.
Subsections
Whether the Vulgate says “Do Penance”? No
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles 4+
Books 2
.
.
Articles
1600’s
Leigh, Edward – ch. 7. ‘Of the Seventy & Vulgar Translation’ in A System or Body of Divinity… (London, A.M., 1654), bk. 1, pp. 75-81
Owen, John – Of the Integrity & Purity of the Hebrew & Greek Text of the Scripture, with Considerations on the Prolegomena & Appendix to the Late
[London] Biblia Polyglotta [of Brian Walton] (Oxford: Robinson, 1659), ch. 7 in Of the Divine Original, Authority, Self-Evidencing Light, & Power of the Scriptures. With an Answer to that Enquiry… (Oxford: Hall, 1659)
8. Of Biblia Polyglotta‘s translations 322-25
…
12. Vulgar Latin 335
…
16. Value of these translations 334-35
Le Blanc de Beaulieu, Louis – Theological Theses Published at Various Times in the Academy of Sedan 3rd ed. tr. by AI by Colloquia Scholastica (1675; London, 1683) Latin
Authority of Vulgate, pt. 1, its author and authority according to Roman Church 93
. pt. 2, Opinion of Protestants confirmed 102-15
Le Blanc (1614-1675) was a French reformed professor of theology at Sedan.
Turretin, Francis – 15. ‘Is the Vulgate authentic? We deny against the papists’ in Institutes of Elenctic Theology, tr. George M. Giger, ed. James Dennison Jr. (1679–1685; P&R, 1992), vol. 1, 2nd Topic, pp. 131-34
.
1700’s
De Moor, Bernard – 10. ‘Against the Vulgate’s Authenticity’ in ch. 2, Concerning the Principium of Theology, or Holy Scripture in Continuous Commentary on Johannes Marckius’ Didactico-Elenctic Compendium of Christian Theology Buy (Central, SC: From Reformation to Reformation Translations, 2018)
.
.
Book
Fulke, William – Confutation of the Rhemish Testament (d. 1598; NY: Leavitt, 1834) 440 pp. no ToC Index
Fulke (1538–1589) was an English puritan divine. The Rhemish Testament (1582) was a Romanist version of the New Testament translated from the Latin Vulgate, with pro-Romanist notes. Cartwright’s later confutation of the same is more indepth.
“Notwithstanding Cartwright’s illegal expulsion from his lecture and fellowship, the sameness of their duties, with their congeniality of character, temper, theological opinions, and detestation of the Romish idolatry, cemented Fulke and Cartwright in the most harmonious intimacy and brotherhood. Fulke was greatly instrumental in persuading Cartwright to accede to the solicitations which were made to him for his answer to the Rhemish Testaments: ‘but when he found that by the tyrannical prohibition of Archbishop Whitgift, Cartwright was forbidden to proceed, he undertook to answer it himself. This work was entitled ‘A Confutation of the Rhemish Testament;’ in which he gave notice that the reader might some time be favoured with a more complete answer from Cartwright.’” – Preface, p. 3; see also bot. of p. 1 & top of 2
Cartwright, Thomas – Confutation of the Rhemists’ Notes, Glosses & Annotations on the New Testament… (d. 1603; [Leiden] 1618) 763 pp. no ToC Index
This is more indepth than Fulke’s prior and shorter treatment. Cartwright was considered an expert on Romanism. See above on Fulke.
.
.
Latin
1600’s
Chamier, Daniel – bk 14, ‘Of the Latin Vulgate Edition’ in Panstratiae Catholicae, or a Body of the Controversies of Religion Against the Papists (Frankfurt, 1627-1629), vol. 1, Locus 1, The Canon, Of Understanding Scripture, pp. 242-61
.
.
.
Related Pages