2005
DOI: 10.1111/j.1094-348x.2005.00092.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Milton and the Presbyterian Opposition, 1649–1650: The Engagement Controversy andThe Tenure of Kings and Magistrates, Second Edition (1649)1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The author argues that God intends both to fulfill justice and to show mercy simultaneously. Most recently, Go Togashi's article “Milton and the Presbyterian Opposition, 1649‐1650: The Engagement Controversy and The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates , Second Edition (1649)” appeared in Milton Quarterly (2005). Togashi pays attention to the revised passages added to the second edition of the pamphlet and argues that Milton tried to compromise his views of resistance for the sake of the government under the Presbyterians' attacks.…”
Section: English Language Publications By Japanese Scholarsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The author argues that God intends both to fulfill justice and to show mercy simultaneously. Most recently, Go Togashi's article “Milton and the Presbyterian Opposition, 1649‐1650: The Engagement Controversy and The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates , Second Edition (1649)” appeared in Milton Quarterly (2005). Togashi pays attention to the revised passages added to the second edition of the pamphlet and argues that Milton tried to compromise his views of resistance for the sake of the government under the Presbyterians' attacks.…”
Section: English Language Publications By Japanese Scholarsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Milton's friend John Dury, whose chief argument is that private persons cannot rightfully resist the magistrates (see Togashi), also argues as follows: if the Apostle doth teach us that [all soules ought to be subject to the higher powers] because [there is no power but of God] and because [the powers that be] in place [are ordained of God] then it will follow, that those who are actually supreme, and in a plenary possession of power, ought to be obeyed as Gods Ordinance; for it is not possible that any can attain to the height of power without Gods disposall of it into his hands. (15; brackets in original) …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%