PAR 
appeared in 1681, and was entitled, “A Demonftration 
of the divine Authority of the Law of Nature, and of the 
Chriftian Religion, in two parts,” 4-to. in which he at¬ 
tempts to vindicate the genuinenefs of the famous palfage 
in Jofephus concerning our Saviour, from the exceptions 
of Tanaquil Faber, and other critics ; the importance of 
the teftimony of Phlegon, in fupport of the evangelical 
narrative concerning the miraculous darknefs at the time 
of our Saviour’s crucifixion ; and alfo the genuinenefs 
of the ACfs of Pontius Pilate, with his Letter to Tiberius, 
and of the Letter of Abgarus king of Edefla to Jefus, 
with the Refcript attributed to our Saviour. In the fame 
year he publithed, “The Cafe of the Church of England 
briefly ftated, in the three firft and fundamental Principles 
of a Chriftian Church : the Obligation of Chriftianity by 
divine Right; the Jurifdiftion of the Church by divine 
Right; the Inftitution of Epifcopal Superiority by divine 
Right,” 8vo. This attempt to fupport the exorbitant 
claims of the church, was followed, in 1683, by another 
publication, written with the fame view, and entitled, 
“ An Account of the Government of the Chriftian 
Church in the firft fix hundred Years, &c.” 8vo. At 
the fame time Dr Parker diftinguifhed himfelf by his zeal 
in exalting the authority of the crown, and in enforcing 
the courtly doctrines of paflive obedience and non-refift- 
ance. In 1684, he publithed “ Religion and Loyalty 3 
or, a Demonftration of the Power of the Chriftian Church 
within itfelf, &c.” 8vo.- which he dedicated to king 
Charles II. during whofe reign he maintained an unre- 
ferved obfequioufnefs to the court. 
Upon the acceflion of king James II. Dr. Parker con¬ 
tinued the fame fervile complaifance towards the regal 
power, and in 1685, publithed the fecond part of “Re¬ 
ligion and Loyalty,” intended ftill further to corroborate 
his reafonings in defence of high-church politics. By 
his conduit and writings he had now rendered himfelf 
fo acceptable to his majefty, that, upon the death of Dr. 
Fell in 1686, he nominated him to the bithopric of Ox¬ 
ford, with permiflion to hold the archdeaconry of Can¬ 
terbury in cummendam. Soon afterwards he was made a 
privy-counfellor; and in 1687, by a royal mandamus, in 
an illegal manner, was conftituted prefident of Magdalen- 
college in Oxford. The particulars of this laft-mentioned 
arbitrary ftretch of the regal prerogative, (which had no 
little influence in determining the clergy to concur in 
thofe meafures which drove James from his throne,) have 
been imperfectly related under the article Oxford, p. 
146, 7, of this volume. It fliould have been added, that, 
after the college had reje&ed Anthony Farmer, and 
elefted Dr. Hough, the king’s ecclefiaftical commiflioners 
deprived him of the prefiderttfliip, inftalling Dr. Parker, 
bifhop of Oxford, by proxy, in his room; and, as the 
fellows refufed to fign a fubmiflion to their new prefident, 
twenty-five of them were immediately expelled the 
college with Dr. Hough, and declared incapable of being 
admitted to any ecclefiaftical dignity or benefice. 
So far did Dr. Parker carry his fervile conformity to 
the royal pleafure, that he appeared ready without fcruple 
to facrifice his religion to it; and proftituted his pen by 
writing in defence of tranfubftantiation, and the worfhip 
of faints and images. That the papifts regarded him as 
a profelyte to their faith, appears from two letters which 
were written about this time. In the firft, fent by a 
Jefuit of Liege to a Jefuit of Fribourg, is the following 
palfage: “The bifhop of Oxford himfelf feems to be a 
great favourer of the catholic faith. He propofed in 
council, whether it was not expedient, that one college 
at leaft in Oxford fhould be allowed to the Catholics, 
that they might not be forced to be at fo much charges 
in going beyond fea to ftudy 5 but it is not yet known 
what anfwer was made. The fame bifhop having invited 
two of our noblemen (i. e. Roman-catholics), with others 
of the nobility, to a feaft, drank the king’s health, wifhing 
his majefty good fuccefs in all his undertakings: adding 
Vol. XVIII. No. 1268. 
