Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 43.djvu/264

Parker by which, from 1563 to 1568, his time and energies were largely occupied, although the credit of originating the scheme would appear to be due to Richard Cox [q. v.], bishop of Ely (see, Athenæ Cantabr. i. 440). But Parker undoubtedly bore the chief burden in carrying it into accomplishment, devoting several years to the collection of materials and making choice of the most competent scholars, and personally undertaking the direction of the entire work. In assuming this function he required his coadjutors studiously to abstain from the insertion of notes and criticisms like those which had given such deep offence in Tyndal's version. His actual share in the work of translation cannot now be accurately ascertained; but, according to the original assignment of the different portions, as specified in a letter to Cecil (5 Oct. 1568), he was himself to undertake, in addition to the prefaces, &c, Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, Mark, and the Pauline Epistles, excepting Romans and 1 Corinthians. The harmonious spirit in which he and his fellow-workers prosecuted and completed their labours is indicated by the fact that, in his will, he bequeathed legacies to six of their number. At the time of the completion he was too unwell to be able to present a copy to Elizabeth in person; but he addressed a letter to his sovereign, in which he pointed out the chief features of difference between this and the Genevan version, at the same time expressing his conviction that it would tend to the promotion of conformity if it were commanded that this version, and no other, should be read in churches (State Papers, Dom. Eliz. xlviii. No. 6).

In the midst of this congenial labour Parker found himself suddenly involved in an irritating controversy, brought about by the publication in 1565 of his celebrated 'Advertisements,' a series of enactments drawn up by him, in concert with other bishops, 'partly for due order in the public administration of common prayers and using the holy sacraments, and partly for the apparel of all persons ecclesiastical, by virtue of the queen's letters commanding the same.' The vestments therein prescribed—the cope, the surplice, and the square cap—probably represented the minimum with which Elizabeth could be content; but, with her habitual evasiveness, she withheld her open approval, and it is generally agreed that the 'Advertisements,' as a whole, never received her formal sanction (see Church Quarterly Review, xvii. 54-60). Parker had, accordingly, to bear the brunt of the disfavour with which they were received by the puritan party, and, to quote the language of Strype, 'all the remainder of his days were embittered by the labours and pains' in which he thus became involved. The surplice and the square cap were especially objectionable to the party which favoured the Genevan discipline, and Sampson, dean of Christ Church, altogether refused to wear the cap. He was consequently deprived of his office by the queen's orders, and placed in confinement. Parker was deeply pained at such a result, and did his best to mitigate the rigour of the sentence.

At Canterbury the archiepiscopal palace was a centre of sumptuous and even profuse hospitality; and in 1565, at Whitsuntide, on Trinity Sunday, and at the July assizes, the principal clergy and laity were entertained at a series of splendid banquets. After the last occasion, on Parker's return to Lambeth, he received the distinguished compliment of being appointed godfather, together with the Duke of Norfolk, to Elizabeth's godson, Edwardus Fortunatus, the nephew of the king of Sweden.

At Cambridge the zeal of the puritan party, then led by Thomas Cartwright (1535-1603) [q. v.], occasioned both Parker and Cecil, the chancellor of the university, no little trouble. In 1565 this feeling extended to painted windows and 'superstitious monuments' generally, and Parker deemed it necessary to make an example of one George Withers, a member of his own college, by suspending him from his fellowship. In St. John's and Trinity the dislike to the surplice was so strong that some of the seniors of the academic body, among whom was Whitgift, addressed a letter to Cecil, urging that the 'Advertisements ' should not be made compulsory. Cecil consulted Parker, whose advice was against concession, and further demonstrations followed; while, on the other hand, it was deemed necessary to take proceedings against Dr. John Caius [q. v.], master of Caius College, and other members of the university who were suspected of favouring Romanism.

It was in immediate connection with these events that, in 1570, a new code, compiled by Whitgift, but supervised by Parker in conjunction with Sandys and Grindal, was given to the university. By these statutes, afterwards known as the Elizabethan statutes, the entire constitution of the university was materially modified, and, while the utmost care was taken to guard against future innovation, the changes introduced amounted to a revolution in the history of the academic body. Of that revolution, Parker, in conjunction with the heads of houses, was the