Collected Works edition, volume 3; based on the first edition of 1657 and compared with the second edition
A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture
The Works of the Right Reverend Father in God John Cosin, Volume the Third
J. Sansom; John Cosin · 1849
Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1849.
Overview
Cosin's learned historical defense of the canon received in the Church of England surveys patristic, conciliar, medieval, and later testimony concerning the canonical and apocryphal books. The 1849 editor verifies and expands Cosin's many source references and follows the 1657 first edition while comparing the 1672 second edition.
Overview
Cosin's learned historical defense of the canon received in the Church of England surveys patristic, conciliar, medieval, and later testimony concerning the canonical and apocryphal books. The 1849 editor verifies and expands Cosin's many source references and follows the 1657 first edition while comparing the 1672 second edition.
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.