1. That precepts of a positive nature under the Mosaic dispensation, were absolutely so in all their circumstances; so as not to leave any thing to be inferred by the person or persons concerned, in the discharge of the duty enjoined.—But if these things were so, if the Jewish ritual was so express as to leave nothing to be determined by inference, one might well wonder whence could spring so many _Targums_ and _Talmuds_, so many voluminous works intended to explain and illustrate the various circumstances attending the performance of these _positive duties_ among others. Are not these _unprescribed circumstances_ of ritual worship, and other positive injunctions, what in a great degree swell the interpretations of the _Rabbins_?—The truth is, that there were many precepts under the Jewish economy positive in a _considerable degree_, relative to the _subject_ as well as the mode of an institute, and respecting the former, it was sometimes particularly scrupulous, for reasons already assigned; but it does not follow that ANY ONE of these were so strictly positive, as not to take some things for _granted_ respecting the circumstances of the duty, such as national custom, the common dictates of sense and reason, traditionary knowledge, the general principles of the law of nature, &c. And it should not be forgotten, that the administrator of the Jewish rites had the subjects distinguished and characterized in a _sensible manner_, which qualification was to be determined by the same sort of evidence as any _facts_ in common life; but the administrator of the Christian rites has no such grounds to proceed on; his commission is of a _discretionary_ nature, arising from the nature and design of the institutions themselves, as before shewn.