✦A confutation of the Rhemists translation, glosses and annotations…Confessional Bibliology LibraryLibrary Catalog Record
A confutation of the Rhemists translation, glosses and annotations on the Nevv Testament
A confutation of the Rhemists translation, glosses and annotations on the Nevv Testament: so farre as they containe manifest impieties, heresies, idolatries, superstitions, prophanesse, treasons, slanders, absurdities, falsehoods and other evills. By occasion whereof the true sence, scope, and doctrine of the Scriptures, and humane authors, by them abused, is now given. VVritten long since by order from the chiefe instruments of the late Queene and state ... By that reverend, learned, and iudicious divine, Thomas Cartvvright, sometime divinitie reader of Cambridge
Thomas Cartwright · 1618
Leiden: Printed by W. Brewster,1618
Overview
Garnet Howard Milne cites this commentary / annotations in the primary material of Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? The record preserves Milne's exact citation and source-page evidence. Current access research is labeled: Borrowable ebook/catalog record. Its textual methodology has not yet been evaluated from a complete text.
Overview
Garnet Howard Milne cites this commentary / annotations in the primary material of Has the Bible Been Kept Pure? The record preserves Milne's exact citation and source-page evidence. Current access research is labeled: Borrowable ebook/catalog record. Its textual methodology has not yet been evaluated from a complete text.
Editorial Evaluation
Purpose Fulfillment
Does the work accomplish what it claims to accomplish?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Source Quality
Does it use the appropriate primary and secondary sources?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Citation Accuracy
Are quotations, references, and claims verifiable and in context?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Evidence Coverage
Does it address the relevant evidence, including contrary evidence?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Historical Accuracy
Are people, dates, editions, events, and settings handled correctly?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Subject Competence
Does the author demonstrate competence in the relevant disciplines?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Logical Coherence
Do the conclusions follow from the premises and evidence?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Methodological Transparency
Are the method and controlling assumptions identifiable and consistent?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Strongest-Form Engagement
Does the work address the strongest opposing case rather than a caricature?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.
Editorial Evaluation
Clarity and Research Usefulness
Is it intelligible, navigable, and useful for further study?
The full editorial rationale has not yet been entered.