code are still binding, while others are not, he observes, "What we want, then, is some plain criterion, by which we may distinguish those which are of permanent and universal obligation, from those which are not." (P. 4, third parag.) Distrusting himself in this delicate matter, the Puritan determined to avail himself of the guidance and aid of that justly celebrated theologian, F. Turrettin. Had he faithfully followed his own chosen guide, and correctly applied the criterion proposed by him, for discovering what principles are of permanent obligation, and what are not, in the civil code of the Hebrew people, he would have arrived at a different conclusion. But he has failed to do so.
To illustrate this, we make the following remarks:
1. Turrettin does not place these statutes in the municipal code of the Hebrew commonwealth. Incest he would define to be a violation of God's moral law. He justly enumerates it among the sins against the seventh commandment in the Decalogue.[1] Now, let it be recol-
- ↑ Tur. vol. ii. p. 133.