K E R. 605 
alfo, that the religion of the Proteftants in England did 
not feem to him in a better condition than Buda was 
before it was taken ; and that they were next to atheifts 
who defended that faith.” The other letter, written by 
father Petre, a jefuit, and privy-counfellor to king James, 
and directed to father la Chaife, contains thefe words: 
“ The bifhop of Oxford has not yet declared himfelf 
openly; the great obftacle is his wife, whom he cannot 
rid himfelf of: his defign being to continue bifhop, and 
only change communion; as it is not doubted but the 
king will permit, and our holy father confirm : though I 
do not fee how he can be further ufeful to us in the re¬ 
ligion he is in, becaufe he is fufpeCted, and of no efteem 
among the heritics of the Englifh church; nor do I fee 
that the example of his converfion is like to draw many 
others after him, becaufe he declared himfelf fo fuddenly 
If he had believed my counfel, which was to temporize 
for fome longer time, he would have done better ; but 
it is his temper, or rather zeal, that hurried him on.” 
Thefe two letters were firft printed in “A third Col¬ 
lection of Papers relating to the prefent Juncture of Af¬ 
fairs in England,” See. 1689, 4to. So little decency did 
bifhop Parker obferve in his compliance with the moll 
unjustifiable meafures of the court, that he rendered him¬ 
felf quite contemptible; and his influence and authority 
in his diocefe became fo very infignificant, that, when he 
aflembled his clergy, and defired them to fubferibe an 
addrefs of thanks to the king for his declaration of liberty 
of confidence, he could only prevail with one clergyman 
to concur with him in it. The laft effort which he made 
to ferve the views of the court, was by publifhing “Rea- 
fons for abrogating the Teft, See.” 1688, 4to. in which 
he endeavoured to palliate, or reprefent in falfe colours, 
the popifli doCtrine of tranfubftantiation, and likewife 
took great pains to excufe, and explain away, the fharne- 
ful idolatry praCtifed in the church of Rome. To this 
piece various able anfwers foon appeared, and, among 
others, one by Dr. Burnet, who obferves, that Parker’s 
book “raifed fuch a difguft at him, even in thofe that 
had been formerly but too much influenced by him, 
that, when he could not help feeing that, he funk upon 
it.” “ I was defired,” fays he, “ to anfwer his book with 
the feverity that it deferved ; and I did it with an acri¬ 
mony of ftyle, that nothing but fuch a time and fuch a 
man, could in any fort excufe.” At length, the fliame 
and vexation which he felt at being defpifed by all good 
men, brought on him a diftemper, of which he died unla¬ 
mented, at the prefident’s apartments in Magdalen-col- 
lege, in March 1687-8, when he was about forty-eight 
years of age. 
Bifhop Burnet’s character of him is, that “ he was a 
man of no judgment, and of as little virtue; and as to 
religion rather impious. He was covetous and ambitious; 
and feemed to have no other fenfe of religion but as a 
political intereft, and a fubjeft of party and fadlion. He 
feldom came to prayers, or to any exercife of devotion ; 
and was fo lifted up with pride, that he w\as become in- 
fufferable to all that came near him.” After his death, 
a piece was publithed, faid to be taken from his manu- 
feripts, and entitled, “A Difcourfe fent to the late King 
James, to perfuade him to embrace the Proteftant Re¬ 
ligion ; with a Letter to the fame Purpofe,” 1690, 4to. 
and he left behind him a Hiftory of his own Times, in 
Latin, which was publifhed in 1726, under the title of 
“ Reverendi admodum in Chrilto Patris Samuelis Parkeri, 
&c. de Rebus fui Temporis Commentariorum Libri 
quatuor. See.” 8vo. of which two Englifh verfions after¬ 
wards appeared. 
Our prelate had a fon, of his own name, who was a 
man of learning, and after the revolution adhered to the 
principles of the non-jurors. He was the author of, 1. 
An Englifh tranflation of Tully’s five Books de Finibus, 
or moral Ends, 1702, 8vo. 2. An Abridgment of the 
Ecclefiaftical Hiftories of Eufebius, Socrates, Sozomen, 
7 P and 
