanvell. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1905.
———. Libellus contra invasores et symoniacos et reliquos scismaticos. In Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI. et XII. conscripti, edited by Ernst Sackur, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, vol. 2, 300–365. Hanover: Hahn, 1892.
Donne, John. Pseudo-Martyr. London, 1610.
Eusebius of Caesarea. Historia ecclesiastica. Edited by Eduard Schwartz. Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 9, pars 1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1903.
Extravagantes communes. In Corpus iuris canonici, vol. 2: Decretalium collectiones, edited by Emil Friedberg. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1881.
Foxe, John. Actes and Monuments. London: John Day, 1583.
Gilchrist, John T. “‘Simoniaca haeresis’ and the Problem of Orders from Leo IX to Gratian.” In Proceedings of the Second International Congress of Medieval Canon Law, Boston, 12–16 August 1963, edited by Stephan Kuttner and J. Joseph Ryan, Monumenta Iuris Canonici, Series C: Subsidia, vol. 1, 209–235. Vatican City: S. Congregatio de Seminariis et Studiorum Universitatibus, 1965.
Glossa ordinaria. In Patrologia Latina, edited by Jacques-Paul Migne, vol. 114, 9–750. Paris: Garnier Fratres, 1879.
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.
Gordon, James. The Reformed Bishop. London, 1679.
Gratian. Decretum Gratiani. Edited by Emil Friedberg. Vol. 1. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1879.
Gregory I. Registrum epistolarum. Edited by Paul Ewald and Ludwig M. Hartmann. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Epistolae 1–2. Berlin: Weidmann, 1891–1899.
Gregory IX. Liber extra. Edited by Emil Friedberg. Vol. 2. Leipzig: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1881.
Grigsby, Bryon Lee. Pestilence in Medieval and Early Modern English Literature. New York: Routledge, 2004.
Hermas. The Shepherd. In The Apostolic Fathers, edited by J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, 291–483. London: Macmillan, 1891. Written ca. 100–160.
Holcot, Robert. Super Sapientiam Salomonis. Paris: Georg Wolff, 1489.
Hus, Jan. O svatokupectví. Edited by Václav Novotný. Prague: J. Otto, 1907. Composed ca. 1413.
Innocent IV. Commentaria super libros quinque Decretalium. Frankfurt am Main: Martin Lechler, for Hieronymus Feyerabend, 1570.
Irenaeus of Lyon. Adversus haereses: Libri quinque. Edited by Ubaldo Mannucci. Bibliotheca Sanctorum Patrum, series secunda: Scriptores Graeci Antenicaeni, vol. III Pars I. Rome: Forzani et Socii, 1907.
Jerome. Commentarii in prophetas minores. Edited by Domenico Vallarsi. Venice: Apud Guilelmum Zerletti, 1768.
———. Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum. In Patrologia Latina, edited by Jacques-Paul Migne, vol. 23, 815–904. Paris: Garnier Fratres, 1883.
Lea, Henry Charles. A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church. Vol. 3: Indulgences. Philadelphia: Lea Brothers, 1896.
Little, Lester K. “Calvin’s Appreciation of Gregory the Great.” Harvard Theological Review 56, no. 2 (1963): 145–157.
