Skip to main content



"Without consent of Parliament": the High Church critique of the Personal Rule

Following on from yesterday's post, it is interesting to note both Waterland and Swift in their respective sermons for Restoration Day and the Martyrdom of King Charles I, while giving explicit recognition to the Royal Martyr, are critical of the use of the Royal prerogative during his Personal Rule.

Waterland praised Charles I as the Church's "nursing father" who "had lost his head in defence of it".  This, however, does not prevent him from stating "faults there were, many and great, on all sides".  The first faults he lists are those on the side of the King:
The churchmen and royalists, many of them, for being too full of heat and resentment, for taking unwarrantable steps at the beginning, and making use of unseasonable severities, and some unusual stretches of prerogative; which gave great offence, and first paved the way to our future troubles. 
We might, of course, expect this of Waterland as a Church Whig, albeit his views on those who in the…

Latest posts

"This idea of a liberal descent": the Glorious Revolution, Anglican political theology, and Edmund Burke

All things

"The appointed means of restoring the soul to health": Perceval and Old High Church sacramental vitality

"With a full trust in God's mercy": an Old High Church response to a request for private confession and absolution

One day, three creeds: on the significance of the creeds on feast days

The National Apostasy sermon ... of 1831

"The strange spirit of Erastianism": Perceval on the English Church amidst revolution

"Nature and reason, as well as religion, directs us to do it": Secker on the Litany's petition against sudden death

Against Integralism: the Anglican case for ordered liberty

Generosity and pluralism: why we need the Formularies