g 128. THE BERENGAR CONTROVERSY. 563
view of Gregory's conduct in 1079, but must be understood of the per sonal sympathy shown him before and after in the last commendatory letters. B. then goes on to express confidence in the pope's salvation, and forgives him his defection, which he strangely compares with the separa tion of Barnubas from Paul. u Sed, quantum mihi videor novisse hominem, de salute homiuis cerium constat, quicquid illi prejudicent, qui, secundum dominicam scntentiam \Matt. 23: 24], culicem culantes, camelum sorbent. In Christo lesu, inquit Apostolus [Gal. 6: 15], neque circumcisio est aliquid, neque preputium, sed nova creatura. Quod ilium fuixse, quantum ilium noveram, de misci'icordia presumo divina. Discessit a Paulo Barnabas [Acts 15 : 39, 40], ut non cum illo secundum exteriorem commaneret hominem, nee minus tamen sccundum intcriorem hominem Barnabas in libro vitce pcrmansit." In remembrance of Gregory's conduct in forcing him at the Roman Council in 1079 to swear to a formula against his convic tion, he asserts that the power of the keys which Christ gave to Peter (Matt. 16: 19) is limited. The binding must not be arbitrary and unjust. The Lord speaks through the prophet to the priests (per prophetam ad prelatos): "I will curse your blessings (Mai. 2: 2: maledicam bcnedictionlbus vcstris)." From this it follows necessarily that He also blesses their curses (Ex quo necessarium const at, quod etiam benedicat malcdictionibus talium}. Hence the Psalmist says (Ps. 109: 28): "Let them curse, but bless thou." The blessed Augustin, in his book on the Words of the Lord, says: "Justice solves the bonds of injustice;'' and the blessed Gregory [I.] says [Homil. XXVI.]: "He forfeits the power to bind and to loose, who uses it not for the benefit of his subjects, but according to his arbitrary will (ipsa hac ligandi atque solvendi potentate se privat, qui hanc non pro subditorum moribus, sed pro sued voluntatis motibus exercet}.' Berengar thus turns the first Gregory against the seventh Gregory.
Plildebrand's real opinion on the eucharistic presence can only be inferred from his conduct during the controversy. He sincerely pro tected Berengar against violence and persecution even after his final condemnation; but the public opinion of the church in 1059 and again in 1079 expressed itself so strongly in favor of a substantial or essential change of the eucharistic elements, that he was forced to yield. Person ally, he favored a certain freedom of opinion on the mode of the change, provided only the change itself was admitted, as was expressly done by Be rengar. Only a few days before the Council of 1078 the pope sought the opinion of the Virgin Mary through an esteemed monk, and received as an answer that nothing more should be held or required on the real presence than what was found in the Holy Scriptures, namely, that the bread after consecration was the true body of Christ. So Berengar reports; see Mansi, XIX. 766; Gieseler, II. 172; Neander, III. 519. (The charge of Ebrard that the pope acted hypocritically and treacherously towards B., is contradicted by facts).
564 FOURTH PERIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
The same view of a change of the elements in a manner inexplicable and therefore indefinable, is expressed in a fragment of a commentary on Matthew by a certain "Magister Hildebrand," published by Peter Allix (in Determinatio loannis prcedicatoris de modo existendi corp. Chrisli in sacramento altaris. Lond., 1686). " In this fragment," says Neander, III. 511, "after an investigation of the different ways in which the conversio of the bread into the body of Christ may be conceived, the conclu sion is arrived at, that nothing can be decided with certainty on this point; that the conversio therefore is the only essential part of the doc trine, namely, that bread and wine become body and blood of Christ, and that with regard to the way in which that conversion takes place, men should not seek to inquire. This coincides with the view which evidently lies at the basis of the cardinal's proceedings. But whether the author was this Hildebrand, must ever remain a very doubtful ques tion, since it is not probable, that if a man whose life constitutes an epoch in history wrote a commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, it should have been so entirely forgotten." Sudendorf, however (p. 186), ascribes the fragment to Pope Hildebrand.