Chapter 4 Chapter 4 England
The English Civil War in the 17th century is one of the most endlessly read topics in history.Also because of the wide range of deeds involved, the overlapping of various opportunities, and the delicate and detailed records of many aspects, it is extremely difficult to analyze and deal with.For example, all kinds of turmoil before and after the riots are closely related to the teachings advocated by the Puritans. The thoughts and actions of the Puritans have long been recognized as a force to promote capitalism.That being the case, can we directly say that the cause of the Civil War was the rise of British capitalism, and that the Roundheads were directly or indirectly tools of the capitalists?
On the eve of the guillotine, Charles I bid farewell to his two young sons and daughters (the queen and two older princes had taken refuge in another country).We can still imagine his 10-year-old son's answer to him in tears. On January 30, 1649, London was bathed in the winter sun, but preparations for the guillotine were delayed for some time.Because Charlie did not recognize the authority of the court when he was tried in the special court.The executioner was also afraid that he would resist in the end, so he added nails to the guillotine and put ropes inside, preparing to bind the king if necessary.This kind of preparation was all superfluous, and Charlie was very cooperative before his execution. He even took out a silk nightcap to wrap his long hair inside.He also told the executioner that he should not do it immediately when he lay his head on the block, and that he would pray silently.Once the prayer is over, he will stretch out his hands, and this is the time to use the axe.So the process was all in accordance with the arrangement, and it was completed at 2:04 in the afternoon.
The king, abandoned by fate, said words of forgiveness to his enemies before his execution, hoped that the British people could enjoy their freedom, and asked the living to hold a national religious meeting. These plots, even after more than 300 years, are still unavoidable. Heartbreaking.
Charles Stuart was extremely headstrong, lacking political integrity and influenced by the Queen of France.He was defeated and captured in the Civil War and saw through the inability of the opposition to unite.It was hoped to reap the benefits of a split in a hostile lineup in which Parliament was dominated by a faction of the Presbyterians, while the Roundheads were controlled by in-dependents (later congregationalists).His queen bought horses and recruited soldiers abroad, and he himself had other arrangements for the Royalists in Ireland.This trick was seen through by Cromwell, and Charlie stepped down.
But on the other hand, Charles I was also a standard husband and a good father. He had a pious belief, and his concept of the divine right of the king also made him stick to his own beliefs. He did not beg for death at the last moment.There are these touching and contradictory aspects of historical figures and deeds, which can also make future historians influence their writing according to their emotional choices.And history readers have choices due to the environment they live in. For example, sometimes advocating freedom and sometimes respecting tradition and discipline can also cause differences in views on the same historical site.An example I am citing now is Maurice Ashley, the current British historian, who is an authority on Cromwell.When he was young, he wrote "Oliver Cromwell: The Conservative Dictator" (Oliver Cromwell: The Conservative Dictator), which had nothing good to say about Cromwell, and even his private life was criticized in the book. The cost of marrying a daughter is extravagant, and other behavioral policies have similar harsh criticisms. Twenty years later, Ashley wrote a new biography, entitled "The Greatness of Oliver Gromwell".The previous book was written under the shadow of Mussolini and Hitler, so I couldn't help but push my hatred of dictatorship to historical figures.While we admire Ai Shili's confession, we will inevitably be more wary when reading history in the future.
There are so many historical materials in Britain that it is easy for laymen to daunt us.Various announcements and records have long been preserved in the library archives, and private diaries and letters can be released in large quantities, so letter histories, unofficial histories, memoirs, and local histories can be published individually or as a whole.In the past hundred years, it has been analyzed into the categories of intellectual history, economic history, legal history and so on.However, new information is still being discovered. For example, Lewis B Namier found household expenditure bills from the documents of past politicians, and from this batch of information, based on their figures and relationships, they can determine their party affiliation and interests. Cheng's words also caused many young scholars to follow suit.GP Gooch wrote the book "English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century" (English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century), that is, refer to the political leaflets issued on the day in one place, as many as 30,000 pieces.
Because of the above-mentioned various complicated factors, British historians pay more attention to analysis than synthesis.It is not surprising that there are sects produced due to expertise in academics, which are the same at all times and in all over the world.Since British writers have researched subtleties, it is normal to be impatient with others' superficial explanations.However, when we study capitalism today, we have to make a high degree of compression on the history of Britain in the 17th century, so that we can see the general character of capitalism recognized today in the international arena, as well as the expression of the Kingdom of England and the British nation at the time of the transition from the old to the new. Characteristics.Capitalism developed considerably in 17th-century England; this development is not manifested in any particular event, but rather at the beginning of the century (beginning with the arrival of James I from Scotland as king in 1603) and at the end of the century There is a large difference between the extremes (you can use 1689 as the highest point).The organization of this country has not caught up with the times at the beginning of the century, and there is no generally accepted plan. All kinds of disputes are mostly concentrated on a principle and an abstract concept, and religion is the exterior and interior.In the latter part of the century, the above problems were not completely resolved, but they were gradually clarified.Therefore, it has become a generally accepted principle that the Church of England governs the Episco-Pacy system with bishops and does not ban other denominations, and the embryonic form of modern political parties also emerged at this time.If capitalism contributes to this, it must be a comprehensive reform through many aspects and aspects of the whole society, rather than the "spirit of capitalism" or "capitalist mode of production". A careless concept may be explained clearly.
Under such circumstances, we are not experts in British history, but onlookers.Moreover, China is also facing a substantial change in the 20th century.The population of Britain in the 17th century is estimated to have increased by about 50%, from about 4 million to 6 million.There are religious disputes, but it remains a Christian country.On the surface, this cannot be compared with the changes in China in the 20th century.But the changes on both sides involved ideas, beliefs, internal affairs, diplomacy, society, economy, and the legal system—in a word, each of them included a complete transformation of the whole, which was unprecedented in history.And because of the long experience, even insiders cannot describe all the experiences in detail.In these respects, the experience of the two should be able to reflect each other.
The bumps in China for more than 100 years began with the Opium War.Historians trace the origin of the influence of the West on China, and they may have different views on British history.That is to say, the reforms and facilities, the strengths and weaknesses of the other side can have a long-term effect on the development of China in the future, and should be regarded as a part of Chinese history. are Chinese) may continue to make progress in this direction.Moreover, the large scale of Chinese history and the breadth of mind it bestows on historians can best balance the subtlety of Western historians.I just re-arrange well-known deeds within the established subject matter from an objective standpoint to suit the system of this book and integrate consistent views, not to mention rewriting history.
