that each of them may subscribe to a fund they have their own security for augmenting.
The scrupulous Statesmen (for we know that Statesmen are usually very scrupulous) may object against having this project secured by votes in parliament; by reason, as they may deem it in their great wisdom, of its being an impious project, and that therefore so illustrious an assembly as the Irish Parliament ought by no means, according to the opinion of a Christian statesman, to be concerned in supporting any impious thing in the world. The way that some may take to prove it impious is, because it will tend highly to the interest of swearing. But this I take to be plain downright sophistry, and playing upon words: 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
