“So Joshua made a covenant with the people that day, and set them a statute and an ordinance in Shechem.”
Josh. 24:25
“And Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people; between the king also and the people.”
2 Kings 11:17
“They shall ask the way to Zion with their faces thitherward, saying, Come, and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that shall not be forgotten.”
Jer. 50:5
.
The preamble to the Solemn League and Covenant (1643), a godly example of social covenanting made between the Long Parliament of England and Scotland, in order to
“endeavor, in our several places and callings, the preservation of the reformed religion… in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government… according to the Word of God, and the example of the best reformed Churches; and shall endeavor to bring the Churches of God in the three kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, Directory for Worship and Catechizing; that… the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us.”
.
.
Subsections
Westminster Divines on
Against Separatism
Defenses of Scottish Covenanting & the Indulgence & Occasional Hearing
. Controversies, 1661-1688
.
.
Order of Contents
Articles
History
Quotes 5
Scottish National Covenant
Swearing to Involved Historical Covenants 1
.
Articles
1600’s
Ascham, Anthony – ‘On the Expiring of the Solemn League & Covenant, 1649’ in The Bounds & Bonds of Public Obedience… (1649), pt. 2, pp. 38-66
Ascham (c. 1614 – 1650) was an English academic, political theorist, Parliamentarian and diplomat. He leaned to the Independent view of Church government. This work has been attributed to Francis Rouse, but it is nearly certainly by Ascham.
Ascham argues that while the SL&C was still binding in its moral principles, yet it formally ceased in England as a civil ‘league’, with its original circumstances, when the republican government (to be led shortly by Oliver Cromwell) took over in 1649 after the death of King Charles I, or just before when Scotland invaded England in the Engagement of 1647.
“The debate was initiated by Francis Rous who published a brief pamphlet in April 1649 [The Lawfulness of Obeying the Present Government] in which he argued that allegiance could be given to the Commonwealth [of Cromwell] even though it were acknowledged to be an illegal power.” – Wiki on Anthony Ascham
Crofton, Zachary
This was written at the Restoration of Charles II (1660) who civilly rescinded the SL&C, and other puritan legislation, in England. Dr. Gauden, a reformed Anglican, strangely, had argued that the SL&C was consistent with Episcopacy. Crofton refutes this notion.
Crofton (1626-1672) was reformed, a presbyterian and a puritan who was born and raised in Ireland. He came to England in 1646. He was ejected from the Church of England at the Restoration.
Dr. Gauden had responded to Croften’s Analepsis above with Anti Baal-Berith; or The Binding of the Covenant & All Covenanters to Their Good Behaviors, by a Just Vindication of Dr. Gauden’s Analysis. Crofton responds to this work.
Baxter, Richard – The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689)
ch. 37, ‘Of renouncing all obligations from the [Solemn League &] Covenant, as on me or any other, to endeavor any alteration of Church government’, pp. 125-29
Baxter, and English, congregationalist puritan, had himself taken the SL&C.
ch. 55, ‘Whether all trusted in corporations may declare that there is no obligation on them or any other person from the oath called, ‘The [Solemn] League and Covenant’, pp. 199-207
After the Act of Uniformity in England in 1662, one could not hold a government position without disavowing the SL&C.
.
1700’s
Boston, Thomas – Doctrine 2, ‘That Professors Ought to Beware of Schism & Division’ in ‘The Evil, Nature & Danger of Schism, a Sermon’ on 1 Cor. 1:10 (1708) in Works (1848), vol. 7, pp. 602-10
Boston argues against those in the United Societies who remained separate from the Church and State of Scotland in his own day upon pretense of the Solemn League & Covenant and other impurities in the Church and State, post-1690.
Boston argues (rightly) three points: (1) that the separatists are not the strictest party according to Scriptural principles, (2) that there is not just grounds for separation from the post-1690 Church of Scotland, and (3) that their principles are not the principles of ‘our covenanted Reformation’.
Moncrieff, Alexander – The Duty of National Covenanting Explained, Some Sermons Preached at the Renovation of our Covenants, National & Solemn League, in the Bond Adapted to our Present Situation & Circumstances in this Period, by the Associate Presbytery… 1744 (Edinburgh, 1747)
Moncrieff was a Scottish Seceder minister, or the Associate Presbytery.
