No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
(ProQuest: ... denotes strike-through in the original text omitted.)Those who defended the Church of England under Charles II and James II faced a number of challenges. Some had been present since before the Civil Wars, indeed, from Elizabeth I's reign, most importantly defending the break from Rome while upholding religious uniformity and the Book of Common Prayer against puritan and Presbyterian seekers after further reformation. Alongside these old problems, restored along with the Church in 1662, came fresh issues. These included the explosion of Protestant diversity in the 1640s and 1650s, two monarchs whose commitment to the Church was shaky, and the increased questioning of scriptural integrity and priestly status by English and European philosophers. One Restoration churchman who exemplifies the issues which could arise in responding to these challenges was Samuel Parker, a former Presbyterian who had conformed in the early 1660s, became chaplain to Archbishop Sheldon, and who ended his days as Bishop of Oxford. This article revisits Parker, arguing that excessive focus on one or two of his works has distorted perceptions of his thought.Parker's ecclesiological works emerged in three distinct phases.1 The first was the late 1660s and early 1670s, as part of arguments over Dissenters' liberty of conscience. The second was the early 1680s, when Parker wrote on the early Church and its government. The third came under James II, in particular defending the king's desire to repeal the Test Act. It is the first of these episodes which has attracted the attention of historians and, given Parker's eventual tussles with Andrew Marvell, literary scholars as well. Parker's Discourse of Ecclesiastical Politie of November 1669 defended the prosecution of Dissenters in an uncompromising vein. In the ensuing debate, Parker attempted to defend himself from the charge of Erastian Hobbism, an accusation which modern historians often repeat. Ironically, what Marvell accused Parker of was somewhat different: undermining the royal prerogative by defending intolerance despite Charles II's Declaration of Indulgence of 1672.2 The impact of some of these criticisms has been sustained for three centuries; labelling Parker an opportunist, Lana Cable cites the hardly impartial Marvell.3Parker was, naturally, not inclined to admit the charge of Hobbism, one of the most damaging epithets which could be applied during the Restoration. As a slander, Hobbism was fast catching up with popery. But a historiographical consensus convicts him of it. Gordon Schochet's article of 1993, for example, places Parker 'between Lambeth and Leviathan', although it offers some contradictory statements on its subject. Parker was a 'high church apologist' who shared only absolutism and nominalism with Hobbes 'from whom he departed on virtually every other issue', and who sincerely defended the Church.4 But he also had a tense relationship with Hobbes, 'operationally ... Erastian, another point of contact with Hobbes'. Whilst Parker rejected the philosopher's ideas in the early 1680s, the rejection was 'more apparent than real'.5 Even this suggestion of a change in the latter years of Charles II's reign is at odds with what Schochet labels Parker's 'loose if stubborn consistency' until his admission of toleration for Catholics after 1686.6 In a series of works, Jon Parkin has offered a subtler account of Parker's relationship to Hobbes, placing him in a tradition which sought to 'tame' rather than reject Leviathan outright.7 Many scholars have identified Parker as in an ambivalent position vis-a-vis Hobbes in the early 1670s: a 'complicated and rather devious' relationship (Richard Ashcraft), a 'thoroughly Erastian' writer who came nearer to Hobbes than anyone else before him (Parkin), 'drawn to Hobbes' but 'repelled' by his atheism (Derek Hirst).8 Hirst depicts a shift in 1672, when royal policies of indulgence meant Parker 'was driven ... to abandon his earlier almost Hobbesian espousal of royal power in causes ecclesiastical', but agrees with Schochet that this did not always work, causing 'manifest inconsistencies', a 'weak and confused' stance. …
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.