In 1603, Queen Elizabeth I of England died, and the Tudor dynasty ended, and the throne was succeeded by James I, which was the beginning of the Stuart dynasty.James is the grand-nephew of Elizabeth, commonly known as cousin (cousin) according to Western customs, and he is also the king of Scotland.This is also the method of the dynastic state. Britain and the Soviet Union have not yet merged at this time, and each has its own judicial, legislative and administrative agencies.
James regarded himself as a scholar, and once wrote the "True Law of Free Monarchies" (True Law of Free Monarchies), which extremely advocated the divine right of kings.The book explains that monarchy comes before the hierarchy of superiority and inferiority, and is higher than private property. Therefore, a free monarch is not subject to the intervention of external emperors, nor is he subject to coercion and restraint from his subordinates.His autocratic style conflicted with many citizens who wanted freedom and liberation, which put the Stuart dynasty in a disadvantageous position in public relations.
Roughly speaking, the various distant causes of the civil war and the establishment of the Republic of China have all been foreshadowed in James's reign, and some factors can be traced back to several centuries ago.British society was originally a mixed feudal system (the country was divided into counties [shire], and there was also a militia [militia]).This kind of feudalism did not exist in Chinese history.Some European scholars believe that it was formed when the Germanic nation invaded southwest Europe and overlapped with the remains of the Roman Empire.Therefore, its lower end shows the type of tribal organization, but its upper end vaguely shows some national central structures.The biggest feature of this system is the subordination relationship with a contractual nature, such as the knight service (knight service) of the vassal to the lord (lord), with 40 days of compulsory service every year. The Magna Carta of the 13th century stipulated the king's rights in detail, which was also based on the spirit of this contractual relationship.
But by the time of James' succession, the above situation had already changed.The original reason for knight duty is that the vassals have fiefs (fief or fee), and they can support them with soil.This can only be done under the conditions of the competitive nature of the medieval war and the sloppy mobilization of simple logistics. It will be useless before the Hundred Years War between Britain and France at the latest. Otherwise, Edward III would not need to borrow a lot from the Italians (see Chapter 2 on Florence). Support his military.
Since Magna Carta was promulgated in 1215, the same monarchs have slightly revised it and promulgated it no less than 40 times according to the law, but once it came to the Tudor Dynasty, it was never mentioned again.It turns out that the two powerful monarchs of the Tudor dynasty, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, father and daughter reigned for 83 years, accounting for most of the 16th century. They won the hearts of the people. Henry confiscated many monasteries during the Reformation Part of the property was sold during her reign, and Elizabeth continued to sell it.She personally adopted a sound policy and dealt with Parliament with tact and tact, so the Tudor dynasty never had a conflict between the crown and the legislature until the Stuart dynasty conflict broke out, and Elizabeth was in debt at the time of her death. 400,000 pounds .
The British Parliament is not originally a legislature.According to the custom of the Middle Ages, the law always has the precedents of the past. Anything that has not been done before can not be done if it is questioned now, and there is no need for a legislature.The king convened the parliament because of the occurrence of special problems, which required representatives from all walks of life to participate in consultations, and sometimes relied on it to judge special cases.The convening is irregular, and it is only an obligation for members to attend the meeting.The House of Lords is the House of Lords, an assembly of titled and senior monks.In the past, most of the land in the country was under their names, so their status was important. Now, titles and titles are bestowed by the king, and they can also be purchased with money. In short, the wealth controlled by the upper house is declining day by day, and its prestige is also declining.The House of Commons is the House of Commons, consisting of the gentry of each county, two people from each county, called knights of the shire, and burgesses of each borough.They rose in status because the wealth of the country gradually fell into their hands.On the eve of the Civil War, it is said that members of the House of Commons once said about the House of Lords: "We can buy them at three times the price!"
Since it is a feudal system, its political power exists in parallel with the form of splitting the soil and land occupation, and real estate cannot be sold at will.But in the Middle Ages, many people took advantage of technical loopholes to break away from this bondage.Not to sell in name, the seller still claims to be the lord, but "seals" the land to the buyer as an attendant. Buying a rose in summer" can also be counted.A legalist once said that the courts of English common law have a long history of "stacking fictitious matters on top of fictitious matters to avoid the burden of history".
By the 16th century, fiefdoms (manor can also be translated as a manor, but its nature is completely different from that of a Chinese manor) could be freely mortgaged, but there were infinite complications in it. The crux of the problem was that the feudal system collapsed early , but many feudal habits have not been eliminated.The so-called "lifetime property holders" (freeholders), the situation is still simple, frankly speaking, they are the owners who own the land, they can freely buy and sell, and can also freely inherit (the land should be returned to the fief if the immediate relatives die master, but in fact cannot be executed).Even so, the land still deserves the land rent that should be paid to the fiefdom, but the amount is so small that it is no longer worth asking.The most problematic ones are the "copyholders". Most of them are descendants of villein (not called serfs in this book, but transliterated from serf, see Chapter 3), because there are Their name, they hold the copy, or say that someone has this copy somewhere, that is the basis for occupying the land.The owner of the fiefdom may deny its basis, expel it, or impose a rent fee, which is called "fine" (entry
fine), or force them to change directly to tenancy, shorten the tenancy period, increase the rent when it expires or not renew the tenancy.However, in the feudal era, although the husbandmen did not own the land, their grandparents had the right to cultivate the land, and they could not be expelled by changing to a lease.Although they have an obligation to the fiefdom, this obligation varies greatly from place to place, even within the fiefdom, it may also be different.Their general insecurity was a fairly serious social problem both before and after the Civil War.
Another important factor is that the price of British crops increased four to six times from 1500 to 1600, and the upward trend has not yet stopped.In addition to the above-mentioned complex relationship between land sovereignty and leasing, there was a huge difference in the management of real estate at this time. Some farms increased their rent by ten times within a hundred years, while others did not increase at all.All in all, in the feudal society, apart from farming and eating, most of the agricultural production maintained the respective social status of the people involved, and very few people made profits through commercial exchange.The situation had changed under the Tudors, and even more so by the Stuarts.Because this country has gradually developed from a natural economy to a financial economy.