Gib, Adam – ‘Concerning the Presbytery’s Manner of Renewing our Covenants’ in The Present Truth, a Display of the Secession Testimony (1774), vol. 1, pp. 259-74
The Scottish Seceders held that the Scottish national covenants’ moral and spiritual principles bound perpetually, though historical circumstances change. Hence in the mid-1700’s, the covenants could not be taken in their original form, but were renewed by the Presbytery as adapted to their situation, still affirming all of the moral and spiritual principles of them.
A minister who had recently joined the Secession, Thomas Nairn (1680-1764), objected to this, reflecting the influence of the United Societies. He insisted the covenants be renewed as to their original form and words, and to do otherwise was not to be faithful to them. He was, after 3 years of instruction and admonition, deposed from the Seceders. He then joined John Macmillan and shortly formed the Reformed Presbytery, though he would secede from them as well.
Gib demonstrates from Scripture that it is proper for women to personally vow to public covenants in vol. 1, p. 256.
Brown, John, of Haddington – Letter 2 in The Absurdity & Perfidy of All Authoritative Toleration of Gross Heresy… in Two Letters to a Friend, in which… the Nature, Origin, Ends & Obligation of the National Covenant [1638] & Solemn League [1643] are Candidly Represented & Defended Buy (1780), pp. 95-157
Brown (1722-1787) was the grandfather of John Brown of Edinburgh and was a professor and leading minister in the Scottish Secession Church.
.
1800’s
M’Crie, the elder, Thomas – Section 9, ‘Of the Difference with Respect to Religious Covenants’ in Statement of the Difference… Particularly on the Power of Civil Magistrates Respecting Religion, National Reformation, National Churches & National Covenants (1807)
M’Crie, ‘The Defender of the Covenanters’, describes the difference between the new constitutional documents of the Scottish Seceders moving in a New Light (and diluted) direction versus the older position of the Scottish Seceders, which he held to. The first half of the article analyzes the inadequacy of the New Light definition of covenanting. The second half touches on the Solemn League and Covenant, holding that it continues to bind Scotland in its moral principles, though circumstances have changed from some of its original wording.
“When the Associate Presbytery [the Seceders] engaged in the renovation of the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, they did this in a bond suited to their circumstances. And they did so with the greatest propriety…”
.
2000’s
Fentiman, Travis
A Brief Summary of the Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting, summarized in 13 concise points, 20 paragraphs
Here is the Biblically principled, majority historic view on the subject, with special reference to Scotland and her churches
A Defense of the Majority Opinion in the Free Church of Scotland on Covenanting, 36 points, 135 paragraphs, with a select annotated bibliography
This is an extensive articulation and defense of the majority historic view on the Solemn League and Covenant, argued from scripture, history and the reformation in Scotland.
“Editor’s Extended Introduction” in English Puritans, A Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (1604; RBO, 2025)
“Covenanting” 118-123
“Leading Conforming Covenanters: Baillie, Honyman & Leighton” 123-27
“Indulged Covenanters” 128-29
“The Solemn Leage & Covenant: Not Perpetual or Unqualified as a Civil Bond” 130-31
.
History of the Scottish Covenants
Articles
Stevenson, David – ch. 9, “The Solemn League & Covenant, June 1643-January 1644” in The Scottish Revolution 1637–1644: The Triumph of the Covenanters (St. Martin’s Press, 1974), pp. 276–98
“The most detailed background to the SL&C I have found, relating more alterations and disputed parts of the covenant and the many political maneuverings behind it, around it and immediately following it…” – T. Fentiman in English Puritans, Refutation of the Errors of Separatists (2025), p. 127 fn. 386
Raffe, Alasdair – ‘The Three Careers of the Solemn League & Covenant: Presbyterianism & Scottish Religious Diversity, 1643–1800’ English Historical Review, vol. 139, no. 598-99 (2024), pp. 744-69
The three careers of the SL&C for Raffe are: (1) 1643-1660, (2) 1661-1689, and (3) 1690-1800.
