172 Bishops of Old Sarum. 
It is no part of my subject to explain the cause of the quarrel 
between the Red King and Archbishop Anselm. The question of 
investitures was one on which, at the first, different views were taken 
by men equally well affected towards the interests of the Church.! 
It is certain that Osmund at one time felt that Anselm, of whom he 
had been one of the consecrators, was needlessly scrupulous, and 
so sided with the king, his near kinsman. The Lateran Council, at 
which Anselm had been present, had however decided that investi- 
tures should not be made by the king. And so as time went on, 
and it became evidently a dispute between the righteous man and 
the unrighteous—between the man who was ready to saerifice all 
for what he felt to be his duty, and the man into whose mind duty 
never entered, but whose whole and simple intention was to make 
the interests of the Church subservient to his own—then Osmund 
boldly took his side with the saintly Anselm. And so when the 
archbishop was on his way to Windsor, whither he had been sum- 
moned to meet the king, Osmund followed hiin, and asked his for- 
giveness. They turned, as Eadmer tells us, into a little Church by 
the way, and there, kneeling before the archbishop, Osmund con- 
fessed his error, and received the good man’s blessing.” 
A year after this occurrence, we find Osmund fearlessly exercising 
his ministry as the chief pastor of his flock. Certain leading men, 
accused, rightly or wrongly, of a conspiracy against the king’s life, 
were, with a savage and indiscriminating ferovity, some exiled, some 
put to death. The king’s kinsman, Count William of Eu, who had 
served him so well in his foreign wars, was appealed of treason by 
Geoffrey of Baynard before the assembled “ witan ” at Salisbury and 
being worsted in the judicial combat, was blinded and foully 
1 «¢ The particular shape of this dispute,” says Mr. Freeman, ‘‘ was impossible 
in earlier times. When the Church and nation were in the strictest sense two 
aspects of the same body a dispute between Church and State could hardly have 
arisen. But the Conqueror had brought in a new policy in ecclesiastical matters. 
By separating the ecclesiastical and temporal jurisdiction, he had taught men 
that Church and State were two distinct bodies, which, being distinct, might 
possibly be hostile.”—** Norman Conquest,” v. 129. See also iy. 438. 
2 Church’s Life of Anselm, p. 216, 
