and a great body of the common people, who may be said to be constitutionally loyal, were for the monarch. He had thus the two ends of the chain, but wanted the middle and connecting links. The parliament was supported by the inferior gentlemen in the country, and by the body of merchants, freeholders, and tradesmen, in all the principal towns and manufacturing districts. Among these persons, religion had much greater influence than it had either on the highest or the lowest ranks. Whatever power the love of political liberty exercised, it was the apprehension of danger to religion, which chiefly roused them and filled the army of the parliament. The body of the persons who were called Puritans, and precisians; and who discovered by their conduct that they were in earnest on the subject of religion, adhered to the cause of the parliament. On the other hand, the gentry, who were not so precise-who scrupled not at an oath; who loved gaming, plays, and drinking; and the ministers and people, who were for the King's book, and for dancing and recreations on the Lord's day; who went to church to hear common prayer, and relished a sermon which lashed the Puritans-these for the most part opposed the parliament.

The difference between the two parties was very strongly marked, it arose from the opposite characters which they sustained, and accounts for many of the events which occurred. "There is somewhat," says Baxter, " in the nature of all worldly men which makes them earnestly desirous of riches and honours in the world. They that value these things most will seek them; and they that seek them are more likely to find them than those that despise them. He who takes the world and preferment for his interest, will estimate and choose all means accordingly; and, where the world predominates, gain goes for godliness, and serious religion, which would mortify their sin, is their greatest enemy. Yet, conscience must be quieted, and reputation preserved; which cannot be done without some religion. Therefore, such a religion is necessary to them, as is consistent with a worldly mind: which outside formality, lip service, and hypocrisy, are; but seriousness, sincerity, and spirituality, are not.

"On the other side, there is that in the new nature of a believer, which inclineth him to things above, and causeth him to look at worldly grandeur and riches as things more dangerous than desirable. He is dead to the world, and the world to him, by the cross of Christ. No wonder, therefore, if few such at

tain to greatness, or ever arrive at much preferment on earth. They are more fearful of displeasing God than all the world, and cannot stretch their consciences, or turn aside when the interest or will of man requireth. As before, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit; so it was here. The rabble of the great and little vulgar did every where hate those that reproved their sin, and condemned them by a holy life. This ignorant rabble, hearing also that the bishops were against the Puritans, were the more emboldened against them. They cried up the bishops on this account, and because they loved that mode of worship which they found most consistent with their ignorance and carelessness. Thus, the interests of the bishops, and of the profane people of England, seemed to be twisted together."

The majority of the Nonconformists and serious people were opposed to the prelates, and those who espoused their side; because the high-church party derided and abused them; because so many scandalous and incompetent men were among the conforming clergy; because the piety and talents of the Nonconformist ministers, many of whom had been silenced, were more distinguished than those of the other party; because they liked a scriptural mode of worship better than the liturgy, though they did not deem it unlawful; because the bishops' courts made fasting and prayer more perilous than swearing and drunkenness; because they regarded the bishops as supporters of the book of sports, and discouraged afternoon lectures even by conforming ministers; because when they saw bowing at the altar and other innovations introduced, they knew not where they would end; and, because they saw that the bishops approved of ship money and other encroachments on their civil rights.

These were the true and principal reasons why so great a number of those persons who were counted most religious fell in with the parliament; and why the generality of the serious, diligent preachers joined it; not taking arms themselves, but supporting it by their influence and their presence. The King's party, indeed, alleged that the preachers stirred up the war; but this is far from correct. It is true, they discovered their dislike to many corruptions in church and state; and were glad that the parliament attempted a reformation of them. But it was conforming ministers who did even this; for the bishops had ejected most of the nonconforming ministers long before. Those who made up the Westminster assembly, and who were

the honour of the parliamentary party through the land, were almost all such as had till then conformed.

Names of contempt and reproach, as might be expected, were plentifully used on both sides at the beginning and during the continuance of this unnatural war. Rebels and roundheads were the common appellations bestowed on the parliamentary party, in addition to Puritan and formalist. Malignants, cavaliers, dam-mes, were the designations used or retaliated by the other.1

Reasons, many and various, were assigned for the lawfulness of the war by both parties; and men generally adopted that side to which their interests or their feelings chiefly inclined. Those who opposed the war on the part of the Commons, were of different sentiments. Some thought no king might be resisted; others that our king might not be resisted, because we had sworn allegiance and submission to him; and a third party, which granted that he might be resisted in some cases, contended that a sufficient case had not been made out. They maintained that the law gave the king the power of the militia, which the parliament sought to wrest from him; that the commons began the war by permitting tumults to deprive the members of their liberty, and to insult the king; that the members of parliament are themselves subjects, and bound by their oath of allegiance; that it is not lawful for subjects to defend religion or reformation against their sovereign by force; that it is contrary to the doctrine of Protestants, the practice of the ancient Christians, and the injunctions of Scripture, to resist the higher powers; that the King was falsely accused as if he were about to destroy liberty, religion, and parliaments; that the allegations of Papists respecting the rebellious tendency of Protestantism were supported by this war; that it proceeded from impatience and distrust of God; and that religion is best promoted by patient sufferings.