Enclosures have historically been considered a major cause of social unrest by displacing small farmers.Because the enclosure cancels the common land, the small people lose their pastures, and the private land they get is small and inconvenient to operate, so they have to sell it to the big landlords at a low price. All the enclosed land is converted into pastures, and the need for labor is reduced, causing Unemployment problem.However, according to recent research, this is not the case. Land enclosures are beneficial and harmful, and the situation varies from place to place. Some land enclosures are still initiated by farmers on their own initiative, and there are cases of changing from farms to pastures and from pastures to farms.And after the enclosure, using bushes to form hedges, adding drainage ditches, and changing the terrain does not reduce work, but requires more labor.In short, the enclosure began before the 16th century, passed through the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, and was completed at the beginning of this century. It is a necessary step for population increase and land use rationalization. Most of the problems in the 17th century were due to the dismantling and division of fiefdoms, the ambiguity of the privileges bought and sold, and the inheritance of the land by the tenants. The customary courts only recognized the use rights (seizin) of the current occupants, but could not clarify the ownership.As a result, ordinary farmers were in constant panic, and some were also dismissed.The owners of some fiefdoms did not know where the real estate was, nor could they find a tenant.Landlords living on fixed incomes were already struggling to make ends meet.At this time, speculators and landlords who were officials and businessmen benefited from the chaos and became a new class of gentry (gentry).
The inability of the rural economy to merge with new commerce was also a cause of social disarray.As a rule of customary law, crops can only be sold at a "fair price" through the established market, and private transactions are not allowed, and the organization of the market cannot be repeated.At this time, the urban population surged. For example, London increased from 60,000 to more than 200,000 from 1500 to 1600, and doubled after 40 years. ) have made considerable contributions to the economic communication between various regions, but their lives are extremely unstable and their lives are not guaranteed.Customary law was originally a product of feudal society and has no experience in dealing with modern business.Without proper procedures to dispose of movable property, the property will be handed over to the lender (mortgagee) after the heir pawns, and the borrower (mortgagor) will lose the right to use it.Bankruptcy and insurance are of course out of the question. Even if you sue the other party for breach of contract, you must prove that you have actually lost money. The opportunity lost due to breach of contract cannot be counted, and the litigation period is often very long, often up to 10 years.In addition, society still discriminates against itinerant businessmen.
All the above signs show that the difficulties encountered by Britain in the early 17th century can certainly be regarded as a legal system problem, that is to say, the society has evolved, and the legal system has not caught up, causing disorder.But the actual development has already surpassed this generalization.It involves not only laws and institutions, but also the nature of the social body that laws and institutions govern.Under such circumstances, the 16th and 17th centuries in Britain are similar to the 19th and 20th centuries in China.People at the top are still arguing about how to deal with this problem, but the organizations at the bottom have already emerged, and their development has surpassed the historical experience of the parties involved. Only then did the civil war break out, and the disputes are also mixed with many religious overtones.
James I and Charles I convene Parliament due to financial difficulties, pending the approval of new tax laws by Parliament.According to medieval custom, the king usually paid the fee out of his own income.The king of England has always been the largest landowner in the country, directly controlling 1/6 of the real estate. When the Tudor dynasty confiscated the temple property, it might be as much as 1/5.However, after nearly a hundred years of sales, wear and tear, and the fact that the remaining land is scattered, it is difficult to produce the effect of leasing at this time. The traditional income of the king is probably only 200,000 pounds per year, plus customs duties, which is the so-called "ton tax and tax". Pound tax (tonnage and poundage), that is, shipping bills are measured in tons and imported goods are measured in pounds. About 200,000 pounds can be collected every year.However, the king's expenses also required 500,000 to 600,000 pounds in normal times in the early 17th century.If an international war breaks out, the military expenditure will cost as much as 1 million pounds.Britain still had no standing army at this time, and the organization of the navy was just getting a head start. Therefore, the royal family's treasurer was stretched and often had debts of more than 1 million pounds.It was also said that the king lived extravagantly and rewarded his favorites excessively, but these accusations cannot deny the fact behind it, that is, the financial organization is too old to integrate with the current situation when the functions of the government are urgently needed.
On the day of Elizabeth's reign, Parliament was only authorized to discuss finance and taxation, and all religious and diplomatic matters were handled by it.In the Stuart dynasty, the power of the king was greatly reduced. When the king convened a meeting due to financial problems, the parliament often questioned the king's administrative policy before answering the king's financial needs, and brought up religious and diplomatic issues during the debate.On the one hand, James and his son were unpopular, on the other hand, it also shows that the times have changed. In the 17th century, Britain was in an environment of internal and external troubles, and its subjects no longer ignored this matter that was related to the lives of the people of the whole country.
The 17th century was also the era of Puritan activities. At the beginning of the century, the king of England, the Church of England and the universities stood on one side, and the Parliament and the Puritans formed opposition on the other side.But as soon as this topic is mentioned, historians find it difficult, because Puritanism itself is an elusive term, that is, experts also call it "unreliable and unprovable", and some people think it is "the capital of usury". Fountains of doctrine and enterprise whose currents lead progressive democracies and social unrest."It is true that the above situations all occurred in the seventeenth century in England, but the speaker did not know how to integrate these unrelated factors together.Tawney once said that the thought of the Middle Ages in Europe was to form a hierarchical system of values (hierar-Chy of values) with various human activities and interests, and the economy was only one of the factors, and at the top of this system, it was religion.Readers are still at a loss.
Under these circumstances, it is best to broaden your horizons and first admit that man is a religious animal.The religion mentioned here is a religion in a broad sense, including tangible and intangible organizations, thoughts of entering the world and being out of the world, as long as it covers the ultimate purpose of life and directly or indirectly leads to the essentials of a relationship with others, it may be fine. Treat it with religion.It is a noble revolutionary idea or an obvious superstition, as long as it is condensed into a "highest" and "final" purpose and has the power to attract some people, it will not lose its broad sense of religion.When I was young, I ignored the religious character of the Chinese people. Later, when I was studying and doing things, I was close to the religious life of the West. I asked myself to understand that Chinese Confucianism and habits are also a kind of religion.I also remembered that in the mainland of China, the folks enshrined the "God of Heaven, Earth, Monarch, Parents and Teachers" on the eaves of houses. It has been more than 20 years since the Republic of China, and the worship has not ceased.When they got married, the man still used the red paper "Wen Wang Ceremony". Although Buddhist rituals were used for funerals, the "clothing with filial piety" was still in accordance with the regulations of the autocratic era.At this time, I read the regulations on investigating magistrates in the history of the Ming Dynasty, and I easily noticed that they paid attention to the ability of officials to change customs.Zhu Houcong, Emperor Jiajing, refused to admit that he had inherited Hongzhi and respected his own parents, which aroused opposition from the officials and almost caused a constitutional crisis.However, the criminal laws of the Ming and Qing Dynasties still followed the Han and Tang dynasties, using the closeness of the "five clothes" as the standard of judgment.In the early years of the Republic of China, warlords sent telegrams to the whole country, and their diction still began with "every father and elder in the country". What Lu Xun and Chen Duxiu opposed was the abuse of Confucianism.Even when Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew government clashed with the Western press, there was still a conflict between the Confucian collective concept of "come from a hundred workers and let people far away" and the individualism praised by Christianity.Even Western novels about Chinese people, such as "Good Earth" and "Hawaii", still use the habit of sons inheriting their fathers' inheritance and obtaining immortality through blood relations as their themes.What Zeng Zi said, "Be careful in the end and pursue the future, and the people's morality will be strong" is constantly reappearing in the above-mentioned deeds.Nixon once said: Chinese people tend to imagine for thousands of years, while Westerners only care about decades, which is really reasonable.
