i8 74 ] NEWMAN S THEORY OF PROPHECY 269 



sound argument moves in a vicious circle in so much as 

 the quasi-exegetical canon involves a lemma from the 

 High Church Theology. To understand this, let us 

 observe that Mr. Newman is by no means to be identified 

 with the extreme literalists who are also of necessity 

 extreme futurists. Jerusalem is to him not the capital of 

 Judaea, but the Church of Christ, Israel not the bodily 

 descendants of Abraham, but the Chosen people, just as 

 David in the prophecies means Christ. 



In short, the literal fulfilment of a prophecy does not 

 imply the literal acceptation of every word of the pro 

 phecy. And this position is justified by the very obvious 

 remark &quot; that the use of figures in a composition is not 

 enough to make it figurative as a whole. We constantly 

 use figures of speech when we speak ; yet who will say on 

 that account that the main drift of our conversation is not 

 to be taken literally?&quot; This, our author continues, will 

 apply to the language of the prophets. On the one hand 

 they use such figures as were natural to their poetic style, 

 and speak figuratively, with an allusion to the times 

 before the fall, of the lion lying down with the lamb and 

 the like. Figures of this kind, however, are less frequent, 

 while, on the other hand, the language of the prophets 

 shows certain standing figures, such as David, Israel, 

 Jerusalem, which in truth are not so much figures as 

 proper names that have a figurative origin, or words 

 which, having first had a confined sense, come as language 

 proceeds to have a wide one. 



Something, I think, might be said in criticism of both 

 classes of figures which Mr. Newman here regards as not 

 sufficient to make the tenor of prophecy as a whole 

 allegorical. But for the sake of simplicity, I will quite 

 pass over the so-called poetical figures, and look only at 

 those to which he himself gives most weight, the stand 

 ing expressions, &quot; Jerusalem,&quot; &quot; David,&quot; and the like. 



And here I observe (i) that even of the three names, 

 David, Jerusalem, Israel, Mr. Newman does not give 



