A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

CHAP. V. (Book 5)

An History of the several Contests that Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims had with his Nephew Hincmarus Bishop of Laon.

HIncmarus engaged in another business against his Nephew Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, which * 1.1 had no better effects than the former. He had by his Interest and favour made this Ne∣phew Bishop of Laon, which is subject to his Metropolis, in 859. This Man instead of being subject and devoted to the will of his Uncle, would govern according to his own humour, and being grown into favour at Court, accepted an Office there, and obtained an Abby. This dis∣pleased the Arch-Bishop of Reims, who did all he could to oblige him to quit them, and reproved him for leaving his Diocess to go to his Abby without his permission, although it was forbidden by the Canons to Bishops to leave their Province without the consent of their Metropolitan.

The Bishop of Laon fearing the Presence of his Uncle, dare not be at the Synod of Bishops met at Cambray for the Ordination of a Bishop, although he was summoned. In 868 Hincmarus Bishop of Laon engaged himself in a Business with Charles the Bald. Having some Contests with certain Lay-men about the Estate of the Church, and principally with a Lord called Normannus, to whom the King had given a Benefice, i. e. some Lands belonging to the Church of Laon, with the consent of this Bishop Hincmarus himself, who had himself sollicited him, and procured it for him, as one of his Friends, but afterwards repenting of what he had done, and being desirous to get it again, had Excommunicated that Lord. He began to discuss the Affair privately before the Com∣missioners, among whom were some Bishops, but it happened that the Son of Luido accused the Bishop of Laon before the King, and the Lords of his Council, of having deprived him of a Bene∣fice of his Fathers, (i. e. of a certain Mannor belonging to the Church, which had of ancient times been possessed and enjoyed by his Father) although to retain the possession and enjoyment of it he had paid a Fine to the Church, and had gotten a grant of him. The King complaining of these Actions to Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, he answered his Majesty with so much Impudence, that the Prince fell into a great passion against him, and gave him many ill words. He then summoned him to his Council, but Hincmarus humbly shewed him, that he could not appear, and at the same time sent a Letter to Rome to accuse Normannus, and to request the Pope to take this Matter upon him, and procure that he might come to Rome. Hincmarus hereupon was condemned for his Default by the Kings Council, and all the Revenues of his Bishoprick were seized on. The King also put him out of his Office at Court and his Abby. And although Hincmarus Arch-Bishop of Reims was very angry with him, yet he endeavoured to assist him on this Occasion, and wrote a smart Letter to Charles the Bald, in which he affirms, that what he had done against Hincmarus was altogether un∣just; That it was never heard of, that a Christian Prince should confiscate the Revenues of the Church. Whereupon he recites several Laws of the Emperors and Decrees of the Councils and Popes to prove, that 'tis not allowable for any Man to invade the Church Revenues. Then he pre∣sented to the King a Memoir, which contained several Canons, to shew, that Bishops ought not to appear before Lay Judges in Matters Ecclesiastical. The King answered, that the Kings his Pre∣decessors had compelled the Bishops to give an Account before the Lords of his Council of the Be∣nefices they would put their Officers out of. Hincmarus replied by another Writing, that that Cu∣stom was an Abuse, which was reformed by the Capitularies. The King being at Pistis in Nor∣mandy, he held a Council there. Hincmarus Bishop of Laon presented a Petition to the Bishops as∣sembled, requiring them to settle him in his Revenues, or suffer him to shift for himself at Rome, but the Matter was accommodated by Hincmarus Arch-Bishop of Reims, and the Bishop of Laon was restored to his place, after he had begged the Kings pardon, and so he retreated immediately into his Diocess. Charles the Bald commanded him several times to come to him, but he would not obey the Order, but designed to fly into the Kingdom of Lotharius, who had promised to receive him into his protection. He had also the boldness to write to King Charles, that he had rather live out of his Kingdom, than to be represented such an ill Man as he was reported to be in it. The King then commanded his Domestick Servants to come to him, some obeyed, but he detained the rest. After this the King a second time sent two Bishops to him, and some of his Guards, to bring them either by perswasion or force. Hincmarus Bishop of Laon having heard that some Soldiers were coming to him, pronounced Excommunication against those that did meddle with the Revenues of his Church. The two Bishops which Charles the Bald had sent, having put Hincmarus in mind of the Oath which he had made to the King, could not perswade him to go with them to him, and

therefore returned after they had obliged such Persons of his Family as were freed by an Oath to appear. Hincmarus of Laon holding on his course, issued out an Excommunication against several Persons in the Arch Bishoprick of Reims, and in other Archbishopricks and Diocesses, not sparing the King Charles himself, which was a Cause of great Scandal to the whole Church and Kingdom. Nevertheless Hincmarus Arch-Bishop of Reims found out a way to compose this Matter, and to hin∣der the Bishops who were provoked, from bringing it before a Synod, and to reconcile his Ne∣phew with those he had Excommunicated; but this did not put an end to this Business, for Hinc∣marus of Laon, a Man of an untractable temper, enraged King Charles again, who thereupon called * 1.2 an Assembly at Verbery, Apr. 24. 869. in which that Bishop was accused; and seeing himself ready to be condemned, he required leave to go to Rome, and remove his Business thither. But King Charles instead of granting it, stopped him for some time, upon which he immediately Excommu∣nicated, or rather Interdicted his Priests and Clergy, and forbad them to celebrate their Office, ad∣minister Baptism, yea, even to Infants in danger of Death, to give the Communion even to dying Persons, or Bury any Person in his Diocess, till he shall return, or they receive a Letter from Rome to order the contrary. The Arch-Bishop of Reims having heard of this Prohibition by some of the Clergy of the Church of Laon, who came to complain to him, wrote immediately to his Nephew to take off the Interdict, and to the Clergy of Laon, that they ought to exercise their Function, and administer the Sacraments, without any regard to that dangerous and unlawful Excommunica∣tion. He sent them also some Rules taken out of the Canons to direct them how to behave them∣selves. The Bishop of Laon not regarding the Advice of his Metropolitan, he wrote to him a se∣cond time more smartly, and enjoined the Clergy of the Church of Laon to do their Duty. He wrote also again a third time to the Bishop of Laon, who was set at liberty, after he had taken an Oath to be faithful to King Charles. But to justifie himself, he gathered several Extracts out of the falie Decretals attributed to the ancient Popes, in which it was said, that Bishops ought to be tried by the Holy See, at the first Examination, if they demanded it.

Some time after this, Pope Adrian wrote to Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, and King Charles, to compel Normannus to restore immediately to the Church of Laon the Lands he was in possession of, * 1.3 telling him, that if he did not do it, he would Excommunicate them, and to suffer Hincmarus Bishop of Laon to come to Rome to fulfil his Vow he had made of going thither, and to take care of the Church of Laon in his absence, which provoked them both against the Bishop of Laon.

