^{page 225 note 1} For a recent example, see Underdown, David, Pride's Purge, Oxford 1971, 9–10.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 2} For accounts which stress the early 1640s, see George, C. H.,‘Puritanism as history and historiography’, Past and Present, XLI (1968), 77–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and the rejoinder by William Lamont, ‘Puritanism as history and historiography: some further thoughts’, Ibid., xliv (1969), 133–46. Two important books dealing with English apocalyptic thought did not arrive in my hands until after my own work had been completed: Hill, Christopher, Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England, Oxford 1971Google Scholar, and Capp, B. S., The Fifth Monarchy Men, London 1972.Google Scholar Capp concentrates on the 1650s, while Hill provides a succinct and significant survey of the topic. Other works especially useful for the period prior to the outbreak of the English civil war are Clouse, Robert, ‘The apocalyptic interpretation of Thomas Brightman and Joseph Mede’, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, XII (1969), 181–93Google Scholar, ‘Johann Heinrich Alsted and English millennialism’, Harvard Theological Review, LXVIII (1969), 189–207Google Scholar, Lamont, William, Godly Rule, London 1969CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Marginal Prynne 1600–1669, London 1963Google Scholar, Toon, Peter (ed.), Puritans, the Millennium and the Future of Israel: Puritan Eschatology, Cambridge 1970Google Scholar, Tuveson, Ernest, Millennium and Utopia, Berkeley 1949Google Scholar, reprinted New York 1964, Walzer, Michael, The Revolution of the Saints, Cambridge, Mass. 1965.Google Scholar Also see the following unpublished American doctoral theses: Christianson, Paul, ‘English Protestant Apocalyptic Visions, c. 1536–1642’ (University of Minnesota 1971)Google Scholar, Clouse, Robert, ‘The Influence of John Henry Alsted on English Millenarian Thought in the Seventeenth Century’ (State University of Iowa 1963)Google Scholar, Cohen, Alfred, ‘The Kingdom of God in Puritan Thought’ (Indiana University 1961)Google Scholar, Gilsdorf, Althea Joy Bourne, “The Puritan Apocalypse: New England Eschatology in the Seventeenth Century’ (Yale University 1964)Google Scholar, and Wilson, John, ‘Studies in Puritan Millenarianism under the Early Stuarts’ (Union Theological Seminary 1962)Google Scholar. This article is derived from the last chapter of my thesis. I should like to thank my supervisor, Professor Stanford E. Lehmberg, and my colleagues, Professors James Nuechterlein, George Rawlyk and James Stayer, who have read various drafts of this study and made helpful suggestions.

^{page 226 note 1} Burrell, Sidney, ‘The apocalyptic vision of the early convenanters’, Scottish Historical Review, XLIII (1964), 1–24Google Scholar, ‘The covenant as a revolutionary symbol’, Church History, XVII (1958), 338–50Google Scholar, and ‘Kirk, Crown, and Covenant’ (Columbia University 1953).Google Scholar Cf. Hill, Antichrist, 69–103, Lamont, , P & P, XLIV (1969), 133–46Google Scholar, Walzer, Revolution of the Saints, 290–9, and Wilson, Pulpit in Parliament, 230–5. Also relevant to this question are two recent articles on a related subject, Wiener, Carol Z., ‘The beleaguered isle: a study of Elizabethan and early Jacobean anti-catholicism’, P & P, LI (1971)) 27–62Google Scholar, and Robin Clifton, ‘The popular fear of Catholics during the English revolution’, Ibid., lii (1971), 23–55. While Dr. Weiner appreciates the importance of apocalyptic thought for her subject, her brief allusion to it shows the need for refined studies on the topic. My work complements that of Dr. Clifton who deals with the consequences of the thought outlined here.

