Inmarus, Archbishop of Reims

INMARUS, Archbishop of Reims. - Born ca. 806, of a noble Frankish family, died on 21 December 882 at Epernay during the flight from the Normans. Educated in the monastery of St-Denis under the 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 carried on an 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 Carlomanni (ibid. 993 ff.). This displeased Emperor Lothair I, for which reason he had to suffer the consequences of his political stance.

In the case of Lothair's vassal, Fuleric, whom I. had excommunicated, Pope Leo IV protested energetically against the manner in which "the monk I." had usurped, against every right, and while Ebbo was still alive, the see of Reims. The Pope expressed these sentiments also in a letter to Lothair (Jaffé-Wattenbach, 2619). Nevertheless, after the Conference of Péronne (Jan. 849), Lothair recognized I. and requested for him the daily use of the pallium, the title and 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 on the part of his suffragan bishops and of the Roman pontiffs.

The question of the ecclesiastics ordained by Ebbo during the time in which he had reoccupied the see of Reims (from December 840 to the autumn of 841) clouded his relations with the pontifical Curia. Pope Leo IV, not approving the excommunication pronounced by the Council of Soissons, reinstated them. In the dispute with his suffragans, Rotadus of Soissons and Incmar of Laon, I. showed himself overbearing. Rotadus, suffragan of Reims, the best representative of the spirit that, at that time, inspired the False Isidorian Decretals (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 Rotbada, in Neues Archiv, 44 [1922], pp. 43-100). Pope Nicholas I, however, reinstated him. Incmar the younger, his nephew, educated by him and promoted to the episcopal see of Laon in the province of Reims, bore unwillingly the interference of his uncle in the administration of his diocese. In the summer of 868 the discontent found an occasion to explode: accused of having taken away from certain "men of the King" some benefices assigned to them, the bishop was summoned to appear before the secular tribunal; but he did not appear. The King decreed the sequestration of the revenues, but the intervention of I. settled the matter. At the Council of Douzy, I. pronounced the sentence of deposition of his nephew, subject to the contrary judgment of the Holy See, which once again did not approve the act.
III.

II. THEOLOGIAN

Against the Benedictine Gottschalk of Orbais and his predestinarianism, I. wrote a brief refutation (text rediscovered 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, expressing his own ideas on divine foreknowledge and on predestination, and added some observations at the Council of Quierzy of 849. The successor Remigius of Lyon replied with the Liber de tribus epistolis (PL 121, 985-1068). After the Council of Soissons of 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) are aimed precisely against I. Meanwhile he was preparing a third treatise on predestination (PL 125, 55-474), in which he intended to draw a parallel between the canons of Valence and the articles of Quierzy, placing all his scriptural and patristic erudition at the service of his thesis. Despite its defects, I.'s Treatise inaugurates a new way of dealing with the thorny problem. The synodal letter of the second Council of Toul, of 860, constituted a relative success for I.; he had at least managed to introduce into the conciliar document (Ep. 21: PL 126, 122-32) a good number of the ideas and expressions that were dear to him, precisely those to which later theology would have recourse. In the final analysis, I. remained the arbiter of the situation, and he did not readmit to ecclesiastical communion Gottschalk, a prisoner at Hautvillers, until after the abjuration of his supposed errors (cf. Fliche-Martin-Frutaz, VI, passim). I. also wrote against the formula Trina Deitas of the hymn Sanctorum meritis inclita gaudia of the "Common of Martyrs." Ratramnus, however, a monk of Corbie, replied to him with a pamphlet now lost.

IV. JURIDICAL AND LITERARY ACTIVITY

I. had two occasions to display his vast knowledge of canon law: the first in the divorce of Emperor Lothair I from Teutberga (cf. De divortio Lotharii et Teutbergae: PL 125, 623 ff.), the second in the struggle with his nephew Incmar of Laon, against whom he wrote the Opusculum LV capitulorum (ibid. 126, 290-494), in which he also combated the False Isidorian Decretals, with which Incmar of Laon defended his right. Among I.'s other writings there remain 80 letters, addressed to the Pope, the King and the Synods, which treat the problems of his time (ibid. 9 ff.); furthermore, some historical works.

The Life of St. Remigius (ibid. 125, 1129-88; MGH, Script. rer. Merov., III, pp. 239-341) is merely a work of edification. The Annals of St. Bertin, continued by him from 861 to 882, written in an convoluted style, testify to a penetrating spirit and a broad vision (MGH, Script. rer. Germ. in usum schol., IV [1883], pp. 55-154).

Lucchesis Spalding