268 LECTURES AND ESSAYS [1870- 



recognised as literal, if we remember &quot; that there has been, 

 in matter of fact, in Christian times a visible church, a 

 temporal kingdom, a succession of rulers such as the 

 prophecies do describe.&quot; By this view, moreover, we 

 shall not only indicate the literal truth of the prophetic 

 oracles, but do strict justice to the strong language in 

 which Moses inculcates the eternal obligation of the 

 theocratic law. In a word, temporal as well as spiritual 

 greatness, visible dominion as well as secret influence, 

 were under the Law promised to the Church in the future, 

 and according to the promise has already come to pass in 

 gospel times. In thus ascribing to the Church the char 

 acter of a visible theocracy, Mr. Newman of course takes 

 the usual standpoint of his school, according to which 

 Christ s church &quot; is a temporal power, and necessarily 

 interferes in the concerns of this world &quot; (p. 252) by means 

 of the outward organisation of governors which she has 

 in common with other temporal powers. 



So far as this argument goes, it is not, you see, precisely 

 self-supporting. It is rather assumed as otherwise 

 manifest, that the Church of Christ is a temporal power ; 

 and then this result is in part applied in proof of, and in 

 part itself confirmed by, the theory that prophecy is 

 literally fulfilled. This arrangement of the argument 

 not unsuitable for the ends of a sermon is none the less 

 scientifically unfortunate, and in the present case it serves, 

 I think, to conceal the very fallacy so dangerous in the 

 interpretation of prophecy. For while it is assumed that 

 the temporal power of the Church can be deduced from 

 Old Testament prophecy by a simple application of the 

 exegetical canon, that the most literal interpretation is 

 always to be preferred, we shall find on viewing the 

 matter a little more narrowly, that a great deal more than 

 a mere formally exegetical canon is assumed. In short, 

 while Mr. Newman supposes himself to be discussing a 

 question purely exegetical, and thence deducing a view 

 as to the relation of the two covenants, this apparently 