^{page 226 note 2} Most scholars have used the term ‘millennial’ to describe this type of thought and the movements in which it is expressed. Seventeenth-century usage will be followed in this article. ‘Apocalyptic’ will be used as the generic term and ‘millennial’ will be reserved for those men who literally expected a thousand-year rule of the saints to begin on earth in the near future. Dissatisfaction with current terminology has also been expressed in Capp, Bernard, ‘Godly Rule and English millenarianism’, P & P, LII (1971), 106–17.Google Scholar

^{page 226 note 3} Thomas Cheshire, A sermon, London 1642 (29 June 1642), 15. The date on which each parliamentary sermon was preached will be given in parentheses. Like that of George Morley, delivered on 29 November 1640, this sermon was not authorised for publication by a committee of the Commons. Cheshire had it published himself, ‘because none other would’, as Thomason wrote on the title page of his copy. Sermons preached to members of parliament by official invitation form the core of sources for this study. To them have been added all other works published by the parliamentary preachers from 1640 through 1642, and the publications of other prominent propagandists. Wilson, Pulpit in Parliament is the most thorough study of the parliamentary sermons, but also see Kirby, E. W., ‘Sermons before the Commons, 1640–42’, American Historical Review, XLIX (1939), 528–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Lamont, W. M., ‘Episcopacy and a “godly discipline”, 1641–6’, in this Journal, X (1959), 74–89Google Scholar, Spalding, James, ‘Sermons before Parliament (1640–1649) as a public puritan diary’, C.H., XXXVI (1967), 24–35Google Scholar, and Trevor-Roper, H. R., ‘The fast sermons of the Long Parliament’, in his Religion, the Reformation and Social Change, London 1967, 294–344. One of the most important reasons for selecting parliamentary sermons for analysis is that, in addition to being semi-official statements, they are a body of sources about which much is known.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} This interpretation is firmly established by Lamont, Godly Rule, ch. 1 and 2; Hill, Antichrist, ch. 1; and Christianson, ‘Apocalyptic Visions’, ch. 1, 3 and 4. In my thesis two basic traditions of apocalyptic thought are delineated. Those who believed that God would employ magistrates to destroy the power of antichrist formed an ‘imperial tradition’, while those who stressed the role of persons outside of established channels of power formed a ‘tradition of the persecuted and oppressed’. These correspond roughly to Lamont's ‘centripetal’ and ‘centrifugal’ traditions, but reflect more closely the language of the writers analysed. Cf. Lamont, Godly Rule, 32.

^{page 227 note 2} Pym's speech is printed in Kenyon, J. P., The Stuart Constitution 1603–1688, Cambridge 1966, 203–5. For a detailed examination of the apocalyptic thought of Bastwick, Burton, Prynne and Lilburne in the 1630s, see chapter 4 of my thesis.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} Cornelius Burges, The first sermon, London 1641 (17 November 1640), 54, cf. 35–8, 49, 53–5. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 228 note 2} Stephen Marshall, A Sermon, London 1641 (17 November 1640), 36, 43–4. This image was used ad infinitum in the following years. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 228 note 3} Ibid., 34, 28.

^{page 228 note 4} Ibid., 43–4, cf. 46.

^{page 229 note 1} Samuel Fairclough, The troublers troubled, London 1641 (4 April 1641), 24, 50. A client of the puritan patriarch of Suffolk, Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston, Fairclough had been cited before the ecclesiastical authorities several times in the previous decade. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 229 note 2} Thomas Wilson, Davids zeal for Zion, London 1641 (4 April 1641), 16, 37–8. Cf. G. S[winnock], The life and death of Mr. Tho. Wilson, London 1672. Lamont has stressed the importance of Thomas Brightman for the radicals of 1641 in Marginal Prynne, 59–64. Accounts and interpretations of Brightman's thought can be found in Clouse, J.E.T.S., XII (1969), 181–93, Toon, Puritan Eschatology, 26–32, and in the following theses: Clouse, ‘Influence of Alsted’, 41–60, Gilsdorf, ‘Puritan Apocalypse’, 29–45, Wilson, ‘Puritan Millenarianism’, 148–57, and Christianson, ‘Apocalyptic Visions’, 174–86.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 3} Ibid., 45.

