The Online Library of Liberty

Several references have been made to the need of a reform in the matter of indulgences. Cardinal Raymond, papal legate in 1503, complained that the agents who sold indulgences were actuated only by the basest motives of gain and were thoroughly dishonest. Myconius (his German name was Mecum) was a Franciscan monk who became a Protestant.

We have thought it best to give first a statement of the doctrine of indulgences in order that the abuses in their sale may be more clearly apparent.

“It is the catholic doctrine that when a sin is forgiven its punishment is not necessarily at the same time remitted. Through the power of the keys the eternal punishment is remitted, but generally there remain temporal punishments which must be satisfied either in this world by means of good works, or in the next by enduring punishment in purgatory. The Bible, by examples as well as by statements, teaches that with the removal of the eternal guilt and punishment, the temporal punishment is not always remitted. Adam and Eve, after committing sin, repented and were justified by God, but they were driven out of Paradise and compelled to endure infinite misfortunes, and even death itself, as a punishment of their sin. We are taught the same by the example of the Israelites who were pardoned for their sin of murmuring through the prayers of Moses, but, as a punishment for their sin, were excluded from the promised land and perished in the wilderness. . . . From this it is seen that the Bible demands not only the conversion of the heart, but also that we render satisfaction by enduring temporal punishment for the sin. . . .

“This satisfaction which we must render [i.e., this temporal punishment which we must endure] is a part of the sacrament of penance, and must be imposed on us by the minister of penance [i.e., the priest]. The doctrine of indulgences is inseparably connected with that of satisfaction. By indulgence is meant a remission of the temporal punishment made by a priest by means of the application of the treasure of the church. The treasure of the church is the whole sum of the merits of Jesus Christ . . . in addition to all the good works or merits of all the saints. . . . In the church, as St. Thomas Aquinas well says, some have done greater penance than the measure of their sins demanded. Others have suffered with patience many unjust tribulations, with which they would have expiated the temporal punishments of many more sins than they have committed. [All such good works in excess of what they needed to make satisfaction for their own sins are called works of supererogation, and being meritorious, their merit is added to the treasure of the church and may, at the discretion of the church, be applied to the benefit of others who are lacking in such good works.] One of the ways in which the church distributes this common possession (treasure of merits) is by means of indulgences.”—From the Theologia Dommatica of Prof. Dati, vol. iii, Chap. XXIX, Florence, 1893.

Feudalism, as the prevailing order of society, socially, economically, and politically, makes its appearance toward the end of the tenth century. During the disorders consequent upon the disintegration of the empire of the Carolingians (see nos. 15-25) the government failed to supply protection and security, and ceased to act as a bond to hold men together. As a result, certain local, private elements of society, which were very generally diffused throughout that empire, were raised to the rank of public political institutions. It is our purpose to illustrate the origins and growth of feudalism, and the characteristic features of the feudal state. The elements which lay at the basis of the feudal system may be classified under three heads: (1) The personal dependence of one man upon another; (2) dependent tenure of land, in which the holder and user of the land was not the owner, but held it of or from another; (3) the possession by private persons or corporations of extensive sovereign rights over their lands and tenants. These elements were present in various degrees and forms in the German tribes before the migrations and in the later Roman empire, but it will be sufficient for our purpose to show the existence and the character of these elements in the tribal kingdoms and the Frankish kingdom under the Merovingians, for in these states the German and Roman people and institutions were united to form the society of the Middle Age. Then we shall attempt to illustrate the growth and development of these elements in the late Merovingian and in the Carolingian periods, and finally the characteristic features of society in the feudal age. The difficulty in illustrating the situation from public documents will be readily understood; it is due to the fact that these institutions were only partly legal or public, and to the fact that the makers of the laws took for granted a knowledge of the institutions and did not think it necessary to describe or explain them. It is hoped, however, that the notes to the passages translated will make clear their meaning and importance.

In the documents of the tribal kingdoms and Merovingian kingdom (ca. 500-700) there are many evidences of the importance for society of the dependence of one man upon another, and of the fact that this relation was superseding in importance the relation of the private man to the state. On the one hand, men became dependents and retainers of the king and the great officials and lords for mutual advantages, the superior gaining the prestige that came with the possession of a large following, and the dependents gaining employment under and connection with the great persons of the state. On the other hand, poor land-owners, or persons without lands of their own, commended themselves to landlords for the purpose of receiving protection and support. In both cases the personal dependence was connected with the holding of land, for the king or great lord frequently gave land to his followers, while the poor man who commended himself to another usually did it for the purpose of acquiring land to cultivate; this side of the relation, however, will be seen more clearly under the next section.