.
Books
2000’s
MacKenzie, Kirsteen
Presbyterian Church Government & the ‘Covenanted Interest’ in the Three Kingdoms, 1649-1660 PhD thesis (Aberdeen University, 2008) When on the page, click on the top of the two links and then hit ‘continue’.
The Solemn League & Covenant of the Three Kingdoms & the Cromwellian Union, 1643-1663 Pre (2017)
Frazier, Nathan – Maintaining the Covenant idea: the Preservation of Federal Theology’s Corporate Dimensions among Scotland’s Eighteenth-Century Evangelical Presbyterians PhD diss. (Edinburgh, 2010)
Walters, James – The National Covenant & the Solemn League & Covenant, 1660-1696 Pre (Boydell Press, 2022) 213 pp. ToC
.
Quote
1600’s
Richard Baxter
The Nonconformists’ Plea for Peace, or an Account of their Judgment in Certain Things in which they are Misunderstood… (London, 1679), sect. 7, pp.
“15. When the [English] Parliament’s armies were worsted and weakened by the King [Charles I], and they found themselves in danger of being overcome, they entreated help from the Scots, who taking the advantage of their straits, brought in the [Solemn League and] Covenant as the condition of their help; which the Parliament rather accepted [in 1643] than they would lose them, which at first was imposed on none by force.
But (to pass by all other considerations) was judged by many wise men, to be an occasion of division, as making the opposition to prelacy to be the terms of the kingdom’s unity and concord, when they might know that the king and a great, if not the greatest part of the kingdom, were of the contrary mind; and so it was thought to be (as the Papal terms of unity) a means of unavoidable division: But others thought that because it tied them to no endeavors, but in their places and callings, they might take it.
16. The Assembly of divines at Westminster were men that had lived in conformity, except about eight or nine of them and the Scots: But being such as thought conformity lawful in case of deprivation, but the things imposed to be a snare, which should be removed if it could be lawfully done, they also received the Covenant, but were divided about the sense of the word ‘prelacy,’ many professing their judgment to be for moderate episcopacy; whereupon the describing additions ‘Archbishops, bishops, deans, archdeacons’ were added. And upon such a profession that it disclaimed not all episcopacy, Mr. [Thomas] Coleman is said to have given the Covenant to the House of Lord’s…
17. This Covenant and vow was taken by the Parliament and by their garrisons and soldiers that would voluntarily take it, as a test whom they would trust; the rest being had in suspension: And after the wars, by such as were ordained ministers and by the king’s adherents when they made their compositions: so far was it afterward imposed. But many ministers and gentlemen refused it, and so did Cromwell ‘s soldiers, and in many counties few did take it.
…
32. The persons that were silenced [in the Great Ejection of 1662] were not of one mind and measure about all the things imposed on them:
1. Some of them were episcopal, and for as much as Richard Hooker writes for, and were against the Covenant (and never took it) and the Parliament’s War, and were for the liturgy and ceremonies and had conformed had these been all that had been imposed, who yet were cast out of fellowships and ministry: Yea some had suffered for the king, and been ruined in their patrimony, some imprisoned for him, and some had been in arms for him.
2. Besides these, and other episcopal nonconformists, some and very many, and we think the greatest part of any one, were such disengaged pacificators as we before mentioned about associations:
3. Some were for the presbyterian government, and
4. Some for that called Independent, which were comparatively but few.
…
…
35. As to the late civil wars which some most loudly charge on the nonconformists, this is the truth, that the several parties charge the beginning of that war on one another… The truth is: …3. That some few that had been in the king’s army or cause, and that were sufferers for him, and were against the Covenant and the Parliament’s war, were nonconformists…
…
37. The 2,000 silenced [in 1662] were not a quarter of the ministers of England, who were in possession before the return of the bishops: so that it is evident that above three-fourth parts of the ministers that kept in under the Parliament and Protector [Cromwell] (notwithstanding Covenant, [Westminster’s] Directory and all) did prove conformists.”
.
Quotes
Order of
Rutherford
Henderson
Baxter
Cargill
.
