Add to these the whole systematized force of the High Church Clergy and all the rude ignorant vulgar in high and low life, who detested every attempt at moral reform,--and it is obvious that the King could not want opportunities to retract and undo all that he had conceded under compulsion.

But that neither the will was wanting, nor his conscience at all in the way, his own advocate Clarendon and others have supplied damning proofs.
Ib.p.

27.
And though Parliaments may draw up Bills for repealing laws, yet hath the King his negative voice, and without his consent they cannot do it; which though they acknowledge, yet did they too easily admit of petitions against the Episcopacy and Liturgy, and connived at all the clamors and papers which were against them.
How so?
If they admitted the King's right to deny, they must admit the subject's right to entreat.
Ib.
Had they endeavoured the ejection of lay-chancellors, and the reducing of the dioceses to a narrower compass, or the setting up of a subordinate discipline, and only the correcting and reforming of the Liturgy, perhaps it might have been borne more patiently.
Did Baxter find it so himself--and when too he had the formal and recorded promise of Charles II.

for it?
Ib.
But when the same men (Ussher, Williams, Morton, &c.) saw that greater things were aimed at, and episcopacy itself in danger, or _their grandeur and riches at least_, most of them turned against the Parliament.
This, and in this place, is unworthy of Baxter.

Even he, good man, could not wholly escape the jaundice of party.
Ib.p.