the hopelessly corrupt and fatal times of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, which led to the break-up of the sixteenth.  Thus to the great question, What is the Church? he gave without hesitation, and gave to the end, the same answer that Anglicans gave and are giving still.  But he added two points which were then very new to the ears of English Churchmen:  (1) that there were great and to most people unsuspected faults and shortcomings in the English Church, for some of which the Reformation was gravely responsible; (2) that the Roman Church was more right than we had been taught to think in many parts both of principle and practice, and that our quarrel with it on these points arose from our own ignorance and prejudices.  To people who had taken for granted all their lives that the Church was thoroughly “Protestant” and thoroughly right in its Protestantism, and that Rome was Antichrist, these confident statements came with a shock.  He did not enter much into dogmatic questions.  As far as can be judged from his Remains, the one point of doctrine on which he laid stress, as being inadequately recognised and taught in the then condition of the English Church, was the primitive doctrine of the Eucharist.  His other criticisms pointed to practical and moral matters; the spirit of Erastianism, the low standard of life and purpose and self-discipline in the clergy, the low tone of the current religious teaching.  The Evangelical teaching seemed to him a system of unreal words.  The opposite school was too self-complacent, too comfortable, too secure in its social and political alliances; and he was bent on shaming people into severer notions.  “We will have a vocabularium apostolicum, and I will start it with four words:  ‘pampered aristocrats,’ ’resident gentlemen,’ ‘smug parsons,’ and ’pauperes Christi’.  I shall use the first on all occasions; it seems to me just to hit the thing.”  “I think of putting the view forward (about new monasteries), under the title of a ‘Project for Reviving Religion in Great Towns.’  Certainly colleges of unmarried priests (who might, of course, retire to a living, when they could and liked) would be the cheapest possible way of providing effectively for the spiritual wants of a large population.”  And his great quarrel with the existing state of things was that the spiritual objects of the Church were overlaid and lost sight of in the anxiety not to lose its political position.  In this direction he was, as he proclaims himself, an out-and-out Radical, and he was prepared at once to go very far.  “If a national Church means a Church without discipline, my argument for discipline is an argument against a national Church; and the best thing we can do is to unnationalise ours as soon as possible”; “let us tell the truth and shame the devil; let us give up a national Church and have a real one.”  His criticism did not diminish in severity, or his proposals become less daring, as he