most people on all sides now agree in; and as to their temper and theology, from what most churchmen would now agree in.  Whatever allowances may be made for the difficulties of their time, and these allowances ought to be very great, and however well they may have done parts of their work, such as the translations and adaptations of the Prayer Book, it is safe to say that the divines of the Reformation never can be again, with their confessed Calvinism, with their shifting opinions, their extravagant deference to the foreign oracles of Geneva and Zurich, their subservience to bad men in power, the heroes and saints of churchmen.  But when all this is said, it still remains true that Froude was often intemperate and unjust.  In the hands of the most self-restrained and considerate of its leaders, the movement must anyhow have provoked strong opposition, and given great offence.  The surprise and the general ignorance were too great; the assault was too rude and unexpected.  But Froude’s strong language gave it a needless exasperation.

Froude was a man strong in abstract thought and imagination, who wanted adequate knowledge.  His canons of judgment were not enlarged, corrected, and strengthened by any reading or experience commensurate with his original powers of reasoning or invention.  He was quite conscious of it, and did his best to fill up the gap in his intellectual equipment.  He showed what he might have done under more favouring circumstances in a very interesting volume on Becket’s history and letters.  But circumstances were hopelessly against him; he had not time, he had not health and strength, for the learning which he so needed, which he so longed for.  But wherever he could, he learned.  He was quite ready to submit his prepossessions to the test and limitation of facts.  Eager and quick-sighted, he was often apt to be hasty in conclusions from imperfect or insufficient premisses; but even about what he saw most clearly he was willing to hold himself in suspense, when he found that there was something more to know.  Cardinal Newman has noted two deficiencies which, in his opinion, were noticeable in Froude.  “He had no turn for theology as such”; and, further, he goes on:  “I should say that his power of entering into the minds of others was not equal to his other gifts”—­a remark which he illustrates by saying that Froude could not believe that “I really held the Roman Church to be antichristian.”  The want of this power—­in which he stood in such sharp contrast to his friend—­might be either a strength or a weakness; a strength, if his business was only to fight; a weakness, if it was to attract and persuade.  But Froude was made for conflict, not to win disciples.  Some wild solemn poetry, marked by deep feeling and direct expression, is scattered through his letters,[24] kindled always by things and thoughts of the highest significance, and breaking forth with force and fire.  But probably the judgment passed on him by a clever friend, from the examination of his handwriting, was a true one:  “This fellow has a great deal of imagination, but not the imagination of a poet.”  He felt that even beyond poetry there are higher things than anything that imagination can work upon.  It was a feeling which made him blind to the grandeur of Milton’s poetry.  He saw in it only an intrusion into the most sacred of sanctities.