‘Tis confest, you may alledge, that Swearing is a most heinous Sin, but I do never swear my self, but only to repeat those Oaths of another (which are therefore his Sins not mine) whose omission would spoil the Jest.
Answ. This brings into my mind the known Story of that merry Gentleman, who to shew the sullen Justice how the Mastiff he had kill’d, had first assaulted him and overthrown him, runs full butt at the formal Sir’s breast, and sends both him and his Chair to salute the ground: For when a Sin cannot be imitated, without being committed, then that you but repeat it only, is as sorry an excuse, as his must be, who to illustrate the relation of a Murder, should Pistol the first man he meets withal. Besides, when did Transgression by President turn Innocence? and what was unlawful in the Act, become legitimate in the Repetition? It is acknowledged, that the relating of another’s Oaths may sometimes be not only lawful but necessary; but then it must be either to discover or convert the Swearer; or else when the Oath is some material Circumstance of a serious Narrative. But here the very End adds guiltiness to the Action, it being only to make another’s Vice applauded, and render his Sin both infectious and immortal. But how will you justify this introducing of God’s Name only (like a Fool in a Play) to make the Company laugh, and to bring it into contempt, from the disobedience to the Prohibition of taking God’s Name in vain? Unless (perhaps) the consequents of your sin teach you a construction that may resolve this difficulty; and the Judgments your swearing will provoke, shew you in what sense you have taken your Maker’s Name in vain. Remember how sad a Reckoning was presented to Belshazzar (Dan. 5. 5) by the Hand-writing upon the Wall, for having turn’d the Vessels of the Temple into Implements and Furtherers of Mirth, at his sumptuous Entertainment; and consider betimes, that God may possibly less resent the making merry in his Holy Cups, than the making merry with his most Holy Name.
To this may well be added, That in this sinning at the second hand, the Copied Sin is held more criminal in the Transcript than in the Original; for besides that this Swearer by Imitation acknowledges himself so delighted with the other’s sin, that he becomes the Devil’s Mountebank (or his Zany) to have it admired by all that hear him (and we know that Approbation is but an after-Consent); besides this, I say, the Leading Swearer has the excuse of an immediate Applause; whereas the Apish Repeater wrongs and discredits his own Piety, only to celebrate and proclaim another’s Wit; if that be not too partially term’d Wit, that appears such only to our Corruptions: Since when the Oath must make the Jest, ‘tis only the Devil in us that is pleas’d with it. Handsome Replies are good without Oaths, and dull ones will not be made good by them: To the one they are needless, to the other they are useless; that being justly enough appliable to Oaths in Apothegms, which is usually believ’d in painting of Faces, That Beauties need it not, and deformed Women look but ridiculously for it.
Fools (says the Wise-man) make a mock of sin; they can take (Prov. 14. 9) pleasure to hear him affronted, in whose Communion consists happiness; and make that the fewel of their jollity, that should be the object of their detestation. For my part I do not like this doing in jest, what a man may be damn’d for in earnest; and I much wonder that we frail Mortals, whose faults are more numerous than the very minutes we have liv’d, should think our own sins too few to condemn us, without adopting those of others too! and to our crimes (too numerous already) adding these sins of Supererogation! But to resume our Theme.