The limits of the validity of argument by analogy are subjects of long

-standing controversy.  Varying conclusions have been reached, according to

the state of mind of the times, and the approach to the subject, whether

philosophical, mathematical or religious.  We are chiefly concerned here with

the use of analogy in the things of God and His revelation, and we need not

therefore take up valuable time and space in dealing with the history of the

controversy.  Whately, speaking of analogy, writes:

'Two things may be connected together by analogy, though they have in

themselves no resemblance, for analogy is the resemblance of ratios or

relations.  Thus as a sweet taste gratifies the palate, so does a sweet

sound gratify the ear, hence the word sweet is applied to both, though

no flavour can ever resemble a sound in itself'.

Even Whately's use of the word 'gratify' is an example of the analogous

in language, for 'gratify' indicates 'gratitude', and the giving of thanks.

It is used here figuratively, and of course rightly, for it is a false

conception of truth and truth -telling to imagine that figurative language is

not true.  Indeed, the opposite is often the case; a figure of speech is

often more true to the inner fact than any amount of 'plain unvarnished

speech' (to use another figure).  However, in spite of the attempt on the

part of Whately to limit analogy to relations, it will be found in ordinary

use that:

'Some identity of nature is always postulated in every analogy, as in

the instance just given both "hearing" and "tasting" are sensations'.

When we turn to the Scriptures, we find that analogy is largely

associated with what is called anthropomorphism, that is, the ascription of

human passions, actions and attributes to God.  The Hebrew name for this

figure was Derech Benai Adam, 'The way of the sons of men'; the Latin name is

Condescensio, indicating the condescension of the infinite God, Who for the

enlightenment of His creatures reveals Himself under human symbols and

figures.  We will not here turn aside from our theme to deal with the place

of figures of speech in general; for the moment we must consider the

connection between analogy, anthropomorphism, and revealed truth:

'That which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath

shewed it unto them.  For the invisible things of Him from the creation

of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are

made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without

excuse' (Rom. 1:19,20).

This verse shows without question that something may be known of God by

analogy; enough to make idolatry inexcusable.  The question, however, that

attracted the close scrutiny of the 'Schoolmen' was how far anthropomorphism

could be justified in the things of God.  Anthropomorphic statements cannot

be taken literally; yet they cannot be summarily dismissed.  We read in the

Scriptures of the face, the eyes, the ears, the hands, the fingers, the

nostrils, the heart, and the bowels of God.  To accept the statements

literally would be manifestly false and unscriptural; and to justify them

logically and philosophically is a task that cannot be easily accomplished.

One result of the Schoolmen's study was the emergence of the fact that

language must be distinguished by a threefold usage.  It can be used (1)

univocally, (2) equivocally, and (3) analogically.  A word is used univocally

when in two or more propositions it conveys precisely the same meaning.  It