Title II. On Simony

Having completed the treatise on hypocrisy, we must now turn to simony, which likewise constitutes an injury to the grace of the Holy Spirit. Concerning it, the following must be considered: first, the name; second, what it is; third, in what ways it is contracted; fourth, its material distinctions; fifth, the penalty of simony; sixth, the cases in which it may be doubted whether simony is committed; seventh, satisfaction for it.

Chapter I. On the name of simony

To the first point, thus: Simony takes its name from Simon Magus, as recounted in Acts 8:18-20: When Simon saw that through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power.” To whom Peter replied: “May your money be with you unto perdition, because you have supposed that the gift of God

could be possessed for money. Gehazi, moreover, the servant of Elisha in the Old Testament, sought to sell the grace of healing to Naaman the Syrian, 2 Kings 5:20-27. Hence, strictly speaking, one who sells spiritual things is called a “gehazite,” while one who buys them is called a “simoniac”; nevertheless, by customary usage both are called simoniacs.

Chapter II. What simony is

Article I. On the definition of simony

Secondly, it is asked what simony is. It is defined thus: Simony is a deliberate will to buy or to sell something spiritual or something annexed to the spiritual. This account may be drawn from what Gregorius Nazianzenus says: “Whoever strives to purchase the gift of God for a price, there is no doubt that he can in no way thereafter remain in or be restored to sacred Orders. For what else is it to procure the gift of the Holy Spirit for a price than a capital crime and simoniacal heresy?” From this it is gathered that simony is contracted in the deliberate will to buy or to sell, etc.

But objections are raised to the contrary. 1. No one is excommunicated by the Church for the will alone, since this is not manifest to the Church; yet of the simoniac it is said that he is to be excommunicated, for Gregorius says: “Let such a person be cut off from communion by all

ways”. Therefore simony is not merely a “deliberate willing”. — Yet the contrary seems to hold, namely, that it is contracted by deliberate willing alone, by analogy with the usurer. For it is said in Luke 6:35: Lend, hoping for nothing in return. From which it is gathered that usury is contracted in someone’s disordered hope “beyond the principal”. And the same is held in Extra, De usuris, Consuluit. Therefore much more should this be the case in simony, so that by deliberate willing alone the sin of simony is contracted.

2. Furthermore, since sin is contracted by the will itself as by an evil root, it is asked why the qualifier “deliberate” is added, since even a will that is not deliberate seems to constitute sin.
3. Next, an inquiry is made concerning what is added, “of buying or selling something spiritual,” etc. For it seems that simony could be contracted in ways other than by buying or selling, as in exchanges of dignities or ecclesiastical benefices where the authority of the diocesan bishop does not intervene. For the Canon says that in spiritual matters “every agreement must cease”; and Urban says “that exchanges of prebends cannot lawfully be made, especially when a prior pact has been made, which, with respect to spiritual matters or those attached to spiritual matters, carries the taint of simony.” Therefore simony is not contracted only in buying or selling. — To the same effect is what Alexander says, where it is stated “that there can be no transaction concerning a contested sacred thing; for sacred things, if they are possessed by means of something given or retained or by arbitration, we say have the appearance of simony.”
4. Likewise, an objection is raised concerning what is called “spiritual”. For one may ask what is meant by “spiritual”. On this account it is asked whether an advocate commits simony: for he sells just patronage, and just patronage is something spiritual. — On the contrary. Augustine says that “it is permitted to an advocate to sell just patronage, but it is not permitted to a judge to sell judgment”. Therefore simony is not committed in selling every kind of spiritual thing.
5. Similarly, it is asked whether a secular judge commits simony by selling justice. And it seems that he does not, on the basis of what is said in Matthew 21:12, on the words the seats of those who sold doves,

Gloss: “The sellers of doves are the prelates, who sell the Holy Spirit.” Therefore simony is not committed by a secular judge in selling justice.

6. Similarly, it can be asked what is meant by “attached to a spiritual thing”. For in a case of necessity consecrated things, such as crosses, chalices, and the like, can be sold, and yet these are attached [to spiritual things]; therefore to sell what is attached to a spiritual thing is not simony.

[Solution]: 1. To this it must be said that the sin of simony is committed by the deliberate willing itself. But it is one thing to speak of simony insofar as someone is excommunicated from the Church on its account, and another insofar as it is sin in general; and by “excommunicated” I mean deprived of the communion of the faithful. For if one speaks of simony insofar as excommunication is inflicted — which is the deprivation of the communion of the faithful — simony as deliberate willing does not suffice, but a manifest act proceeding from it is required. To this effect Urban says: “We are speaking of manifest matters; but God is the knower and judge of hidden things.” And he is speaking there of excommunication. — But if excommunication is taken as deprivation of the effect of the sacraments, then on this account anyone excommunicate or suspended is said to be by the law itself a simoniac, though he is to be excommunicated by the Church when this comes to its notice. Ambrose: “Whoever henceforth shall be found to have offered any reward whatsoever for obtaining the dignity of a divine gift, let him know that from that time he is condemned under the reproach of anathema and excluded from participation in the body and blood of the Lord.” But as Gregory Nazianzen says, deliberate willing is taken when there is already an application to the act. — As for the objection from the analogy with usury, it must be said that the passage there speaks of simony insofar as it is sin, not insofar as it renders one irregular in the judgment of the Church.

2. To the objection concerning the addition of the qualifier “deliberate”, it must be said that, although that qualifier is not added, it is nonetheless sin. But this qualifier “deliberate” is added to aggravate the crime. For when the application to the act is vehement, then the crime is aggravated; and this is more the case in those things which are prohibited because they are simoniacal, such as to buy or

ON SIMONY. to sell the sacraments; but less so when they are simoniacal because forbidden by an ordinance of the Church, as when someone resigns a church with the intent that it be given to another: for this has been determined to be simoniacal by an ordinance of the Church, as is found in the Extra, De officio iudicis delegati, Ex parte nobis innotuit.

3. As to what follows, it must be understood that under the name of buying and selling is included every contract concerning spiritual things except the contract of exchange, which is not fitting to be made except by the authority of a superior, namely the diocesan; whence it is taken there broadly for any illicit agreement concerning spiritual things by means of temporal things.
4. As to what follows, it is said that there is a different consideration in an advocate and in a judge. For a judge is bound to render a just judgment, but an advocate may receive a moderate salary for his labor, both according to civil and canonical laws; for that labor does not pertain to him by virtue of an ecclesiastical office he holds, as the judge’s does by virtue of the office enjoined upon him.
5. To the objection raised concerning a secular judge, the response is that, although a secular judge sins gravely in selling a just judgment, he does not however commit simony. For “spiritual” is said of that by which the Holy Spirit is possessed, or by which He is given, or by which He is signified as possessed: by which He is possessed, as virtue; by which He is given, as a sacrament; by which He is signified as possessed, as the gift of prophecy or the power of working miracles. But a secular judge can sell something spiritual in none of these ways. The authority, however, which speaks of the sale of justice, where simony is committed, is to be understood as referring to when ecclesiastical judges sell judgment; whence Gregory says: “Those selling in the temple are they who, what is owed by right to certain persons, at a price

Article II. Whether simony is a heresy.

Next it is asked whether simony is a heresy.

And it seems so, a. by what Gregory says in the Register: “The altar and the tithes and the Spirit

bestow.” But to others it seems that even for a secular judge to sell a just judgment is simoniacal: for it is an act of virtue, and thus in this respect spiritual. And this Gregory seems to say: “Those buying in the temple are they who, while they refuse to render to their neighbor what is just, and while they disdain to perform what is owed, by giving a price to patrons purchase sin.”

6. To the final point it must be said that there are two ways of speaking about consecrated objects, such as crosses or chalices: by reason of their matter or by reason of their form. By reason of their matter, when the consecrated form is no longer present, and in this manner they may be sold in case of necessity; whence Ambrose, in his book De officiis: “It is permitted, in determined cases, to break up, melt down, and sell consecrated vessels of the church”; “it is needful that the form of the mystical cup not depart from the church, lest the ministry of the sacred chalice be conceded to wicked uses.” But it is not so with oil or chrism: for these are consecrated by reason of their very matter.

