PARKER (Samuel), an English clergyman, who, by a temporizing spirit, aided by excellent parts and considerable learning, raised himself to the bishopric of Oxford. He was born September 1640, at Northampton, where his father John then practiced the law. John had been bred to that profession, in one of the temples at London; and, being afterwards against the king, was made a member of the high court of justice in 1649, where he gave sentence against the three lords, Capel, Holland, and Hamilton, who were beheaded. During Cromwell's usurpation, he was made an assistant committee man for his county. In 1650 he published a book in defence of the new government, as a commonwealth, without a king or house of lords. June 1655, when Cromwell was declared protector, he was appointed a commissioner for removing obstructions at Worcester-house in the Strand, near London, and was sworn sergeant at law next day. January 1659, he was appointed one of the barons of the exchequer by the Rump-parliament; but, upon a complaint against him, was quickly displaced. However, he was again regularly made sergeant at law, on the recommendation of Chancellor Hyde, at the first call after the restoration. In the mean time, he carefully educated his son Samuel among the Puritans in Northampton; whence, being fit for the university, he was sent to Wadham college in Oxford, and admitted, in 1659, under a presbyterian tutor. Here he led a strict and religious life, entered into a weekly society, then called the Gruellers, because (as Wood observes) their chief diet was water-gruel; and it was observed that he put more gruel in his porridge than all the rest. They fasted and prayed, and met at a house at Halywell, where he was so zealous and constant at prayers, sermons, and sacraments, that he was esteemed one of the most precious young men in the university. He took the degree of A. B. February 28. 1659-60. Upon the restoration, he hesitated what side to take; but continuing publicly to speak against Episcopacy, he was much discountenanced by the new warden Dr Blandford, who had been appointed to that office upon the dawn of the restoration in 1659. Upon this he removed to Trinity college, where, by the advice of Dr Ralph Ruthwell, then a senior fellow of that society, he was rescued from the prejudices of an unhappy education, which in fact he publicly avowed in print. He then became a zealous Anti-puritan, and for many years acted the part of what was then called a true son of the church. In this temper, having taken the degree of M. A. in 1663, he entered into holy orders, resorted frequently to London, and became chaplain to a nobleman; continuing to display his wit upon his old friends the Presbyterians, Independents, &c.
In 1665, he published some 'philosophical Essays,' and was elected a member of the Royal Society: these Essays, he dedicated to Sheldon archbishop of Canterbury, who became his patron; and in 1667 made him his chaplain. Being thus in the road to preferment, he left Oxford, and resided at Lambeth,
under the eye of his patron; who, in 1670, made him archdeacon of Canterbury, in the room of Dr Sancroft, afterwards archbishop. November the same year, he put himself in the train of William prince of Orange, who visited Cambridge, and had the degree of D. D. conferred upon him there. November 1672, he was installed a prebendary of Canterbury; and was made rector of Ickham and Chatham in Kent by the archbishop much about the same time. He was very obsequious to the court during the reign of Ch. II. and upon the accession of his brother to the throne, he continued the same servile complaisance; and he soon reaped the fruits of it in the bishopric of Oxford, to which he was appointed by James II. on the death of Dr Fell in 1686, being allowed to hold the archdeaconry of Canterbury in commendam. He was likewise made a privy-counselor, and constituted by a royal mandamus president of Magdalen-college in Oxford. These favours, however, were the price of his religion, which he scrupled not to offer up a sacrifice to his ambition. In this new change, he became one of the Romish mercenaries, prostituting his pen in defending transubstantiation, and the worship of saints and images. The Papists made sure of him as a proselyte; one of whom says that he even proposed in council, whether it was not expedient, that at least one college in Oxford should be allowed Catholic, that they might not be forced to be at such charges, by going abroad to study. In the same way, having invited two Popish noblemen, and one of the church of England, to an entertainment, he drank the king's health, wishing a happy success to all his affairs; adding, that the Protestant religion in England seemed to him to be in no better a condition than that of Buda was before it was taken, and that they were next to Atheists who dared to defend that faith. Nay, so shameful was his conduct, that the cooler among the Romanists condemned it as too hot and precipitate. For example, Father Peter, a Jesuit, and privy-counselor to King James, in a letter to Father la Chaife, confessor to Louis XIV. writes thus: "The bishop of Oxford has not yet declared himself openly; the great obstacle is his wife, whom he cannot rid himself of; his design being to continue a bishop, and only change communion, as it is not doubted but the king will permit, and our holy father confirm; though I don't see how he can be farther useful to us in the religion he is in; because he is suspected, and of no esteem among the heretics of the English church: nor do I see that the example of his conversion is like to draw many others after him, because he declared himself so suddenly. If he had believed my counsel, which was to temporize for some longer time, he would have done better; but it is his temper, or rather zeal, that hurried him on to it." Accordingly his authority in his diocese was so very insignificant, that when he assembled his clergy, and desired them to subscribe an "Address of Thanks to the King for his Declaration of Liberty of Conscience," they rejected it so unanimously, that he got but one clergyman to concur with him in it. Bishop Burnet represents him to be a man of no judgment, and of little virtue; and as to religion rather impious: that he was covetous and ambitious, and seemed to have no other sense of religion but as a political interest, and
Parker a subject of party and faction. He seldom came to
Parliament. prayers, or to any exercises of devotion; and was so
proud, that he grew insufferable to all that came near
him. (But this must be read with caution.) No
doubt but the ill success he met with, in pushing on
the design to introduce Popery, ruined him, as well
as his royal master: the latter lost his crown by it,
and the bishop his life; for, falling into contempt
with all good men, trouble of mind threw him into a
distemper, of which he died unlamented at Magdalen-
college, March 20. 1687. He sent, however, a
Discourse to James, persuading him to embrace the
Protestant religion, with a Letter to the same pur-
pose, which was printed at London in 1690, 4to.
He wrote several pieces, in all which Burnet allows
that there was an entertaining liveliness; thought at
the same time he accompanies that favourable censure,
as his manner is, with a "But it was neither grave
nor correct." Yet Dr Nichols's remark cannot be dis-
putted, and may be extended to the present time,
"that he has but few readers at this day." And Swift
observes, that Marvell's remarks on Parker continued
to be read, when the book which occasioned them was
long ago sunk. He left a son, Samuel, an excellent
scholar, and of singular modesty; who married a book-
seller's daughter at Oxford, where he resided with a
numerous family of children; to support which, he
published some books, with a modest Vindication of
his father. One of his sons is now, or was lately, a
bookseller at Oxford.