The Analogy of Faith (Analogia Fidei) in the Early Church (Scripture Interprets Scripture)

Outline.

1. Defining the “Analogy of Faith.”

2. The “Analogy of Faith” in the Patristic Authors.

1. Defining the “Analogy of Faith.” Return to Outline.

J. L. Murphy:

The phrase analogy of faith is Biblical: Rom 12.6 speaks of the charism of prophecy, along with such similar gifts as ministering, teaching, exhorting. Prophets exercised one of several “offices” within the primitive church (Acts 11.27; 13.1); guided by the Spirit, they gained insight into the faith or recognized tasks to be undertaken. The Pauline injunction is given that this gift of prophecy must be exercised “according to the proportion [ἀναλογίαν] of faith.” No prophet is to be accepted who proclaims anything opposed to the “one faith” proper to the “one body in Christ.” Such preaching would be out of proportion to, or beyond, the objective truth entrusted to the Christian community.

     The analogy of faith . . . became a norm for the early Christian writers. They saw a “proportion” in the manner in which the New Testament complements the Old Testament, and in which each particular truth contributes to the inner unity of the entire Christian revelation. Thus the phrase came to indicate a rule or guide for the exegesis of Scripture…

(J. L. Murphy, “Analogy of Faith;” In: New Catholic Encyclopedia: Second Edition: 1: A-Azt, [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 2003], p. 380.)

Cf. Romans 12:6:

However, since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to use them properly: if prophecy, in proportion to one’s faith [ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως];

(New American Standard Bible.)

Charles Hodge:

     If the Scriptures be what they claim to be, the word of God, they are the work of one mind, and that mind divine. From this it follows that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture. God cannot teach in one place anything which is inconsistent with what He teaches in another. Hence Scripture must explain Scripture. If a passage admits of different interpretations, that only can be the true one which agrees with what the Bible teaches elsewhere on the same subject. If the Scriptures teach that the Son is the same in substance and equal in power and glory with the Father, then when the Son says, “The Father is greater than I,” the superiority must be understood in a manner consistent with this equality. It must refer either to subordination as to the mode of subsistence and operation, or it must be official. A king’s son may say, “My father is greater than I,” although personally his father’s equal. This rule of interpretation is sometimes called the analogy of Scripture, and sometimes the analogy of faith. There is no material difference in the meaning of the two expressions.

(Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Vol. I, [New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1874], p. 187.)

Cf. The Westminster Confession of Faith:

…when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

(The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.9; trans. Philip Schaff, Bibliotheca Symbolica Ecclesiæ Universalis: The Creeds of Christendom, With a History and Critical Notes: Volume III, [New York: Harper & Brothers, 1919], p. 605.) See also: ccel.org.

2. The “Analogy of Faith” in the Patristic Authors. Return to Outline.

G. L. Prestige:

Orthodox thinkers [i.e. the Church Fathers] did much the same, it is true; but their Fundamentalism was tempered by their acceptance of allegorical methods of interpretation, and they showed a far profounder sense of the need to interpret the Scriptures as a whole by comparing one passage with another. The Arians on the other hand, like most people of schismatical temper, really neglected the Bible in order to concentrate on a few selected texts.

(G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, [London: S.P.C.K, 1964], p. 147.)

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):

For by the fact that they thus endeavour to explain ambiguous passages of Scripture (ambiguous, however, not as if referring to another god, but as regards the dispensations of [the true] God), they have constructed another god, weaving, as I said before, ropes of sand, and affixing a more important to a less important question. For no question can be solved by means of another which itself awaits solution; nor, in the opinion of those possessed of sense, can an ambiguity be explained by means of another ambiguity, or enigmas by means of another greater enigma, but things of such character receive their solution from those which are manifest, and consistent and clear.

(Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 2.10.1; trans. ANF, 1:370.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. 130-202 A.D.):

If, therefore, according to the rule which I have stated, we leave some questions in the hands of God, we shall both preserve our faith uninjured, and shall continue without danger; and all Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent; and the parables shall harmonize with those passages which are perfectly plain; and those statements the meaning of which is clear, shall serve to explain the parables; and through the many diversified utterances [of Scripture] there shall be heard one harmonious melody in us, praising in hymns that God who created all things. If, for instance, any one asks, “What was God doing before He made the world?” we reply that the answer to such a question lies with God Himself. For that this world was formed perfect by God, receiving a beginning in time, the Scriptures teach us; but no Scripture reveals to us what God was employed about before this event. The answer therefore to that question remains with God, and it is not proper for us to aim at bringing forward foolish, rash, and blasphemous suppositions [in reply to it]; so, as by one’s imagining that he has discovered the origin of matter, he should in reality set aside God Himself who made all things.

(Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies, 2.28.3; trans. ANF, 1:400.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. John Behr (Eastern Orthodox Priest, Theologian and Historian):

…Irenaeus implies that it is on the basis of Scripture that Scripture should be understood. Irenaeus states this principle formally in Against the Heresies: “the demonstrations (ostensiones) [of things contained] in the Scriptures cannot be demonstrated except from the Scriptures themselves.” (AH 3:12:9). If some passages of Scripture appear to us to be obscure, we should seek to understand them by what is clear and manifest in Scripture and not by any other extraneous reasoning (cf. AH 2:27-28).

     It is precisely for having based their interpretation of Scripture upon non-Scriptural principles that Irenaeus criticizes the Gnostics. . . . (AH 1:8:1).

(St. Irenaeus of Lyons, On the Apostolic Preaching, trans. John Behr, [Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997], p. 24.)

Cf. D. Jeffrey Bingham:

Heinz Ohme, the author of the most extensive study of the rule of faith ever conducted, a study that was originally submitted as a Habilitationsschrift at the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, avers that for Irenaeus “the sacred Scripture is fundamentally complete, sufficient, and from itself comprehensible. Therefore, he can refer to Scripture itself as the κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας.”

(D. Jeffrey Bingham, “The Bishop in the Mirror: Scripture and Irenaeus’s Self-Understanding in Adversus Haereses Book One;” In: Tradition and the Rule of Faith In the Early Church: Essays In Honor of Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J., eds. Ronnie J. Rombs, Alexander Y. Hwang, [Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2010], pp. 42-43.)

Note: Published by The Catholic University of America Press.

Note: κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας (“the canon of truth”).

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against the earlier. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer.

(Tertullian of Carthage, Against Praxeas, 20; trans. ANF, 3:615.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155-220 A.D.):

     Well, if it occurs occasionally in certain portions of it, you will say, then why not in that phrase, where the resurrection might be spiritually understood? There are several reasons why not. First, what must be the meaning of so many important passages of Holy Scripture, which so obviously attest the resurrection of the body, as to admit not even the appearance of a figurative signification? And, indeed, (since some passages are more obscure than others), it cannot but be right—as we have shown above—that uncertain statements should be determined by certain ones, and obscure ones by such as are clear and plain; else there is fear that, in the conflict of certainties and uncertainties, of explicitness and obscurity, faith may be shattered, truth endangered, and the Divine Being Himself be branded as inconstant.

(Tertullian of Carthage, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 21; trans. ANF, 3:560.) See also: ccel.org.

Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers (c. 310-367 A.D.):

The worldly man cannot receive the faith of the Apostle, nor can any language but that of the Apostle explain his meaning. God raised Christ from the dead; Christ in Whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. But He quickened us also together with Him, forgiving us our sins, blotting out the bond of the law of sin, which through the ordinances made aforetime was against us, taking it out of the way, and fixing it to His cross, stripping Himself of His flesh by the law of death, holding up the powers to shew, and triumphing over them in Himself.

(Hilary of Poitiers, De Trinitate (On the Trinity), 9.10; trans. NPNF2, 9:158.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. D. H. Williams:

     In keeping with the practice of previous ancient commentators, Hilary perceives the Gospel text as a literary whole, and its message as a doctrinal unity. If the Gospel is allowed to speak for itself, the inquirer will be able to find in any given pericope a general coherence. The reader does not bring his or her own interpretation to the text. Whether obvious or hidden, the meaning of the text is already within the text. Hilary also operates on the principle that Scripture should interpret Scripture.

(St. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 125, trans. D. H. Williams, [Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012], “Introduction,” p. 12.)

Note: Published by The Catholic University of America Press.

Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca (c. 330-379 A.D.):

     What seems to be said in an ambiguous and veiled way in certain passages of inspired Scripture is made plain by the obvious meaning of other passages. [Τὰ ἀμφίβολα καὶ ἐπικεκαλυμμένως εἰρῆσθαι δοκοῦντα ἔν τισι τόποις τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ἄλλοις τόποις ὁμολογουμέων σαφηνίζεται.]

(Basil the Great, The Shorter Rules (Regulæ Brevius Tractatæ), 267; PG, 31:1264; trans. Translations of Christian Literature Series I. Greek Texts: The Ascetic Works of Saint Basil, trans. W. K. L. Clarke, [London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1925], p. 329.)

Cf. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca (c. 330-379 A.D.): 

     You could find many passages of this sort in the writings of the evangelists and the Apostle. Now, then, if a command be given and the manner of carrying it out is not added, let us obey the Lord, who says: ‘Search the Scriptures.’ Let us follow the example of the Apostles who questioned the Lord Himself as to the interpretation of His words, and learn the true and salutary course from His words in another place. 