In the mean time Lotharius II. King of Lorrain, being dead in Italy, Aug. 8. 869. Charles possessed * 1.4 himself of his Kingdom, and being accepted by the Grandees of the Country, he was Crowned by Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, Sept. 7. in the same year. In the beginning of the year 870, Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims expelled out of his Diocess a Person named Nivinus, being ac∣cused of debauching a Nun, and carrying her away, His Nephew not only received Nivinus, but put him in possession of an Estate he had in another Diocess, and gave him in recompence of what he had lost a Pension out of the Revenues of the Church of Laon. Hincmarus wrote, Feb. 13. 870, to him, and tells him, that he ought not to receive either him or his Brother Bertricus, whom he had expelled out of his Diocess for several Crimes, of which he was found guilty. Hincmarus Bishop of Laon returned him an Answer, That he had always avoided to speak or write to him of such things as he had acted contrary to his Judgment, but he was obliged to be plain with him in reference to the Excommunication of Nivinus, and could not but tell him, that he thought that he ought not to deal with that Person as if he had been regularly accused, and could not or would not make his defence, or had been convicted of the Crime, because when he had obtained a time of him to clear himself, although he had no Accusers, and was come upon the day appointed to vindicate his own Innocence by the Testimony of Credible Persons, he neither found him, nor any Person in his stead to be his Judge; but without a Legal Hearing he was commanded to depart out of his Diocess. He finds fault with Hincmarus for believing false reports so easily, and assures him, that it was not true that he had received the Estate of Nivinus, or allowed him a Pension out of the Revenues of the Church. He also defends himself strongly against the suspicion which Hincmarus had entertained against him, that he sold the Goods of the Church. He confesses that Nivinus had a great while ago offered him a part of his Estate adjoining to his, but he would not accept of his gift, whereupon he soon after gave them to another Person; and alledges several Canons to prove, that he ought not to have passed so rash a Sentence. Lastly, he says, that he thinks Bertricus ought not to be looked upon as an Excommunicated Person, because the Archbishop of Reims could not Excommunicate him who was not of his Diocess, and had neither been put to publick Penance, nor condemned by a regular Sentence.

Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims sometime after this sent another Request to his Nephew, in which * 1.5 he had a more favourable Answer. The Bishop of Laon had employed a certain Priest named Adulphus in a Commission, who did not discharge his trust well, but being reproved for it by his Bishop, spok•• disrespectfully to him, and withdrew himself. Hincmarus angry at this, sent the Priest Clarentius to tell him, that he was Excommunicated, but he stopped his Ears, and would not hear the Sentence, and then fled to Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims. Afterwards being desirous to return to Laon, the Doors of his Church and Cloyster were shut against him, to his admiration. Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims interceeded for him, and desired his Nephew to receive him, and restore him to his place, or if not, at least to receive him into Communion. Hincmarus Bishop of Laon answered him, that that Priest had fled very unfitly, and without any necessity, telling him,

that he would never have any thing to do with him. That although he had behaved himself so ill to him, yet in respect to what he had written, he would restore him to his Prebend and House, and would permit all that would to communicate with him, upon condition that he shall not be al∣lowed communion with himself till he received him upon his trial, or had satisfaction. This Letter of Hincmarus is dated the 19th, and the Answer the 27th of April, in the same year 870. [This Letter with some others of Hincmarus Bishop of Laon to Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims is Printed, with the Works of Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, by Sirmondus at Paris 1645. Vol. 2.]

At the same time Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims and Hincmarus Bishop of Laon quarrelled about * 1.6 another matter. There was a Chapel in the Diocess of Laon belonging to a Benefice of the Church of Reims, in which there was ordinarily a Priest to officiate, who was presented by the Incumbent of the Benefice. Sigibert, who had the Benefice, had presented one named Senatus, a Servant of the Church of Reims, and Hincmarus would set him at liberty, that he might be Ordained by the Bishop of Laon. This Clergyman, though he was not in Priestly Orders, had yet officiated in that Chapel for 4 years. Then the Bishop of Laon sent thither two Priests of his Company, but after a while he removed these Priests, and would have a Priest only to bear the Titles, and that the In∣habitans should go to a Parish of the Diocess of Laon governed by Hermerardus. Hincmarus Arch-bishop of Reims desired his Nephew, either to Ordain Senatus, or to put into that Church another Priest whom he should appoint to bear the Title. Instead of satisfying his Uncle, he gave him an angry and harsh answer, thinking himself abused by some admonitions which he had given him in his Letter, with the authority of his Uncle and Metropolitan. He first of all accuses him as the Author of his imprisonment. Then he tells him, that he can't give him a full answer as to the bu∣siness of Hermerardus, because he had not heard it canonically and regularly; That he did not re∣member what decision had been made in that business, but would inquire of those that had been present, and remembred it; That he did not positively require the Priest Adulphus to be present at the Synod to be held at Laon on the 15th of that month; That he wondred, that he did not send again sooner, since he had granted what he had desired; That as to Senatus, 'twas not true that he had consented that that Clerk should have the Church in debate, but on the contrary had told him, that he would deal with the Church which the Archbishop of Reims had in his Diocess, as he had done with that which the Bishop of Laon had in his; That he had a Complaint against Sigibert for putting that Clerk into the Church that belonged to Hermerardus; That Sigibert had answered, that he did it with the consent of his Officers, and particularly of Adulphus; That he had answered, that if Hermerardus would relinquish that Church, well, if not, he would proceed as in Justice he might; That not being able to perswade Hermerardus to recede from his Right, he had given no∣tice to Sigibert by a Man that belonged to him; That afterward he took that Church from Senatus; That Hermerardus had desired to determine the Lands in a Synod; That he had advised Sigibert to accommodate the Matter; Lastly, That he could not approve of the Ordination of Senatus, and since it was faulty at first, because he was a Servant, he ought not to confirm it, nor promote him to a superior degree of Orders.

Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims being met with several other Bishops, at the Palace of King Charles in Gondeville, in the Diocess of Tola, Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, instead of saluting him as he did the rest of the Bishops, would not so much as take notice of him. Wenilo Archbishop of Rouen asking him why he would not live peaceably with his Metropolitan, he answered him, that he could never be friends with him heartily, because he had not burnt the Writings which he had sent to him con∣cerning the Excommunication which he had issued out against his whole Diocess; adding, that he did but follow his Example in Excommunicating, because he had Excommunicated a Village in his Diocess belonging to the Bishop of Laon, because the Inhabitants had refused to pay him their Tenths, but payed them to the Church to which they belonged, so that several Infants died unbaptized, and several Noble Persons without the Sacraments. Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims replied to Winelo, that that fact was not true, and that that Recrimination was a tacit confession of his fault and in short, that he desired nothing more, but that the Writings on both sides might be examined by a Synod. Wenilo relating this Answer to Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, he said, that he had not the Pa∣pers that had passed between them, but gave him the Papers which began with the Verses directed to Carolomannus, which was the second Collection of some Extracts of the Popes Decretals, and Ca∣nons to settle the Judgments of the Causes of the Bishops at Rome in their first Examination. Hinc∣marus Archbishop of Reims having read these Papers with a great deal of Earnestness, made an Answer to them, which he sent to Wenilo, to be given to the Bishop of Laon. He waited for an Answer, or expected that he would have sent him the Writings which he complained of, that they might be examined, but Hincmarus Bishop of Laon would do nothing.

