Henry Sacheverell's Sermon Analysis

1711 Words4 Pages

Henry Sacheverell’s sermon on November 5th 1709 caused shock and outrage throughout the country. Sacheverell was an otherwise undistinguished Anglican parson. He was arrested for printing and provocative an ( as described by those in power) treasonous sermon, which he had preached twice already, the second time he preached was in front of the London Mayor on November 5th 1709. November 5th was a day in which traditionally was a Whig Holiday. On this day preachers would give a sermon which outlined the dangers of popery in commemoration of the failed gunpowder plot and the successful landing of William III at Torbay. The reason Sacheverell’s ‘Perils of False Brethren’ was so controversial was that he quickly dismissed these at the beginning of his speech in order to focus on what he perceived as the more important issues. The main emphasis of Sacheverell’s sermon was on criticisms against ‘fanatics’ and the condemnation of the ‘false brethren in both church and state’ both of whom Sacheverell considered to be a much greater danger than the ‘acknowledged enemies’ as identified by the Whigs. The most offence message from the sermon was the impugning of the glorious revolution, as Sacheverell denied that It had involved resistance against King James II. As well as this Sacheverell challenged the religious settlement that had resulted from the Glorious Revolution, mainly the ‘toleration act’ which had provided freedom of worship to protestant dissenters; ‘disparaging the queen's ministers by insinuating that they were false brethren of the English church.’ Sacheverell was prosecuted for treason due to this speech, with the death sentence a very real possibility due to the nature of this sermon. However, he was given a relatively g...

... middle of paper ...

...evel of outrage. It gives support to the idea that much of the population were passively obedient and that now the chance had arisen they were willing to vent all the frustrations they had against the system in support for Sacheverell. Therefore, the value of this piece is to prove that just because there were not a great number of uprisings and rioting at this time, it does not mean that the population were not unhappy with the regime. It serves to prove for the most part they would be ‘passively obedient.’

Whilst in the century following Sacheverells’ sermon there was a great number of analysis’ of both his work and the effect that it had, by the end of the 19th century serious study of this controversial work had left the ranks of historians and was left to the realm of bibliographers. There is no doubt that Sacheverells’ sermon was controversial, the

Open Document