[1385] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 30. “Properate igitur, et quod dicitis citius facite, ut cum viderit se a cunctis despectum et desolatum, verecundetur, et ingemiscat se Urbanum me domino suo contempto secutum.”
[1386] “Et quo ista securius faciatis, en ego primum in imperio meo penitus ei omnem securitatem et fiduciam mei tollo, ac deinceps in illo vel de illo nulla in causa confidere, vel eum pro archiepiscopo aut patre spirituali tenere volo.”
[1387] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 30. “Paterno more diligentiam, animæ illius curam, si ferre dignabitur, habebo.”
[1388] “Ad hæc ille respondit,” says Eadmer; but it can only mean an answer through messengers, as it is plain that the King and the Archbishop were still in different rooms.
[1389] “Omnino adversatur animo meo quod dicit, nec meus erit, quisquis ipsius esse delegerit.”
[1390] The answer of the lay lords must be taken as a formal setting forth of their position; one would be glad to know whose are the actual sentiments and words. It runs thus (Eadmer, 30);
“Nos nunquam fuimus homines ejus, nec fidelitatem quam ei non fecimus abjurare valemus. Archiepiscopus noster est; Christianitatem in hac terra gubernare habet, et ea re nos qui Christiani sumus ejus magisterium, dum hic vivimus, declinare non possumus, præsertim cum nullius offensæ macula illum respiciat, quæ vos secus de illo agere compellat.”
[1391] “Quod ipse repressa sustinuit ira, rationi eorum palam ne nimis offenderentur contraire præcavens.” This is perhaps a solitary case of recorded self-restraint on the part of William Rufus, at all events since the death of Lanfranc. It is significant that it should be in answer to the lay lords and not to the bishops.
[1392] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 30. “Episcopi hæc videntes, confusione vultus sui operti sunt, intelligentes omnium oculos in se converti, et apostasiam suam non injuste a cunctis detestari.” It must be remembered that apostasia is a technical term, meaning, besides its usual sense, a forsaking of his monastic vows and calling by a professed monk. Eadmer speaks of the bishops as guilty of a like offence towards their metropolitan.
[1393] The picture is very graphic; “Audires si adesses, nunc ab isto, nunc ab illo istum vel illum episcopum aliquo cognomine cum interjectione indignantis denotari, videlicet Judæ proditoris, Pilati, vel Herodis horumque similium.” One of the bishops had been likened to Judas some years before on somewhat opposite grounds.