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. Operationes in Psalmos. In D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 5. Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1892.
———. 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 B). Paris: Jodocus Badius Ascensius, 1516.
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
McVeigh, Terrence. “Chaucer’s Portraits of the Pardoner and Summoner and Wyclif’s Tractatus de Simonia.” Classical Folia 29 (1975): 54–58.
Nicolaus de Tudeschis (Panormitanus). Commentaria in IIII et V Decretalium libros. Lyon, 1546.
Oresme, Nicole. “Sermo magistri Nicolay Oresme coram papa et cardinalibus.” Revue Mabillon 19 (2008): 191–229.
Oswald of Laskó. Aureum sacrae theologiae rosarium. Hagenau: Heinrich Gran for Johann Rynmann, 1508.
Paludanus, Peter. Commentarius in libros Sententiarum. Salamanca: Andreas à Portonariis, 1552.
Patterson, Lee. “Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch: Psyche and Clio in Medieval Literary Studies.” Speculum 76, no. 3 (2001): 638–680.
Peter Damian. Vita beati Romualdi. In Patrologia Latina, edited by Jacques-Paul Migne, vol. 144, 953–1008. Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1867.
Pliny the Elder. Naturalis historia. Edited by Wernerian Club. Vol. 1. London: George Barclay, 1847.
Price, Richard. The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787). Translated Texts for Historians 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2020.
Raoul Glaber. Les cinq livres de ses histoires. Edited by Maurice Prou. Paris: A. Picard, 1886.
Richard of Middleton. Commentarius in libros Sententiarum. Vol. 4. Brescia, 1591.
Rosé, Isabelle. “Simon le Magicien hérésiarque? L’invention de la simoniaca heresis par Grégoire le Grand.” In Aux marges de l’hérésie, edited by Franck Mercier and Isabelle Rosé, 201–238. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes, 2017.
Taylor, Jeremy. Σύμβολον Θεολογικόν, or a Collection of Polemical Discourses. Third Edition Enlarged. London: R. Norton for R. Royston, 1674.
Turretin, Francis. De Necessaria Secessione Nostra ab Ecclesia Romana, et Impossibili cum Ea Syncretismo. In Francisci Turrettini Opera, vol. 4, 3–203. Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1848. Disputations first collected Geneva, 1687; the seventh, the Antichristi demonstratio, had appeared separately in 1673.
Vance, Eugene. “Chaucer’s Pardoner: Relics, Discourse, and Frames of Propriety.” New Literary History 20, no. 3 (1989): 723–745.
Vermigli, Peter Martyr. Loci Communes. London: Thomas Vautrollier, 1583.
Wido. Widonis monachi epistola ad Heribertum archiepiscopum. In Libelli de lite imperatorum et pontificum saeculis XI. et XII. conscripti, edited by Friedrich Thaner, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, vol. 1, 5–7. Hanover: Hahn, 1891.
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.
———. Si quis diligit me. In The Opuscula of William of Saint-Amour: The Minor Works of 1255–1256, edited by Andrew Traver, 179–190. Münster: Aschendorff, 2003.
William Peraldus. Summae virtutum ac vitiorum. Paris: Petrum Billaine, 1629.
Wycliffe, John. Tractatus de simonia. Edited by Sigmund Herzberg-Fränkel and Michael Henry Dziewicki. London: Trübner & Co., 1898.