*The term Roundhead was bestowed either because the Puritans usually wore short hair, and the royal party long; or because some say, the Queen, at Strafford's trial, asked, in reference to Prynne, who that round-headed man was, who spoke so strougly. The device on the standard of Colonel Cook, a parliamentary officer, was a man in armour cutting off the corner of a square cap with a sword. His inotto was Muto quadratu rotundis.

1 Fuller's derivation of Malignant is in his usual witty style; "The deduction thereof being disputable; whether from bad fire, or bad fuel, malus ignis, or malum lignum: but this is sure, betwixt both, the name made a great com. bustion."

Some of these reasons are plausible, and others have considerable force; they are partly derived from the constitution of England, and partly from the nature and obligations of religion. To all of them the writers on the side of the parliament replied at great length; and justified the resistance of the people to the arbitrary measures of government, on other and unanswerable grounds. Instead of stating these at length, I shall here give the reflections of Baxter, which embrace the strength of them, in his own words.

"For my own part, I freely confess that I was not judicious enough in politics and law to decide this controversy. Being astonished at the Irish massacre, and persuaded fully both of the parliament's good endeavours for reformation, and of their real danger, my judgment of the main cause, much swayed my judgment in the matter of the wars; and the arguments à fine, et à natura, et necessitate, which common wits are capable of discerning, did too far incline my judgment in the cause of the war, before I well understood the arguments from our particular laws. The consideration of the quality of the persons also, that sided for each cause, did greatly work with me, and more than it should have done. I verily thought that if that which a judge in court saith is law, must go for law to the subject, as to the decision of that cause, though the king send his broad seal against it; then that which the parliament saith is law, is law to the subject about the dangers of the commonwealth, whatever it be in itself.

"I make no doubt that both parties were to blame, as it commonly falleth out in most wars and contentions; and I will not be he that will justify either of them. I doubt not but the headiness and rashness of the younger inexperienced sort of religious people, made many parliament men and ministers overgo themselves to keep pace with those Hotspurs. No doubt but much indiscretion appeared, and worse than indiscretion in the tumultuous petitioners; and much sin was committed ́in the dishonouring of the king, and in the uncivil language against the bishops and liturgy of the church. But these things came chiefly from the sectarian, separating spirit, which blew the coals among foolish apprentices. And as the sectaries increased, so the insolence increased. One or two in the House, and five or six ministers that came from Holland, and a few relicts of the Brownists that were scattered in the city, did drive on others,

and sowed the seeds which afterward spread over all the land."

"But I then thought, whoever was faulty, the people's liberties and safety should not be forfeited. I thought that all the subjects were not guilty of all the faults of king or parliament when they defended them: yea, that if both their causes had been bad as against each other; yet that the subjects should adhere to that party which most secured the welfare of the nation, and might defend the land under their conduct without owning all their cause. And herein I was then so zealous, that I thought it was a great sin for men that were able to defend their country, to be neuters. And I have been tempted since to think that I was a more competent judge upon the place, when all things were before our eyes, than I am in the review of those days and actions so many years after, when distance disadvantageth the apprehension." "

It is evident from these statements, that Baxter was a decided friend to the parliamentary cause. The reasons which influenced his judgment were those which probably guided the determination of the great body of persons who espoused that side, in the momentous controversy which then divided the country. Many of those who were incapable of judging in the numerous political questions and altercations, which the grand subject involved, were well enough qualified to form an opinion respecting the substantial merits of the difference between the king and the people. The love of religion, and the desire of liberty, were the great inspiring principles. The resistance which they met with only increased their vigour, and thus in

It is very singular that Baxter should attribute so much evil to the dissenting brethren of the Westminster assembly, and the sectaries of whom they were the reputed leaders, especially after his own account of the former state of things which we have given. The civil wars produced or occasioned the sects, not the sects the wars. The long parliament had taken some of its strongest measures before the five Independent ministers returned to England from Holland. A good while must have elapsed after their return before their influence could extend far; and without violent and unreasonable opposition to their fair and moderate request for a toleration, their influence at no time would have been great. Compared with many of their opponents, both their language and their temper were moderate; and it might be easy to show that the exaggerated lamentations and insulting abuse of their adversaries were calculated to produce, and actually did produce, a worse effect on the country than anything done by the Independents either in or out of parliament. On this subject further particulars will be furnished in a subsequent part of this work.