Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	government_n	king_n	people_n	13,729	5	4.9406	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A88587	A modest and clear vindication of the serious representation, and late vindication of the ministers of London, from the scandalous aspersions of John Price, in a pamphlet of his, entituled, Clerico-classicum or, The clergies alarum to a third war. Wherein his king-killing doctrine is confuted. The authors by him alledged, as defending it, cleared. The ministers of London vindicated. The follies, and falsities of Iohn Price discovered. The protestation, vow, and the Covenant explained. / By a friend to a regulated monarchy, a free Parliament, an obedient army, and a godly ministry; but an enemy to tyranny, malignity, anarchy and heresie.	Love, Christopher, 1618-1651.	1649 (1649)	Wing L3168; Thomason E549_10; ESTC R204339	63,269	85

unto the manner of this defence while the King was in Person against the Parliament we were by this Protestation to defend the Parliament and People though with the ●azard of the King if the King and Parliament should ingag● against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the ●azard of both Answ. 1. I told you but even now both Houses of Parliament did hold themselves bound by the Protestation to preserve the Kings Person as appears by the date of the Declarations forementioned even after the King had ingaged in person against the Parliament as wel as before so that your limitation of the Protestation to such a period of time is invalid 2. T is true the Protestation did not bind up the hands of the Parliament as if they could not legally withstand any Forces to be raised by the King against Parliament Kingdom but only by it they were bound up from doing intentionally any hurt to the Person of the King yea to manifest that they had no evill intention to His Maj●sties Person when they chose the Lord of Essex to be General raised an Army under his conduct before any blow was given they sent a humble Petition to the King to be presented by the Lord Generall That His Majesty would not put His Royall Person in danger but remove Himself from His Army and come in person to His Parliament where he should be sure to remain in honour and safety So that if the King would indanger His Person in being in the head of his Army 't was He that put himself upon hazard the Parliament stil declared their hands should not be upon Him to offer Him any violen●e 3. And whereas you say in the last place that if the King and Parliament should ingage against the People we are by the same reason tyed to preserve the People though with the hazard of b●●h Certainly your speech bewraies you you that once utterd language of Loyal●y in your Snapsack can speak nothing but Levelling language now you are not a friend either to King or Parliament unlesse they will patronize your party and favour your faction though it bee to the damage and indangering of the whole Kingdome besides But I would ask you and pray resolve me in the next Who are the most competent judges to determine what is for the good or what for the hurt of the people if you say King and Parliament why did you not acquiesce in their judgments in their late transactions of the Treaty tending to the settlement of the Kingdome but if you say your Soveraign Lords the People then why doe you not give them their power and put it to the suffrages of all the People of this Nation whether what the Parliament did in Treating with the King were for the hurt of the People or whether what the Army did both against King and Parliament bee not for the hurt and ruine of the whole if you would leave them to bee Judges there is a hundred to one that would give sentence to dear the Parliament and condemn the Army Alas what tyrannicall Usurpers are you a few Members in the House of Common● when 200 are forc't away must rule King and Lords the people must rule the House of Commons and the Army must rule the people have not you brought the Kingdom to a fine passe that in stead of having it governed by the Lawes which should administer an equall right to all the Land should be overruled by the sword which wil give right to none neither King Parliament or People Have you neit●er for hope or fear nor other respect relinquisht this Protestation How is it th●n that you are so shuff●ing changing and uncertain for the King and against the King for the Parliament and against the Parliament for the Army and against the Army for justice and against justice c Answ. 1. The Reverend Ministers are stil the same they were 't is you and your Teacher who hath made you to erre are the shufflers and changelings one while for the King to re-instate to his Throne another while against the King to bring Him to the scaffold one while that it