When they went from hence, the King came to Attigni, where he held a Synod in May, at which * 1.7 the Deputies of the 10 Provinces of France were present. Here they first gave the Ambassadors of Germany audience about the Division of the Empire. Then the Business of Hincmarus Bishop of Laon was brought upon the Board. Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims after he had delivered him 55 Articles to serve for an Answer: As to the Collections he had made out of the Decretals, and to all that he had said and written against him, presented a Petition to the Council, in which he related to the Bishops all that he had done to conquer the Obstinacy of the Bishop of Laon. He was also accused in the Council by the Bishops, who complained of the unjust and rash Excommunications which he issued out against their Diocesans; by the King, That he had broken the Oath of Alle∣giance

which he had made to him; and by the Lord Normannus, That he had put him out by force of Arms of the Benefices which he was in lawful possession of. Hincmarus of Laon, that he might get free from this Business, demanded that he might be judged by the Holy See, but not being able to gain that point, he delivered a Writing, in which he promised submission to his Metropolitan Hincmarus, and took a new Oath of Allegiance to King Charles, but he desired that Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims should give him a Writing to oblige himself to maintain him in the Priviledges that belonged to him, and to defend him. Frotarius Archbishop of Bourdeaux was the Mediator of this Peace. But since the Accusations of Normannus and his Wife, who complained of their ill usage, and that they were unjustly deprived of the Benefices they had enjoyed, and also of some others to the same effect, did yet stand unsatisfied, Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims chose for the Judges of that Affair Actardus Bishop of Nantes, Ragenelmus Bishop of Noyon, and John Bishop of Cambray. These Judges Examined that Matter before the King, and were of Opinion, that the Bishop of Laon ought to restore some of those Benefices, but they did not give their Judgment upon the day prefixed, but put it off to another day to give sentence. Then Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, seeing that the Affair would not go well for him, escaped away in the night. What passed afterwards, I shall give you an account of, when I have given an Abridgment of the 55 Articles which Hinc∣marus Archbishop of Reims presented in the Council to his Nephew, as an answer to all that he had written and said against him.

In the beginning of this Work he puts some Verses, as an answer to those which Hincmarus Bi∣shop * 1.8 of Laon had put before his second Collection of Canons, and as this Bishop had taken this for the subject of his Verses, That Men might freely appeal to the Holy See, so he made it the subject of his, that according to the Canons all the Bishops of a Province ought to be subject to their Metro∣politans, and sharply reproves his Nephew for not giving him the respect due to him.

In Art. 1. he explains the business about the Chapel, where the Bishop of Laon accused him for Excommunicating the Inhabitants because they would not pay the Tenths. He says, that the Cha∣pel, which was in the Country of Attolia, had been a long time before subject to the Priest of the Church of the Village of Jvuigny; That Bertierus, sent by the Bishop of Laon to take care of that place, had hindred them from paying their Tithes to the Priest of the Parish, and had employed them as he pleased; That the Priest Aufoldus, who was to take care of the Diocess of Reims, where this Chapel stood, had demanded Justice several times against Bertierus, and when he could not ob∣tain it, he forbid celebrating Divine Service in that Chapel till the Inhabitants should pay their Tithes to their Curate according to the ancient usage, in which if they would hearken to him, they might come to the Church of Jvuigny, but that Baptism and the Communion was denied to no Man, nei∣ther did any Man die in that time without receiving the Sacraments. Having thus cleared himself as to that matter, he proves by a long possession, that the Chapel of the Court and Lordship of At∣tolia did belong to the Territories within the Diocess of Reims.

In Art. 2. he reproves the Bishop of Laon for getting an Abby, and taking an Office at Court without his leave, and proves, that by the Canons such things are not allowable to Suffragan Bi∣shops without the consent of their Metropolitan; as also for Excommunicating Amalbertus of the Diocess of Reims, being accused of Impotency by his Wife, who was taken out of the Bishoprick of Laon.

In Art. 3. he reproves him for Excommunicating Persons not of his own Diocess.

In Art. 4. he relates what had passed about the Writings in the Conferences with Wenilo.

In Art. 5. he answers the threatning Speeches which the Bishop of Laon had given out, that he could withstand his Metropolitan, and valued him not, because the Holy See had already disannulled two Sentences passed by him, viz. those against Rothadus and Wulfadus. As to the former, after he hath produced several Canons to prove, that Metropolitans and a Synod of the Province had right to Judge the Bishops at the first Tryal, although the Holy See might afterwards restore them if it thought fit; He says, that the Pope did not find fault with the Judgment in France given against Rothadus, but through his great Wisdom, he had desired them to restore that Bishop who had im∣plored his help. That as to the Second Judgment he was not concerned for it, being none of the Judges, and that since the Holy See would not join with so rigorous a Sentence, he had consented to his Pleasure and the Will of the King. That he had fully cleared himself to Pope Nicolas, and that his Successor Adrian had through his goodness put away all displeasure and anger about that matter. In fine, he says, that he had always done with alacrity what the Holy See had desired of him, to avoid all differences, being perswaded, as St. Leo says, that the Pope hath some reason to mitigate the severity of the Laws, on condition that they should ever after beware of it, and keep to the due Execution of the Canons.

In Art. 6. he inquires into the truth of what Hincmarus Bishop of Laon had said to several Per∣sons concerning his Uncle, That he had loosed those whom he had bound, had deposed those whom he had or∣dained, I will cause that he or I will never sing Mass more; Hincmarus shews, that it did not become him who was his Inferior to speak so of him, and vindicates the Right of Metropolitans, and the difference between them and other Bishops. It belongs to them to call Synods, and all their Suffra∣gans are bound to come to them, or send their Excuse, and if they do not so, they may punish them; That the Accusations against any Bishop ought to be brought to them, and they may ap∣point Judges for the Accused, or consent to them that are Elected. It belongs to them to Ordain the Bishops of their Provinces, and those that are not Ordained with their consent, ought not to be

acknowledged for Bishops according to the Council of Nice, whereas, if a Bishop be Ordained with the consent of his Metropolitan, and other Bishops of the Province, except one or two, his Ordi∣nation is accounted good. If a Bishop Dies in his Province, it belongs to the Metropolitan to Name a Visiter of the vacant Church. A Bishop ought to Sign the Regulations and Canons which his Metropolitan presents to him, if they contain nothing in them contrary to the Faith. He can't make any changes or alterations in the Lands of his Diocess, without the consent and ad∣vice of his Metropolitan. Men may appeal from the Judgments of the Bishop to the Metropolitan; if he hath Excommunicated any Person, and will not receive him again, he may be Absolved by his Metropolitan in a Synod of Bishops. Lastly, The Metropolitan hath a care of all the Province, and all those that have any Ecclesiastical Matters may apply themselves to him, and he can take cognizance of them; A Bishop hath only the Government of his own Diocess, in which he may Ordain Priests and Deacons; if he hath any differences with another Bishop, they can't take the Bishops of another Province for Judges; he can do nothing in the general Affairs of a Province without his Metropolitan; In dubious Causes he ought to assist him, he ought not to go directly to Rome; If he will go out of his Province, he must first obtain leave of his Metropolitan. Ne∣vertheless, if he hath any Accusation against his Metropolitan, he may demand Judges of the H. See, according to the Council of Sardica. Lastly, The Metropolitan may cause the Canons, and Con∣stitutions of the Church, to be put in Execution in all the Province, without assembling any Sy∣nod, or consulting the Bishops, and if he finds any thing opposite to them, he may reform it im∣mediately, because in so doing he is the Author of no new Laws, but the Executer of the old only.