One of the principles behind this is that no country in the world can rely entirely on its iron palm.Even if it is a literary inquisition and spy politics, the judges who preside over the referee and the minions of the secret agents believe that their own work has social value.It is also impossible for most of the people to spur and monitor at any time in their daily life.The rules it follows must be coordinated behind the scenes.This power is what we call religion in the broad sense.
Strictly speaking, the feudal system in the European Middle Ages was nothing more than a system in which the occupants of various classes inherited their social status and maintained their managers for a long time.The lower government was indistinguishable from the houses of the lords of each fiefdom.The method of the dynastic country is that the leaders can be far apart and not related, and its people include different races and use different languages (the Hundred Years War was caused by King Edward III of England trying to control Normandy in France; until the rise of Napoleon, the King of England still claiming to be King of France).So religion is more important.At that time, the whole people belonged to the parish and paid tithes to the church. The church had the authority to provide for life and death, register each person's birth and marriage, inheritance and other civil matters, and could also punish believers.Believers who are absent from worship are especially punished.Therefore, the church is not only a disguised form of government, but its function exceeds that of ordinary government.
In the 17th century, Britain suffered from internal and external troubles, and the lack of religious affairs was also one of the factors.A century ago, Luther proposed the Reformation, which had exposed the credibility of the Holy See.However, Luther's theory that believers are elders and Calvin's fate have destroyed the entire Christian organizational system for more than 1,000 years.Christianity does not rely on the Chinese people to obtain eternal life in the blood relationship, but focuses on personal redemption.It can also be said to obtain spiritual eternal life in the relationship between the individual and God through a mystical explanation.However, freedom of conscience is a personal matter, and there is no formal agreement. Therefore, religion loses its generality and sociality, and it is difficult to become a force that agrees on the living habits of the whole people.For example, the Lord's Supper is an important ritual of worship in Christianity.The historical Christ had the last supper with his disciples. He gave them bread and wine and said, "Eat, this is my body!" and "Drink, this is my blood!" Middle Ages The theologian who created the "transubstantiation" (transubstantiation).Among them, trans is change, and substance is substance.The metamorphosis theory holds that monks gave bread and wine to believers, and these substances are actually the flesh and blood of Christ.Luther did not recognize this statement, but he still believed that Christ would indeed come when the Holy Communion was celebrated, so believers must have faith (faith), that is, they must open their hearts and accept the grace of God.But the Lord's Supper can also be regarded entirely as a commemorative ceremony, which does not involve the coming of Christ.Because of these differences in views, ritual differences arise during worship.Even the bread and wine should be given to believers one by one by the priest himself, or passed by the elders; whether the table should be placed horizontally or vertically, can cause serious disputes.
The Reformation of Henry VIII a century ago added complicated factors to the delicate relationship.Henry once aspired to be the Holy Roman Emperor, but failed in this aspiration, and wanted to make his confidant Cardinal Thomas Wolsey the Pope, but also failed, so he broke with Rome on the grounds of divorce.He also stopped paying the pope's annulment in advance, and confiscated the property of the church afterwards.These financial calculations and nationalistic considerations outweigh the theological trade-offs.Henry also claimed to be the head of the Church of England, and regarded himself and his successor as half Pope.In the future, even if the king of England wanted not to interfere with the affairs of the church, he would not be able to do so.
After Henry's death, the religious policy of the Tudor dynasty underwent intense and repeated fluctuations, and many believers were killed or went into exile overseas. The invasion of the Spanish fleet in 1588 was related to religious issues (on the other hand, Elizabeth sent troops to aid the Netherlands, see Chapter 3 for details).In the end, Elizabeth's compromise was still in vain.The Thirty-nine Articles and the Book of Com-on Prayer promulgated by the Church of England are still ambiguous between predestination and free will.Still wanting to be neutral between Catholics and Calvinists.It's just that religious matters are difficult to be neutral, and people's reactions to theological explanations are often unpredictable.If whether a person can be saved or not depends entirely on predestination, then the matter of faith is indeed a personal matter, and the bishop is superfluous.On the contrary, if it is transferred with free will, church discipline is still very important, and monks also have their uses.James I said that "there is no bishop and no king" is aimed at the future.
In the future, the issue of church organization will be dominated by three factions: (1) The episcopacy maintains the current system and inherits the Roman tradition. The old bishops are handed down to the new bishops. (2) The Presbytery adopts the Calvinist organization. The church is composed of elders and deacons, each of whom is elected by the believers. There is still a national organization, but it is not interfered by the king. (3) Independents (later developed into Congregationalists) took the style of determinism a step further. The presiding officers of each church were elected by the believers in various places. There was no national organization, and there were independent small churches everywhere.Cromwell is this faction, and most of his soldiers are this faction.
The Puritans were not limited to the above sects.The independent faction is the backbone, that is, the more moderate Church of England monks, who do not insist on abolishing the bishops, but only seek reforms in other areas, and are still a branch of the Puritans.In addition, various denominations such as Ouakers and Baptists are Puritans.All in all, the Puritan movement began in the Elizabethan era, spread to the Americas, and reached its peak during the Civil War in the 17th century.They generally believe in destiny, but the Puritans cannot become a unique group based on theology. They focus on purifying the church, removing all kinds of pretense, and do not believe that the Holy Communion may produce miracles. They try to preserve the system described in the Bible and strictly prohibit it. Entertainment on Sunday (James at this time advocated that believers should entertain themselves with various sports after worship).
