ds: If this be called the
Swearing project, or the Oath-act, the increase of swearing will be very
much for the benefit and interest of swearing, (_i.e._) to the
subscribers in the fund to be raised by this fruitful Swearing-act, if
it should be so called; but not to the swearers themselves, who are to
pay for it: So that it will be, according to this distinction, piously
indeed an act for a benefit to mankind, _from_ swearing, not
_impiously_, a benefit _in swearing_: So that I think that argument
entirely answered and defeated. Far be it from the Dean to have entered
into so unchristian a project, as this had been, so considered. But then
these politicians (being generally, as the world knows, mighty tender of
conscience) may raise these new doubts, fears, and scruples, _viz._ that
it will however cause the subscribers to wish, in their minds, for many
oaths to fly about, which is a heinous crime, and to lay stratagems to
try the patience of men of all sorts, to put them upon the swearing
strain, in order to bring grist to their own mill, which is a crime
still more enormous; and that therefore, for fear of these evil
consequences, the passing of such an act is not consistent with the
really extraordinary and tender conscience of a true modern politician.
But in answer to this, I think I can plead the strongest plea in nature,
and that is called precedent, I think; which I take thus from the
South-Sea: One man, by the very nature of that subscription, must
naturally pray for the temporal damnation of another man in his fortune,
in order for gaining his own salvation in it; yea, even though he knows
the other man's temporal damnation would be the cause of his eternal, by
his swearing and despairing. Neither do I think this in casuistry and
sin, because the swearing, undone man is a free agent, and can choose
whether he will swear or no, anybody's wishes whatsoever to the contrary
notwithstanding: And in politics I am sure it is even a Machiavellian
holy maxim, "That some men should be ruined for the good of others."
Thus I think I have answered all the objections that can be brought
against this project's coming to perfection, and proved it to be
convenient for the state, of interest to the Protestant church, and
consonant with Christianity, nay, with the very scruples of modern,
squeamish statesmen.

To conclude: The laudable author of this project squares the measures of
it so much according to the scripture rule, it