But if it be asked concerning the timbers which are in a consecrated church, whether, if the church is destroyed, they may be converted into the construction of secular buildings, response can be made through what is said by Pope Hyginus, De consecratione, dist. 1, Ligna: “The timbers of a dedicated church ought not to be joined to any other work except to another church, or to be burned with fire, or for the benefit of the brothers in a monastery” — “and this in religious places, such as the chapter house or the dormitory, but not in the kitchen or for trenching vineyards” — “but they ought not be admitted into the works of laymen.” Whence in the Council of Chalcedon it is said: “Monasteries which have once been dedicated to God, with the counsel of the bishops, are to remain monasteries in perpetuity, and the things which pertain to them ought to be reserved to the monasteries.”

Holy, no one of the faithful is unaware that to buy or sell is simoniacal heresy.” And again: “Anathema to the one giving or receiving, this is simoniacal heresy.”

On the contrary. 1. One can have unformed faith and be a simoniac; therefore simony is not a heresy.

2. Furthermore, if it were a heresy, it would be against some article contained in the Creed. It is not against the article on the Holy Spirit, for the simoniac believes that the Holy Spirit exists; nor against the article on the holy and catholic Church, for he adheres to ecclesiastical unity in word, even if not in deed. It remains, therefore, that he is not to be called a heretic on this account.

[Solution]: 1. To this it can be answered through what Gregory says in the Register: “Since all avarice is the service of idols, whoever does not vigilantly guard against it—especially in the conferring of ecclesiastical dignities—is subject to the ruin of infidelity, even if he should appear to hold the faith which he neglects.” From this we are given to understand that in one way he is said to have faith, but in another way he does not,

Article III. Whether simony is a graver sin than heresy.

The question is also raised concerning the comparison of simony with heresy.

It seems indeed that simony is a graver sin than some heresy. 1. For it is said in the Extra, De simonia, Sicut, that “the simoniac plague surpasses other diseases by its magnitude.” Now sins are called diseases; therefore it is a greater sin than heresy.

2. Likewise, Gregory Nazianzen: “The Lord, in order to show that those who buy and sell this grace have no share in it, by grace let all other sinners remain in the temple, but rebuking and scourging only those who bought and sold, he cast them out of the temple.” From this it seems that this sin is graver than other sins.
3. Likewise, Causa I, quaestio 1, Eos qui per pecuniam: “More tolerable is the impious heresy of Macedonius and those around him who assail the Holy Spirit. For they, in their delirium, confess the Holy Spirit to be a creature and a servant of the Father and the Son; but these men make the same Holy Spirit their own servant. For every master, if he wishes, sells what he has; and likewise he who buys, wishing to be its master, acquires what he has bought through the price of money.” From this it is argued that simony is a worse sin than the heresy of the Macedonians.

because he does not display it in deed. He is therefore said to be a heretic in a certain respect, because he does not value the grace of the Holy Spirit in sacred things as he ought; whence consequently he “detracts from the Holy Spirit” in the sacraments or in sacred things.

2. If, however, it be asked to which article he is principally opposed, it must be said that it is to the one concerning the Holy Spirit, by reason of the sacraments and sacred things. Whence “those who perform this iniquitous deed detract from the Holy Spirit,” placing what is beyond price under a price. Yet such a person is not called a heretic per se on account of false credulity in things that ought not to be believed, but on account of a disordered will, by which he is principally separated from the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as by him holiness is given or made manifest, as in the gift of prophecy or in the power of working miracles.

[Solution]: To this it must be said that one sin is called graver than another either on account of a greater proneness joined with enormity, or one is called graver than another because it is more contrary to the catholic faith. In the first way the simoniac plague is called the greater sin; in the second way heresy itself is so called. For heresy is precisely that in which the principal division is made from the faith of the highest truth.

[Replies to the objections]: 1. To the first objection it must be replied that it is said to “surpass other spiritual diseases” on account of its tenacity: for it is torn away with difficulty because of its tenacity, in that it arises from the root of covetousness.

2. To the second it must be said that what Gregory Nazianzen says is to be turned to this, that this sin by a certain singularity is more opposed to the sacraments of the Church on account of the proneness of human covetousness, and the Lord prefigured this in the casting out of the buyers and sellers from the temple—not that others are not worthy of being cast out. Whence in detestation of this kind of crime it is said that “as soon as” it has become manifest, “he must be expelled and driven from the Church of God.”
3. To the third it must be said that what is called “more tolerable” and so forth refers to this, that it is more unworthy to esteem the Holy Spirit

his own servant than the servant of God the Father, although both are exceedingly wicked. Yet this estimation is made in one way and in another. For Macedonius believed the Holy Spirit to be a creature, and thus, in this respect, a servant — that is, subject — in the same way that a rational or intellectual creature

Article IV. On the comparison of simony with idolatry.

The further question is raised about the comparison of simony with idolatry.

For it seems that simony, considered as a sale, is punished more severely than idolatry. 1. The sin whose punishment is greater is shown to be the greater sin. “For who doubts that what is more severely avenged has been more wickedly committed?” — as is found in Causa XXIV, q. 1, Non afferamus. That the punishment is more severe is shown by Ambrosius in his book De mysteriis, where it is said: “Whereas those who sinned against God by the error of idolatry are seen to be punished only to the fourth generation — as is found in Deuteronomy, where the Moabites and the rest shall not enter the Church of God until the third and fourth generation — the sentence by which the seed of Gehazi is condemned forever, by prophetic authority, for the desire of possessing seems clearly more severe.” For it is said: Leprosy shall cleave to thee and to thy seed for ever. From this it appears that a more severe punishment is inflicted for the sin of simony than for the sin of idolatry, and so it seems to be the greater sin.

[Solution]: 1. To this one must respond by means of what is found in another translation according to our reading, where it is said that the Ammonites and

Chapter III. In what ways simony is contracted.

Thirdly, it is asked in what ways simony is contracted.

is subject to God. But the simoniac does not act in this way; rather, the simoniac acts by selling the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments as if the Holy Spirit were subject to him in his operation. And this is what is said: “Every master sells, if he wishes, what he has, whether a servant or anything else of his possessions.”

The Moabites, moreover, shall not enter the Church of God even after the tenth generation, forever. From this it is gathered that, in this respect, an equal punishment was inflicted for each sin; nevertheless the sin of idolatry is the greater, and a graver punishment is owed to it.

As for what is said — that he shall not enter the Church of God until the third and fourth generation, as found in the other translation — this can be referred to the mystical sense.

That which is said, Leprosy shall cleave to thee and to thy seed for ever, can also be understood spiritually of those who imitate that kind of sin. Hence Ambrosius: “When the seed of Gehazi is condemned forever, what is this but that you should understand the seed of vices rather than the seed of lineage?”

Furthermore, as for what is said of the Moabites — that they shall not enter the Church of the Lord — a reason is subjoined: Because they would not meet you with bread and water when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against thee Balaam, the son of Beor, that he should curse thee. And so a different cause is given than idolatry, although they themselves were idolaters. As for the letter, such a punishment was established “so that, even when they had been made proselytes, they should not be received into the Church of God until the tenth generation.”

And it can be said that in a threefold way, according to Gregorius, on Isaiah 33:15, Blessed is he who

shaketh his hands from every bribe. “For a gift from the hand is money, a gift from the tongue is favor, and a gift from service is obsequiousness rendered when it is not owed.” And Urban says the same: “Whosoever bestows or obtains ecclesiastical things not for the purpose for which they were instituted, but for his own gain, by a gift of the tongue or of undue obsequiousness or of money,

Article I. On the gift from the hand.

Problem I. Whether an ecclesiastical judge who receives gifts is a simoniac.

Concerning the gift from the hand, however, it is asked whether an ecclesiastical judge may receive any gifts, and, if he does receive them, whether he is to be judged a simoniac.

And it seems that he is. 1. For it is said in Matthew 10:8: Freely have ye received, freely give. And it is said in the Council of Toledo: “Whatsoever is bestowed by the consolation of invisible grace ought never at all to be sold for gain or for any sort of reward.” But one who receives gifts, or who gives them, exposes the thing to sale or purchase; therefore he is a simoniac.

2. Likewise, Ecclesiasticus 20:31: Presents and gifts blind the eyes of judges, and, as it were with a muzzle, make them dumb, so that they cannot correct. In no way, therefore, is a gift to be given to an ecclesiastical judge or to be received from him.

On the contrary. a. In human law it is held that food and drink may be received and are not forbidden to them, namely to secular judges; by parity of reasoning, therefore, ecclesiastical judges may receive gifts of this kind.

b. Likewise, in Extra, De simonia, Etsi quaestiones, where it is said: “What is written, Blessed is he that shaketh his hands from every bribe, was said of those gifts which the mind of the recipient

Problem II. Whether money may be given to a priest for Baptism.