^{page 229 note 4} William Bridge, Babylons downfall, London 1641 (n.d.), 6; Cornelius Burges, Another sermon, London 1641 (5 November 1641), 54; Edward Calamy, Englands looking-glasse, London 1641 (22 December 1641), 17, 29–30, and Gods free mercy to England, London 1642 (23 February 1642), 6; William Carter, Israels peace with God, London 1642 (31 August 1642), 23–4, 27; Joseph Caryl, The workes of Ephesus explained, London 1642 (27 April 1642), 46–7; Thomas Case, Two sermons, London 1642 (n.d.), no. 1, 4, 16–17, 20, no. 2, 1–2, 16, 20, 23, 55; Thomas Hill, The trade of truth advanced, London 1642 (27 July 1642), 7, 45; Nathaniel Ho[l]mes, A new world, London 1641 (30 May 1641), 33, and The peasants price, London 1642, 18, 34, 42; Stephen Marshall, A peace-offering of God, London 1641 (7 September 1641), 9, and Reformation and desolation, London 1642 (22 December 1641); 45, Matthew Newcomen, The craft and cruelty of this churches adversaries, London 1643 (5 November 1642), 12, 16, 36–45; Obadiah Sedgwick, Englands preservation, London 1642 (25 May 1642), 34–5; Sidrach Simpson, A sermon, London 1643 (n.d., 1641 ?), dedication, 20–4; Thomas Temple, Christ's government, London 1642 (26 October 1642), 32, 35, 43; Thomas Valentine, A sermon, London 1643 (28 December 1642), 27. Examples of the application of this interpretation by men who did not preach to parliament can be found in the works of John Geree, John Milton, and ‘Smectymnuus’.

^{page 230 note 1} For example, J[ohn] C]anne], The informer, Amsterdam 1641; [John Canne], Syons prerogative royal, Amsterdam 1641; I.W., Discovery of the beast, Amsterdam 1641; and Katherine Chidley, The justification of the independent churches of Christ, London 1641. Three of these were printed on the Separatist ‘Richt Right’ press in Amsterdam where young John Lilburne published his pamphlets in the 1630s. Previous works published by Separatist presses in the Netherlands are discussed in Christianson, ‘Apocalyptic Visions’, ch. 2–4.

^{page 230 note 2} Jeremiah Burroughs, Sions joy, London 1641 (7 September 1641), 8–9. One of the prominent ‘dissenting brethren’ of the Westminster Assembly, Burroughs was in exile in Holland in the 1630s. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 230 note 3} Ibid., 57, 24, 43.

^{page 231 note 1} [Henry Burton], The protestation protested, London 1641, sig. A 2^v–4, B 3.

^{page 231 note 2} Henry Burton, Englands bondage and hope of deliverance, London 1641 (20 June 1641), 7–11, 20, 24, 26, 32. It was not surprising that he gathered a congregation in London in 1643. Unlike the non-separating Congregationalists, Burton had attacked the Church of England as being a false church, a part of the train of antichrist, as early as 1639. Cf. his A replie to a relation, n.p. 1640, 32, 53, 55, 61, 63, 75–6, 87, 130, 262 m.n., 286, 289–90, 300, 330 and Christianson, ‘Apocalyptic Visions’, 260–70.

^{page 231 note 3} Burton, Englands bondage, II, 23–7 and Burroughs, Sions joy, 44.

^{page 231 note 4} London 1641, two parts. Cf. Lamont, Marginal Prynne, ch. 4.

^{page 231 note 5} For the apocalyptic interpretations of Martin Marprelate and Alexander Leighton, see Christianson, ‘Apocalyptic Visions’, 114–30, 205–22.

^{page 231 note 6} Richard Bernard, A short view ojthe prelatical Church of England, London 1641, 1–2, 30, 34–5; Robert Greville, Lord Brooke, A discourse opening the nature of that episcopacy, which is exercised in England, London 1641, references are to the second edition, London 1642, 5, 33–43, 51, 54–8, 59; William Sedgwick, Zion's deliverance and her friends duty, London 1643 (29 June 1642), 26; and Thomas Wilson, Jerichoes down-fall, London 1643 (28 September 1642), 6, 14–16.