1600’s
Samuel Rutherford
Lex Rex... (1644; Edinburgh: Ogle, 1843), pp. 54-55
“Assertion 1 — There is an oath betwixt the king and his people, laying on by reciprocation of bands mutual civil obligation upon the king to the people and the people to the king; 2 Sam. 5:3, “So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron, and king David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel.” 1 Chron. 11:3, “And David made a covenant with them before the Lord, and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the Lord by Samuel.” 2 Chron. 23:2-3, ” And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem. And all the congregation made a covenant with the king [Joash] in the house of God.” 2 Kings 11:17, “Jehoiada made a covenant between the Lord and the king and the people, that they should be the Lord’s people; between the king also and the people.” Eccl. 8:2, “I counsel thee to keep the king’s commandment, and that in regard of the oath of God.”
Then it is evident there was a covenant betwixt the king and the people. That was not a covenant that did tie the king to God only, and not to the people:
1. Because the covenant betwixt the king and the people is clearly differenced from the king’s covenant with the Lord, 2 Kings 11:17.
2. There was no necessity that this covenant should be made publicly before the people if the king did not in the covenant tie and oblige himself to the people; nor needed it be made solemnly before the Lord in the house of God.
3. It is expressly a covenant that was between Joash the king and his people; and David made a covenant at his coronation with the princes and elders of Israel, therefore the people gave the crown to David covenant-wise, and upon condition that he should perform such and such duties to them.
And this is clear by all covenants in the Word of God: even the covenant between God and man is in like manner mutual — “I will be your God, and ye shall be my people.” The covenant is so mutual, that if the people break the covenant, God is loosed from his part of the covenant, Zech. 11:10. The covenant gives to the believer ‘a sort of action of law,’ and jus quoddam, to plead with God in respect of his fidelity to stand to that covenant that binds him by reason of his fidelity, Isa. 43:26; 63:16; Dan. 9:4-5; and far more a covenant gives ground of a civil action and claim to a people and the [Scottish] free estates against a king [Charles I] seduced by wicked counsel to make war against the land [Scotland], whereas he did swear by the most high God, that he should be a father and protector of the Church of God.
Assertion 2. All covenants and contracts between man and man, yea, all solemn promises bring the covenanters under a law and a claim before men, if the oath of God be broken, as the covenant betwixt Abraham and Abimelech (Gen. 21:27), Jonathan and David (1 Sam. 18:3). The spies profess to Rahab in the covenant that they made with her (Josh. 2:20), “And if thou utter this our business, we will be quit of thine oath which thou hast made us to swear.” There be no mutual contract made upon certain conditions but if the conditions be not fulfilled, the party injured is loosed from the contract.
Barclay [a royalist] says, “That this covenant obliges the king to God, but not the king to the people.” — Answer: It is a vain thing [then] to say that the people and the king make a covenant, and that David made a covenant with the elders and princes of Israel; for if he be obliged to God only, and not to the people, by a covenant made with the people, it is not made with the people at all, nay, it is no more made with the people of Israel than with the Chaldeans, for it binds David no more to Israel than to Chaldea, as a covenant made with men.”
.
Letters of Samuel Rutherford (Edinburgh: Anderson & Ferrier, 1894), Letter 363, to Robert Campbell, pp. 703-4
“It is possible that I shall not be an eyewitness to it in the flesh, but I believe He cometh quickly who will remove our darkness, and shine gloriously in the Isle of Britain, as a crowned King, either in a formally sworn covenant, or in His own glorious way, which I leave to the determination of His infinite wisdom and goodness. And this is the hope and confidence of a dying man, who is longing and fainting for the salvation of God.”
.