Likewise, it is asked whether money may be given to a priest for the Baptism of an adult, if the priest is by no means willing to baptize unless he have money.

is a simoniac.” And Gregory says: “Then does a man shake his hands from every bribe, when in divine matters he seeks not only no money, but not even human favor.”

First, therefore, inquiry must be made concerning the gift from the hand; second, concerning the gift from service; third, concerning the gift from the tongue.

are accustomed to entice or to pervert, since, if there be offered an electuary, or some wine or other such things, which are of small value and which ought not to [incline] or move the will of the recipient, the Roman Church has not been accustomed to interpret the recipient as offending in these matters.” Therefore simony is not contracted in every reception of a gift by a prelate or ecclesiastical judge.

[Solution]: To this it must be said that in the judgment of God, who beholds the heart, if the will of the ecclesiastical judge is moved to deliver judgment by the price of a gift, whether great or small, it is always simony. But the Church regards the outward deed, and because small gifts do not seem such as ought to corrupt the mind of an ecclesiastical judge, it is not reckoned simony before the Church. Hence “in the receiving and giving of gifts three things are to be attended to, namely the quality of the persons giving and receiving, the quantity of the gift, and the time of the giving. The quality of the persons, that is, by whom and to whom, namely whether it has been given by a poor man to a rich one or conversely, or by a rich man to one who is well-off; the estimation of the gift, whether it be of greater or lesser value; the time of the giving, whether it be conferred in pressing necessity or at some other time.” And according to this is the presumption to be had of simony or of its opposite.

And it seems that it is. 1. It is permitted to anyone to redeem his own right; but the right of this man is that he be baptized; therefore in that case it is permitted to give money.

2. Furthermore, it can happen that a small child is brought to a priest while in his last extremity, and, if he has not been baptized, he will undergo eternal punishment; but of two evils the lesser is to be chosen; therefore in such a case money can be given to the priest for the Baptism of the child.

On the contrary. a. The Apostle says in Romans that evil is not to be done, that good may come; therefore money is not to be given for a spiritual thing.

[Solution]: To this it must be said that it is one thing to give money for Baptism and another for water,

Problem III. Whether it is licit to give money for the redemption of one’s own right.

Next it is asked whether it is licit to give money for the redemption of one’s own right.

And it seems so. a. For it is licit for anyone to redeem his own right, and it is said in the Extra, De simonia, Dilectus, that restitution is to be made to him who has redeemed his harassment, because the one who took the money committed simony; from which it follows that it is licit to redeem; therefore simony is not committed if money is given to redeem a harassment which is unjustly inflicted upon him concerning a spiritual right.

On the contrary. 1. It can happen that the one from whom it is sought has some right in the very thing that is sought; but that right is spiritual; it is not, however, licit to buy a spiritual thing, just as it is not licit to sell one; therefore it is not licit to redeem it.

2. Furthermore, he has a superior, before whom

Problem IV. Whether it is licit to exact something for spiritual works that are owed.

Further it is also asked whether it is licit to exact something for spiritual works that are owed, such as for a consecration or visitation.

And it seems that it is not. 1. For just as the sanctification in Baptism or Confirmation is a spiritual thing, so too is the consecration of a church; but for the former works it is not licit to receive anything; therefore neither for the latter.

On the contrary. a. The Apostle says, 1 Corinthians 9:11: If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we reap your carnal things? And again: Who serveth as a soldier at any time at his own charges? And again: The husbandman that laboureth must first partake of the fruits. From these

in which someone may afterwards be baptized. For Baptism it is not licit to give money; but for the water, if it cannot otherwise be obtained, money can be given, nor is a spiritual thing sold there. In the aforesaid case, therefore, if the priest is by no means willing to baptize unless money is given him, the water must be bought, if it cannot be done otherwise, and the child must be baptized by someone else. The same is to be said concerning the small child. For in case of necessity Baptism can be given by another, and the avoidance of simoniacal depravity is of the greatest necessity.

he can obtain his right; since, therefore, another way is open to him, and the Apostle says: From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves, and redemption is a kind of purchase, therefore in such a case it is not licit to redeem.

[Solution]: To this it must be said that “it is licit to redeem a harassment” which is unjustly inflicted concerning “a spiritual thing, where the one from whom it is sought has no right,” nor can he obtain his right through a superior; nor is a spiritual thing bought there, but a temporal one: for harassment is a temporal thing. — That it is licit to redeem from one who has no right in the thing, although it is not licit for him to receive, is clear from what is said in C. 1, q. 3, Quaesitum, where Urban prohibits “all venality”; but he concedes that “tithes may be possessed in peace by monasteries under a redemption of this kind from thirty years and upward.”

it is gathered that it is licit for bishops and other prelates to receive a procuration for certain works performed.

[Solution]: To this it must be said that in such cases simony is not committed, if a moderate procuration is exacted, as is held in the Extra, De simonia, Cum sit Romana, where it is said that “for the consecration of churches nothing can or ought to be exacted beyond a procuration”; and in the Extra, De praescriptionibus, Cum ex officii, where it is said that “a procuration is owed also by reason of visitation, against which prescription cannot run.”

To the first objection to the contrary, however, it must be said that the case of consecration is not the same as

the ministration of Baptism or of Confirmation. For those pertain purely to grace, and yet in them no agreement concerning a temporal thing ought to intervene. It has, however, been established by the Church that procurations be given by reason of the

Article II. On the gift from service.

Problem I. Whether it is permitted by means of service to obtain a spiritual benefice.

Secondly, the question is asked concerning the gift from service: whether it is permitted by means of service to obtain a spiritual benefice.

And it seems that it is. a. For Gregory says: “Those who serve the interests of the Church deserve to enjoy ecclesiastical remuneration, so that those who voluntarily submit themselves to the duties of service may worthily be consoled by our provisions.” From which it is held that by means of service someone can obtain an ecclesiastical benefice.

b. Likewise, Gregory: “It is just that those should receive a stipend who are found to lend their service for a time.”

c. Furthermore, if ecclesiastical benefices are to be conferred, on whom are they more fittingly to be conferred than on those who serve the Church? Therefore it is permitted to confer an ecclesiastical benefice in view of service; and by the same reasoning, to serve as well — and here bodily service is understood.

On the contrary. 1. The gift from service intervenes; but, as Gregory says in the Registrum, where there is

labor, which is great, and they ought not to intervene, but to follow; whence those temporal things are not means, but rather things owed by consequence, just as the Lord says in the Gospel: The laborer is worthy of his food.

manual service, if it is rendered with the intention of obtaining a spiritual benefice, simony is committed; for [Urban] says: “Whoever bestows or acquires ecclesiastical things, for purposes other than those for which they were instituted, by the gift of the tongue or of service or of money, is a simoniac.”

[Solution]: To which it is answered that it matters whether one renders worthy service, whether honorable or dishonorable, and again whether the person is worthy or unworthy, and again whether an agreement intervenes or not. “If a worthy person renders worthy service,” or honorable service, and no agreement intervenes, and he does not principally “have his mind set on this” — this is said on account of what is stated by Gregory, [C.] 1, q. 1, Ordinationes — although he may have it secondarily, he does not commit simony: for it is called “a gift from service: service rendered when not owed.” “But if he is unworthy,” and especially if he renders dishonorable service, simony is committed, as Gregory says in the Registrum, and is found at [C.] 1, q. 1, Si quis. But if an agreement intervenes, it is simoniacal: for a spiritual thing, such as a church, ought not to be brought into an agreement.

Problem II. Whether it is permitted to render spiritual service for an ecclesiastical benefice, with a condition intervening.

But it is still asked whether someone may render spiritual service for an ecclesiastical benefice, with a condition intervening.

And it seems that he may not, a. because in a contract concerning a spiritual thing a condition ought not to intervene.

On the contrary, 1. It is held in Extra, De praebendis, Significatum, where it is said that “by common consent they gave a certain priest one prebend in the church, with the stipulation that he must daily celebrate the Mass of St. Mary, unless he be burdened with bodily infirmity.” Therefore an agreement is intimated there in the very conferral.

[Solution]: 1. To which it is answered that the condition

that was more fittingly imposed at the institution of the prebend, and afterwards the confirmation of the Supreme Pontiff followed, and so such a condition adhered to that prebend.

Article III. On the gift of the tongue.

Problem I. Whether it is permitted to petition for oneself for some ecclesiastical benefice.

Third, we must speak of the gift of the tongue, and it is asked first whether anyone may petition for himself for a church or a dignity or some ecclesiastical benefice.