is the just Prerogative of the Persons of Kings in what case soever to be secure from the violence of men and the●r lives to he as consecrated corn meet to be reapt gathered only by the hand of God Yet at another time that the axe of the Executioner must cut off the King or cut down this consecrated corn let the world judge who are shufflers or changelings the Ministers or you 2. I grant that Ministers were for the King and against the King but in this sense for the Person of the King never against it and against the forces of the King never for them I hope this will not make them Changelings 3. I yeild the subscribers are for the Parliament and against the Parliament but clearly in this sense for the Parliament when they sit free and ful although they should expresse frailty as men yet would the subscribers live submissively as become● Ministers And if you mean nothing but this when you say the Ministers are against the Parliament viz. that they cannot in their Consciences beleeve that the Members sitting at Westminster are a free Parliament seeing they are under the power of the sword nor a full Parliament in regard above 200 Members of it are forc't away nor a compleat Parliament when two States are aboli●ht viz. King and Lords if only in this sense you say they are against the Parliament I shall not contend with you 4. I grant further that the Ministers were for the Army and against the Army yet only in this sense for the Army whilest obedient to the Parliaments commands and followed their directions but against them when they did dispute the Parliaments Authority and disobey their commands for the Army whiles they used the sword to subdue Malignants in arms but against them when they used the sword to cut off the King and force the Parliament And have not the Ministers cause to be against them in regard they go against those ends for which they were first raised For that Ordinance by which this new Mod●ld Army was raised under the Lord Fairfax was for the def●nce of the King and Parliament the true Protestant Religion the Lawes and Liberties of the Kingdome and to be from time to time subject to such orders and directions as they shall receive from both Houses of Parliament 5 I yeild in the last place that the Ministers are for justice and against justice for justice on chiefe delinquents that they may be brought to condigne punishment as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve or the Supreame Judicatories of both kingdomes respectively or others having power from for that effect shall judge convenient yea are they against the trying condemning and ekecuting the King which is that

his government he doth not plead for popular tumults but saith which you have unworthily left out that such a tyrant may be punisht but yet only by them qui ea potete donati sunt who are indued with such an authority now that is most true that if the laws and constitutions of a Kingdome or Common-wealth be such that there are select men impowered by Law to restrain and punish the vices of a tyrant in such a case 't is unquestionably lawfull And if you can shew that the House of Commons have power by the knowne laws of this Land to condemn and execute any man much lesse the King I shall then be silent When a tyrant is taken away either by the suffrage or consent of the people fit Deo auspice saith Zuinglius Answ. 1. Here you name the man and mention the words but quote not the place where such a passage is to bee found in Zuinglius his works who hath four large volumes extant I perceive your drift is to put him that should answer you to the more pains to manifest your abuse of both of Author and Reader 2. T is true there is some such passage in Zuinglius as is quoted by you yet I must tell you as the Devill did with that scripture he quoted to Christ so do you with Zuinglius words viz. leave out the most considerable clause and grosly pervert the meaning of his words which I shall evidently demonstrate His words are these When a Tyrant is taken away by the consent or suffrages of the whole or better part of the people it is done God disposing it Now you have left out these words of the whole or better part of the people It may be your conscience told you you that the whole or better part of the people would never have given their consent to cut off the King and therefore you have done it without them never desiring their consent so that what Zuinglius saith will not justifie your practice which was done by the lesser and not the better neither of the people Besides you grosly abuse and pervert the meaning of his words as if Zuinglius justified in that place the taking away the life of a Tyrant which he was utterly against as appears in that very Article where this passage is sound T is true he was for the deposing of Tyrants