Why should they have been thrown into such extreme rage against Charles, who, from the beginning of his reign, wished only to maintain such a government?
And why not at least compound matters with him, when, by all his laws, it appeared that he had agreed to depart from it?
especially AS he had put it entirely out of his power to retract that resolution.

It is in vain, therefore, to dignify this civil war, and the parliamentary authors of it, by supposing it to have any other considerable foundation than theological zeal, that great source of animosity among men.

The royalists also were very commonly zealots; but as they were at the same time maintaining the established constitution in state as well as church, they had an object which was natural, and which might produce the greatest passion, even without any considerable mixture of theological fervor.
The former part of this footnote was in the first editions a part of the text] [Footnote 11: NOTE K, p.221.In some of these declarations, supposed to be penned by Lord Falkland, is found the first regular definition of the constitution, according to our present ideas of it, that occurs in any English composition; at least any published by authority.

The three species of government, monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical, are there plainly distinguished, and the English government is expressly said to be none of them pure, but all of them mixed and tempered together.

This style, though the sense of it was implied in many institutions, no former king of England would have used, and no subject would have been permitted to use.