All of the above experiences are lacking in Chinese history.Today we are reviewing its records, in some respects it is unavoidable to say that it is making a fuss out of a molehill.To give a negative example: when ordinary Westerners read Chinese history, they are also amazed by the "great etiquette" of Emperor Jiajing of the Ming Dynasty.Jiajing did not call Hongzhi "Huang Kao" but called it "Huang Bo Kao", which caused a lot of struggle among officials. Officials from the Imperial Academy went to petition and said that "the use of the country to support scholars is today", so that more than a hundred people were sentenced to death. More than ten people died unexpectedly.Although this matter is not as long-term as the Puritan movement, it has been debated for several years. In the eyes of outsiders, it is a big deal.The reason for this is that religion includes all kinds of highest values and final views, which cannot be divided or divided into big and small, but cannot be compromised.
Cromwell initially disagreed with the idea that the Civil War arose out of religious issues, and he gradually accepted it later.From this, we can also imagine that religion in England in the 17th century was a wide-ranging and elusive thing.If this were not the case, a major leader would not have jumped into battle lightly, let alone be told the true meaning of his actions years later.Another saying at this time is, "Anything that is moldy and rotten is always involved in the bishop's foot."However, there are positives and negatives. If the scope of religion is wide, it can also be said that the humanistic factors of the day were pure, so a slight adjustment to the arrangement would involve a religious issue.The Puritans did much to maintain their own direct connection with God.Therefore, they have always opposed the involvement of kings and bishops, and they will not allow anyone to replace sculptures and works of art. If they react violently at this time, it is because in the past, various rituals of worship have been distorted and abused under the guise of authority.
Under such circumstances, the future development can be foreseen: that is, the Puritan movement repeatedly refuted James I's theory of the divine right of kings, so before the civil war broke out, the King of England was already in a passive position, and even in terms of spiritual mobilization. Already defeated without a fight.
Diplomatic relations are also implicated in religious issues.
In the 17th century, the three main countries in Western Europe—the Netherlands, France, and Spain—had been in an atmosphere of hostility and war with each other for a long time.Britain's contacts with them at this time are even more in a peculiar situation. At any time, it will find one or two countries as enemies, and it can also become allies at any time.The main reason for this is that the customs of the dynastic state are out of date, and the organization of the nation-state is not ready.The method of dynastic countries is to make marriage arrangements between the royal families, during which economic assistance is undertaken in the form of dowry, and disputes are also mediated in the form of family affairs. The relationship between relatives replaces alliances and can also influence third parties on international occasions.However, the nation-state's diplomacy is premised on the interests of the country and backed by money and force. The activities of envoys and spies are frequent and the participation of the whole people is the most expensive.On the day of the conflict between the Stuart dynasty and the Parliament, the king could say that the Parliament ordered him to do things, although he did not expressly say so, but he was stingy with paying.The parliament can also say that the royal family regards state affairs as family affairs, and the measures on international occasions go against public opinion, and the people are required to pay instead.