In the 7th Article, He reproves Hincmarus Archbishop of Laon, for going out of his Diocess without his consent, and flying from the Judgment of his Metropolitan and the Bishops of his Province.

In the 8th Article, He accuses him for sending the Pope's Letters directed to the King and him∣self, by such Archbishops as were at a distance from him, whereas he ought to have sent them by his own Messengers.

In the 9th Article, He reproves him for having Excommunicated a Monk of S. Dennis, which the King had put in a Monastery in the Diocess of Laon, and would not be perswaded to revoke that Excommunication.

In the 10th Article, He answers the Collection of Decretals made by Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, and because he grounded the Authority of these Records upon a passage of S. Leo, who says, that we are obliged to obey the Decrees of his Predecessors, made and promulgated concerning the Or∣ders and Discipline of the Church, quae de Ecclesiasticis ordinibus, & Canonum sunt promulgata disci∣plinis. He explains the signification of this expression, and affirms, that it ought to be understood of the Laws taken out of the Canons, and which they have published in their Decretals, and not of the private Decrees which they have made, and which are not agreeable to them; whereupon he cites several Sentences of the Popes, which declare, That we ought to observe the Canons.

In the following Articles, as far as the 16th, he treats of the Order and Subordination in gene∣ral, which ought to be among the Bishops.

In the 16th Article, He treats in particular concerning the Subordination of the Church of Laon to that of Reims: He says that this Metropolis had eleven Churches under it, before S. Re∣migius erected the Castle of Laon in that Bishoprick; That the Bishoprick of Laon owes its Erection to the Church of Reims, and that it hath always been subject to it; That the Authority of S. Re∣migius is in his Successors, and that this Metropolis hath been dignified with several Priviledges by the H. See.

In the 17th, He cites several passages in the Pope's Letters against those Inferiors that exalt themselves against their Superiors.

In the 18th and 19th, He shews that several have destroyed themselves through Pride and Va∣nity, by explaining H. Scripture according to their own fancies, and by governing according to their own humor, without following the Tradition of the Church.

In the 20th, He shews that the Discipline of the Church may change and alter: He speaks of the first six General Councils, whose Authority he acknowledged. As to the seventh he says, That 'twas not received in France, and cites a passage of the Caroline Book concerning the General Na∣ture of Synods. Afterwards, he heaps together many Historical Facts, in which he is mistaken in giving credit to the Supposititious Letters of Marke and Foelix.

In the 22d, He explains S. Gregory's words in his Letter to Theoctistus, that they ought not to be Absolved who are Excommunicated by the Church; and maintains, that they ought to be un∣derstood of those only that are Excommunicated for Just Reasons, because we ought not to think that Unjust Excommunications are made by the Church.

In the 23d and 24th Articles, he says, That the Roman Church hath not received the 9th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, in that which respects the Permission, which it gives to a Clerk, who hath any thing against his Metropolitan, to apply himself to the Bishop of Constantinople. In the last of these Articles, he rejects the Collection of Canons, which was said to be given by Pope Adrian to Angilram.

In the 25th and 26th, He shews that there is a difference to be observed between the Decisions of General Councils and the Letters of holy Men and Popes; That 'tis absolutely necessary to obey

all the Decisions of the Councils, but the same subjection is not due to all that is contain'd in those Letters.

In the 27th, He shews that Hincmarus Bishop of Laon is not exempted from answering, for say∣ing, That he was stopped; and by pretending that he hath Appealed to Rome.

In the 28th, He says that 'twas an injury to interdict his Priests and Clerks without any Accu∣sation, or they were either Convicted of their Crimes, or Confessed them. To prove this, he produces a great number of Canons, which prescribe the Order to be observed in Ecclesiastical Judgments, and what ought to go before the condemnation of every Person.

In the 29th and 30th, He shews that Superiors have right to declare no Excommunications which are manifestly irregular and contrary to the Laws of the Church, such as that was by which the Bishop of Laon forbad to administer Baptism to Infants, and the Sacrament to Dying Persons, contrary to the Decrees of the Church, which do not allow the Sacraments to be denied to any Persons in their Necessity. He sets down in this Article many good Rules about Excommunica∣tion.

In the following Article he says, 'tis great Inhumanity to deny Burial to the Dead.

In the 34th, He shews, by several passages out of the Popes Letters, that about Matters evi∣dent, or already decided, 'tis not necessary to call a Synod, nor Appeal to the H. See, and that the things already Ordained and Decreed should be put in Execution.

In the 35th Article he proves, That the H. See Judges with the Bishops, and the Bishops with the H. See; That no Man can put a restraint upon Metropolitans, nor hinder them from Judging the Affairs of their Province, much less in that which is already Ordained, and Decided by the Councils. He adds, that in these things there is no need of consulting, or calling together the Bishops of the Province.

In the 36th Article, He examines the Subscription of the Instrument of the Bishop of Laon, by which he Excommunicated those that would not obey the Decrees of the Popes contained in his Collection. He says, that if he affirms that this Collection contains any thing singular in it, and contrary to the Constitutions of the Council of Nice, and the other Councils received and approved of by the Church, he is himself Excommunicated by endeavouring to Excommunicate others, and so hath separated himself from the Church's Unity with those he hath caused to Sign it.

In the following Articles to the 43d, he gives him wholesome Advice, and assures him in the 40th, that he was no cause that he was out of favour with the King.

In the 43d, he vindicates himself from the Calumny that the Bishop of Laon had cast upon him, in accusing him of falsifying the Quotations which he cited. He speaks of the business of Nivintis, he says that his Crime was publick and certain, that all the World knew that he had Debauched the Nun, and had conveyed her by Night out of the Monastery into his House; That the thing being discovered, the Nun had undergone her Penance in the Convent, and afterward he had con∣veyed her away; That he had done all he could to make him acknowledge his fault, and oblige him to do Penance, but instead of undergoing Penance, he had affronted and abused him; where∣upon he Excommunicated him, and expelled him out of his Diocess.

In the 44th and 45th Articles, he exhorts his Nephew to come to an agreement, lay aside all Animosities and Enmities, and to take mild Methods to gain the Kings favour without going to Rome.

In the 46th and 47th, he reproves him for bragging he was never Conquered.

In the 48th he says, 'tis very dangerous for a Man to be too fond of his own Opinion.

In the 49th, he Advises him not to abuse the Talent that God hath given him.

In the 50th, he reproves him for not suffering any to say, that he hath received any kindness, or good turn, which he hath not deserved.

In the 51th, he accuses him of receiving Presents from his Clergy, and proves, that it is forbid∣den by the Canons. In the 52th, he accuses him of being arrogant, proud and vain.

In the 53th, he gives him advice about his Gesture, and the motions of his Body, which were indecent.

In the 54th, he exhorts him not to misuse his health of Body, or Pleasures of the World, in the flower of his Age. Lastly, he concludes this Work with Elias's Words to Elisha, I have done for you all I was able. He adds, that he believes, tho' he shall not profit by his Advice, that it will not be in vain, before God, to him that gives it. He prays to God to grant to him, to will, say, know, and do what he hath commanded, and to make his Nephew to hear favourably, and do what is convenient for him, and that both of them may will and do what he hath commanded, and persevere in the observance of his Commandments.

