Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/407

 HINCMAR

357

HINCMAR

tion. Another matter in which Hincmar took a lead- ing part was the controversy about the teachings of Gottschalk (see Gottschalk of Orbais) concerning predestination. After being condemned at Mainz in 848, Gottschalk was sent to Hincmar, who kept him in custody, under his own eyes at Reims. In 849 a synod took place at Quierzy, at which Gottschalk was once more condemned. Hincmar wrote a treatise on the question of predestination, and at the new Synod of Quierzy, in 853, he laid before the bishops his cele- brated four chapters on the doctrine of predestination, which, however, were attacked by Prudentius of Troyes as well as by Reraigius of Lyons. The Sj-nod of Valence in 855 also published canons in opposition to Hincmar's views; whereupon the latter wrote his first book, "De Prajdestinatione " (S57-S), which, however, has not come down to us.

After the great Synod of SavonicresnearToul (859), which was also attended by Hincmar, he wrote his second diffuse and prolix work on predestination. His four theses, which he also advocated before the Synod of Toucy in 800, are as follows: (1) God wills the salvation of all men; (2) The will remains free after the fall of man, but must be liljcrated and sanc- tified by God's grace; (3) Divine Predestination foreordains that, out of the massa perditionis, a few shall be brought to eternal life, out of mercy; (4) Christ died for us all. After tlie Synod of Toucy, the predestination conflict between Hincmar and the other bishops quieted down. Still another contro- versy arose out of this dispute; Hincmar disapproved of the phrase Tritui Deltas, which occurred in a hymn in the office of several martyrs, and forbade these words to be sung in his diocese. Gottschalk attacked him on this account and accused him of Sabellianism. Hincmar answered with his essay, "De una et non trina deitate". Gottschalk did not seek reconcilia- tion with the Church; but it is not clear whether the charge of cruelty which was brought against Hincmar by Pope Nicholas I, referred to his treatment of Gott- schalk or not.

On account of the rude assertion of his metropolitan rights, Hincmar got into a quarrel with two of his suf- fragans, as well as with Pope Nicholas I. The Arch- bishop of Reims had many reasons for being dissatisfied with his suffragan Rothadius of Soissons ; and the latter in return made charges against Hincmar. Rotha- dius had deposed a priest for grave reasons; whereon Hincmar had reinstated the priest and had his suc- cessor excommunicated and imprisoned. The matter came up for discussion at the Synod of Pistres, in the Diocese of Rouen, in S62, and Rothadius was deposed. He appealed to the pope, and at the same time asked his advocates at the synod to defend him. From this Hincmar concluded that the deposed bishop had abandoned his appeal to Rome and the synod (which was continued at Soissons) deposed him again. There- upon, Nicholas I took energetic action against Hinc- mar, because he had slighted the appeal to the Holy See, and also because the deposition of a bishop as a causa major was a matter which must be brought before the pope himself. When Rothadius at length reached Rome, after having had every imaginable difficulty placed in his way, he was restored to his episcopal office by the pope in 865. Similarly Hinc- mar quarrelled with his nephew, Hincmar the Younger, Bishop of Laon. The Pseudo-Isidorian decretals play a large part in the letters and essays, which were writ- ten in France in connexion with these disputes.

In politics, Hincmar was a strong supporter of Charles the Bald. His zeal for the defence of the rights of the Church and the furtherance of her influ- ence led him persistently to work for a close alliance between the episcopate and the royal power in order thereby to secure the support of the king against the nobles. In the quarrels between Charles the Bald and Lothair, he used all his influence on behalf of the

former. When Louis the German made his victorious march into the West Prankish kingdom in 858, Hincmar boldly opposed Louis, organized and directed the op- position of the bishops and clergy against him, and took a prominent part in the peace negotiations at Coblenz in 860. In this crisis Hincmar saved Charles's crown. When King Lothair II repudiated his wife Theutberga and married Waldrade, Hincmar attacked him in an admirable polemical letter "De divortio Lotharii ". After the death of this king in 869 Hinc- mar took a prominent part in making Charles the Bald the successor of Lothair, and he himself crowned Charles king in Metz, in spite of the objections of Pope Adrian II in favour of Emperor Louis 11. Hincmar on this occasion violently opposed the wishes of the pope. Afterwards differences arose between Hincmar and Charles, because the former disapproved of Charles's journey to Rome, and the crowning of Charles the Bald as emperor.