(Basil the Great, Concerning Baptism (De Baptismo), Bk. 2, Q. 4; PG, 31:1589; trans. FC, 9:399.)

Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

In most places [in plerisque] Paul so explains his meaning by his own words, that he who discourses on them can find nothing to add of his own; and if he wishes to say anything, must rather perform the office of a grammarian than a discourser. [in plerisque ita se ipse suis exponat sermonibus, ut is qui tractat, nihil inveniat quod adjiciat suum; ac si velit aliquid dicere, grammatici magis quam disputatoris fungatur munere.]

(S. Ambrosii, Epistola 37.1; PL, 16:1084; trans. William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice: Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged: Vol. III, [London: Hatchard & Co., 1853], p. 262.)

Alt. Trans. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 340-397 A.D.):

…and also because his discourses are so fully, for the most part, the interpreters of his meaning, that the expounder of them finds nothing to add of his own, and, if he would say ought, fills the part of a critic rather than of a preacher.

(S. Ambrosii, Epistola 37.1; PL, 16:1084; trans. A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church: The Letters of S. Ambrose, [Oxford: James Parker and Co., 1881], p. 235.)

Cf. Stephen Andrew Cooper:

The translation of this section of epistle 7 (= Ep. 54, 268 ff.) in the Fathers of the Church series is not reliable.

(Stephen Andrew Cooper, Marius Victorinus’ Commentary on Galatians, Oxford Early Christian Studies, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005], “Introduction,” p. 118.) Preview.

Cf. FC, 26:286.

John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):

     Anyhow, in case by wanting to make a display of these people’s stupidity we, too, find ourselves induced to utter unseemly remarks, let’s have done with their folly and turn aside from such idiocy; let us follow the direction of Sacred Scripture in the interpretation it gives of itself, provided we don’t get completely absorbed in the concreteness of the words, but realize that our limitations are the reason for the concreteness of the language. (107b) Human senses, you see, would never be able to grasp what is said if they had not the benefit of such great considerateness.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Hom. 13.8; trans. FC, 74:172.) Preview.

Cf. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407 A.D.):

You see, despite the use of such precision by Sacred Scripture, some people have not questioned the glib words of arrogant commentators and farfetched philosophy, even to the extent of denying Holy Writ and saying the garden was not on earth, giving contrary views on many other passages, taking a direction opposed to a literal understanding of the text, and thinking that what is said on the question of things on earth has to do with things in heaven. And, if blessed Moses had not used such simplicity of expression and such considerateness, the Holy Spirit (108d) directing his tongue, where would we not have come to grief? Sacred Scripture, though, whenever it wants to teach us something like this, gives its own interpretation, and doesn’t let the listener go astray. On the other hand, since the majority of listeners apply their ears to the narrative, not for the sake of gaining some profit but for enjoyment, they are at pains to take note of things able to bring enjoyment rather than those that bring profit. So, I beg you, block your ears against all distractions of that kind, and let us follow the norm of Sacred Scripture.

(John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, Hom. 13.13; trans. FC, 74:175.) Preview.

Cf. Josef Lössl (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

The fourth century, however, did see the emergence of a new tradition of biblical commentary writing, namely the so-called Antiochene tradition, with commentators such as Diodore of Tarsus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrus. …they focused on the historical sense of Scripture (ἱστορία), coherence of narrative and argument (ἀκολουθία, consequentia), and on the idea of an inner vision (θεωρία), an ultimate intuitive meaning inherent in the biblical texts. This was in line with their emphasis on the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture…

(Josef Lössl, “Commentaries;” In: The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, eds. Paul M. Blowers, Peter W. Martens, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019], pp. 177, 178.) Preview.

Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7-420 A.D.):

     This passage to the ignorant, and to those who are unaccustomed to meditate on Holy Scripture, and who neither know nor use it, does appear at first sight to favour your opinion. But when you look into it, the difficulty soon disappears. And when you compare passages of Scripture with others, that the Holy Spirit may not seem to contradict Himself with changing place and time, according to what is written, “Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy water spouts,” the truth will show itself, that is, that Christ did give a possible command when He said: “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect,” and yet that the Apostles were not perfect.

(Jerome of Stridon, Against the Pelagians, 1.14; trans. NPNF2, 6:454.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7-420 A.D.):

     Someone may say: ‘You are forcing the Scripture, that is not what it means.’ Let Holy Writ be its own interpreter… 

(Jerome of Stridon, Homilies on the Psalms, Hom. 6 [On Psalm 66 (67)]; trans. FC, 48:45.)