We will now return to the remaining part of the business of Hincmarus Bishop of Laon: After he * 1.9 was gone from Attigni, as we said before, he wrote a Letter to Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, which was given him the 12th of July by one of his Deacons named Ermenoldus, in which he be∣seeches him, that since he had appealed twice to the Pope, as they themselves acknowledged, he would get leave of the King to let him go thither. Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims returned him no Answer, whereupon he wrote directly to the King, and having excused himself for not co∣ming to him, because he had a Fever, he prays him earnestly to let him go to Rome, that having performed his Vow, he may be recovered from his Fever. The King answered Bertricus, who

brought him the Letter, that 'twas a wonder that the Fever, which kept him from Court, should not hinder him from going to Rome; that he should come to him, and if he had any just cause of going to Rome, he would permit him. The King also commanded him to give a Benefice to one named Eloi. Hincmarus Bishop of Laon having received this Answer, sent Eddo, Provost of the Church of Loan, to carry a Petition to the Archbishop of Reims, in which he tells him, 1. That he * 1.10 greeted him, and prayed for him. 2. That he was perswaded that he was sensible that he was Persecuted, and that he did share in his Sufferings. 3. That the King had taken away the Reve∣nues of the Church of Laon, and given them to Normannus, which he knew when he withdrew from Attigni. 4. That some other Persons had possessed themselves of the Lands belonging to the Church by the Kings Order, who had required him to restore a Benefice to Eloi, who had forcibly gotten it. 5. That he intreated him, who was his Unkle and Archbishop, to obtain of the King that he might have a free Administration of the Revenues of his Church, and to order and dispose of them, as he thought fit; He promises in this Juncture to obey him, come to him, and follow his Directions, protesting, That if the King will not grant him this favour, he never will obey him more, nor never come in his presence; That he will fly to the H. See, and use his Authority by Excommunicating those who have invaded the Goods of the Church, as it is allowed in the Constitution of the Bishops, which he had sent him. This Constitution was made up of certain Canons of the Council held in 860 at Toussi, in the Diocess of Tola, which Decreed, among other things, that those who violently seized upon the Goods of the Church, should be Excommunicated for their whole Lives, nor should obtain Communion at their Death, nor have a Christian Burial; That the Princes and Judges should find out such Persons as corrupted Virgins and Widows dedica∣ted to God, upon Penalty of being expelled out of the Church, and deprived of Burial; That those that have taken away any of the Church Revenues, or Goods, should restore them double, treble, or fourfold, according to the thing they have taken.

Altho' the Name of Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims be among the Subscriptions to the Canons of this Council, yet when he received this Writing, he said he had never heard of any such Constitutions, and that the Bishops who were present at that Council said the same thing: He says, that these Constitutions are unreasonable, and contrary to the Laws of the Church, and judg∣ed by the Subscriptions, that those acts were false, because he found the Names of some Bishops that were not there, and two Bishops of the same See at the same time, viz. Two Bishops of Auxerra, Christianus, and Ablo, and two Bishops of Noin, Immo and Raginelmus, who succeeded him. He adds, that his Seal was among others there, altho' he was sure that he had not set his Seal to that Act.

This Petition of Hincmarus Bishop of Laon was given to Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims at * 1.11 Pontigon, July 16. by Heddo; He represented his Nephew's Petition to the King, and got the Bi∣shops then at Court to second him in it, viz. Remigius, Harduicus, Odo, and Willibert. The King answered, That he thought the Bishop of Laon might be satisfied with what was said at Attigni; That he had taken more than belonged to his Church out of the Estate which the Prince was willing to give him, so that he might re-enter upon the Land of Paulls; but as to the other Re∣venues about which the Contest was, he must wait till the Matter could be Regulated, and Com∣missioners be sent on both sides to the places to examine what doth really belong to the Church, that it may be restored to it. As to the Benefices of which he speaks, Hincmarus answers him, That he had deprived the Lawful Heirs of them, to whom he himself had once granted them; and that the Judges, which he had chosen, had determined that he ought to restore them; that he would stay but till some Articles were decided before he fled, and would not wait till Sentence were pronounced; That he might return, and bring with him the Arrest, by which the King had given, or restored to the Church of Laon, the Lands in question, and would do him Justice. In fine, that he had sent him a Writing of that which was done in the Council of Joussi, which he ne∣ver saw, and of which the Bishops of that Council never heard, and which was not agreeable to the Original he had. Lastly, he advises him not to Excommunicate Normannus, or any others, rash∣ly, nor go to Rome till 'twas examin'd in a Provincial Synod, whether his Appeal to the H. See were regular.

Hincmarus Bishop of Laon returned a long Answer to this Letter of Hincmarus Archbishop of * 1.12 Reims, in which he tells him, That he did not desire to enjoy the Revenues of the Church to put them to a bad use, but to employ them as the Canons prescribe; and that it could not but trou∣ble him much to see the Revenues, which were intended for the Subsistance of himself and Cler∣gy, to be taken away, and given to a Person to whom his Predecessor would never grant a Church-Farm; That another had got a Farm granted him, which use to furnish the Church with Can∣dles; and several others were given to such persons, who had done no Service to the Church a long time, and could be no ways profitable to it; That the King never spake a word to him, of that which Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims mentioned to him; and that he only told him, that he heard he had taken more Grounds in the Lands of Paulls than belonged to him, or were granted by the Letters he had sent him; That he would have them; That he was willing that he should enjoy what was contained in these Letters, except the Farms in the possession of Angarius, who was his Man, upon condition, nevertheless, that they should restore them to him, if he found that they belonged to the Land of Paulls; That the King had delayed to restore them to him, but he was put upon doing it by the Advice of Hincmarus; That he had not unjustly seized upon,