And it seems that he may not. 1. For it is said in Hebrews: Let no man take the honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was. Therefore he ought not to put himself forward by word or deed; therefore no one ought to petition for himself.

2. Furthermore, in the very act of petitioning he shows himself to desire it; but Gregory says: “Just as a position of governance is to be denied to those who desire it, so it is to be offered to those who flee from it.” Therefore no one ought to petition for an ecclesiastical benefice for himself.

On the contrary. a. A man may be ordained and not have a sufficient benefice, or have no benefice at all; since therefore it is owed to him by right on account of the honor of the Church — as is had in the Extra, De praebendis: “It shall not be lawful for any bishop to ordain clerics and provide them no maintenance”; and again: “If a bishop ordain anyone to the diaconate or priesthood without a definite title from which he may receive the necessities of life, let him supply him with the necessities for so long” etc. — therefore he may lawfully petition for an ecclesiastical benefice.

b. Likewise, Jerome, To Pope Damasus: “It is fitting that those clerics be supported by stipends to whom no goods of relatives and kinsmen

office and “the thing passes along with its burden.” But what is said in the Decretal should be referred to the condition in its establishment.

are available.” Since therefore they are owed to clerics by right, it is permitted to them to petition for an ecclesiastical benefice for themselves.

[Solution]: To this it is answered that one may not petition for himself for Orders, or for a benefice to which the cure of souls is attached. He may, however, petition for a simple benefice, since it is owed to him by right, as for instance if he is ordained and has no sufficient benefice. For Gregory says: “Ordinations which are made with the intervention of a price, or of entreaties, or of service rendered to some person with that intention, we judge to be false, since those who are ordained in such a manner do not enter through the door, that is, Christ” — and they are said to be false with respect to the exercise of office — and this is expounded at [C.] 1, q. 1, Non itaque.

But what if some worthy person should offer entreaties on his own behalf — is he a simoniac? It seems so from what has been said, and some hold this very view. — But it is a hard thing to say, since the laws are not altogether explicit on this, and according to it many would be condemned. Yet it is safer that no one, however worthy, should offer entreaties for himself unless it be owed to him by right, as has been said: for by this very act he can render himself unworthy. Gregory: “He who voluntarily seeks office or thrusts himself forward unbidden is without doubt to be repelled. For one who thus strives to climb to higher things, what else does he accomplish but, by growing, to be diminished?”

Problem II. Whether, if entreaties are made by another, there is simony.

Next it is asked whether, if entreaties are made by another, there is simony either in Orders or in a benefice.

And it seems that there is. 1. By what Gregory says: “It is fitting that neither by gift nor

by favor nor by the entreaties of certain persons should you consent that any be brought forward to sacred Orders, nor permit it.»

2. Likewise, that armed entreaties ought not to be present is clear from what Symmachus says: «If anyone desires the episcopate, let him by no means enlist influential persons as advocates on his behalf for a payment, nor by employing fear of any kind compel a decree to be made in his favor.»

But the contrary seems to be the case, a. from what is said in the Canon, C. 1, q. 1, Latorem praesentium, etc., and Gregory says: «Let him not dare to promote anyone to sacred Orders by anyone’s favor or entreaty, unless the quality of his life and conduct has shown him to be worthy of it.»

[Solution]: To which it is answered that, when carnal entreaties take the place of a price — and this happens most of all when they are made on behalf of an unworthy person — it is called simony

Chapter IV. On the material differences of simony.

Fourthly, the question is asked concerning the material differences of simony, which are considered according to the difference between the spiritual itself and what is annexed to spiritual things. There are three differences:

Article I. On the spiritual thing itself.

Problem I. Whether it is lawful to give money for the matrimonial blessing.

Concerning the first thus: I. The question is asked whether it is lawful for anyone to give money for the matrimonial blessing, if the priest is unwilling to perform it without a price, the marriage already existing.

And it seems that it is, 1. because it is lawful to redeem one’s own right; but it is the right of those joined by marriage that the blessing be given them; therefore it is lawful to give for obtaining the blessing, if it cannot be done otherwise.

To the contrary. a. The blessing is a spiritual thing; and it is not lawful to give money for a spiritual thing; therefore it is not lawful to give for it. What, then, is to be done in such a case?

is committed. Hence Gregory, in the Registrum: «Before all things let it be your care that in an election neither any giving of rewards intervene in any way whatsoever, nor the patronage of any persons whatsoever prevail.» But if entreaties are made on behalf of a worthy person, simony is not committed: for it is presumed of the person himself that the intention is upright, and the one ordaining or electing does not principally have regard to the entreaties.

But it can be asked why simony is less committed in entreaties offered on behalf of a worthy person than in money: for if money intervenes, simony is committed. — And it is answered to this that entreaties are ordered toward making manifest that it is fitting for such a one to be ordained or beneficed: for the language of supplication on behalf of a worthy person is for this purpose; money, however, is not for this, but rather to move inordinately the affection of the one conferring the Order or the benefice.

Chapter IV. On the material differences of simony.

The first, concerning the spiritual itself; the second, concerning what is annexed to a spiritual thing; the third, concerning that which is both spiritual and annexed to a spiritual thing.

Article I. On the spiritual thing itself.

Problem I. Whether it is lawful to give money for the matrimonial blessing.

II. Likewise, matrimony is a sacrament, and thus is a spiritual thing. Is it lawful for money to intervene in the matrimonial contract with an attached pact?

And it seems that it is not, 1. because a sacrament is a spiritual thing; but matrimony is a sacrament; if therefore «in spiritual things every pact» of money «ought to cease,» a condition of this sort ought not to be present in matrimony.

But the contrary seems to be the case, a. from what is said in Extra, De conditionibus appositis in matrimonio, De illis, where it is said that, if a condition has been interposed concerning some sum of money with an oath intervening under this form, «I will take you in

I will take you to wife, if only you give me so much», he shall not be held guilty of perjury if he does not take her as his wife when she is unwilling to pay him what he asked to be given him — unless consent in the present tense or carnal commingling has followed between them. From which it is held that it is no sin to attach a condition of money in contracting marriage.

[Solution]: I. To this it is answered, and first to what is said concerning the blessing of those being married, that it is not lawful to exact and extort «money» beforehand «for the blessing of those being married and the like», as is held in Extra, De simonia, Ad apostolicam audientiam. If, however, there is a pious custom in certain regions that some things be offered from «the devotion of the faithful», it is fitting «that the sacraments of the Church be conferred freely; but those who maliciously strive to alter a laudable custom should be restrained by the bishop of the place, once the truth is known».

[To the objections]: 1-a. As for what is objected, that

Problem II. Whether a priest may sing Mass for money.

The question is then asked whether a priest may sing Mass for money.

And it seems that he may not. 1. For it is said upon that text of Hosea 5:1: Judgment is against you, priests, since you have become a snare to the watchtower and a net spread upon Mount Tabor, where Bernardus expounds this of priests who spread a net of cupidity over the sacrament of the altar.

2. Moreover, as is held in John 2:15, the Lord cast out of the temple those who were buying and selling. But who are more buyers and sellers than those who expose the Sacrament of the Eucharist for sale?
3. Moreover, in Micah 3:11 the priests are rebuked, who answered for a reward, according to another reading, where we have who taught for a reward; but what is it to answer for a reward, if not to celebrate for money?

But the contrary seems to be the case. a. «For no one is bound to serve at his own charges as a soldier», as is held in C. 12,

«it is lawful to redeem one’s own right», and further [when] it is asked «what is to be done in such a case», it is answered that the blessing does not belong to the substance of marriage but pertains to its solemnity; nevertheless, because it is owed to them by the constitution of the Church, they ought to have recourse to a superior, whose office it is to compel and to remove the obstacle of sin. But if he will not, it is safer to abstain than to induce another into sin or to give occasion of sin. Nor is the case similar to others, where vexation is redeemed and the right itself is not bought.

II. To the other point, it must be said that it is not simony if a condition of money intervenes in the matrimonial contract. For they say that in every ecclesiastical sacrament in which grace is conferred, if a bargain or giving of money intervenes by which it is bought, it is simony; but in marriage grace is not conferred, and it is a sacrament prior to both Laws under the law of nature, and therefore a condition of money may intervene as a stimulus to consent.

Problem II. Whether a priest may sing Mass for money.

q. 2, Caritatem, and the Apostle says the same; therefore they are not bound to labor in the Church unless they have the means by which they may be sustained.

