The author examines a basic question for theological inquiry: how is congruence between past and present meaning achieved in tradition and in theological judgment? He begins by criticizing the account of traditional continuity offered in the recent work of Kathryn Tanner and by considering the limits of correlation in explaining congruence in theological judgment. Constructively, he proposes an understanding of method as a pragmatics of tradition in which a certain use of analogy accounts for traditional and theological congruence.