and kept those Farms, but they have belonged above 60 Years to the Land of Paulls; That he had enjoyed them ever since the King had restored those Lands, six months since, till Ansgarius had obtain'd them of the King, without any cognizance of the Cause, and without examining his Claim. As to the Judges, which he says were Named by him, it is true that the King ordered the Archbishop of Reims to Nominate some Bishops who should examine the Affair of those who com∣plained that they were deprived of their Benefices; That Hincmarus having Named them, he did appear before them with one Clergy-man and Lay-man of his Church; That Regenard having pre∣ferred his complaint first, he did shew his Reasons why he deprived him; and whereas, among other things, he had accused him of not paying the Service due, the Judges required him to take an Oath that it was so, and that Regenard should lose his Benefice. Whereupon Hincmarus Bishop of Laon complains, that the Judges regarded Temporal more than Spiritual Causes, because being also accused of spoiling the Farms, and having abused the Revenues of the Church, they did not condemn him to make any Restitution. The second that made his complaint was one Gri••on, who being accused of spoiling a Wood which his Father had Planted, he defended himself by saying, 'Twas not so, and that 'twas some Peasants that had wasted it against his knowledge; and that Hincmarus had deprived him of his Benefice only because he would not go to Rome; That when Hincmarus maintained the contrary, and produced his Witnesses, they put off the Judgment of that Affair till next Week. He then confesses, that he withdrew himself, but says 'twas to avoid the Persecution intended against him; That all his Family was Banished; That they favoured the Lord Normannus, who was Excommunicated both by the Pope and himself; That they would not permit him to go to Rome, but had taken away the Revenues that belong to his Church. As to the Constitution of the Synod of Toussi, he says, that he received it of Harduicus Archbishop of Bisan∣con, who was present at it; and that it was written by two of his Deacons; and that he remem∣bers well, that 'twas made in that Council; That 'tis true, that he had composed another Letter, but finding it too long, he thought it best to Sign this which was shorter, and, as it were, an abridgment of the other. Lastly, he enlarges upon the Popes Decretals; he affirms that they do not contradict one another, and that the Bishops, who desire to be judged at Rome, at the first Exa∣mination ought to be sent thither. He complains of his Archbishop, that he had been no help to him since he desired to be sent thither, but, on the contrary, opposed his Interests. This is the Answer that Hincmarus Bishop of Laon gave his Metropolitan; but having no mind to have to do with him, nor those Ecclesiastical Judges that he had Nominated, he resolved to request Secular Judges of the King, two months after he retired from Attigni. The King appointed Helmingarius, Hotarius and Ursio, who were Court-Officers. These Judges altered, and re-examined the things that had been decided by the Ecclesiastical Judges, and were more favourable to Hincmarus of Laon than they had been, for they made the Lord Normannus to leave his Benefice; and others, who had gotten possession of the Benefices in contest through the flight of Hincmarus, to resign them to him again. Things being thus ordered, Hincmarus of Laon returned to Court, and never spake more of going to Rome.

Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, was very angry that his Nephew had so well acquitted him∣self before the Lay-Judges, contemning the Authority of his See, and the Judges he had appointed; * 1.13 wherefore he wrote to him with a great deal of Passion. Nevertheless, the Judgment given for him was Executed; but not long after, Hincmarus of Laon engaged in a fresh Quarrel with King Charles upon the account of Caroloman. This happened thus: Caroloman, the Eldest Son of King Charles, was Baptized in the Church of Reims, and devoted by his Father to be a Churchman, ha∣ving been Shaved, and afterwards received all the Orders, as far as a Deacon, from the Hands of Hildegarius Bishop of Meaux; But because he was forced to embrace a Profession, which displea∣sed him, he resolved to make his escape, and being got away, he conspired against his Father. He was accused in the Synod of Attigni, and condemned as a Rebel, and thereupon being depri∣ved of his Abbies was put in Prison. Having appealed to Rome, the Pope wrote in his favour, and a little after he was set at Liberty. But in the Year following he began his Quarrel again, took Arms, gathered Troops, and Plundered the Country. Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, in the absence of the King, who was gone into Burgundy, assembled the Bishops of his Province imme∣ately, and after he had admonished him four times that he should lay down his Arms, he declared him Excommunicated, and all his Soldiers, which were the greatest part of the Province of Reims, if they did not reform, and do Penance before the 11th of March. Hincmarus sent this Letter of Excommunication to Remigius Archbishop of Lyons, and to the Bishops of his Province, and wrote on purpose to Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, to require his consent, under Hand, to this Excommunica∣tion, but he gave him no Answer to it; wherefore he wrote a second time more earnestly to him. Then he answered, That he would not give his consent to it, because he had not answer∣ed his desire made to him by Eddo, which he ought to have added in that Act. Hincmarus Arch-bishop of Reims replied, That Eddo had never spoke to him about it, and that he had not any thing to add. Nevertheless, he desired him to tell him plainly what he would have added, promising that he would do it if it were reasonable, being always ready to learn of others, follow their ad∣vice, and reform any thing that was amiss. In the rest of the Letter, he speaks with loftiness to his Nephew, and shews that he is greatly displeased with his Disobedience. 'Tis Dated Aug. 19.

On the 5th of May, a Clergy-man of Laon called Teutlandus coming to Reims, the Archbishop ordered him to bid his Bishop to send his consent immediately to the Excommunication of Carolo∣man.

Lastly, Hincmarus Bishop of Laon being admonished a 6th time by a Letter from his Me∣tropolitan, answered, That he wondred he should desire his consent to that Excommunication, since he had not taken his Advice in issuing it out. He also complains, that his Unkle had sent his Summons by the Clergy-men of his own Church, and that he had pronounced a Benediction in the Diocess of Laon upon some of the Confederates of Caroloman.

On the 14th of May, Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims cited the Bishop of Laon to a Synod, which * 1.14 was to be held, that he should answer to the complaints and accusations brought against him; but he, instead of giving a civil answer, wrote a Letter full of Invectives and Affronts, in which he accuses him of betraying, and delivering him up, when he was apprehended, and of being his Enemy ever since he opposed him in his putting a Bishop into Rothadus's place, till he should re∣ceive the Popes pleasure about that Affair. Nevertheless, Adrian wrote two Letters in favour of Caroloman to the King his Father, to the Bishops of France, and the Lords, in which he forbids the last taking Arms against Caroloman, and the others to Excommunicate him. These Letters bear * 1.15 date July 13. but they did Caroloman no ser••ice, as we shall shew anon. This Pope wrote also to Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, March 25. to call a Synod for the Reformation of Abuses in his Diocess; and under this pretence Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims cited Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, in the Name of the Pope, and by his Authority, to the Synod which was to be holden at Douzi, Aug. 5. The Act says July 5.

The Council being assembled at Douri, King Charles presented a Bill to them containing several * 1.16 heads of Accusation against Hincmarus Bishop of Laon; the beginning of it is lost. In that part which remains, he accuses him for Writing to Rome against him, at the same time when he ac∣knowledged in France, that he had not meddled with any of the Revenues of the Church; for going out of his Kingdom into Lotharius's; for not coming to him when he had commanded him, and for hindering his Servants to come to him; for Writing a second time to Rome against him; for flying from Attigni after he had Sworn Allegiance to him. Lastly, for Arming his Servants to hinder the Governor of the Province, that he might not apprehend certain suspicious Persons which were at his House, to send them to the Council, but let them escape. When this Bill was read, the King desired, that since the Bishop of Laon, who had been cited by his Metropolitan to ap∣pear before the Council, did not come, they would search what the Canons and Laws decreed concerning those heads of Accusation brought against him, and if he came to the Synod, that the differences between him and his Metropolitan should be Judged and Determined.

Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims presented another Petition to the Synod, in which he briefly re∣lates all that had passed between him and Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, the causes of complaint he had against him, the heads of Accusation that he charged him with, and the consequence of the whole matter, setting down under every Article the Decisions of the Popes and Councils, shewing wherein the Bishop of Laon had offended, and the punishment he deserved. He defends himself, against the Accusation, that he had betrayed him, and produces three Letters written at the time he was seized, to shew that he had no hand in his Imprisonment, but had disapproved it. He also justifies himself against the Accusation, that he had no respect to the Judgment of the H. See, and slighted its Authority, and treats of what passed at Attigni about that matter. Lastly, He concludes that Hincmarus Bishop of Laon having been Summon'd three times by the Council and not appearing, ought to be condemned for his Contumacy, notwithstanding the Appeal he had made to the H. See, because it is irregular, and he hath not prosecuted it.