Notes

1. Rosé, “Simon le Magicien hérésiarque?” 204–5
2. See ibid., 205–6; 235–38 for the first attestation and a map, then a table, of Gregory’s use of the term in his correspondence.
3. Little, “Calvin’s Appreciation of Gregory,” 146.
4. E.g., Calvin, Institutio, 4.17.49; Turretin, De Necessaria Secessione, disp. 7, § 15 (p. 155).
5. Lombard, Sent. IV, d. 25, c. 2 (p. 909); IV, d. 25, c. 5 (p. 910).
6. C. 1, q. 1, c. 21.
7. Though he included in his description of them more than the commerce of the Spirit, Augustine referred to the “Simonians” (Simoniani) as the first in a catalog of eighty-eight heretical groups. Augustine, De haeresibus, 1 (PL 42:24–26); cf. Aquinas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 1.
8. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 6.14 (1, p. 174).
9. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus haereses, 1.23.2 (pp. 246–47); cf. Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia ecclesiastica, 2.13.6 (GCS 9.1, 136:8–9).
10. “primos et precipuos hereticos” Deusdedit, Contra invasores, 2.17 (p. 335); cf. C. 1, q. 7, c. 27; Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (4:18–24). A later addition (palea) to the Decretum and subsequent authors wrongly ascribed the passage to “Pascalis Papa.”
11. C. 1, q. 1, c. 21.
12. “impretiabilem gratiam pretio conducere” Lombard, Sent. IV, d. 25, c. 2 (p. 909).
13. E.g., Oswald of Laskó, Rosarium, IV, s.v. Simonia, 2; Cudworth, The Supplement, 537; Ames, Conscience, 5.229.
14. Aquinas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 1, corp..
15. Auriol, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166b).
16. “Dona spiritualia pretio vilescunt” Glossa ordinaria ad Matt. 10:8 (PL 114:118A).
17. For example, the theologian Nicole Oresme made this analogy while preaching to Urban V on Christmas Eve, 1363. Oresme, “Sermo coram papa et cardinalibus,” 222. For the date, see Mathieu Caesar’s introduction, ibid., 198–99. This sermon, proclaiming the corruption of the papacy directly before the pope (coram papa), Foxe later translated whole into the Actes and Monuments. Foxe, Actes and Monuments, 5.415–16.
18. Augustine, Sermones, 117, cap. 1 (PL 38:661–62).
19. Bonaventure, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 1, q. 4, concl. (p. 648).
20. “Every man is naturally a simoniac […] he would wish God to be one who would be appeased by human works and merits.” Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 25:31–34 (WA 43, 423:32–424:4). The passage is quoted in Chapter 1.
21. Price, Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea, 54; 629–31.
22. As recorded in Deusdedit, Collectio canonum, 4.15 (p. 407).
23. C. 1, q. 1, c. 21.
24. E.g., Hus, O svatokupectví, 9.F; cf. The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 113; Auriol, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. un., a. 2 (p. 166b).
25. Other Trinitarian models exist to describe simony. Robert Holcot described simony as selling the power of the Father, charging for a testimony as selling the truth of the Son, and doing good works for praise as selling the holiness of the Spirit; Holcot, In librum Sapientiae, lect. 132 (sigs. F1r–v).
26. “God the Holy Spirit, who, since out of supreme kindness he wisely orders his house in peace, is provoked by simoniacal depravity contrary to his ordinance. For the simoniac, resisting the Holy Spirit, strives blasphemously to dissolve this benign order and thus the peace.” Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (1:3–20); cf. Hus, O svatokupectví, 2.A–B.
27. C. 1, q. 1, c. 21. Hus repeated the comparison with Macedonius. Hus, O svatokupectví, 9.F.
28. Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (1:21–23); Hus, O svatokupectví, 2.B.
29. See Gilchrist, “‘Simoniaca haeresis,’” 216.
30. The argument: “Every heresy is against some article of faith, about which a correct opinion is not held. But a simoniac can hold a correct opinion concerning all the articles of faith. Therefore, it is not a heresy.” Aquinas, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 2, s.c..
31. “Not everyone who sins by choice sins against the Holy Spirit; but only he who chooses sin through contempt for those things which usually hold men back from sinning.” Aquinas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 2.
32. Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 2 (24:37–25:3).
33. Ibid., cap. 2 (24:10–13).
34. Ibid., cap. 1 (1:21–23).
35. Hus, O svatokupectví, 1.C.
36. Aquinas, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 3, a. 1, qc. 2, sol..