Alexander Henderson
The Declaration of Mr. Alexander Henderson… Made upon his Death-Bed (London, 1648), pp. 8-10
“…and I declare before God and the world that it was far from the intention of those that contrived it [the SL&C], to wrong the King and his posterity… and the foresaid supplication doth manifestly declare their intent being only to have settled a conformity in Kirk government throughout all his Majesty’s dominions…
I do further declare before God and the World that they [the English] are guilty of the breach of the Sacred Covenant, and that we have discharged our duty thereof (which is only promissory & conditional as all oaths de futuro [of the future] are) by endeavoring to effectuate it quantum in nobis erat [insofar as we are in it], and that we are absolved in foro poli & soli [in the sight of the city and self] of any oath or vow contained therein, insofar as concerns the settling of religion in the Kirk of England and Ireland, and that we are only bound thereby to preserve the Reformation of Religion
in our own Kirk and Kingdom [of Scotland]…
Therefore I exhort and conjure you, again and again, in the bowels of our Lord Christ, and words of a dying man, especially my brethren of the ministry… to stand fast and firm to this point of your Covenant, which you were bound to before by the Law of God and of this Land [of Scotland], and never suffer your selves by all the gilded allurement of this world, which will prove bitter and deceitful at last, to relinquish it.”
.
Richard Baxter
The Cure of Church Divisions… (London, 1670), pt. 1, Direction 58, p. 293
“Whether they are sure that these superstitions of theirs may not run the round as other superstitions have done before them?… What if the next age should turn them into a dead formality? And what if the next age after that should make laws to enforce them? And then godly people first scruple them, and then fly from them as discerned superstition? And then the worst men be glad of that advantage to persecute those that would not submit to them?
By this circulation, if the same men who invented… new and needless Church covenants, etc. could but live two or 300 years, they might come to be among the number of those who cry out of them as superstitious, and suffer persecution because they will not use them.”
.
Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr. Owen’s Vindicator & Richard Baxter… (London: Parkhurst, 1684), section 5, ‘A comparison of the use of a faulty translation of the Scripture and a faulty liturgy’
“Some that live in countries where none in twenty miles openly use the New [translation of Scripture, the KJV] one, come to Richard Baxter for counsel; he desires them to bring one of the contrary judgment and judge when they hear both: He tells them that:
1. They should keep up the New Translation as far as they can in God’s public worship, while the hurt will not be greater than the benefit.
2. That when they have no public church or worship to join with, but what uses the Old [faulty] one, they should rather join with such than none, as also when they cannot have the New one without more hurt than benefit.
3. And that while they can have the New one, they should not renounce communion with the churches that use the Old one, as separating from it as unlawful, but only disown the faults of the Old one, while they disown not the communion of the churches in the use of it.
The other says:
1. That it is a cursed thing to offer God a worse [worship] while we have better.
2. That we are sworn [by the SL&C] against it.¹
¹ [The SL&C does not mention the KJV, but the argument is that the KJV is held (by them) to be part of the reformation, or the reforming process, that the SL&C binds to.]
3. That it is false worship and obeying man before God.
4. That we [the ones who only use the New translation] do but keep our possession, which they would put us out of, and it’s they that separate from us, and not we from them.
5. That we keep to God’s Word, which is the only rule. And therefore communion with the Old Translation is unlawful, and we should rather suffer death.
Baxter answers:
I. (1) That it is a cursed thing to give God no public worship because we cannot have the New Translation, and to live like atheists if we cannot have what we would. None is worse than the Old. Family worship without church worship is worse than an Old Translation. (2) And that it is not we that offer God the worse before the better; it is they that exclude the better, which we protest against, having not our choice.
II. That he that sware [1.] to give over all church worship unless he have the New Translation, swore wickedly like an atheist; and he that swore [2.] to communicate with no church that used the Old Translation, swore wickedly like a schismatic; and he that swore [3.] that God’s providence should never return him to a necessity of using the Old,¹ swore blasphemously, as if he could have governed the world against God.
¹ [Note that such conditions are not in the SL&C.]”
.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (London, 1689)
ch. 2, p. 16
“XXIX. Though I here tell you once for all that I justify not all that I can thus bear with, yet we can submit by peaceable silence to many abuses in a Church which we dare not subscribe to and approve, and use also passive obedience where active is unlawful.”
.
ch. 3, p. 11 & 16
“But those [leading presbyterian and congregationalist ministers] that were called by the king, and one another, 1660 and 1661, to treat of concord, and that assembled at Sion College, and elsewhere about it, did openly make known their minds: And I think they meddled not against any of these things following, by any accusation of them as sinful:
…
XLI. We believe not that the Scots Covenant, or any other does oblige us to sedition, rebellion, schism, or any sin; nor does disoblige us from any obedience due to any superior.”
