Library Catalog Record
Aduersus Thomae Stapletoni Anglopapistae in Academia Louaniensi Theologiae Professoris Regij Defensionem Ecclesiasticae authoritatis, quam ipse luculentam…
Aduersus Thomae Stapletoni Anglopapistae in Academia Louaniensi Theologiae Professoris Regij Defensionem Ecclesiasticae authoritatis, quam ipse luculentam & accuratam inscripsit, tribusque libris digessit, duplicatio, pro authoritate atque autopistia S. Scripturae. Authore Guilielmo Whitakero, S. Theologiae in Academia Cantabrigiensi Doctore ac Professore Re gio; & Collegio D. Ioannis Evangelistae in eadem Academia praefecto Authoritatis Ecclesiasticae defensio. Authoritatis Ecclesiasticae defensio
William Whitaker · 1594
Cambridge: 1594
Overview
Garnet Howard Milne cites this book / treatise 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: Open Library catalog record. Its textual methodology has not yet been evaluated from a complete text.
Overview
Garnet Howard Milne cites this book / treatise 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: Open Library 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.