_Obj._ 1. Whether by any law, divine or human, may reformation of religion be brought in by arms? _Ans._ 1. What is this at all to the covenant, where there is no mention of arms at all? 2. What is this to our present condition, where reforming by arms is not at all the question? For if reformation of religion be the case of our affairs; then either the parliament are they that do it, or the cavaliers: not the cavaliers, for they are on the defensive: witness all their declarations. Not the parliament, for then the cavaliers will be found fighters against religion, and resisters of God. 3. I answer negatively, it is not. The sword is not the means which God hath ordained to propagate the gospel: "Go and teach all nations;" not, go and subdue all nations, is our Master's precept. _Obj._ 2. Whether to swear to a government that shall be, or to swear not to dissent from such a future government, be not to swear upon an implicit faith? _Ans._ 1. This is nothing to the covenant, neither can I see upon what ground any should raise such an impertinent scruple. 2. It is, he that so swears, swears upon an implicit faith: for one reason against the articles of the prelates was, that they forced us to swear to the homilies that shall be set out. But these things are extravagant. Other objections by word of mouth have been propounded, some whereof I will here touch upon. _Obj._ 1. One would make a stand at the phrase, [in our callings,] as if some politic mystery were therein involved, and would have it changed, [according to our callings, or so far forth as they extend.] There is an identity in the phrase, an action enjoined to be done in such a place, every corner, as far as that place extends, is that place, and no other. All is one. _Obj._ How if the parliament should hereafter see a convenience in prelacy for this kingdom, were not this oath then prejudicial, either to the parliament's liberty, or kingdom's felicity? _Ans._ This objection supposes, _First_, That the most wicked antichristian government may be a lawful government in point of conscience. _Second_, That it is possible, that this prelatical government may be convenient for a state or kingdom. When as 1. They have been burdensome in all ages; what opposites in England have they been to our kings, till their interests were changed? 2. All reformed religions in the world have expelled them, as incompatible with reformation. 3. They have set three kingdoms together by the ears, for the least, and worst of causes, which now lie weltering in their own blood, ready to expire. 4. Experience now shows, there is no inconvenience in their want; either in Scotland, or in England.