Part of a Letter written to the Auther, relative to the fubject of these papers.

-I

Have, as you recommended to me, confidered Mr. Warburton's * comment on 1 Tim. iv. 8. and agree with him that the bodily exercife there fpoken of has reference to the ritual obfervances of the Jews; but whether to thofe aliné, as that learned gentle-1 man's argument feems to me to require, I am not fo clear.

There are two conftructions of the words προς όλιγον, either of which will indeed imply that no other but Jewish exercises are there intended.

1. The word Xgovov may be understood, and then the fenfe will be, as in the margin of our tranflation, for a little time, that is to say, for fo long, and no longer than the Mosaic inftitute continued in force. Or,

2. Пgos you may mean in fome degree, that Is, fo far as bodily exercise has the promise of this

* Divine Legation, book v. fect. 6. page 470, of

the fecond edition.

VOL. IV.

D

life.

life.

These circumstances, out of all doubt, make this bodily exercise peculiar to the Jewish difpenfation.

But then, if the profitableness of ritual observances was to determine with that part of the law which enjoined them, or if it was to ceafe when the promise of this life was fuperfeded by the better promises of the gofpel (as is certainly the cafe, if the apoftle is to be understood as above) I cannot fee the reason why "there "must needs be fome [ritual obfervances] under "the gospel wherever there is a Chriftian "church," as Mr. V. holds; unless fuch obfervances are either derived,

1.) From some plain and pofitive inflitution of divine appointment; fince, if such things are no longer profitable by any virtue naturally belonging to them, and have none fuperadded by divine authority, the Christian church can have no reason for enjoining them in that cafe the Christian church, teaching for do&rines the commandments of men, would fall into condemnation. Or,

2.) If the profitableness of rites, be they more or fewer, in the Chriftian church be derived from fome general expedience in the things themfelves (as I am inclined to understand the apoftle's

apoftle's words) there may then be left fome room for human injunctions of the ritual kind, limited by the use of edifying: But then we must take the bodily exercife here mentioned in a larger fenfe, and not understand it of the Jewish ordinances exclufive of others; and whether that will fuit the interpretation Mr. W. gives of the latter part of the verse, I am not quite fatisfied.

I expect you will fay that Mr. W. by ritual obfervances in the Chriftian church, muft be understood of fuch as are appointed in the gofpel; the divine wisdom being the best judge of what is either neceffary or expedient for the church in any period; and, I suppose, when we meet, you will afk me for fome account of this general expedience I talk of.For Mr. W. I pretend not to anfwer; and for myself fhall only offer, that poffibly there may be fome inftrumentality in human rites towards edifi`cation, and that fuch inftrumentality may be verified by their effects and operations upon particular perfons, though you and I may have no experience of the like.

However, I own, my notions of this expedience are but very obfcure and confused; nor am I much enlightened by the epifcopal charge

D 2

charge you mentioned to me some time ago, and which was put into my hands this morning, with a very high character, by my neighbour Mr. ****. Perhaps his lordfhip's doctrine might have the less weight with me, for having fo much in the adversaries fcale.

February 7th, 1752.

A Serious Inquiry, &c.

MY LORD*,

HEN I first perufed your lordship's

WH

charge, I could not but think fome paffages in it, particularly in the 13th and the three following pages, liable to many just objections.

My conjecture was, that the papists, ever watchful to countenance their fuperftition, by pointing out the remnants of it yet unpurged out of our church, and to make their advantage of the conceffions of fome of our unwary divines, would certainly lay their finger upon what your lordship has advanced concerning the importance of external religion.

Still this was but my conjecture, which alone would never have afforded me fufficient reasons for troubling your lordship or the public on any occafion: But having now the misfortune to find them verified by a ftrenuous recommendation of this very charge from a zealous and bigotted papift to a worthy proteftant gentleman (both in my own neighbourhood) your lordship and the

* The lord bishop of Durbam, to whom this letter was addressed, was Dr. Jofeph Butler D 3

reafon