[Solution]: 1-3. To which it must be answered that to take or to give for temporal goods is said in many ways: either so that the ministers of God may be sustained, or as a certain incitement to the praise of God, or so that a price be set upon those things, or so that an end be placed in them. If in the first way, it is lawful for him to sing Mass who is not bound to do so and who lacks his support, by receiving money, provided no bargain intervenes and the principal intention is not directed to this. And this is held by what Hieronymus says, Super Michaeam. For he says, reciting what Saul said to his servant: What shall we bring to the man of God? And the servant said: Behold, there is found in my hand the fourth part of a silver stater; let us give it to the man of God, that he may show us our way; and what is said in 1 Kings 14:3 of the wife of Jeroboam, where it is said: Take in your hand ten loaves and a cake

and a jar of honey, and go to him; for he himself will declare to you what is to happen to this child»: «These things are to be reckoned rather as expenses for the prophet than as remuneration for prophecy.» It is not, however, permitted that temporal things be given as a price: for then it is simony. And in this way are to be understood what Bernard says and what Gregory says when he expounds the passage about those selling and buying in the temple. But if the priest has the means to support himself and is bound by his office to that Mass, to demand payment on this account is simoniacal. If, however, he is not bound to do so but has sufficient means,

Problem III. Whether it is lawful to give money for the celebration of an anniversary or for the absolution of the excommunicated.

Then the question is asked, I. whether it is lawful to give fixed revenues and to bargain for the celebration of an anniversary.

II. Likewise, the question is raised concerning those who receive money from the excommunicated before absolving them.

And it seems that they commit simony. 1. For they place under a price what is beyond price.

But the contrary seems to be the case, a. from the custom of the Church and from the fact that pecuniary penalties have been established for the correction of offenders.

b. Moreover, it is just that where there is a burden, there should also be a recompense; but it is a burden for the church to be obliged in perpetuity to celebrate an anniversary; it is therefore fitting that a fixed recompense be assigned.

Problem IV. Whether it is lawful to give temporal goods to religious men so that they may pray for one.

Then the question is asked whether it is lawful to give temporal goods to religious men so that they may pray for one.

And it seems that it is not. 1. For prayer is a spiritual thing: in it the Holy Spirit is sought, that is, the gift of the Holy Spirit; but it is not lawful to place under a price what is beyond price; therefore it is not lawful to give temporal goods so that prayers be made.

To the contrary. a. It is said in Luke: Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity, etc. Therefore it is lawful to give to good men so that they may pray for one. — Moreover,

it would be reckoned as the appearance of evil were he to demand payment, since the Apostle says: Abstain from every appearance of evil. — But that is not without grave offense which certain men do, who «for money, or» in order to please «secular persons, presume on one day to celebrate several Masses», as Pope Alexander says. If, however, necessity presses and there is a lack of priests, one may celebrate «one Mass for the day and another for the dead, if it be necessary», yet in such a way that the ablution of wine is not consumed, lest the fast be broken, which is required out of reverence for the Sacrament.

[Solution]: I. To this it is answered that it is not lawful, when a pact intervenes, to accept revenues for the celebration of an anniversary. If, however, the devotion of the faithful is expressed in conferring a revenue, the church is bound, on account of the devotion of these same faithful, to celebrate for those for whom it is asked.

II. To the second it must be said that money is not to be received or given for the benefit of absolution, as is held in Extra, De simonia, Ad aures. If, however, certain penalties have been established by the Church for the correction of offenders, they may consequently be exacted, not for the benefit of absolution itself, but so that, on account of the penalty which he fears, the offender may thereafter guard himself against the offense. It must be seen to, however, that no more be ascribed to cupidity than to correction: for then it could be a sin.

it is lawful to give temporal goods to this end, that the Holy Spirit may be obtained; but prayers serve to obtain grace for others; therefore it is lawful to give temporal goods to the end that good men pray for one.

b. Moreover, it is lawful to give temporal goods to the end that the kingdom of heaven may be bought. For it is said in Matt. 13:45: The kingdom of heaven is like a merchant, etc., and again in the last chapter of Proverbs, 16, concerning the valiant woman: She considered a field, and bought it; and by the field is understood the field of Paradise. Therefore it is lawful to buy the kingdom of heaven; but the kingdom

of heaven is far greater than any spiritual good in the present life; therefore it is, much more strongly, lawful to buy spiritual goods in the present.

[Solution]: a. To this it is replied that it is lawful to give temporal goods to religious men so that they may pray for them. For the preposition ‘for’ (pro) here does not signify the relation of valuation, as when it is said ‘I give money for cloth,’ but signifies the relation of incitement, namely that they may be moved to spiritual friendship and consequently to praying for them; and in this way it is lawful, nor is anything beyond price thereby set under a temporal price.

Problem V. Whether it is lawful to give or receive money for burial

Next it is asked, I. whether it is lawful to give or to receive money for burial. By “burial” I mean the office which properly pertains to the priest.

That it is lawful seems to follow a. from the custom long observed in the Church; and a custom which has arisen from devotion in such matters is not to be abolished; therefore it can lawfully be received or given.

To the contrary. 1. It is said in Extra, De simonia, Non satis, where it is stated that “for burial and for the receiving of chrism and oil no exaction of any price whatsoever shall be attempted, nor may anyone defend his guilt under the pretext of any custom, since length of time does not lessen sin but increases it.”

[Solution]: To this it is replied through what is said in Extra, De simonia, Ad apostolicam, from which it is gathered that priests ought not to extort or demand anything before burial or for burial: for this would be simony, as is held in Extra, Cum in Ecclesiae corpore; but [after] burial one may demand something by the command of a superior, where such a custom exists, and this is stated in that Decretal, Ad Apostolicam.

II. a. Now just as it is simony to sell the burial of the dead, so it is simony to sell consecrated ground given over for burying the dead.

b. To the second, however, it must be said that, although it is possible to buy eternal goods, since they fall under merit — for to buy them is nothing other than to merit them: since to give temporal things out of charity is meritorious — nevertheless first grace, by which spiritual goods are given, as in a sacrament and the like, does not fall under merit; therefore the case is not the same with first grace, which no one can merit ex condigno: hence the giving of temporal things, which is outside grace, cannot attain to it.

Hence Ephron is rebuked, who sold to Abraham the field in which was the double cave in which the dead were buried; and as a sign of this rebuke his name was changed; whence, although he was at first called ‘Ephron,’ afterwards “he was called Ephran; in which,” as Jerome says, “it is signified what sort of perfect virtue he must have, who could sell the memorials of the dead.” It therefore seems that he committed the sin of simony.

But to the contrary. 1. All that he sold is temporal; therefore it is neither spiritual nor annexed to a spiritual thing; therefore he did not commit simony.

2. Likewise, if he committed simony, then he sold what was not to be sold; therefore Abraham bought what was not to be bought; therefore he committed simony in buying just as Ephron did in selling.
3. Likewise, Abraham seems to have sinned more than Ephron, because Ephron wished to give him the field freely for the burial of his dead, and Abraham was unwilling to accept it except with payment intervening; therefore he scandalized him, and thus seems to have sinned more than Ephron.

[Solution]: 1-3. To this some say that Abraham bought a certain large field in which was that great cave in which the dead were buried; whence he did not sin, because that cave passed along with the whole property, just as, when someone buys an estate to which is annexed the right of patronage of some church, he does not commit simony, because the right of patronage passes along with that whole property. But by the same reasoning

Ephron did not sin: for he sold a field along with which the cave passed. — Why then was his name changed? To this Praepositinus would say that one does not read that that field had been consecrated for burial, nor even that that cave had been blessed or consecrated to this end, but rather that the ancient fathers had themselves buried in that double cave, hoping that they would rise again with the Son of God. And that cave was called double because it had two chambers: an upper one, in which the men were buried, and another, lower one, in which the women were. Hence, since that land was not blessed, «neither did Abraham sin in buying, nor Ephron in selling». His name was nevertheless changed, because

Secondly, inquiry is made concerning the simony which consists in selling what is annexed to a spiritual thing.

I. And first concerning the right of receiving tithes. Concerning which it is asked whether it is lawful to sell the right of receiving tithes, or whether simony is committed.

And it seems that simony is not committed. 1. For knights have the right of receiving the particampum, and that right is called terrestrial. Now the particampum is the tenth or eleventh or twelfth part of the sheaves according to the diverse customs of diverse regions. Knights, therefore, can have the right of receiving tithes; therefore it is not simony, since no spiritual thing is set under a price here.

