Parker's Positions and Sources
His Discourse concerning Puritans drew on Virgilio Malvezzi and Paolo Sarpi, and attacked both episcopacy and Presbyterianism as autonomous systems. In True grounds (1641) he continued the case against independent religious institutions.
In a series of over 20 political pamphlets from 1640 onwards, he developed ad hoc but influential positions: absolute power for Parliament; thorough Erastianism on the religious question (a "cool secularist" for Christopher Hill); and an appeal to natural law, or the "law of nature" as the basis for political power. In The Case of shipmony (1640) he argued in terms of salus populi, the law of necessity, and the failure of the King's arguments to establish it. This went further than arguments simply directed against royal prerogative, and shifted the discussion of legality.
For J. G. A. Pocock, Parker is "no kind of classical republican". On the other hand the position of Observations on monarchy is that it is held "by way of trust". With Philip Hunton, Parker argued that political society has the nature of a contract, and required the consent of the people. He put the case that Parliament actually was representative of the people.
Parker's theory of sovereignty implicitly depended on Jean Bodin. As well as Bodin and Sarpi, Mendle sees Parker drawing on Richard Hooker, and Grotius.
Read more about this topic: Henry Parker (writer)
Famous quotes containing the words parker, positions and/or sources:
“...as for helping me in the outside world, the Convent taught me only that if you spit on a pencil eraser, it will erase ink.”
—Dorothy Parker (1893–1967)
“What arouses the indignation of the honest satirist is not, unless the man is a prig, the fact that people in positions of power or influence behave idiotically, or even that they behave wickedly. It is that they conspire successfully to impose upon the public a picture of themselves as so very sagacious, honest and well-intentioned.”
—Claud Cockburn (1904–1981)
“Even healthy families need outside sources of moral guidance to keep those tensions from imploding—and this means, among other things, a public philosophy of gender equality and concern for child welfare. When instead the larger culture aggrandizes wife beaters, degrades women or nods approvingly at child slappers, the family gets a little more dangerous for everyone, and so, inevitably, does the larger world.”
—Barbara Ehrenreich (20th century)