^{page 232 note 1} Although the Root and Branch Petition to the House of Commons (17 December 1640) put forth the same programme of reform, it did not specifically state that the bishops were antichrists; it was closer to the consensus view preached to parliament. Cf. Gardiner, S. R., Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660, 3rd ed., Oxford 1906, 137–44.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 2} Mrs. Kirby stresses the attack upon the Laudians to such an extent that she tends to lose sight of the great differences among the preachers, A.H.R., XLIV (1939), 528–48.Google Scholar Her contention that these sermons were ‘Erastian’ is ably refuted by Lamont, in this Journal, X (1959), 74–7Google Scholar. William Haller stresses the call for a preaching ministry in his Rise of Puritanism, New York 1938Google Scholar, ch. 9, and Liberty and Reformation in the Puritan Revolution, New York 1955, ch. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 3} Henry Burton, The Sounding of the two last trumpets, London 1641, 1, 12–19, 28, 40–4, 62, 70–5, 85, 87, 89, 90–3.

^{page 233 note 1} Joseph Symonds, A sermon, London 1641 (30 May 1641), sig. B 2^v, C 2^v–3, E 1^v–2. Before returning from exile, Symonds was associated with Sidrach Simpson's gathered church in Rotterdam. Cf. Nuttall, Geoffrey, Visible Saints, Oxford 1957, 11–12 n. 8. Fairclough, The troublers troubled, Wilson, Davids zeal for Zion, Case, Two sermons, and Bridge, Babylons down-fall were earlier sermons which contained hints of the congregational ideal without spelling it out.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} Holmes, The new world, or the new reformed church, 3–4. Holmes received his D.D. from Oxford in 1637. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 233 note 3} Ibid., 7. Interpretations of this sort seem to have been fairly common among nonseparating congregationalists in the Netherlands and New England in the late 1630s. For the latter, see Clouse, ‘Influence of Alsted’, 63–81; Gilsdorf, ‘Puritan Apocalypse’, ch. 3–5; and Wilson, ‘Puritan Millenarianism’, ch. 6.

^{page 233 note 4} Ibid., 43–50, 52. He was describing congregational polity as it had been worked out and put into practice in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Cf. Miller, Perry, Orthodoxy in Massachusetts 1630–1650, Boston 1933CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Morgan, Edmund, Visible Saints, New York 1963.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 5} Ibid., 45, 54–5.

^{page 234 note 1} Ibid, 35.

^{page 234 note 2} Ibid., 35–7.

^{page 234 note 3} Burroughs, Sions joy, 44; cf. Holmes, The new world, 23–4, and The peasants price, 65.

^{page 234 note 4} Four other sermons from the summer of 1641 contained or implied an interpretation similar to that of Holmes—William Sedgwick, Scripture a perfect rule for church-government, London 1643 (n.d.), passim; Simpson, A sermon, 3, 16–17, 26–7, 38; Burroughs, Sions joy, 2–4, 21, 24–5, 44–7, 60, 64; and Marshall, A peace-offering to God, 22, 50.

^{page 235 note 1} John Archer, The personall reigne of Christ upon earth, London 1641, and [Jeremiah Burroughs], A glimpse of Syons glory, London 1641. For a discussion of these two pamphlets, including an attribution of the latter to Burroughs, see Christianson, ‘Apocalyptic Visions’, 373–95. For discussions of Alsted and Mede, see the works 225 n. 2.

^{page 235 note 2} Of the ten sermons preached to the Commons during this period, only that of T.F. (Thomas Ford ?) did not fit into this category. Burroughs, Burton, Simpson and Symonds had been in exile in the 1630s.

^{page 236 note 1} Cf. Cheshire, A sermon, and Edward Reynolds, Israels petition in time of trouble, London 1642 (27 July 1642). Reynolds was a moderate Anglican who reluctantly supported the side of parliament and who became a bishop at the restoration. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 236 note 2} Hill (Antichrist, 78–84) makes this point with regard to the radicals, while Walzer (Revolution of the Saints, 293–9) suggests this interpretation, but dates the difference to the years following 1642. From their citations, neither seems to have systematically surveyed the parliamentary sermons.

^{page 236 note 3} Cornelius Burges, Another sermon, 35, 1–33.

^{page 236 note 4} Ibid., 60–2.

^{page 237 note 1} [John Goodwin], Ireland's advocate, London 1641, 27, 29. This sermon was preached on 14 November 1641. Goodwin was a controversial Congregationalist. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 237 note 2} Ibid., 32, cf. 19–20, 29.

