iniquity could, it seems to us, be found in houses more easily than in tents. We cannot see how these statutes "were especially suited to the peculiar sojourn in the desert." Has the writer forgotten the light thrown upon the camp of Israel, by the pillar of fire by night? By this miraculous provision the whole camp was illuminated every night. It was never withdrawn, during Israel's sojourn in the wilderness. See Ex. 13:21, 22, and chap. 40:38.
Our final remark on the reason assigned for the enactment of these statutes is this: we are surprised he should compare statutes prohibiting criminal and incestuous acts with the statutes in Deut. 23:13, &c.
We now enter on the argument to prove the perpetuity of these Levitical statutes.
That they are the law of the supreme Lawgiver is not questioned. He gave them by the hand of his servant Moses to his chosen people, as a rule, in the opinion of multitudes of learned men, prescribing degrees of lawful marriage, or, as the Puritan affirms, as a rule to prohibit the commission of "single acts of an incestuous character." (P. 11.) Which is correct? What