To the contrary. a. The right of receiving tithes is annexed to a spiritual thing, namely to Holy Orders: for the clergy alone have the right of receiving tithes, as is held from the Lateran Council: «We forbid that laymen, holding back tithes to the peril of their own souls, should be able to transfer them to other laymen». But simony is the will to buy or sell a spiritual thing or what is annexed to a spiritual thing; therefore it is simoniacal to sell or to buy the right of receiving tithes.

II. Likewise, it is asked whether tithes can be sold to laymen without simony.

he descended from a state of perfection to a state of imperfection: for he first willed to give freely, which belongs to the perfect, and afterwards he sold at the highest price. «Hence at first he was called Ephron, that is, confirmed and perfect, and afterwards he was called Ephran, that is, weak and imperfect». — The same is the reason for the changing of the name according to the other solution, which says that the cave passed along with the whole property.

Now, just as it is simony to sell a blessed piece of land, not on account of the land, but on account of the blessing, which is spiritual, so also is there simony in certain very small things. Hence it is simony to sell blessed bread and blessed water: for they are spiritual things and blot out many venial sins.

Article II. On what is annexed to a spiritual thing.

Problem I. On the sale of the right of receiving tithes.

And it seems that it is not lawful. 1. For Gregory says, I, quaest. 3, Pervenit quod: «If any bishop be henceforth found who confers the tithes and oblations of Christians upon lay persons such as knights or servants, let him be held a transgressor of the divine precept among the greatest heretics and antichrists; and, just as the Nicene Synod decreed concerning simoniacs, both the bishop who gives and those who receive for a price or benefit are to be consigned to eternal fires». Paschal says the like following thereupon.

To the contrary. a. The fruits of tithes are temporal things; but temporal things can be bought and sold without simony; therefore it is not simoniacal to sell or to buy tithes.

III. Next, it is asked whether laymen can receive oblations given to churches.

And it seems that they cannot. 1. For Damasus says: «Oblations which are offered within the holy Church are in no way to be held under the dominion of laymen».

2. Likewise, «the oblations which Christians offer for their sins» are offered to this end, that prayer may be made for the people; but it is not the office of laymen, but of priests, to pray for the people; therefore it is not lawful for the laymen themselves to receive oblations.

3. Furthermore, in the Old Testament the sons of Israel were forbidden to eat “the holy loaves, except Aaron and his sons”; but what is offered in the New Law is far more noble than what was offered in the Old; therefore it is not lawful for laymen in the New Testament to receive “the offerings of the churches.”

On the contrary. a. Those offerings are, in their substance, temporal things; but it is lawful for them to have ownership of temporal things; therefore it is lawful for them to receive offerings.

IV. Likewise, it is asked whether tithes can be given in fief to laymen by the Church.

And it seems that they can, 1. by what Innocent says: “We understand this of those tithes which have been granted to laymen in perpetual fief.”

2. Furthermore, the custom of many lands holds this, which is the best interpreter of laws.

On the contrary. a. It is held in the Extra, De decimis, Ad haec, where it is said: “The donation of a tithe which an abbot granted to a certain layman to be held by succession, since the sanctuary of God ought not to be possessed by hereditary right,” we judge to be null.

I reply: I. To the first it must be answered that it is simoniacal to sell or to buy the right of receiving tithes. I mean the primary right, which has been granted by the Lord to clerics alone; it is also owed “as a sign of universal dominion,” which belongs to God himself, as Hieronymus says, Super Malachiam; furthermore, because “tithes are the tribute of needy souls.”

[Replies to the objections]: 1. To what is objected to the contrary [it must be said] that, although knights may have the right of receiving a share, they do not have the right of receiving tithes, inasmuch as tithes are established to be “the tribute of needy souls.” It is nevertheless possible to come to an agreement with those who hold lands that they should give the lord a certain fixed portion of the very fruits of the land.

But if it is asked whether the right of receiving tithes can pass with the sale of some village in which tithes are received, just as

the right of patronage passes with the sale of a village to which the right of patronage is annexed, or of that portion of land, the reply is that the case is not the same. For the right of receiving tithes is not annexed to a village or to any portion of land, but is annexed to the clerical Order; hence, just as the Order cannot be sold, so neither, consequently, can the right of receiving tithes.

II. 1. To what is asked about the tithes themselves, it must be said that “the fruits themselves can be sold or bought, or even given to laymen for cause, but the right of tithe in no way.” But what Gregorius says is to be understood of the right of tithe, not of the fruits themselves: for the fruits can be granted for cause to knights themselves by the Church on the authority of a prelate, for the defense of the Church or in favor of Christendom, just as they were granted to certain knights in the kingdom of Aragon, namely that they should receive the tithes of all places which they could acquire by expelling pagans. But if this is so, they do not receive them in perpetuity by common law, but by privilege and by the Church’s concession, as long as the cause endures. For if afterward the Church should be enormously burdened, or they should not aid the Church but assail it, or abuse the privilege, they would not lawfully receive those tithes.

III. To what is asked about the offerings, it must be said that laymen neither have the right of receiving the offerings of the church, nor does it belong to them to receive those which are made at the altar; nevertheless these can be given to them for cause, either for the repair of the church or for some honorable use, provided however that no right be claimed.

IV. 2. To the last point it must be said that, according to what is stated in the Decretal, tithes cannot pass into a lay fief. For no right of ownership has been granted to laymen by the Church, but a certain right of receiving fruits for a time for the protection of the Church, and not in the name of inheritance. That in some regions they do pass to heirs, where the cause does not exist, this is by the Church’s permission on account of the multitude of offenders, not that thereby any right is given to them.

As for what is objected from the Decretal, that “tithes were granted to laymen in fief,”

must be understood as referring to the time before the Council. And this was granted by the Church on account of the Church’s necessity for a time, so that her sons, in time of necessity, might receive

Problem II. Whether it is permitted to redeem tithes from laymen.

Next it is asked whether it is permitted to redeem tithes from laymen.

1. Since to redeem is to buy, and it is not permitted to buy, therefore neither is it permitted to redeem; for it is said in canon law: “Just as that church could not be bought, so neither can it be redeemed.”
2. Furthermore, they cannot be exchanged for a temporal thing; therefore, consequently, neither can they be redeemed.
3. Furthermore, laymen seem to possess them unjustly, according to what Gregorius says: “We forbid that tithes, which canonical authority shows to have been granted for the use of piety, be possessed by laymen; but if they do not restore them to the Church, let them know that they commit the crime of sacrilege.” Therefore they cannot sell them; therefore it is not permitted to buy from them.

[Solution]: To this it is answered that they can be redeemed, provided it be done by the authority of the bishop, to whose disposal the tithes belong. The authority of the judge has much weight in such matters, as is found in the Extra, De praebendis, Nisi, and in the Extra, De rerum permutatione, Quaesitum. They can also be received in pledge, provided they do not pertain “to other churches”: for then it is forbidden, as is found in the Extra, De decimis, Interdicimus.

the fruits of the tithes, just as the fathers did. But this right was not purely spiritual: for if it were purely spiritual, it could not be granted to a layman remaining as such.

[To the objections]: 1. To the objection it must be said that, although it is not permitted simply to buy or sell, it is nevertheless permitted to redeem on account of the right which the Church has in the matter; and that which is redeemed is redeemed only in order to remove the impediment of the right.

2. To the second it must be said that, although an exchange does not occur between something annexed to a spiritual thing on the one side and something purely temporal on the other, as is found in the Extra, De rerum permutatione, Ad quaestiones, a redemption can nevertheless take place. Nor does that redemption occur between something purely spiritual and something temporal on the other side — for a purely spiritual thing could in no way be possessed by a layman — but between a temporal thing, which a layman was able to obtain, and a temporal thing: hence in such a case a temporal thing is redeemed by a temporal thing.
3. To the third it is answered that, although after the constitution of the Council laymen cannot justly receive the fruits of tithes against the will of the Church — and this is consonant with the primitive law of the Church, as is had from Gregorius — nevertheless those who redeem can justly redeem. This is because for a certain time, by the Church’s concession on account of a necessary cause, with the authority of a superior intervening, laymen were able for a time to receive the fruits of tithes, and this falls within the contract.

Problem III. Whether it is permitted for a bishop to buy tithes from some neighboring church.

[Solution]: To this it is answered that the case is not the same. For in those tithes which a layman holds, the bishop has a right, and therefore it is permitted to redeem them; but in others, which are outside his diocese and do not in any way pertain to his diocese, he has no right, and therefore it is not permitted to buy them: for buying and selling do not occur in things which are purely spiritual or annexed to spiritual things.