In the 17th century, many British people were not only afraid of the king insisting on the system of bishops sent by the Church of England, but also afraid of restoring Catholicism. At the end of the 16th century, Catholics launched many reforms and regained a lot of lost ground for the Holy See, which was called "Counter-Reformation" in history.At this time, the King of England advocated the divine right of kings, which tended to bring Britain back under the wing of Catholicism.According to past experience, if this kind of movement is successful, many people's lives and property will be affected, so rumors arose in the 17th century.However, King James of England stopped the war against Spain, failed to propose marriage to the Spanish royal family for Charles, and married a French princess for Charles, all of which were unpopular and suspicious.His German son-in-law was promoted as the king of Bohemia as a Protestant. Although he had the spiritual support of Sweden and the Netherlands, he was no match for the intervention of the Holy Roman Empire, which led to the Thirty Years War.But King James did not send troops to rescue.The relationship between Britain and the Netherlands is even more special.Although both belong to Protestantism, they are rivals in fishery and navigation, as well as in the management of overseas colonies. In the end of the 17th century, Britain also fought three wars with the Netherlands.Under such circumstances, anyone who presides over state affairs will inevitably encounter an embarrassing situation, and the unpopularity of the Stuart dynasty made this situation worse.
Charles succeeded to the throne in 1625, and his prestige was even lower. Although he married France, he supported the Huguenots (French Protestants) and could not please both parties in France, so he made his policy of uniting France against the West. Unable to implement, had to end the war against Spain in 1630.当时议会里的反对派，也算是清教宗，很多人在西印度群岛投有重资，西班牙军队在此登陆，等于打击了他们苦心经营的成果。他们在查理不召集议会的11年间，经常借公司营业会商的机会讨论政治，于是又把各人在商业上的损失与国王迫害清教徒的事实连成一气。
这几十年英国为向大陆进军，在各地强迫征调兵员，而其衣服粮秣未备，政府又长期欠饷，以致作战时缺乏纪律，有时将士抗命，在国内又驻扎于民间，百般骚扰，与中国军阀时代的情形有很多相似之处。
如果与苏格兰及爱尔兰之间的问题可以算作外交，则英国的内战也可以说是终因外交上的问题而发难。詹姆士一世在位22年，他和议会的冲突已经快要决裂。查理一世又因为议会不合作，一味评议他的政策，而于1629年解散议会，之后11年间未召集议会。他用罚款方式，向各人单独的“劝捐”及收取“造船费”等等办法搜集经费。这些办法虽犯众论，但只要他不借议会之助而能应付财政上的需求，大家痛恨他却又无可奈何。最后这种局面则为苏格兰的问题所打破。
查理受大主教劳德（Willam Land）主使，对苏格兰教会加紧管制。因为国王既相信君权神授，“作之君，作之师”，而且兼为两国之国王，不能在两国作法不同。可是苏格兰教会向来以长老会的形式存在，詹姆士虽派有主教，也未变更其实质。查理的改革则牵动了很多仪式及组织，也间接妨碍了不少苏格兰地主的利益。这种行动所引起的反抗，演成一种签“誓约”（Covenant）的运动，参加的人立誓保全苏格兰教会及长老会的组织，一时如火燎原。查理派兵讨伐，反被苏格兰军队打入英格兰境内。苏格兰人对国王的要求为每日军费850镑，直到这“主教战争”（bishop's War）获得解决之日为止。因此查理在1640年召集两次议会。5月初的议会称短期议会（Short Par-liament）。国王原来希望议会为他筹饷，批准战费，但事与愿违，议会反攻击查理对国事的措施，所以查理将之解散。11月再召集之议会，则称长期议会（Long Parliament）。因为苏格兰的问题未能解决，国王只能再度召开议会。长期议会经过不少波折，可是概言之即是日后与国王对立发生内战、弑君，被克伦威尔整肃解散，却又在1660年再度召开，宣告本身应当解散，而召集下一届（复辟议会）之议会，前后经过20年。
就在长期议会召集之次年，即1641年，爱尔兰发生变乱，查理一世准备征讨。1642年议会通过“民兵法案”（Militia Ordi-nance），军事权完全掌握在国王手中。于是查理北行，在诺丁汉（Nottingham）成立行营，内战由此展开。
英国内战前夕，各种事迹穿插曲折，牵涉的人物，脾气性格复杂，容易引起读者猜想，是否事实之展开一定要如历史所决定之程序。其中也好像千头万绪，稍微安排之不同，即可以使以后之结果发生至大之差异。
