In another letter, the Bishop of Rheims, with entreating, and not less earnest words, endeavors to draw him away from his belief, writing: “Desist from preaching this (namely, that infants may not be baptized), the mere thought of which is awful; desist from scattering the flock of Christ (meaning thereby, through error, the Roman church), lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee; and do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. _H. Mont., page 82_, from _Cent. Magd., Cent. 9, pages 157, 158_. Also, _Bapt. Hist., page 545_.
From these two letters it appears that Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, had not only departed from the doctrine of infant baptism, but also earnestly preached against it, so that many of the Roman church, particularly at Laudun, became his adherents; for, what did the Bishop of Rheims mean by writing: “Desist from preaching this,” but to say that Hincmar of Laudun should cease preaching against infant baptism? What else does he indicate when he says: “Desist from scattering the flock of Christ, lest the destruction of all the people come upon thee?” Certainly, these words indicate that many had already left the Roman church on this account, yea, that the state of things was such that all the people at Laudun adhered to this doctrine.
Moreover, from the last letter we see, how firmly, and almost immovably, said Hincmar must have stood, at Laudun, in his doctrine and belief against infant baptism, seeing such great endeavors were made to draw him away; now by presenting his belief in the most odious light, as though he preached things the mere thought of which was awful; now by flattery: “And do not, from excessive love for thy belief, sever thyself from,” etc. But whether through this he was in any wise turned away from his belief, we have not been able to ascertain; hence we will let the matter rest.
In reference to what he may have taught with regard to other points, we can, on account of the default of history, give nothing certain; it is sufficient for us, that in those perilous times he dared oppose the common Roman church, by rejecting infant baptism, and that much people adhered to him therein, as has been shown above.
_A. D. 867._--We have now come to the year in which an uncommon and quite unexpected matter is mentioned by ancient writers, of which we will forthwith give an account. Just now, for the year 860, we told of a certain champion of the Roman superstitions, especially of infant baptism, namely, Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, who, once and again, by express letters, immoderately accused another Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, because the latter refused to baptize infants, and would also not allow them to be baptized, though they were in danger of dying. This same person now, seven years after making the above accusations respecting the non-baptizing of infants, opposed the Pope, not only in one point, but in many, among which infant baptism may also have been. Concerning this P. J. Twisck, from other authors, writes thus: “Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, opposed Pope Adrian II. in many points, in defense of the truth. He charged him with innovation, saying that he could not be Bishop and King at the same time; that he should have nothing to do with secular affairs.” _Chron., 9th book, page 305, col. 2_, from _Hist. Georg., fol. 314, Catal. Test., fol. 52_.
It is a pity and to be lamented, that the ancients have not left us more information regarding the particular points maintained by Hincmar, Bishop of Rheims, against the Pope, and, consequently, also against the Roman church.
It would not be very surprising, if among the points maintained by him against the Pope, the denial of infant baptism was one; for, when he, seven years before that, accused Hincmar, Bishop of Laudun, for not baptizing the infants, the latter apparently, either from the holy Scriptures, or by conclusive arguments, demonstrated to him the groundlessness and vanity of infant baptism in such a manner that he may easily have attained to very different views, not only in regard to infant baptism, but also in other points which were maintained after the manner of the papists. But as this is not clearly indicated, we will not discuss it any further, but leave it as a probable conjecture. Moreover, it is not our purpose to justify said Bishop in every article of religion, nor to declare him orthodox on the whole; but to show that the same person who had previously so stoutly defended the Roman church and the papal superstitions, especially in the matter of infant baptism, now dared attack not only the Roman church, but even the Pope, who is called its head, and to oppose him in many points, as has been shown. With this we take our leave of Hincmar of Rheims.