hat principle is by which they were animated.

With regard to the people, we can entertain no doubt that the
controversy was, on their part, entirely theological. The generality of
the nation could never have flown out into such fury, in order to
obtain new privileges, and acquire greater liberty than they and their
ancestors had ever been acquainted with. Their fathers had been entirely
satisfied with the government of Elizabeth. 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. Banks and the crown lawyers against
Hambden, in the case of ship money, insist plainly and openly on the
king's absolute and sovereign power; and the opposite lawyers do not
deny it; they only assert, that the subjects have also a fundamental
property in their goods, and that no part of them can be taken but by
their own consent in parliament. But that the parliament was instituted
to check and control the king