^{page 237 note 3} Calamy, Englands looking-glasse, 20, cf. 16–17. A host of pamphlets describing the Irish rebellion had been printed by the time that these sermons were preached on 22 December 1641. Calamy was a ‘presbyterian’ who had been driven from his lectureship by bishop Wren in 1636. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 237 note 4} Ibid., 10, 46.

^{page 237 note 5} Marshall, Reformation and desolation, 24, cf. 47–8.

^{page 238 note 1} The process of establishing a regular programme of fast sermons is traced in Wilson, Pulpit in Parliament, chs. 1–3.

^{page 238 note 2} Stephen Marshall, Meroz cursed, London 1642 (23 February 1642), 8. Concentrating only upon parliamentary sermons, Trevor-Roper viewed this sermon as a prototype for the militant preaching which would henceforth sound forth from the pulpits of England: Religion, the Reformation, 308.

^{page 238 note 2} Ibid., 20, cf. 33, 54.

^{page 238 note 3} Ibid.,12. This image from Revelation was a favourite among the militants in 1641 and 1642. The message of Edmund Calamy, Marshall's colleague for the day, was similar: Gods free mercy to England, 4, 24–5, 46.

^{page 239 note 1} Simeon Ashe, The best refuge, London 1642 (20 March 1642), 15, cf. 2, 30–1, 37, 40, 51–2,58–61. Ashe had been ejected in the 1630s for refusing to accept Laudian ceremonies and to read the ‘Book of Sports’. A chaplain to the earl of Manchester in the first civil war, he became a Congregationalist by 1644. Cf. D.N.B. and Nuttall, Visible Saints, 5 n. 2. In order to be certain that the sermons preached before parliament during 1640–2 were not atypical, all of the fast sermons from 30 November 1642 through 25 October 1643 were also analysed. Reference to these will be made in appropriate footnotes. Examples of other men who identified the royalists with antichrist by tracing their lineage through the bishops or Arminians were: John Arrowsmith, The covenant-avenging sword, London 1643 (25 January 1643), 15, 25, 28; John Ellis, The sole path to a sound peace, London 1643 (22 February 1643), 22–3, 42, 48, 64; William Greenhill, The axe at the root, London 1643 (26 April 1643), 12–14, 35,46; John Lightfoot, Elias redevivus, London 1643 (29 March 1643), 17, 27–8, 38–41, 50; Obadiah Sedgwick, Haman's vanity, London 1643 (15 June 1643), 2, 6, 8–9, 12, 16, 19, 26; Anthony Tuckney, The balme ofGilead, London 1643 (30 August 1643), 25–6, 30, 32, 37–9, 40; and Jeremiah Whittaker, Eirenopoios, Christ the settlement of unsettled times, London 1643 (25 January 1643), 1, 17–18, 26, 27, 34, 60–1.

^{page 239 note 2} Burges, Two sermons, 29, 41.

^{page 239 note 3} Thomas Goodwin, Zerubbabels encouragement to finish the Temple, London 1642 (27 April 1642), 12–16, 32, 46–8, 50, 55–8. One of the ‘dissenting brethren’ of the Westminster Assembly, Goodwin, had been in exile in Holland in the 1630s. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 239 note 4} Ibid., 19, 36, cf. 50. Like Holmes, Goodwin applied Mede's interpretation of the ‘stone’ of Daniel to the triumph of Congregationalism.

^{page 240 note 1} Ibid., 42, 48, 58, cf. 56–8. Goodwin's colleague, Joseph Caryl, concentrated upon castigating the royalists, for he feared that they would attempt to re-introduce Babylon into England if they won the war: The workes qf Ephesus explained, 1, 32, 40–1, 47, 50, 54.

^{page 240 note 2} Quoted in Kenyon, Stuart Constitution, 196.

^{page 240 note 3} Wilson, Pulpit in Parliament, 64.

^{page 240 note 4} Sedgwick, Zions deliverance, 10–11. Sympathetic to the sects, William later became known as ‘doomsday’ Sedgwick and should not be confused with the less radical Obadiah Sedgwick. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 241 note 1} Ibid., 16–17, cf. 11, 22, 26.

