In a lecture, Reformed theologian and church historian Douglas Kelly says:
Hincmar controlled a council – it was not a really representative council. He stacked it. […] The semi-Augustinian, proto-Arminian folk at Quiercy under Hincmar declared against the sovereign grace people.1
He's referring here to the Second Council of Quierzy, which produced statements not in alignment with Reformed soteriology. Thus as a Reformed theologian he sides with the Augustinian Gottschalk of Orbais against Hincmar and this council.
I'd like to know what the basis is for this claim – did Hincmar take steps to exclude from this council those who disagreed with his views on election and predestination? If so, how did Hincmar do this?
Assuming such steps were taken, presumably Hincmar (and those who agree with him) will conclude that these actions were justified, just as Hincmar's opponents (then and now) will argue that they weren't. So I'm trying to understand what Hincmar actually did, not if he was right to do it.
- Medieval Theology, lecture 11, "The Carolingian Renaissance: Sovereign Grace and Predestination," minute 27.