Problem IV. Whether a bishop who confers a prebend on the ground of kinship commits simony.

Next, it is asked whether a bishop who confers a prebend on a kinsman solely on the ground of kinship commits simony.

And it seems that he does not, because in conferring something spiritual he receives no temporal good as a price.

To the contrary. 1. If someone were to confer prebends on his nephews so that he himself, the bishop, might enjoy the fruits of those prebends, it would be simony; likewise, if a bishop were to confer a prebend on someone so that the bishop’s father or some other layman might enjoy the fruits of that prebend, he would commit simony; by parity of reasoning, the same holds if a bishop confers a prebend on a kinsman in consideration of kinship so that he himself may receive the fruits.

2. Again, simony is contracted through love of money; therefore, by parity of reasoning, it will be contracted through love of flesh.
3. Again, Bede says: “The sellers of doves are those who exercise the rank or spiritual grace in the Church, which they received by the Lord’s bestowal, not with a simple intention, but for the sake of some human recompense.” But those who confer prebends in consideration of kinship do not act with a simple intention nor with a view to God, but with regard to some temporal recompense; therefore they commit simony.
4. Again, Gregory says that the sin is “graver” when a bishop confers tithes “on his kinsmen”; and he determines that this is the sin of simony; therefore by the same reasoning, if prebends are conferred on kinsmen, it will be simoniacal.

[Solution]: To this the Cantor of Paris responds that it was simoniacal; and beyond the threefold gift — of heart, of tongue, and of hand — he posited a gift of blood, on the ground that so greatly is reproved

Problem V. Whether the right of patronage can be sold.

Next, it is asked whether the right of patronage can be sold.

And it seems that it can. 1. For it is a right that pertains to the laity; but a right that pertains to the laity

in Scripture the building up of the Church in blood-ties.

— Nevertheless, it seems that one must say otherwise: that although it is a grave sin, it is not simoniacal; and although something annexed to a spiritual good is given for a temporal thing as for an end or motive, it is not, however, given as for a price, and so it is not simony. But if it be objected that he does not give freely, since he does not give solely for God’s sake, it must be said that he gives freely in this sense, that he gives for no price.

[Reply to the objections]: 1. To what is objected first, it must be said that the case is not parallel. In the one case, the conferral of the prebend would be made in consideration of a price, whereas in the case proposed it is not made in consideration of a price that the bishop himself might receive. For when a prebend is conferred on a kinsman so that the kinsman himself may receive the fruits, there is no disorder in the fact that the kinsman receives the fruits after the conferral: for by right they pertain to him.

2. To the second it must be said that, although it is simoniacal to confer a prebend out of love of money, it is not so out of love of flesh. For when it is done out of love of money, the intention is that something pass back in some way to the one conferring it from the one upon whom it is conferred; but it is not so when it is done out of love of flesh — rather, the intention is that the whole remain with the one upon whom it is conferred.
3. To the third it must be said that what Bede says is to be understood of cases where there is, or is expected to be, human recompense on account of “the grace of knowledge or of some other gift”: for in such matters the intention ought to be simple, nor should the recompense of a gift be sought.
4. To the fourth it must be said that what Gregory says is to be understood of cases where tithes are given to lay kinsmen: for then it is said to be graver. For it is more difficult to wrest them back, and on account of the greater proneness [of laymen to retain them] the church suffers harm.

it does not at all seem to be spiritual or annexed to a spiritual good, since there is nothing preexisting in the layman that is spiritual to which it might be annexed; therefore it is licit to sell or buy the right of patronage, which pertains to the laity, according to how the right is defined

right of patronage: the power of presenting a cleric to an ecclesiastical benefice.

On the contrary. a. In the Decretals, under De iure patronatus, where it is said that it is “unfitting” to sell “the right of patronage, since it is annexed to something spiritual.”

[Solution]: To this it must be answered that “the right of patronage cannot be sold by itself.”

To objection 1 on the contrary side, it must be answered that something is said to be annexed to the spiritual for two reasons: either to the spiritual which

Problem VI. Whether the right of patronage can be sold together with an estate.

Next it is asked whether it can be sold together with an estate.

And it seems that it cannot. a. For if it is sold together with the estate, the whole is sold; therefore so is each part of that whole; but the patronage is a part of that whole; therefore the right of patronage can be sold; if, then, “the right of patronage cannot be sold by itself,” it cannot be sold as part of the whole either.

b. Likewise, it is not lawful to sell a prebend and a town together; therefore neither is it lawful to sell the right of patronage and a town together.

c. Likewise, the right of patronage is beyond price in itself, and much more so when included in a whole estate; therefore, just as it ought not to be sold in itself, neither ought it to be sold as part of a whole.

On the contrary. 1. In the Decretals, De sententia et re iudicata, Cum Bertholdus, where it is said that “the right of patronage passes with the estate”; and in the Decretals, De iure patronatus, Ex litteris, where it is said that “a town, with the right of patronage not excepted, can be granted at farm,” and thereby one acquires the right of patronage.

Article III. On things that are spiritual and annexed to spiritual things.

Problem I. Whether it is lawful to preach for money.

Thirdly, it is asked concerning those things that are spiritual and annexed to spiritual things. And first, it is asked whether it is lawful to preach for money.

precedes, as in the case of the right to receive tithes: for this is annexed to clerical orders, which is a spiritual thing and naturally precedes the right of receiving; or it can be called annexed to the spiritual on the side of what follows, as is the case with the right of presenting: for it is connected to the spiritual both by reason of the one presented and by reason of that to which he is presented. For although it is not annexed to the spiritual in the same manner as the right of receiving tithes, it is nevertheless annexed in another mode, and therefore it cannot be sold by itself.

2. Furthermore, it can be granted in fief, as is held in the same place, Cum saeculum; and if it can be granted in fief, by parity of reasoning it can be sold once the sale of a town has been made, or by reason of that through which the right of patronage is acquired.

[Solution]: 1. To this it is answered that the right of patronage is not sold as a part of the whole nor by itself; therefore neither can it be sold with something else, but rather it “passes with the estate,” as is held from what was said above. And if a town, in which there is a right of patronage, is on this account bought at a higher price, this is said to be simony: for then the sale would in some way reach the right of patronage.

2. As to that which is asked, “whether it can be granted in fief”: it must be said that “it passes with the estate unless it is excepted,” and thus the “right of patronage is acquired by reason of fiefs that have been purchased or otherwise acquired.” But it cannot be given in fief by itself, as is held in the same place, De iure patronatus.

And it seems that it is. 1. For as is held in 2 Corinthians 9:1-15, Paul preached for temporal goods, namely that collections might be made for the holy poor

who were in Jerusalem, and the like is found in 1 Corinthians, last chapter, 1-4.

To the contrary. a. To preach is a spiritual thing; but a spiritual thing must not be set under a temporal price; therefore it is not licit to preach for a temporal price; therefore in such a case simony is committed.

b. Likewise, Bede: “Those who exercise the spiritual grace which they have received in the Church by the Lord’s bestowal, not with simple intention but for the sake of human recompense, make the house of the Lord a house of trafficking.” Such persons therefore commit simony.

Problem II. Whether masters of the liberal arts may sell their knowledge.

Next it is asked whether masters of the liberal arts may sell their knowledge.

And it seems that they may. 1. For a spiritual thing is that by which the Holy Spirit is possessed, or signified to be possessed, or given; but by the liberal arts neither is the Holy Spirit possessed, nor signified to be possessed, nor given; therefore such forms of knowledge are not spiritual things, nor things annexed to spiritual things; therefore they can be sold.

2. Likewise, in Proverbs 23:23 it is said: Buy truth. But what can freely be bought, can also be sold; therefore such forms of knowledge of the truth can be bought and sold.

To the contrary. a. Knowledge is a gift of God, which is evident from what is said in Exodus 31:6, on the words God placed [wisdom] in his heart, where it is said that knowledge is a gift of God, as is found in the Interlinear Gloss; but it is not licit to sell the gifts of God, for of these is said that saying of Matthew 10:8: Freely you have received, freely give; therefore it is not licit to sell knowledge.

b. Furthermore, it is said in Proverbs 23:23: Do not sell wisdom and instruction and understanding. Therefore from the very text of Proverbs it is established that things of this kind do not fall under sale.

Problem III. Whether it is licit to accept anything for giving testimony.

Next it is asked whether it is licit to accept anything for giving testimony, or whether simony is committed thereby.

