INC MARO, archbishop of REIMS. - Born ca. 806, of a noble Frankish family, died 21 Dec. 882 at Épernay while fleeing the Normans. Educated in the monastery of St-Denis under Abbot Hilduin, in 822 he entered the court of Louis the Pious at Aachen. In 845 he received from Charles the Bald the archbishopric of Reims, vacant after the deposition of Ebbo (v.).
He exercised intense activity as bishop, as politician, theologian, and canonist, taking part in all the political, theological, and juridical questions of his time.
I. The politician
He was a faithful adherent of King Charles the Bald, for whom he wrote: *De regia persona et regio ministerio* (PL 125, 833-56), *De fide Carolo regi servanda* (ibid. 961 ff.), *Pro institutione Caroli pueri* (ibid. 993 ff.). This displeased Emperor Lothar I, and he had to suffer the consequences of his political stance.In the case of Lothar’s vassal Fulco, whom I. had excommunicated, Pope Leo IV vigorously protested against the manner in which the monk I. had usurped authority against all right, even while Ebbo was still alive in the see of Reims. The Pope expressed these sentiments also in a letter to Lothar (Jaffé-Wattenbach, 2619). Nevertheless, after the Conference of Péronne (Jan. 849), Lothar recognized I. and requested for him the daily use of the pallium, the title, and the authority of vicar of the Holy See. Leo IV granted only the pallium.
II. The metropolitan
In asserting his metropolitan authority, he encountered many difficulties from his suffragan bishops and the Roman pontiffs.The question of ecclesiastics ordained by Ebbo during the time he had reoccupied the see of Reims (from Dec. 840 to autumn 841) clouded his relations with the Roman Curia. Pope Leo IV, not approving the excommunication pronounced by the Council of Soissons, reinstated them. In the dispute with his suffragans, Rothad of Soissons and Hincmar of Laon, I. acted imperiously. Rothad, suffragan of Reims and the best representative of the spirit that, at that time, inspired the False Decretals of Isidore (limitation of secular power in ecclesiastical matters and limitation of metropolitan authority), was deposed by I. in 862 (cf. E. Perels, *Denkschrift Hinkmars im Prozess Rothads*, in *Neues Archiv*, 44 [1922], pp. 43-100). Pope Nicholas I, however, reinstated him. Hincmar, the young man, his nephew, whom he had educated and promoted to the episcopal see of Laon in the province of Reims, bore with ill will the interference of his uncle in the administration of his diocese. In the summer of 868 the resentment found occasion to erupt: accused of having taken away from certain men of the king certain benefices attributed to them, the bishop was summoned to appear before the secular tribunal; but he did not comply. The king decreed the sequestration of revenues, but the intervention of I. settled the matter. At the Council of Douzy, I. pronounced the sentence of deposition against his nephew, subject to the contrary judgment of the Holy See, which again did not approve of the act.
III. The theologian
Against the Benedictine Gottschalk of Orbais and his predestinarianism, I. composed a brief refutation (text discovered and edited by W. Gundlach under the title *Ad reclusos et simplices*, in *Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte*, 10 [1889], pp. 258-309). He also wrote a letter to the archbishop of Lyon, setting forth his own ideas on divine foreknowledge and predestination and adding some observations at the Council of Quierzy in 849. His successor Remigius of Lyon replied with the *Liber de tribus epistolis* (PL 121, 985-1068). After the Council of Soissons in 853, the four famous chapters were drawn up and submitted for the signature of King Charles the Bald, in which I. had intended to summarize orthodox doctrine. The first criticism of I.’s theology came from the Church of Lyon. The dogmatic canons of the Council of Valence (855) were directed precisely against I. Meanwhile, he prepared a third treatise on predestination (PL 125, 547-474), in which he intended to draw a parallel between the canons of Valence and the articles of Quierzy, placing his entire scriptural and patristic erudition at the service of his thesis. Despite its defects, I.’s treatise inaugurates a new way of addressing the thorny problem. The synodal letter of the Second Council of Toul in 860 constituted a relative success for I.; he had at least succeeded in inserting into the conciliar document (Ep. 21: PL 126, 122-32) a good number of the ideas and expressions dear to him, those to which later theology would have recourse. Ultimately, I. remained the arbiter of the situation, and he did not readmit Gottschalk, imprisoned at Hautvillers, to ecclesiastical communion until after the latter had abjured his alleged errors (cf. Fliche-Martin-Frutaz, VI, passim). I. also wrote against the formula *Trina Deitas* in the hymn *Sanctorum meritis inclita* of the Common of Martyrs. Ratramnus, however, a monk of Corbie, replied to him with a now-lost pamphlet.IV. Juridical and literary activity
I. had two occasions to display his vast knowledge of canon law: the first in the divorce of Emperor Lothar I from Teutberga (cf. *De divorcio Lotharii et Teutbergae*: PL 125, 623 ff.), the second in the struggle with his nephew Hincmar of Laon, against whom he wrote the *Opusculum LV capitulorum* (ibid. 126, 290-494), in which he also attacked the False Decretals of Isidore, with which Hincmar of Laon defended his right. Among his other writings, eight letters remain, addressed to the Pope, the King, and synods, dealing with the problems of his time (ibid. 9 ff.); he also composed some historical works.The *Life of St Remigius* (ibid. 125, 1129-88; MGH, *Script. rer. Merov.*, III, pp. 239-341) is merely an edifying work. The *Annals of St Bertin*, which he continued from 861 to 882, written in a convoluted style, bear witness to a penetrating mind and a broad vision (MGH, *Script. rer. Germ. in usum schol.*, IV [1883], pp. 55-154).