The Bishops of the Council desiring some time to Answer the King's Request, made a Collection of the Canons, Laws, and Testimonies of the Fathers, upon every head of the Accusation con∣tain'd in that Bill, concerning the false Oaths, and Perjury, the Sedition and Violence he had used, concerning the alienating of the Revenues of his Church, the Calumnies he had written to Rome against his Prince, his Disobedience and Rebellion, and for having made many of the King's Sub∣jects to fly.

This Memoir was read in the Council, and Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, summoned again to the Council. But he answered, That he had Appealed to the H. See. The Bishop of Soissons, who Ci∣ted him, told him, That he ought to appear at the Synod, and if it were necessary for him then to appeal, they would suffer him to prosecute it. Hermerardus also was cited by the Synod. These Citations having been repeated three times, at last Hincmarus appeared before the Council; but Hermerardus would not come. They then read to him the King's Bill, and a Letter from the Pope sent to him, in which he was ordered to be obedient to his Metropolitan, with an allowance of an Appeal to the H. See, if there were just Cause.

The next day, he was summoned to the Council, to answer to the Accusations brought against him by the King. On the 14th of August he came; and Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, having ordered him to answer to the King's Petition, he said, That he was deprived of all his Revenues, and would not answer in that Synod: And taking up his Papers, he began to read the Canons con∣cerning Bishop's Appeals. The Council ordered him to answer the Accusations brought against him, giving him Liberty afterwards to appeal to the H. See, if he would. He persisted in his first An∣swer That he was deprived of his Revenues, and would not answer. They asked him, who had deprived him? He answered, his Clergy-men knew: And one of them being asked about it, an∣swered, that it was the King; who immediately said 'twas false, and accused Hincmarus of arming his Servants to hinder that his Governour might send several Persons accused of Treachery to the

Council, of saving them, of flying himself, and carrying with him the Sacred Vessels and Orna∣ments of the Church of our Lady at Laon, which made him so backward to make his Defence: That since he came to the Synod, he had prepared him an House where his Servants might lodge, but he chose rather to abide in his Court near the Church: That he had ordered Bernard to treat him civilly, and take care of his Goods and Papers: That they had brought them to him, with a Golden Cross set with Stones, and several things belonging to the Church. The King proved the Facts by Witnesses, though the very Clergy of the Bishop of Laon owned them. He was accu∣sed of having taken away and given a Chalice, with a Patten of Gold set with Stones, to a Priest, to hide for him, which the King had given to the Church of S. Maries at Laon; of having taken away the Relicks and Deeds of the Church of Laon, with a Golden Cross; so not only enriching himself with the Goods of the Church of Laon, but suffering his Servants to convey them away.

Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, having summoned him to answer these Accusations, he said, he would not answer before him, because he had something against him, and therefore appealed to the H. See. Hincmarus answered him, That he ought not to decline his Judgment, since he had often reproved him, and admonished him, but had not yet judged him, and so he could not appeal to Rome; because by the ancient Canons, no Appeals can be made thither, but after Judgment: Wherefore he ought to answer, and should be tryed without any Prejudice to the Privileges or Judgment of the Pope, as it is decreed by the Council of Sardica, That he might appeal to Rome after the Judgment of the Provincial Synod. Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, said, That he would not answer, nor accept his Metropolitan for his Judge, because he had advised the King to take him Prisoner. Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, having prayed the King to speak the Truth, the King protested with an Oath, That he did it without the Consent of the Archbishop of Reims, and added, That had it not been for the Respect he had for him, he would have imprisoned him above two years ago for his Insolencies; and that if he had not kept his Lords from it, he had been set upon in his Palace, and stabbed or beaten to death. Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims also prayed Ado and Hildebaldus, who were present when the Bishop of Laon was apprehended, to speak what they knew; who both of them testified, as well as two Priests and Earls, That it was done with∣out the Privity of the Archbishop of Reims.

After this, Hincmarus, Archbishop of Reims, read over again the King's Request, and interro∣gated him about every Article; but he would not answer: But all the heads were proved against Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, either by Writing or Witnesses; and being required three times to answer, the Archbishops of Besancon, Bourdeaux, Bourges, Trives, Rouen, Sens, and the Bishops of Troyes, Tongres, Meaux, Mets, Chartres, Beauvais, Tournay, Poictiers, Cambray, Orleans, Chalons, Sois∣sons, Verdun, and Paris, with the Rural Bishop of Tongres, were of opinion, That he ought to be deposed, without Prejudice to the Judgment of the H. See, salvo per omnia Apostolicae Sedis Judicio. Hincmarus, who gave his Opinion last, was of the same Judgment. This Sentence was sealed by these Prelates and some Priests. The Name of the Bishop of Lyons, Renugius, is found among the Subscriptions; but he was not at this Synod. The Bishops of the Council wrote a Letter to Pope Adrian, in which they tell him, That they were forced to depose Hincmarus, Bishop of Laon, as he will understand by the Acts of the Council, which they sent him. Beside the Crimes therein set down, they accuse him of having converted to his own use, or given away, several of the Orna∣ments of the Church of Laon, to have stirred up many Seditions, to have excommunicated and abused Amalbertus. They desire the Pope to confirm their Judgment, or if he thought fit to review it, (which they could not think necessary) That he would appoint Judges, either of the same or neighbouring Provinces, and if he pleased, send his Legate to be present at the Judgment, as it is appointed in the Council of Sardica; upon condition nevertheless, That Hincmarus shall not be re∣stored to his Dignity, till his Cause be examined and tried anew in the Province; because as yet they had not departed from the Rights of the Gallican and Belgick Churches. They declare, That if he restores him, and sends him into France, they'll never trouble themselves with him, but let him live as he list without communicating with him. They recommend, in the last place, to him Actardus, who was desired by the People and Clergy of Tours, that he might be made Bishop of that Church by his Authority, altho' they could do't themselves. This Letter is dated Sept. 6. 871.

Hincmarus wrote also in his own Name to Pope Adrian; He begins his Letter with the business of Actardus, and after speaks of the Condemnation of the Bishop of Laon. He excuses himself, that * 1.17 he did not maintain him in the business with Normannus, because he was injured, and the case was not that which he had related to the Pope. He laments that he ever Ordained him, and says, That after he had done all he could to reclaim him, and found him incorrigible, he was forced to leave him, and suffer him to be condemned. Lastly, He gives the Pope an Account of the business of the Priest, who was Deposed for endeavouring to kill, and actually wounding with a Spear, another with whom he was Travelling in a Journey, after he had made himself Drunk with him.

Pope Adrian having received the Letter of the Bishops of the Council, returned an Answer, * 1.18 That he approved their Election of Actardus for the Bishoprick of Tours, but he disapproved the Judgment given against Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, contrary to his Appeal, to be Judged at Rome; He orders that he should come with his Accuser thither, and forbids them putting any other Bi∣shop in his place, till his Cause be Examined and Tryed a-new. This Letter bears Date Dec. 26.