so it were done by the whole or better part of the people but yet against the killing of them as he saith expresly Quopaecto tyrannus movendus sit ab officio facile est conjectare non est ut ●umtrucides nec ut bellum tumultum quis excitet quia in pace vocavit nos Deus sed aliis viis res tentanda est c. that is after what sort a Tyrant should be put out of office it is easy to conjecture t is not that thou mayst kill him or raise war or tumult against him because God hath called us in pea●e but the thing is to be assayed by other wayes c. Yea t is further to be observed how he defines a Tyrant viz. to be such an one qui vi regnum accepit per ambitionem irrumpit who hath gotten a Kingdome by force and breaks it by ambition There is no doubt but such may be deposed yea destroyed too if the people have strength to do it See more to this purpose in a book not long since put out as it is upon very good grounds supposed by Mr. Rutherford of Scotland called Lex Rex and especially in Mr. Pryns works c. Answ. 1. You still use your old device name the man but not quote the place I shall not contest with you whether Mr. Rutherford made that book called Lex Rex yet this I will maintain that in all that book there is not one passage that I can find for bringing the King to capitall punishment I am sure in many places he is against it in answering that objection which Royalists made that because David would not stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed therefore the King being the Lords anointed cannot be resisted To which he gives this answer David speaketh of stretching out his hand against the person of King Saul no man in the three Kingdomes did so much as attempt to do violence to the KINGS PERSON and in another place he saith one or two tyrannous Acts deprive not a King of his Royall Right and a little after he saith any man is obliged to honor him as King whom the people maketh King though he were a bloodyer and more tyrannous man then Saul in p. 233. he saith That the King is an eminent servant of the State in the punishing of others if therefore he be unpunishable it is not so much because His Royall power is above all Law-coaction as because one and the same man cannot be both the punisher and the punished c. Many such like passages as these are to be found in Lex Rex Is it like that Mr. Rutherford if hee be the Author of it should plead for putting the King to death in one place yet declare himselfe against it in so many places throughout his book 2. Whereas you would make Mr. Pryn a patron of your opinion I need say nothing in his vindication he is alive and now among us more able then I to vindicate himself 't is true in his Appendix to his fourth part of the Soveraign power of Parliament and Kingdomes he hath made many instances of States and Kingdoms that have deposed and punisht their Princes Yet he gives no instance of a Protestant State that ever did so yea in his speech in the House of Commons on D●cemb 4. 1648. he saith expresly that though there be some Presidents of Popish States and Parliaments deposing their Popish Kings and Empeperors at home in foraign parts in an extraordinary way by power of an Armed party yet there is no President of any one Protestant Kingdom or State that did ever yet judicially depose or bring to execution any of their Kings and Princes though never so bad whether Protestants or Pap●sts c. 〈◊〉 I hope our Protestant Parliament will not make the first President in this kind nor stain their honour and Religion with the blood of a Protestant King c. And thus I have laboured to clear the Authors you quoted most of them make against you none speak for you I leave the Reader to judge As you quoted some few Authours who seemingly might speak for you but really against you I might produce a cloud of witnesses against you in this point not only of Protestant Divines since the Reformation against killing Kings in the generall but also multitudes of Protestant Divines declaring against the cutting off the head of our King in particular as the Ministers beyond the Seas the Ministers of Scotland the Ministers of Essex and Lancashire and of many other places of the