Cf. Jerome of Stridon (c. 342/7-420 A.D.):

…let us call upon the Lord, probe the depths of His sacred writings, and be guided in our interpretation by other testimonies from Holy Writ. Whatever we cannot fathom in the deep recesses of the Old Testament, we shall penetrate and explain from the depth of the New Testament in the roar of God’s cataracts—His prophets and apostles.

(Jerome of Stridon, Homilies, Hom. 92 [On Psalm 41(42)—To the Neophytes]; trans. FC, 57:246.)

Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

     What those who fear God and have a docile piety are looking for in all these books is the will of God. The first step in this laborious search, as I have said, is to know these books, and even if not yet so as to understand them, all the same by reading them to commit them to memory, or at least not to be totally unfamiliar with them. Next, those things that are put clearly in them, whether precepts about how to live or rules about what to believe, are to be studied with the utmost care and diligence; the greater your intellectual capacity, the more of these you will find. The fact is, after all, that in the passages that are put plainly in scripture is to be found everything that touches upon faith, and good morals, that is to say hope and charity, which we dealt with in the previous book.

     Only then, however, after acquiring some familiarity with the actual style of the divine scriptures, should one proceed to try to open up and unravel their obscurities, in such a way that instances from the plainer passages are used to cast light on the more obscure utterances, and the testimony of some undoubted judgments is used to remove uncertainties from those that are more doubtful. In this matter what is of the greatest value is a good memory; if this is wanting, these instructions cannot be of any great assistance.

(Augustine of Hippo, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), 2.9.14; trans. WSA, I/11:135. Cf. NPNF1, 2:539.)

Cf. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (c. 354-430 A.D.):

Magnificent and salutary, therefore, is the way the Holy Spirit has so adjusted the holy scriptures, that they ward off starvation with the clearer passages, while driving away boredom with the obscurer ones. There is almost nothing, in fact, that can be extracted from their obscurities, which cannot be found very plainly said somewhere else.

(Augustine of Hippo, Teaching Christianity (De Doctrina Christiana), 2.6.8; trans. WSA, I/11:132. Cf. NPNF1, 2:537.)

Cf. Casey J. Chalk (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

Luther’s theory that the clearer verses will interpret the obscure ones had ancient pedigree. The Augustinian monk could find validation for this thesis in none other than the inspiration for his religious order, St. Augustine.

(Casey J. Chalk, The Obscurity of Scripture: Disputing Sola Scriptura and the Protestant Notion of Biblical Perspicuity, [Steubenville: Emmaus Road Publishing, 2023], p. 25.) Preview.

Note: This is not just the view of Augustine, but of the vast majority of Patristic writers.

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (c. 393-458/66 A.D.):

     Eran.—We have gone through many and sound arguments, but I was anxious to know the force of the Gospel saying.

     Orth.—You stand in need of no interpretation from without. The evangelist himself interprets himself.

(Theodoret of Cyrus, Dialogue I.—The Immutable; trans. NPNF2, 3:173.) See also: ccel.org.

Cf. Josef Lössl (Roman Catholic Theologian and Historian):

The fourth century, however, did see the emergence of a new tradition of biblical commentary writing, namely the so-called Antiochene tradition, with commentators such as Diodore of Tarsus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, John Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Theodoret of Cyrus. …they focused on the historical sense of Scripture (ἱστορία), coherence of narrative and argument (ἀκολουθία, consequentia), and on the idea of an inner vision (θεωρία), an ultimate intuitive meaning inherent in the biblical texts. This was in line with their emphasis on the principle of interpreting Scripture with Scripture…

(Josef Lössl, “Commentaries;” In: The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Biblical Interpretation, eds. Paul M. Blowers, Peter W. Martens, [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019], pp. 177, 178.) Preview.

Cassiodorus [Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator] (485-585): 

Happy indeed is the mind that has stored such a mysterious treasure in the depths of memory [cf. Virgil Georgics 2.490ff.], with God’s help; but much happier the mind that knows the ways of understanding from its energetic investigation. As a result, such a mind vigorously expels human thoughts and is occupied to its salvation with divine utterances. I recall that I have seen many men with powerful memories who, asked about the most obscure passages, have solved the questions put to them by examples drawn only from divine authority, for a matter stated obscurely in one place is set down more clearly in another book. An example of this is the Apostle Paul who to a large extent in the letter written to the Hebrews elucidates the writings of the Old Testament by their fulfilment in the new times.

(M. Aurelii Cassiodori, De Institutione Divinarum Litterarum, Præfatio; PL, 70:1107; trans. Cassiodorus: Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning On the Soul, Translated Texts for Historians, Volume 42, trans. James W. Halporn, [Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2007], Book 1, Preface, §. 2, p. 106.)

καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων καὶ τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν ~ Soli Deo Gloria