[Solution]: 1. To this it is answered that it is not licit to preach for temporal things in such a way that they be set as the price of one’s preaching, but it is licit to preach with a secondary intention, namely that the hearers be moved to works of piety and so come to the aid of others: for the principal intention is that the preaching be done for the sake of God. As for the fact that the Apostle preached for the sake of collections being made, this was a secondary aim, not in the sense that the principal end was established there, nor that this was the price of his preaching.

c. Furthermore, the law says that “the science of civil law is not to be valued at a monetary price.” Much less so the rational sciences.

[Solution]: To this it must be said that it is simony to sell knowledge. Nevertheless, the masters of the arts may accept money for their labor, but the knowledge itself they ought to give freely; otherwise they would commit simony.

[To the objections]: 1. To the first objection, then, it must be said that the Holy Spirit is possessed in two ways: as a light illuminating the intellect, and in this way he is possessed in every form of knowledge; or as a warmth inflaming the affections, and in this way he is possessed through the virtues and the sacraments of the Church.

2. To the other it must be said that that authoritative text is to be understood of a spiritual purchase. For the knowledge of truth is not to be bought with money, but in the manner taught in Proverbs 4:7: The beginning of wisdom: possess wisdom, as if to say: if you wish to have wisdom, take hold of it, because she offers herself to the one who seeks her; for if you seek her, you shall find her as though she were money or treasure. Concerning this kind of purchase, Proverbs 17:16: What does it profit a fool to have riches, when he cannot buy wisdom?

And it seems that simony is not committed, by a parallel case. 1. For “it is permitted to a jurisconsult to sell right counsel,” as Augustine says,

Ad Macedonium; therefore, by the same reasoning, the witness himself can sell his testimony, that is, accept something for giving testimony.

To the contrary. a. Testimony is owed; but Gregory says that “those who buy in the temple are those who, when they are unwilling to render to their neighbor what is just and disdain to do what is owed, purchase sin by paying a price.” Therefore, by the same reasoning, those who accept a price for that to which they are bound are also sellers, and so likewise for the testimony of the truth.

b. Furthermore, a just judgment ought to be rendered freely: hence simony is committed if money is accepted for a just judgment; whence Gregory: “He commits fraud against God who sells for the receipt of money the justice which he ought to have imparted freely.” Therefore, by the same reasoning, it can be said concerning testimony.

[Solution]: To this it is answered that in ecclesiastical cases and on the part of ecclesiastical persons, simony is committed if true testimony is sold, just as if a just judgment is sold; but in other matters

Chapter V. On the penalty for simony.

Fifth, the question is asked concerning the penalty for simony. Concerning this it must be noted that simony is either in an Order or in a benefice. If in an Order, he does not receive the exercise of it, but is by the law itself suspended both with respect to himself and with respect to others; he is also punished by deposition, if the crime has in some way been established before his judge by inquisition. But if he is a simoniac because he conferred an Order simoniacally, or because he gave or received a benefice simoniacally, or because he was a mediator of simony, if it is hidden, he is by the law itself suspended with respect to himself only, as is held in

Chapter VI. On the cases in which it can be doubted whether simony is committed.

Sixth, the question is asked concerning certain cases in which it is doubted whether there is simony.

I. It can be asked whether it is simoniacal to conceal another’s sin, when it pertains to one’s office to reveal it, and this is done by the intervention of money.

one sins gravely. Whence Augustine, Ad Macedonium: “A judge ought not to sell a just judgment, nor a witness true testimony, on the ground that an advocate sells just patronage and a jurist true counsel.”

To objection 1, however, it must be said that the case of true testimony and true counsel is not the same. For true testimony pertains to the very substance of the case to be settled, whereas counsel is a certain external aid, as is also patronage: hence witnesses are compelled to give testimony to the truth, but counselors are not compelled to give counsel in cases. — But here some draw a further distinction: that in all these cases, if knowledge is sold, it is simoniacal, both major and minor according to the differences among the kinds of knowledge. For his labor, however, an advocate or counselor can accept something, since they are not bound; but a judge and a witness cannot accept anything for their labor in judging or testifying, since they are bound to those acts.

Extra, Ex tuae fraternitatis litteris; but if it is manifest, he is by the law itself suspended both with respect to himself and with respect to others, as is held in Extra, De simonia, Accusatum. Furthermore, one who receives a benefice simoniacally is bound to renounce the benefice and to restore all the fruits received, as is found in Augustine, Ad Macedonium: “If another’s property, on account of which sin has been committed, can be returned and is not returned, penance is not done but feigned; but if it is truly done, the sin will not be remitted unless what was taken is restored.”

And it seems that it is not [simony], 1. by the definition of simony. For what is the spiritual thing that is here sold? For it is the very concealment of sin that takes place for money; and this is not a spiritual thing, but the contrary of a spiritual thing; therefore there does not seem to be a deliberate will to sell something spiritual.

To the contrary. a. Extra, De simonia, Nemo presbyterorum, where it is said that not only by the intervention of money or temporal gain, but also “out of regard for the person and for kinship or familiarity,” it “is simoniacal” for “the bishop” or prelate himself to conceal the public sin of his own subject.

[Solution]: This must be conceded. Hence, if priests “refuse to make known to the bishop” a subject who sins publicly and is incorrigible, for the reasons stated above, simony is committed. But if it be asked what that spiritual thing is which is set under a price, it must be said that this is the revelation of the sin, to which they were bound by office; for the concealment which is perpetrated is not what is sold, but rather the revelation itself which is omitted.

II. Next the question is asked: if someone gives money or something else to a layman who has no right in the election but is maliciously impeding it, so that he may cease from such impediment, whether this is simony.

And it seems that it is, a. from what is said in Extra, De simonia, De hoc autem, where it is said that “you ought to persuade kings and princes that, if they have received anything from the aforesaid bishop so as to give their assent to his election, they should restore it without diminution to the Church of Osma, since they cannot retain [it] without grave peril to their salvation.”

But the contrary seems true, 1. For he gave in order to redeem his vexation; but it is licit to redeem one’s vexation; therefore it was licit to give money so that the other should cease from such impediment.

[Solution]: To this the answer is given by a certain distinction: either this is after the right has been acquired by him, and in that case it seems to be licit to redeem his vexation

Chapter VII. On satisfaction for simony.

Seventh, the question is asked concerning satisfaction, which consists in restitution. And it is asked to whom the money simoniacally acquired must be restored.

1. For it does not seem that it ought to be restored to the one who gave it, since he was a participant in the offense.

by accepting; or this was before the right had been acquired by him, and then it was not licit for him to give.

III. Next the question is asked whether bishops or other prelates, who receive the revenues of vacant churches and afterwards confer them, retaining for themselves a part of the proceeds, commit simony.

[Solution]: For understanding this, the following distinction is applied: either he “who gives an ecclesiastical benefice received its proceeds before the donation” or he did not. “If he did not receive them, but obtains them as a consequence of the donation,” it is reckoned simoniacal. “But if he did receive the proceeds before the donation,” either “he established before the donation that they should be retained for a time for a just and necessary cause” or “he agreed with the one receiving the benefice or with a mediator that he would receive the proceeds once the donation was made.” If in the first way, it could be licit; if in the second way, it is reckoned simoniacal, as is held in Extra, Ut ecclesiastica beneficia, Ut nostrum, where this is plainly determined.

IV. Next the question is asked concerning one who offers his goods to the Church simply, “yet with this intention” principally, “that by the temporal goods which he offers he may be able to obtain spiritual ones,” and the monastery would not otherwise admit “him unless it received temporal advantages,” whether this is simony.

[Solution]: To this it can be answered that, if the church or monastery is well-provided for, and the intention alone — that is, a deliberate will — makes a man a simoniac, it is reckoned to be simoniacal. But if the monastery has been weighed down by poverty and the intention is not principally directed to the temporal goods themselves, but only secondarily, it is not believed to be simony; but if the intention were principally directed there, it is reckoned as simony.

Chapter VII. On satisfaction for simony.

2. To the same effect is what is said in Extra, De simonia, De hoc autem.

To the contrary. a. A fitting restitution is not made except to the one who gave.

b. Furthermore, it is said in Extra, De simonia, Veniens, that an abbot and monks are compelled “to

restoring the money unworthily received to the very priest who gave it.

[Solution]: To this it is answered by a distinction that, if money has been received from someone holding a benefice in a church, it must be restored to that church to whose injury it was given. But if someone has given money somewhere in order to be received into some monastery, and that person is transferred from that monastery to another, the money must be restored to the monastery to which he is transferred, so that, just as it has the burden, so it may have the benefit.