of Judah they did not bring the residue of the children of Benjamin to a judiciall Tryall nor executed them though they slew of the men of Iudah 40000 but the sword having determined the controversy in the field on their side by a very full and finall conquest the remaining part of the children of Benjamin were invited by their conquerors to an amicable reconcilement and Treaty as appears Iudg. 21. 13. The whole Congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon and to call peaceably unto them or as it is in the margin to proclaim peace to them yea 't is said that the people even those that slew them repented them for Benjamin because the Lord had made a breach in the Tribes of Israel c. 21. v. 15. now had that Law taken place in all Military expeditions they had been bound not to have suffered one of the children of Benjamin to live who was ingaged in the war against them especially considering that they had spilt so much blood no lesse then 40000 men slain by the Benjamites I could produce many instances in scripture of the like nature but this may suffice I shall only mention that the Army was not in time past so high flown as to put no difference between shedding blood maliciously and in a Military way else how could they say that tender equitable and moderate dealing both toward His Majesty and Royall family and late party so far as may stand with the safety of the Kingdome and security to our Common rights and liberties is the most hopefull course to take away the seeds of War or future seeds among us for Posterity and to procure a lasting peace and a government in this distracted nation The Army you see became Petitioners for the King and His party yet beleeved them to be guilty of blood if they had beleeved that the Law of God had reacht them they should have petitioned that all might dye not that any might live I am sure you will say the King and His party were murderers if so why would you cut off the King yet spare His Party when they in your esteem are guilty of blood as wel as He doth your Religion teach you to punish the King and spare the Subjects Now in regard I shal meet with but little or no further occasion in the following part of your book to con●ute that bloody practice you pleaded for viz. the putting the King to death I shal therefore before I leave this subject give you these 6 scripturall advertisements if it may be to reclaim you from your King-killing doctrine 1. That there is no President in all the scripture that the Sanhedrin of the Jews or Rulers of Israel did ever judicially arraign and put to death any of the Kings of Iudah or Israel though many of them were most gross Idolaters and tyrannous Princes who shed much innocent blood and oppressed the people sundry wayes T is true indeed some of the idolatrous Kings of Israel were slain by private conspiracies and popular tumults in an illegall way but none were ever arraigned condemned or executed by their Sanhedrins or generall Assemblies So that in putting the K to death you have done that for which you have no Scripture president 2. The servants of God in scripture did hold it lawful to take up defensive arms to withstand the rage and tyranny of their Kings yet did not count it lawfull to destroy the persons of their Kings thus David did by force of Arms defend himself against the raging and tyrannicall invasion of Saul by possessing many strong holds and fortified places yet thought it not lawfull to kill him God forbid said David that I should do this thing to my master the Lords anointed to stretch forth my hand against him c. and said he to Abishai Destroy him not for who can stretch forth his hand against him and be guiltlesse If many circumstances had been considered David had much to plead why he should take away the life of Saul more I am sure then you had to take away the life of our late King for 1. Saul was in actuall pursuance of David for his life 1 Sam. 23. 26. 2. God had before this declared that he repented that he had made Saul King 1 Sam. 15. 11. 3. God had rejected Saul from being King over Israel 1 Sam. 15. 26. 4. Saul had lost his governing abilities the spirit of government was departed from Him 1 Sam. 16. 14. 5. He was guilty of much innocent blood He slew 85 Priests of the Lord and put to the sword both men women children and sucklings in the City of Nob 1 Sam. 22. 18 19. 6. Hee was earnestly urged to kil Saul by the men that were about him 1 Sam. 24. 4. 1 Sam. 26. 9 10. 7. Saul was the only man that stood between him and his actuall possession of a Kingdome yet all these considerations did not take with David he was still of this mind that none could stretch forth their hands against him and be guiltlesse His day said David shall come to dye or he shall descend into hattail and perish the Lord forbid that I should stretch forth my hand against him c. Another scripturall instance that I may give you to name no more you may find in 1 Sam. 14. 