可是300多年以后的今天，我们回头检阅这些事迹，就会领会到历史之戏剧性与历史逻辑不同。也就是革命之浪漫史不一定与革命之结局相符合。放在个人经历的立场，其事实千变万化。可是从长时间、远距离、大视界的眼光看来，虽然各事时机仍不可预测，也有其神秘性，可是其中瞻前至后贯穿纵深的因果关系，则又似乎可以一目了然。
查理一世在苏格兰接受誓约时曾说：要是此事他尚不能干预，则英国国王之地位将与威尼斯之统领无异。而以后之发展也确实如此。立宪君主制，国王只是仪式上的领袖。而且政教分离，也是宗教独立派之始祖布朗（Robert Browne）所提倡的宗旨。可是很难想象17世纪一个以农立国的国家可以像一个自由城市一样的管理。英格兰国王成为英格兰教会之首长，至查理也已100年，要是此时说他应当置祈祷膜拜之事于不顾，只要安心做富贵闲人，也未免不近人情。同时英国又极端的羡慕荷兰共和国，书刊常叙述荷兰的富丽繁华、人民勤奋、自由风气弥漫，甚至霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）也认为英国人艳羡荷兰城市是英国革命的原因之一。然则荷兰由于过去无统一之政府及法制，向来各省自主，才可能由城市领导乡村。而英国企图效法，反有无处着手之感。
这种种不可能之事日后逐渐成真，当中经过内战、弑君、革新为民国、复辟和第二次革命彼此牵连的各种大事，英国社会之本质也在动荡中改组，这种改组，不能说与资本主义无关。
在这种情形下，我们无法以个人之贤愚不肖解释历史。只能将英国17世纪的经验看作一种极大规模的组织与运动，而在其发展中窥见历史长期的合理性。
查理·斯图亚特缺乏诚信，可是他对民瘼之关心又很难否定。同时，不少为他尽忠的人士虽冤死而不辞，如前爱尔兰总督斯椎夫德伯爵（Earl of Strafford），更可见得国王之作为，也不是毫无原则。查理的宗教政策大都受大主教劳德影响。劳德关心小民之生计，反对圈地。对宗教之事，注重纪律，认为英格兰教会应保持其全国一致之仪式，并且主教的组织万不可缺。从这些条件上讲，我们纵然评判他们不合潮流，也不能遽尔说他们的保守立场即是居心叵测。
法律不能畅行，实是内战无法避免的最大原因。英国的法律和中国的不同，他们没有每个朝代各自立法的习惯；法律是自古至今一脉相承的。但是他们也没有将社会各部门统一归并的法庭，而是教会有教规法庭，封建有领主法庭，商人有市长法庭，国际贸易有海事法庭等。迄至16世纪已有不少整顿，都铎王朝将司法权集中。可是一般来说，全国性之法庭仍分两大类，执行习惯法之法庭有民事法庭（Court of Common Pleas）、王座法庭（King's Bench）（这两者之间区别微妙，也在长时间不断改变，有时同一案件可能由当事人挑选其一投入诉讼），和财政大臣的法庭（Court of Exchequer，专受理与国王收入有关之案件）。习惯法根据封建组织里的农村习惯，成例较僵化，各法庭动作较为迟缓。补救的办法，是在国王名下另设几个职责不同的法庭。内有皇廷大臣的法庭（Court of Chancery，皇廷大臣［Chancellor］主持国王的礼拜，他掌握此法庭，表示以国王之良心作主，接受特殊的案件），高级委员会的法庭（Court of High Commission，专管宗教上的事宜），和星房法庭（Star Chamber，专管政治犯）等，以及其他几个关系较轻的法庭。
这群组织统称特权法庭（prerogative courts）。它们审判案件，一般脱离习惯法而根据平衡法（equity）。平衡法本身非法律，只代表一种法律观念，简概的可以“以天理良心行事”综括其宗旨。这中间的分野则是习惯法根据过去成例堆砌而成，凡事都要合法（legal，合法则是有过去之事例可援，合理与否，不再计较），平衡法则须要合理（equitable）。
表面看来习惯法的程序与内容已不合时宜，特权法庭乃为弥补其缺失而设。在斯图亚特王朝之前，皇廷大臣之法庭已邀请习惯法之律师参加合作，财政大臣的法庭也有接受平衡法的趋向。可是17世纪的纠纷一开，只因“特权”这个字，也可以使两方分手对立。星房和高级委员会也可以说是平衡法的刑事法庭。它们之成立，是由于习惯法缺乏对付煽动变乱（sedition）和惩戒诽谤（libel）等处置。可是在查理一世的时代，这些法庭惩罚政治犯及宗教犯，尤其是惩罚擅印挑拨性的传单之作者，惨极人寰。判无期徒刑的不说，带枷和鞭挞割耳黥面等刑的大有人在。虽说这些刑法也曾行于都铎王朝（所以它们并非不合法），但时代已变，至此引起极大的反感。所以争端一展开，很多习惯法的律师（包括法官书记等）站在议会派的一边，与清教徒为盟友。况且他们长期受着习惯法的影响，认为法律不能在政治的压力下低头，也使他们易于同情反对派。
这样一来，议会派和国王争执尖锐化的时候，一方企图酝酿在多方求改革时打开局面，却因袭了一种过了时的法制系统。另一方掌握了能修正法制的工具，却用这工具维持君权神授说，又用以保障赞助极权政治之宗教仪式。而且它之施用肉刑，更是在英国文化史里开倒车。
17世纪初期的经济恐慌，当然只增加了内战的可能性。西欧大陆国际战争之展开，在羊毛没有出路。荷兰商船业兴起，英国倍感压力，英伦海峡之间又多海盗出没。在失业威胁之下，很少人能对国王表示感激。长期议会开会之日，裁决斯椎夫德死刑，伦敦和西敏寺群众麇集，各行业的学徒乘机鼓噪，空气更加紧张。加以谣言纷起，这时候纵有一分将两方冲突性和缓化的可能，也在这动乱的气氛中一扫而光了。
长期议会在这种环境之下开会，对立的形态已成定局，于是反对派以一连串行动通过很多法规，以过去国王之抽吨税与磅税为违法，将好几个特权法庭取消，星房和高级委员会的法庭更不用说，连皇廷大臣法庭亦被提及讨论。只因为这法庭仍有它的用途，才被幸免。前爱尔兰总督斯椎夫德之判死刑，则是长期议会反对国王调爱尔兰军队前来英国镇压反对派，算是给国王及其亲信一个严重的警告。一般刑事程序既不能达到目的，斯椎夫德之死刑采用了“褫穿公民权法案”（Bill of Attain-der）来执行，也就是他的叛国罪只要议会多数同意，毋须缕列证据。此举曾有前例，也算合法。大主教劳德则被监禁5年，终在内战时期处死。议会还怕国王下令终止他们集议，于是通过法案，非经本身同意不能解散议会。
综合这些行动，长期议会已经走上革命的途径。它已经无法利用它目前的威权继续以前的议事程序，也就是以前的议事程序无法容纳现在议会给自己揽纳的威权。爱尔兰变乱再起，议会只有再通过法案将全国的军事性城楼仓库以及军官的派任权收归自身掌管。国王只好离开伦敦，在北边招兵买马，内战于是揭幕。
300多年之后的今日，有关英国之内战可综述如下：
大凡一个国家，必定要有一个上层结构（superstructure）和一个下层结构（infrastructure），当中的联系，有关宗教信仰、社会习惯和经济利害，统以法律贯穿之。总要做得上下合节，首尾一致。要是当中联系不应命，政局必不稳定。补救的办法或改组上层结构，或修正下层结构，再次之则调中层组织，如重订税制，颁行新法律。只是英国17世纪有如中国之20世纪，上层结构（国王、议会和英格兰教会以及军事外交等机构）与下层结构（土地占有、农业生产与分配、商人之权利义务等）同时与时代脱节，中层的社会、宗教、经济、法律各种因素都要重新改组。内战只是这长期改造中颠簸得最厉害的一个阶段。
在这里我们也可以重新考虑以上曾提出的一个问题：什么是清教徒？
中文“清”字，很容易产生误解。英文的purify，实为纯洁化。清教徒有一种将教会洗刷干净的宏愿，他们的运动是一种带着战斗性的群众运动。所以当初因宗教信仰被迫害的清教徒，宁可离开家乡，在北美洲披荆斩棘，另开天地，表现一种双手万能的气概。因之这清教运动必然是一种以“成功”为宗旨的道门（cult of success），也有一种独立的性格。尤其坚信加尔文命定论的人士，他们既划分世人为预先被选得获拯救和被遗弃而遭谴罚的两类，逻辑上他们只能相信自己属于前者，而与他们作对的属于后者。只要他们自己在神前忏悔接受神的慈悲，即为已被选获救的象征。他们自己身后之事既已无庸顾虑，可以专心一致的去证实自己确已获救。严格的来讲，他们的生活并没有另外一种更高尚的目的。清教徒既有了如此心理上的准备，作战时必一鼓作气，做生意也必表彰其赤手致富的精神。离开基督教神学的立场，我们也可以说，在需要强化民族国家，开拓殖民地，成立资本主义社会的17世纪，清教运动适时而生。清教徒摆脱了中古以来一般人在养生送死的程序中，没有选择性的成为教徒的习惯，而在这有机转性的时期中各人经过一段宗教上的灵感和经验，容易将他们的一股信心主动的放在正在他们眼前展开的新世界潮流之中，将各人的冒险性格和独立精神发扬无遗。他们所要求的自由，大致也就是这主动权。