After his coronation in 875 the emperor summoned a great synod at Ponthion, which met in June, 876, and at which the papal Brief was read, appointing Ansegis, Archbishop of Sens, Vicar Apostolic of Gaul and Germany. Hincmar, the recognized chief metro- politan of the West Frankish kingdom, and nearly all the Frankish bishops made an energetic protest against this, and refused to recognize the vicar, so that the latter could not exercise the rights which had been conferred upon him. In defence of his rights as metropolitan, Hincmar wrote his treatise "De jure metropolitanorum". After the death of Charles the Bald, 877, Hincmar still exercised his far-reaching in- fluence under the succeeding Carlovingian monarchs of the West Franks. He sought to prevent the decay of the kingdom. At the Sjmods of Troyes (878) and Fismes (881) he took a prominent part, and endeavoured to strengthen the political and religious life of the empire by several writings. Owing to an invasion of the Northmen in 882, he was obliged to retire to Epemay, where he died. Though ambitious and stern he was an energetic, learned, and able prelate. His writings (to those already mentioned must be added his "Annales" of the years 861-82) are to be found in Migne, P. L., CXXV-CXXVI.

Pritschard, The Life and Times of Hincmar, Archbishop of Hheims (Littlemore. 1849); Diez, De Hincmari vita el ingenio (Sens, 1859) ; Gess, M erkwiirdigkeiien aus dem Lehen und den Schriften Hincmars Erzhischofs von Reims (Gottingen, 1806); VON NoORDEN, Hincmar Erzhischof von Reims (Bonn, 1863); LouPOT, Hincmar archeveque de Reims, sa vie, ses (Euvres, son influence (Reims, 1869); Vidieu, Hincmar de Reims: Etude 8ur le IX" siicle (Paris, 1S75); Schrors, Hinkmar, Erzhischof von Reims, sein Lehen und seine Schriften (Freiburg im Br., 1884); Sdrai^ek, Hincmars von Reims kanonistisches Gutachten iiber die Ehescheidung Lothars II. (Freiburg im Br., 1881); CiUNDLACH, Zwei Schriften dcs Erzhischofs Hincmar von Reims ill Zcilschrift far Kirchengeschichle (X, 1889). 92-145, 258-310; Hampel. Zum Streit Hincmars von Reims mit seinem Vorganger Eho und dessen Anhdngem in Neues Archiv fur ntere deulsche Gesch.. XXIII (1897). 180-195; Hefele, Komilicngeschichte, IV (Freiburg im Br., 1879).

J. P. KiRSCH.

Hincmar, Bishop of Laon, d. 879. In the begin- ning of 858 the younger Hincmar, a nephew on the mother's side of the famous Hincmar of Reims, was elevated by his uncle's favour to the See of Laon, a sufTragan of Reims. He received in addition an abbey and an office at the Court of Charles the Bald. His ambitious, overbearing, and violent disposition soon brought him into conflict not only with the king, but with his uncle and metropolitan. To free himself from the authority of the latter he invoked the decre- tals of the Pseudo-Isidore. Charles the Bald took from the younger Hincmar his abbey and his court office, and sequestrated the revenues of the diocese, but the latter measure aroused the protest of the elder Hincmar himself. A reconciliation took place at the Diet of Pistres in 869. A new quarrel broke out at the Synod of Verberie and resulted in the im- prisonment of Hincmar. He placed his diocese under