45. When Saul would have put Ionathan to death the people rose up and rescued Ionathan out of the hands of Saul that he dyed not yet none of them attempted to lay violent hands on Saul himselfe I shall conclude this advertisement with a good observation Mr. Prynne hath That we may forcibly resist and repulse with safe Conscience th●se whom we may not wilfully slay c. The King may not with safe Conscience be wittingly slain by His Subjects but that therefore Hee and His Cavaliers may not bee forcibly resisted for their own defence is a grosse inconsequent c. 3. To spill the blood of any especially Royal blood meerly out of a Political designe is in the account of God murder not justice although the men may deserve to be put to death The scripture affords a pregnant proof of this the Lord commanded Iehu to smite the house of Ahab to avenge the blood of his servants the Prophets according to the command of the Lord Iehu caused 70 of the sons of Ahab to be slain by the Rulers of Iezreel God commends him for doing this the Lord said unto Jehu because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes and hast done unto the House of Ahab according to all that was in my heart thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel Yet for all this because Iehu had a Politicall design in smiting the House of Ahab viz. the emolument and establishment of his Kingdome not a conscientious respect to the command of God therefore the Lord

you say the Army may be judges which is most inequitable for them to be judges in their own Cause then why may not any other 20000 men in the Kingdome plead necessity to oppose the Army as they did to oppose the Parliament should any party whose principles are not consistent with but contrariant to the Armies proceedings plead a necessity for their appearing for the interest of Religion laws of the land Priviledges of the Parliament and Liberties of the People c. how can you justifie the Army yet blame them 3. If the necessity pleaded for was so clear present and absolute as you pretend how it comes to pass that it can be discerned by none but by the Army themselves their own party This makes me of the same mind with the subscribers that the necessity pleaded for is but pretended or else contracted by their own miscarriages the Army that prevailed against the sharpest weapons of their enemies were overcome by this own poor dart of pretended necessity true is that Proverb durum telum necessitas could the Army have overcome their groundlesse fears and jealousies they would never have done what they did yea could they have trusted God they wonld have been of Austins mind Ferenda est magis omnis iniquitas quam perpeiranda est aliqua iniquitas viz. to endure the greatest evil rather then commit the least sin If your Temple work goes on slowly then the City is set on work the Country is excited the Apprentices encouraged to offer violence upon the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Vnvote at pleasure and encouraged by some of your Tribe and subscribers as shall be made good if occasion bee Answ. 1. It will turn to your reproach that you are builders of Babel but to their renown that they are imployed about Temple work which though it go on slowly yet safely you have no cause to despise the day of small things hee that hath laid the foundation stone will rear up the top of the building that all the people may cry Grace grace unto it 2. And whereas you say that they had excited men to offer violence to the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Vnvote c. I answer you measure other mens corn by your own Bushell and other mens hearts by your own practices you and your faction have offered violence to the two Houses forcing them to Vote and Unvote at your pleasure and yet you do the evill and other men must beare the blame 3. As to that you say that it shall be made good if occasion bee that some of the subscribers did encourage the Apprentices to offer violence to the Houses I shall give you but this answer viz. to give you a challenge and offer you an occasion to make it good if you can that you have not done it all this while I impute not to your lenity but their innocency And thus I have returned you an answer to the most materiall passages in your book I shall not meddle with those fond Queries you propose in the latter end thereof I know one fool can ask more questions in a day then twenty wise men can answer in a year You conclude your book with a prophane descant on a serious and savoury Sermon of Mr. Calamies you who were once when you wrote your Snapsack so humble as to say you were neither a Prophet nor the son of a Prophet are now so proud as to become a Lord judg of the Prophets yet those that know you will count your tongue to be no slander Mr. Calamies person is so well esteemed and his Ministry so approved that all your revilings will turn to his glory and your shame Mr. Calamy only affirmed that Anarchy Perjury Toleration c. are such deeps able to sink a Kingdome if you say the contrary you will shew your selfe a simple and shallow fellow To conclude all the counsell I shall give you is this that you would be more in the shop lesse in the pulpit more in your dwelling house lesse in the Printing-house then will the Church be less disturbed and your family better provided for FINIS M●●i quidem sufficit conscientia mea vobis autem necessaria est fama mea Aug. ad frat in ●●em Serm. 53. * Alluding to a book● entituled Honey out of the Rock made by ●ohn Price * See a Spiritual Snapsack for the Parliament Souldiers by Iohn Price p. 8. lin. 32 Pag. 2. lin 14. In Spiritual 〈◊〉 p. 6. l. 17. Pag. 2. l. 24. Epist. Dedicat. to the Lord Fairfax p. 1. p. 1. l. 30. Pag. 2. l. 3● Pag. 3. l. 5. Pag. 3. l. 16. Spiritual Snapsack by John Price p. 6. ● 17. Pag. 3. l. 36. Young ●●ng elder by John Goodwin p. 25. Pag. 4. l. 19. Pag 4. l. 35. * Armies R●mon June 23. 