.
Richard Baxter’s Penitent Confession & his Necessary Vindication... (London, 1691), ch. 2, p. 6
“The Independents blame me for being for a National Church, and some of them for being against their unnecessary covenanting terms of communion…”
.
On Donald Cargill
Maurice Grant, No King but Christ: the Story of Donald Cargill (Durham: Evangelical Press, 1988), pp. 208-9 Cargill was a leading, Scottish covenanting, field-preacher.
“…in his dying testimony [Donald] Cargill [d. 1681] did not once mention the Covenants… his allegiance was to what they represented, not to what they were in themselves. For him, the Covenants did not constitute, but rather expressed, those vital issues of divine truth for which a public testimony must be made.
It was here that Cargill parted company with those like Robert Hamilton who in later years saw the Covenants as an indispensable part of the constitution of church and state. For Cargill this could not be so, and one of his contemporaries, Thomas Lining [a fellow Cameronian minister]… writing in 1706, he strongly implied that, had Cargill lived, he would have cast in his lot with the [1690] Revolution Settlement.” (pp. 208-9)
.
On the Scottish National Covenant 1580 / 1581 & 1638
Articles
Acts of the Church of Scotland – pp. 13-14 & 41-42 in General Assembly, August 30, 1639, Session 23 in Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, 1638-1842 (Edinburgh: 1843), Dec. 8, 1638 & Aug. 30, 1639
Cooper, James – pp. 29-31 & 34 in Confessions of Faith & Formulas of Subscription in the Reformed Churches of Great Britain & Ireland, especially in the Church of Scotland (Glasgow: MacLehose & Sons, 1907)
Douglas, J.D. – ‘National Covenant, 1638’ in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, p. 320
.
On Swearing to Involved Historical Covenants
Quote
1600’s
Rober Leighton
The Whole Works new ed. (London: Duncan, 1830), vol. 4, ‘A Modest Defence of Moderate Episcopacy, as Established in Scotland at the Restoration of King Charles II [1660]’, pp. 391-92
“And the truth is, that, besides many other evils, the iniquity and unhappiness of such oaths and covenants [such as the SL&C, which he was just examining] lie much in this, that being commonly framed by persons that even, amongst themselves, are not fully of one mind, but have their different opinions and interests to serve, (and it was so even in this) they commonly patch up so many several articles and clauses, and those too of so versatile and ambiguous terms, that they prove most wretched snares and thickets of briers and thorns to the consciences of those who are engaged in them, and matter of endless contentions and disputes amongst them, about the true sense and intendment, and the ties and obligations of those doubtful clauses: especially in such alterations and revolutions of affairs as always may, and often do, even within few years, follow after them; for the models and productions of such devices are not usually long-lived.
And whatsoever may be said for their excuse in whole or in part, who, in yielding to the power that pressed it, and the general opinion of this Church at that time, did take that [Solemn League and] Covenant [1643] in the most moderate and least schismatical sense that the terms can admit; yet, I know not what can be said to clear them of a very great sin, that not only framed such an engine, but violently imposed it upon all ranks of men; not ministers and other public persons only, but the whole body and community of the people, thereby engaging such droves of poor ignorant persons to they knew not what, and (to speak freely) to such a hodge-podge of things of various concernments, religious and civil, as church discipline and government, the privileges of parliaments, and liberties of subjects, and condign punishment of malignants— things hard enough for the wisest and learnedest to draw the just lines of, and to give plain definitions and decisions of them, and therefore certainly as far off from the reach of poor country people’s understanding as from the true interest of their souls.
And yet to tie them by a religious oath, either to know all, or to contend for them blindfold, without knowing of them, where will there be instanced a greater oppression and tyranny over consciences than this? Certainly, they that now govern in this Church cannot be charged with anything near or like unto it; for whatsoever they require of entrants to the ministry, they require neither subscriptions nor oaths of ministers already entered, and far less of the whole body of the people.”
.
.
.
“And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and theLord gave them rest round about.”
2 Chron. 15:15
.
.
.
Related Pages