37. Aquinas, ST II‑II, q. 100, a. 1, ad 1.
38. See Albert the Great, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 3, ad 2 (p. 90b); Innocent IV, Commentaria, ad X 5.3.5 (fol. 498vb).
39. Taylor, Σύμβολον Θεολογικόν, 947.
40. Donne, Pseudo-Martyr, 372.
41. Ibid., 387. He continued, “So that we see, such acts as beget or accompany heresy, are called heresy in this mild acceptation, which our law gives it. From which sense the Fathers did not abstain in using that word.” Ibid., 387–88.
42. Panormitanus, Commentaria, ad X 5.3.5, no. 1 (fol. 69vb).
43. Bonaventure, In Sent. IV, d. 25, a. 1, q. 4, concl. (p. 648).
44. Biel, Collectorium, IV, d. 13, q. 2, a. 3, dub. 1 (sig. m6vb); cf. Richard of Middleton, In Sent. IV, d. 13, a. 5, q. 2 (p. 169a).
45. McLuhan, Understanding Media, 7.
46. X 5.3.32.
47. X 5.3.6.
48. William Peraldus, Summae virtutum, 2.7 (pp. 108–13).
49. William of Saint-Amour, Si quis diligit me, §§ 11–15 (186:14–187:6).
50. Raoul Glaber, Historiarum libri quinque, 5.5.25 (pp. 133–34). The speech is quoted in Chapter 1, pp. 11–12.
51. Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (14:9–10).
52. Burton, A Censure of Simonie, 93.
53. Ames, Conscience, 5.229.
54. Ibid., 5.229.
55. Ibid., 5.229.
56. In medieval literature, this is the seventh command, following the traditional Augustinian enumeration.
57. E.g., Biel, Collectorium, IV, d. 15, q. 3 (sig. q5vb).
58. Aquinas, Quodlibet, V, q. 10, a. 2, ad 2 (p. 114).
59. The objection: “And since simony consists in selling or buying a spiritual thing, or something annexed to a spiritual thing, and since by this an injury is committed against God in itself, not against the neighbor, it seems that simony is forbidden among the precepts of the first table, not the second. Therefore it is not forbidden by this commandment.” Alexander of Hales, Summa Halensis, III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4, n. 1 (p. 569).
60. Ibid., III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (pp. 569–70).
61. Ibid., III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (p. 570).
62. Ibid., III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (p. 570); Augustine, Ep. 153.6.26 (CSEL 44, 426:9–10).
63. Alexander of Hales, Summa Halensis, III, P. 2, Inq. 3, Tract. 2, S. 1, Q. 2, T. 7, C. 5, A. 4 (p. 570).
64. Augustine, Ep. 153.6.26 (CSEL 44, 426:4–6).
65. For an overview of the medieval rhetoric against simony, see Cushing, Reform and the Papacy, 117–20.
66. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus haereses, 1.27.4 (p. 274).
67. Hermas, The Shepherd, Mand. 11.13.
68. Ibid., Mand. 11.13.
69. “But the prophets of Jerusalem also divined for money, not knowing that prophecy is one thing and divination another: for divination is never taken in a good sense in the Scriptures. ‘There shall not be,’ it says, ‘augury in Jacob, nor divination in Israel’ [Num. 23:23Numbers 23:23Surely there is no enchantment with Jacob; nor is there any divination with Israel: now shall it be said of Jacob and of Israel, what has God made!].” Jerome, In proph. min. In Mich. I, 3:9–12 (col. 471).
70. Ibid., In Mich. I, 3:9–12 (col. 471).
71. See Chapter 11, pp. 186–87.
72. William of Saint-Amour, Collectiones, D. 4, sign. 40 (p. 453).
73. Paludanus made a similar comment in his discourse on simony: “One must not make the collection of money the end of preaching, like those who estimate godliness to be a gain [1 Tim. 6:51 Timothy 6:5wranglings of men corrupted in mind and bereft of the truth, supposing that godliness is a way of gain.], preaching for no other purpose than to collect money: for which purpose they even fabricate indulgences, and in their preaching they compose many lies.” Paludanus, In Sent. IV, d. 25, q. 5, concl. 2 (p. 320b).
74. Burton, Israels Fast, 29.
75. See pp. 167–70.
76. Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 649–58 (pp. 19–20).
77. Ibid., 686–706 (p. 21). “The grossest form of simony was exactly what the Pardoner does: the selling of indulgences.” Patterson, “Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch,” 664.
78. Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales, 623–33 (p. 19).
79. Ibid., 672–91 (pp. 20–21).
80. “The Summoner’s leprosy identifies him as an established threat to society because he is a simoniac.” Grigsby, Pestilence, 87.
81. “We can now infer that the Pardoner may be thought to be a mare—a sodomite—because he is a simoniac.” Patterson, “Chaucer’s Pardoner on the Couch,” 666; “if the Pardoner is indeed a sodomist, this would be a perfect sign of his ‘character’ as a simoniac.” Vance, “Chaucer’s Pardoner,” 736–37.