164● Pag. 5. l. 33. Pag. 6. lin. 22. Pag 7. l. 34. Pag. 8. l. 20. Declar. Ian. 17. 1641. Pag. 9. l. ● I. Goodwin in his Anti●aval p. 10. l. 31. I. P. p. 9. l. 16. I. P. pag. 9. l 24. ● P. p. 11. l. 36. and pag. 12. Pag. 12. lin. 10. Pag. 14. l. 26. Pag 15. l. 7. P. 15. l. 31. Aug. in Ps. 73. Tertul. Apol. The serious Representat of the London Ministers p. 14. I. P. pag. 18. l 9. I. P. Pag. 18. l. 10. ● P. p. 19. l. 8. I. P. p. 20. l. 34. I. P. p. 21. l. 6. ●●ad the Oath of Allegiance Exact Collect. Append. p. 15. p. 18. 13. 41. 43. 879. Exact Collect. p. 2●8 695. 657. 991. I. P. p. 22. l. 12. The King confest it in His 〈◊〉 Answer to the 19 Propositions of Iune 1642. that there is power legally in the two Houses of Parliament to restrain Him from Tyranny I. P. p. 24 l. 6. I. P. His Snapsack p. 8. Iohn Goodwin Anticaval p. 6. Vid. the Ord of P●rl 15. of Febr. 1644. as the first raising the Army under Sir T. Fairfax Pag. 23. lin. 3. I. P. Pag. 24. l. 14. I. P. p. 26. l. 3. See Testimony to the tr●●h● of Christ by the Ministers of London p. 28. I. P. p. 27. l. 1● I. P. pag. 28. l. 8. I. P. p. 28. l. 37. ●●hn Goodwin Anticav p. 11. I. P. His Snapsack p. 8. I. P. p. 30. ● 17. 1 Sam. 26. 9. Rom. 13. 4. Pareus on Gen. 9. 6. I. P. pa. 31. l. 27. See a Booke ●ntituled the image of both Churches Ierusal●m and Babylon by P. D. M. I. P. p. 31. l. 31. See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands distemper c. pag. 16. Ibid. p. 19. I. P. p. 31. l. 35. See Mr. Loves Sermon entituled Englands distemper p. 23. I. P. pag. 32. l. 3. I. P p. 32. l. 11. I. P. p. 32. l. 25. I. P. p. 32. l. 38. See a short Treati se of Polit. Power by Dr. I●●n Pennet ● 6. pag. 49. See Dr. P●nnets Treatise of Polit. Power cap. 6. I. P. Pag. 33. l. 30. See image of Ier. and Bab. by P D. M. p. 82. Beza lib. confes. Christianae fidei cap. 5. Ecclesia circa finem Beza in confess fidei Christianae c. 5. Sect. 45. I. P. p. 34. l. 29. I. P. pa. 34. l. 31. I. P. p. 35. l. 3. In casu necesstatis licita est defensio per magistratum infe●●oorem 〈◊〉 superiorem D. Paraeus in c. 13. ad Rom. p. 262. Christianes 〈◊〉 minus quam alios quos●unque potesta●● subject●● esse debere non tantum fide ●lus sed etiam infidelibus sed c D. Paraeus in Rom. 13. v. 1. Vide Paraeum in explic dubiorum in c. 13. ad Rom. Prop. 2. p. 262. I. P. pa. 35. l. 8. Sacra Theolog. per Dudleium Fennor c. 13. de Politeiae-civili p. 80. I. P. p. 35. l. 15. Quum Consensu suffragi●s totius an● certe 〈◊〉 is multitudinis Tyr●annus tol●itu●r deo fit auspice Zuingl in explanatione Articuli 42. p. 85. Tom. 1. Zuingl●●●… exp. Arn● 42 p. 84. Tom 1. 1. P. p. 35 l. 17. Lex Rex quest 31. p. 330. Il. p. 104 105. Quest 14. Ib. p. 233. qu. 26 M. Prynnes speech in the House of Common Decemb. 4. 1648. p. 77. Iohn Price his Snapsack p. 8. Iohn Goodwin Anticaval p. 10 11. See the Armies Remonstrance of Iune 23. 1647. p. 12. See the Armies Proposalls Aug. 1. 1647. I. P. p. 37. l. 25. Judg. 20. See a Letter from Sir Tho. Fairfax to both Houses of Parliament Dated from Redding Iuly 6. 1647. which he declared to be the generall sense of all or most part of the Officer in the Army 2. 1 Sam. 24. 6 7. 13. 1 Sam. 26. 8 9. 1 Sam. 26. 10 11. Mr. Prynnes third part of the Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms p. 95. 2 King 9. 7. 2 Kings 10. 6. Hosea 1. 4. 2 Kings 21. 23 24. 1 Kings 16. 8 9. 1 Kings 16. 16. 1 Kings 16. 18. 2 Kings 12. 19 20 21. 2 Kings 14. 5. 2 Kings 15. 10. 14. 1 King 16. 25. Micah 6. 16. 2 King 16. 21. Mr. Arth. I ackson in his pious and learned Annotations hath a good observation It seems saith hee the people misliking the King the Souldiers chose this Ti●ni to be their K. between whom there was continuall war for three years and upwards c. I. P. p. 38. l. 34. I. P. pa. 40. l. 16. Iohn Price his Snapsack p. 8. All the godly learned conscientious Ministers are for defensive arms few there are of the contrary judgment but Papists Atheists Prelates Delinquents and prophane wretches I. P. p. 41. ● 24. I. P. pa. 42. l. 5. 2 Tim. 4. 10. I. P. p. 44. l. ●2 p. 45 46. Mal. 3. 15. Eccl. 7. 15. Judg. 20. 18. 23. I. P. pa. 49. l. 8. Read 2 Kings 11. 2. 12 c. I. P. p. 50. l. 1. I. P. p. 55 l. 8.