ed into
a single moment, this advantage may be still further increased by the
inward transaction being represented outwardly also. But, here, just
the [Pg 187] opposite would take place. We have here before us a
symbolical transaction which, if it had been performed outwardly, would
have continued for several years. The separation of the single events
would have prevented its being taken in at a single view, and have thus
deprived it of its impressiveness. But, what is still more important,
the natural _substratum_ would have occupied the attention so much more
than the _idea_, that the latter would have been thereby altogether
overlooked. The domestic affairs of the prophet would have become the
subject of a large amount of _tittle-tattle_, and the idea would have
been remembered only to give greater point to the ridicule.

3. The command of God, when considered as referring to an outward
transaction, cannot be, by any means, justified. This is most glaringly
obvious, if we understand this command, as several do, to mean that the
prophet should beget children with an unchaste woman, and without
legitimate marriage. Every one will sympathize with the indignation
expressed by _Buddeus_ (l. c. p. 206) against _Thomas Aquinas_, who,
following this view, maintains that the law of God had been, in this
special case, repealed by His command. God Himself cannot set us free
from His commands; they are an expression of His nature, an image of
His holiness. To ascribe arbitrariness to God in this respect, would be
to annihilate the idea of God, and the idea of the Law at the same
time. This view, it is true, is so decidedly erroneous as to require no
further refutation; but even the opinion of _Buddeus_ and others
presents insurmountable difficulties. They suppose that the prophet had
married a woman who was formerly unchaste. In opposition to this,
Calvin very strikingly remarks: "It seems not to be consistent with
reason, that God should spontaneously have rendered His prophet
contemptible; for how could he ever have appeared in public after such
ignominy had been inflicted upon him? If he had married such a wife, as
here described, he ought rather to have hidden himself all his lifetime
than have assumed the prophetic office." In Lev. xxi. 7 the law forbids
the priests to take a wife that is a whore, or profane. That which,
according to the letter, referred to the priests only, is applicable,
in its spirit, to the prophets als