He also wrote at the same time two Letters to Charles the Bald. In the first, which he in∣tended to be publick, he complains, that he had taken his Petitions, which he made to him, ill, and exhorted him to accept them favourably. He orders him to send Hincmarus, and his Accu∣sers, to Rome, assuring him, that he would not consent to his Deposition till that were done. He approves the Promotion of Actardus to the Archbishoprick of Tours, without depriving him, never∣theless, of the Right which he hath to the Reversion of the Diocess of Nantes. He exhorts the King to see, that all the Revenues of the Church of Tours be restored that belong to it, as also the Monasteries, which according to the Canons are subject to that Bishop.

The second Letter, which was private and secret, was wrote with more mildness and assurance, but he insists more particularly upon this, That the King had not received his Admonitions with all possible subjection, and that he had enriched himself with the Revenues of the Church. In the rest, he pretends a great deal of Friendship to him, commends his Piety, blames the carriage of Hincmarus Bishop of Laon, and seems to think him faulty, and justly condemned; but nevertheless, hopes he will send him to Rome, that after he hath heard him, he may appoint him Judges, or send his Legates to the place to have him Judged before them there.

King Charles being offended at these two Letters of the Pope's, as also at a former, which the * 1.19 Pope had written to him, full of reproachful Language to his Person, which he exhorted him to bear patiently, and take in good part, writ sharply to him, and shewed himself angry for being treated in such a manner; and because he had ordered him to send Hincmarus immediately to Rome. Hereupon he accuses him of Worldly Pride, in ambitiously claiming a Dominion in the Church; and says, That he did not know before that a King, whose Office is to punish Evil do∣ers, and revenge Crimes, was obliged to send the guilty to Rome, after they were condemned and convicted; That he should know, that the Kings of France are not the Bishops Vicegerents, but absolute Masters of their Country; That he doth not find that the Popes, his Predecessors, did ever write in that fashion to the Kings of France. Then he recites several expressions of the Popes, and shews by many Ecclesiastical Laws that no Canon obliged him to send Condemned Bishops to Rome, but on the contrary, that Ecclesiastical Causes should be Judged and Determined in the Province where the Matters were acted. Lastly, He advises him not to write to him more in such a strain, nor to the Bishops and Lords of his Kingdom, unless he will have his Letters and Messengers slighted, which he wrote to him saith he, because of the respect he did bear to him, and because of the design he had to be subject, as he ought, to the Vicar of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, lest he should force him, against his Will, to do otherwise than he intended. In fine, that he knew that he ought to follow, and to hold to that which was approved by the H. See, when 'tis found agreeable to the H. Scripture, Tradition, and the Laws of the Church, but rejected the claim which was grounded upon Forged, and ill-composed Pieces.

Nor did the Bishops of France write with less Resolution to the Pope about that Affair, they * 1.20 boldly rejected the pretences the Pope had, that Hincmarus should come to Rome and be Judged; and maintain'd, that the Judgment given against that Bishop ought to be Executed; And in effect it was done, and the Church of Laon became vacant de facto & de jure, altho' the H. See would not confirm the Judgment of the Synod of Douzi. Hincmarus Bishop of Laon was put in Prison, and two years after his Eyes were put out, as Caroloman's were; a very usual punishment at that time for such as were found guilty of Rebellion. Charles the Bald being afterwards Crowned Em∣peror by * 1.21 John VIII. gave him an Account of the Judgment given at the Synod of Douzi, and desired the confirmation of it from him, which he grant∣ed, writing to Hincmarus, that upon the Relation of the Emperor he approved the Judgment, he, and other Bishops of France, had given against Hincmarus of Laon; after whom, Henedulphus was Ordained Bishop of Laon, in pursuance of the Decree of his Election made March 26. and 876.

After the Death of Charles the Bald, Hincmarus Bishop of Laon was set at Liberty, who hearing * 1.22 that Pope John VIII. was retired into France, held a Council at Troyes, he went thither and Pre∣sented a Petition, in which he complained, That being carried to the Council of Douzi by force, deprived of his Goods, accused by K. Charles, he was condemned by the Archbishop of Reims, al∣though he had Appealed to the H. See; that since that time he had been put in Chains, and his Eyes were put out. He begged of the Pope to do him Justice, and pass an equitable Sentence upon that Matter, which was referred to him. He alledged, That the Bishops of the Synod of Douzi had condemned him very unwillingly, that most of them were very much troubled at what they had done by the impulse of Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, who advised them to it by Writing. Nevertheless, by the Acts of the Council, and the Letters written by them, it doth ap∣pear, that they condemned Hincmarus Bishop of Laon with a full consent and agreement, and never did repent that they had done it.

Nevertheless, the Petition of Hincmarus Bishop of Laon was approved in the Council of Troyes by some Bishops, and King Ludovicus Balbus did not oppose it; But Pope John VIII. judging that it would be a very difficult thing to reverse the Sentence of the Council of Douzi, ordered that He∣nedulphus should continue Bishop of Laon, although he himself desired that he might retreat into a Monastery, but allowed Hincmarus liberty to Sing Mass, and to have a Pension out of the Reve∣nues

of the Bishoprick of Laon. Whereupon some Bishops took him, and having Cloathed him with his Episcopal Vestments, they led him to the Church with Singing, and caused him to give the Benediction. He died not long after, and his Unkle Hincmarus made Prayers to God for him after his Death.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Origi∣nal of the discontents between Hincmarus Archbishop of Reims, and his Ne∣phew H. Steward of the Palace. The Con∣tests be∣tween the Bishop of Laon and Charles the Bald.
• * 1.2

  W••rm••ria.
• * 1.3

  Adrian's Letter in favour of the Bishop of Laon.
• * 1.4

  The Quar∣rels of the two Hinc∣marus's abou•• the business of Nivinus.
• * 1.5

  Another Diff•…•…nce bet••een the two Hincma∣rus's about Ad•…•…phus.
• * 1.6

  Hincmarus Bishop of Laon de∣clared openly a∣gainst his Uncle.
• * 1.7

  The Con∣test be∣tween Hinc∣marus and his Nephew at the Sy∣nod of Attigni.
• * 1.8

  Hincma∣rus's 55 Articles.
• * 1.9

  The sequel of the Affair of Hincma∣rus of Laon, after he left Attigni.
• * 1.10

  A Petition of Hincma∣rus Bishop of Laon.
• * 1.11

  The Answer to the Bishop of Laon's Petition.
• * 1.12

  The Bishop of Laon's Answer.
• * 1.13

  A new Con∣test between Hincmarus of Laon and the King.
• * 1.14

  Hincmarus of Laon ci∣ted to a Synod.
• * 1.15

  Adrian's Letter in favour of Caroloman.
• * 1.16

  The Council of Douzi.
• * 1.17

  Hincma∣rus's Letter to Adrian.
• * 1.18

  Adrian's Answer.
• * 1.19

  K. Charles's Answer to the Pope.
• * 1.20

  The Execu∣tion of the Judgmens given a∣gainst Hinc∣marus.
• * 1.21

  This Pope, according to Pla∣tina's reckoning, which is ac∣counted the tru••st, is John IX. for John VIII. is Pope Joan, of which the Romish Church is so much ashamed, that they have blotted her out of the Catalogue of their Popes, for though th••y allow their Popes 〈◊〉〈◊〉 many Women, yet they will not endure to hear of a Woman to be a Pope.
• * 1.22

  The Council of Troyes.