英国内战，不能用阶级斗争的笼统观念概述。照理推论，有家世声望的贵族大地主必较趋向保皇党，新兴的绅士阶级，尤其中级地主和商人，则有倾向于议会派的理由。可是实际的发展不尽如是，长期议会会员站在两方的，并不显示就带着以上不同的社会色彩。有些家庭的成员甚至参与敌对的阵容。虽说英国东南沿海一带，尤其接近伦敦的地区，以同情议会派者居多，西北与新型商业接触少的地方则大致同情国王，这样的对立仍只是一般印象，内中还有无数例外的情事。即是在其中某一方面控制的地区，内中也有不少敌对的人士。所以以后野战和攻城战同时展开。长期议会集会初时一般反抗国王的情绪高涨，可是后来过激派做得太过分，引起反感，也激得不少初时同情议会派的人反而支持国王。所以其取舍并不全由经济利害。
战事初起时双方都无常备军，彼此都以“召列状”（Com-missions of Array）召募军队。一般的情形是地主将他们邻舍佃农武装，给养与马匹也由召集人捐助，议会军则另有统筹的津贴。双方都不缺乏军官，因为很多人曾在大陆参与战事。勤王军最大的损失则是海军不发一矢，全部投效议会军。国王靠外界接济的机缘本来已很渺茫，失去海军之后更为无望。勤王军受英国地主生活影响，善于驰骋狩猎，因此在骑兵战术上占优势。但是他们的资源不充分。战事持久，议会军又逐渐占上风。
战事展开两年仍胜败不分，双方开始寻觅外援。查理一世从爱尔兰人获得的援助至为有限，而且他与天主教人士周旋，引起国内英格兰人的反感。议会则和苏格兰接洽，苏格兰的条件是议会派的人士签字于誓约，承认长老会的宗教组织。协议成功后苏军入境，使北部的勤王军两面受敌，极收牵制之效。但是南部的勤王军仍能采取攻势，也曾数次击败敌军。兵饷没有着落、部队缺乏纪律是两方的通病。很多部队只愿保护家乡，不愿远征，还有很多为部队长一手招募经营，一旦部队长战死，部队即瓦解。
直到1644年冬尽，议会才组织新模范军（New Model Army）。以后，兵饷的发给比较正规化。后勤部队也渐有头绪。普通的士兵都穿制服，严禁向民间劫掠。议会的会员不得兼军职。克伦威尔时则例外。他以中将统率新模范军的骑兵，部下大率由剑桥一带称为“东镇集团”（Eastern Association）之地区募来，将士历经征战，宗教上的信仰则属独立派。因此，他们日后尚要在英国历史上留名。此时则因他们以清教徒的精神施用于战场，获得成果。1645年纳士比（Naseby）一役，他们将查理一世亲自指挥的主力击溃，战后又追奔逐北十多英里，以至对方全部辎重以及国王之书信文件均被俘获。勤王军自此解体。新模范军之出现，显示军队已非私人构成之组织。英国高层机构已有蜕变之势，只是内中仍有问题。
纳士比之后，议会军只从事肃清勤王军残存的城市和碉堡，但是战事仍延至1646年夏天。5月，大势已去，查理化装出走。先南向伦敦行，半途又折向东北，至此他还想觅船航海，未果，最后北行，自投于参加内战的苏格兰军。这时他还以为苏格兰人对他的处置会比较契合。但是苏人留他半年，因为谈判不得要领，将他交给英国议会以换取40万镑之欠饷，然后撤退回国。
国王成为俘虏之后，和他敌对的苏格兰人、英格兰议会和新模范军也开始彼此之间的斗争，前二者在宗教上为长老会所左右；后者则为独立派之中坚。这时候绝大多数英国人仍相信国王是不可或缺的，问题只是立宪君主制的详细内容。查理曾说：“平时治理国家不在刀剑，而在讲道坛。”可见得他深信当日宗教在政治上的重要。他的书牍和行动，也显示他一直没有放弃以主教治国的希望，唯迫于环境，不得不与对方周旋。一到时机好转，他仍准备以主教团支持他的君权神授说。议会里的多数派属于长老会。他们既签有誓约，也觉得虽不用主教，到底也要有一个全国性的宗教组织，如此英格兰与苏格兰教会的事才有彼此交融的可能。
在独立派看来，实行誓约，采取长老会的制度，对他们一样不利。要是因此禁锢他们的教坛和活动，或让他们在全国体制之外自行瞻拜，都是难以接受的。此时全国仍有供奉教会的什一捐。独立派被迫以1／10的收入供全国教会，还要另外自费组织教会，另外出钱请牧师。既有全国教会，则有教区，因此人民之行动也仍受其管制。英国议会虽有一部分由于信仰自由而对国王作战，此时仍下令不许普通人讲解圣经；怀疑基督神性的人，仍会被判死刑。听以宗教的独立派对长老会的多数派也是心存戒惧，也相信他们是想干预人与神之关系。
当这些纠纷尚未解决时，议会提出裁军。各部队开始集中悉听遣散，但对欠饷并没有适当的处置，应募前往爱尔兰服役的士兵少，以独立派为主的军中将士决定自行其是。1647年5月他们派兵强行接收国王查理一世。其次，他们组织军人参政会（Council of the Army），以将级军官及每团其他军官二人士兵二人组成。他们声称除了出入锋镝，既为自由的公民，最低也有对国事说话的权力。于是推克伦威尔为领袖。他们既和议会做到两不相容的地步，回头想与国王交涉可能较为容易。查理则认为陆军与议会意见分歧正是他得利的机缘，果然为其料中，所谓第二次内战于1648年展开。
但是在1647年年终之前，国王查理一世又做了两件失却民心之事。11月间，他从被扣押的地方逃出，出奔威特岛（Isle of Wight），他满以为岛上总督会听其摆布，不料后者仍将之拘禁。12月，他又与苏格兰人签定密约，同意全国实行长老会制3年，且积极压制独立派的信仰。在签订此约之前，他曾致书议会，要他们考虑陆军提出的方案。他不仅出尔反尔，而且暗中央结苏格兰人进兵，对和他交涉的人讲，则是阳用缓兵之计，阴图克害。所以查理日后之被弑，既有历史家誉之为烈士，也有的说他是自食苦果。
然则查理在历史上的地位还算固定。他的一生以君权神授始终。从这出发点，他以马基雅弗利（Machiavelli）的方式（详第五章）和人身关系（personal）的方式维护一种非人身关系的制度（impersonal institution），因之他既为烈士，也系自招其咎。最难的还是阐释克伦威尔的历史地位。他和圆头党以及宗教上的独立派提倡良心自由，在历史上成为一种过渡时期的产物。从长期历史上讲，信教自由开启政治自由之门，而政治上的自由也开经济上放任政策之门，因后者才能实现资本主义，可是这连串的关系，却只能理解，而无法在一人一时一事上找着痕迹。个人的经历受时间和空间的限制，克伦威尔本人行事，有时候尚在前述关系之中表现矛盾状态。
所以克伦威尔对西方物质文明的贡献，还是以间接的在精神方面发生启发作用为主。他的共和（Commonweaith）和护国（Protectorate）都是由环境造成，也不能在历史上长久立足。但是他以自由（liberty）的名义参战，战胜论功，总是归于神之光荣。圆头党军队在战场上唱赞美诗。此中即包涵了一个宗旨：只要各人认为良心无亏，任何应做的事都可以做。但是克伦威尔又不像当日的均平主义者（Levellers）那样完全以理想支配现实。17世纪人文因素尚属简单，在中世纪凡事一成不变的习惯尚未革除之际，他的断然处置和大刀阔斧的胸襟打破了历史上的一个死结。经过他的试验，英国决不能再回复都铎王朝的旧局面了。
如果这种说法过于抽象和空洞，我们不妨在相反方向找出一两个例子，作为较实际的证据。劳德任大主教时，约克大主教曾写信给他：“我发现各处的牧师都在砍伐、更变、修正、节略和增添。”有些荷兰员工受雇在剑桥以北的沼泽地（the fens）做排水的工作。大主教看到这些工人用他们习用的仪式做礼拜，立刻命令他们参加附近的英格兰教会。在这新旧交替之际所谓宗教仪式，代表着不同的社会习惯，也代表着不同的人生观。英格兰教会更怕变更，自己也拒绝对新时代作调整。又根据可靠的来源，克伦威尔于1647年和查理谈判的时候，他曾说出要是荷兰的政治体系能移植于英国，英国人民必蒙其惠。这种话里表示他念念不忘良心自由，而非关怀一种抽象和空洞的观念。尤其与英格兰教会大主教之态度相比，克伦威尔的信仰是他思想的主宰。它既可渗透到政治里，也可以贯穿到商业政策和经济生活中。他和其他的清教徒一样，都以为自己的积极性格概系神赐。在同时代一切都在转变之际，这种信仰也可以发挥于其他的地方。韦伯（Max Weber）说出清教徒之成为资本家，他们不复以赚钱为坏事，而认为是好事。积蓄