^{page 241 note 2} Ibid., 34, cf. 17, 24–6, 31–2.

^{page 241 note 3} Ibid., 35.

^{page 241 note 4} Ibid., 39–40, cf. 47–51, 53–4.

^{page 242 note 1} In 1643 three powerful sermons gave very lengthy apocalyptic analyses of the civil war in England. None was millennial, but all drew strongly upon Mede and Brightman. All identified the royalists with the forces of antichrist and predicted the final fall of Rome in the not-too-distant future: Francis Cheynell, Sions memento and Gods alarum, London 1643 (31 May 1643), sig. A 1 and 3, 1, 3–4, 9–12, 16–22, 26–9, 31; Stephen Marshall, The song of Moses, London 1643 (15 June 1643); and Henry Wilkinson, Babylons ruine, Jerusalems rising, London 1643 (25 October 1643). Almost every page of the last two sermons would have to be cited!

^{page 242 note 2} Other ‘root and branch’ sermons included the following: William Carter, Israels peace with God, 1–2, 19, 23–5, 27, 44; Joseph Caryl, The nature … of a sacred covenant, London 1643 (6 October 1643), 20–1, 37, 40–3; Humfry Chambers, A divine ballance, London 1643 (27 September 1643), 7, 14, 25; Thomas Coleman, The Christians course and complaint, London 1643 (30 August 1643), 24, 26, 29, 40–2, 54–5, 64–6, 71; Thomas Hill, The trade of truth advanced, 14, 17–19, 28–9, 31, 36–7, 45, 58–9, The militant church triumphant over the dragon and his angels, London 1643 (21 July 1643), 4, 7, 9–10, 19–20, 30; and Thomas Temple, Christ's government, 4, 23–4, 32, 35, 46–8, 50. Caryl, Hill and Temple all made congregational appeals, but stressed the abolition of episcopacy as a first step.

^{page 242 note 1} Thomas Case, Gods rising, his enemies scattering, London 1644 (26 October 1642), 4. A prominent ‘presbyterian’ member of the Westminster Assembly, Case had been harassed by the Laudians in the 1630s. Cf. D.N.B.

^{page 243 note 1} Ibid., 14, 16.

^{page 243 note 2} Ibid., 5, 41–2.

^{page 243 note 3} Ibid., 44. Cf. Thomas Case, Gods waiting to be gracious unto his people, London 1642, 17, 21–3, 25–7, 57–69, 72, 97–9, 102–3, 109–10, 149–54, 166–8. For another reformer troubled about the sects, see Burges, Another sermon, 60, and Two sermons, 46.

^{page 243 note 4} Wilson, Pulpit in Parliament, 66.

^{page 243 note 5} Case, Gods rising, 34. The classic arguments for a defensive appeal to arms are contained in [Herbert Palmer], Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive arms, London 1643. Other parliamentary sermons which advocated this position include Oliver Bowles, Zeale for Gods house quickened, London 1643 (Joint and Assembly, 7 July 1643), 4, 17, 23,32, 34; Anthony Burges, The difficulty of, and encouragements to a reformation, London 1643 (27 September 1643), 7, 13–14; Edmund Calamy, The noble-mans pattern, London 1643 (Lords, 15 June 1643), 24, 30, 46–7, 56–8; Charles Herle, A pqyre of compasses for church and state, London 1642 (30 November 1642), 12, 25, 44, and Davids song, London 1643 (Lords, 15 June 1643), 4, 22–7; John Ley, The fury of wane, London 1643 (26 April 1643), 2, 20, 32, 41–2, 74; Matthew Newcomen, The craft and cruelty, 12, 16, 21, 28–33, 36–45, 49–51, 53–5; and Herbert Palmer, The necessity and encouragement of utmost venturing, London 1643 (21 June 1643),3, 11–12, 42–4, 61, 64–5. The congregationalist Jeremiah Burroughs also made this type of appeal in the expanded version of a sermon he preached in December 1642, The glorious name of God, London 1643, 7, 9, 11–13, 15, 27–8, 36, 40–2, 54, 56–71 68, 55–7 (2), 72–3, 88, 105, 145–6. Page numbers 50 to 70 are repeated.