82. McVeigh, “Chaucer’s Portraits of the Pardoner and Summoner,” 58.
83. Jerome gives the meaning of the name as “cattle, silent, or blindness, or their likeness.” Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, De Genesi, S (PL 23:828). Peraldus’s point is that the sodomite will fittingly have nothing to say in his own defense at the judgment.
84. William Peraldus, Summae virtutum, 2.7 (p. 108).
85. Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (8:27–30).
86. Godolphin, Repertorium Canonicum, 556; cf. Extravag. comm. 5.1.2 (col. 1289).
87. E.g., Panormitanus, Commentaria, ad X 5.3.22 (fol. 74rb); Major, In Sent. (red. B), d. 25, q. 7 (fol. 189va).
88. Council of Constance (1414–1418), sess. 15 (Mansi 27:749C).
89. E.g., William Peraldus, Summae virtutum, 2.7 (pp. 112–13).
90. Wycliffe, De simonia, cap. 1 (1:24–2:1); cf. ibid., cap. 2 (24:10–13).
91. William Peraldus, Summae virtutum, 2.7 (p. 112).
92. E.g., “there are many who say they repent, yet retain what they have taken.” Vermigli, Loci Communes, 3.8.38 (p. 613). Vermigli pointed out that failure to restore goods is the mark of false repentance before giving the example of Simon as one whose repentance is uncertain.
93. Peter Damian, Vita beati Romualdi, cap. 35 (PL 144:987A).
94. Gregory I, Ep. 12.9 (2, 357:3–5). Later writers cite it in the form that carried into canon law: “Whoever, therefore, does not burn vehemently against the simoniacal and neophyte heresy [the ordination of novices (1 Tim. 3:61 Timothy 3:6not a novice, so that he does not, having been puffed up, fall into the condemnation of the devil.)] according to the station of his office, let him not doubt that he will have his portion with him who first committed this defiling outrage.” C. 1, q. 1, c. 5; cf. Wido, Widonis monachi epistola, 5:10–13.
95. The Anatomy of Simon Magus, 70.
96. Ibid., 98.
97. Ibid., 188–89.
98. Lea, A History of Auricular Confession, 392.
99. Luther, Vorlesungen über 1. Mose, 23:3–4 (WA 43, 281:37–42); cf. ibid., 25:31–34 (WA 43, 424:5–6).
100. Ibid., 25:31–34 (WA 43, 423:32–424:4). See also Luther, Operationes in Psalmos, 13 (WA 5, 397:10–39). The pejorative at the end comes from the legend that nightjars—a kind of nocturnal bird—suck milk from the udders of goats, withering the udder and blinding the goat (see Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia, 10.56). While their Latin name (caprimulgi) literally means “goat-milkers,” Luther repeated it with his own German translation in order to provide the gendered “buck-milkers.” In other words, the simoniac is quixotically parasitic.
101. See 2 Pet. 2:1–32 Peter 2:1–3¹But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there will be false teachers, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.²And many will follow their sensuality; because of whom the way of the truth will be evil spoken of.³And in covetousness will they with false words make merchandise of you: whose sentence now from of old does not linger, and their destruction does not slumber..
102. Gordon, Reformed Bishop, 98.
103. C. 1, q. 1, c. 5.
104. E.g., Lev. 5:1Leviticus 5:1‘And if anyone sins, in that he hears the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not tell it, then he shall bear his iniquity.; Prov. 24:11–12Proverbs 24:11–12¹¹Deliver those who are carried away to death, and those who are ready to be killed see that you hold back.¹²If you say, “Behold, we did not know this”; does not he who weighs the hearts consider it? And he who keeps your soul, does not he know it? And will not he render to every man according to his work?; Ezek. 33:8Ezekiel 33:8When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you shall surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man will die in his iniquity but his blood I will require at your hand.; Rom. 1:32Romans 1:32who, knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with those who practice them.; James 4:17James 4:17To him therefore that knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is sin..

Who Af­firmed Si­mony as Her­esy?§

On What Ba­sis Did They Make that Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion?§

Pric­ing the Price­less§

Mak­ing the Spirit a Ser­vant§

Blas­phemy of the Holy Spirit§

How Did They Qual­ify It?§

The Sim­i­lar­ity of the Ac­tion§

The Enor­mity of the Crime§

Should We Agree?§

How Great is the Sin of Si­mony?§

A Two-Ta­ble Of­fense§

The First Ta­ble§

The Sec­ond Ta­ble§

As­so­ci­ated Cor­rup­tions§

False Doc­trine§