Mackey on Augustine: The Violence of the Letter and the Salubrity of Faith
As we know from Augustine’s Confessions, what proved to be a particularly important breakthrough for Augustine was Ambrose’s explanation of the “spiritual” interpretation of Scripture. Commenting on Ambrose’s hermeneutic, Augustine writes,
I delighted to hear Ambrose often asserting in his sermons to the people, as a principle on which he must insist emphatically, The letter is death-dealing, but the spirit gives life [2 Cor 3:6]. This he would tell them as he drew aside the veil of mystery and opened to them the spiritual meaning of passages which, when taken literally, would seem to mislead (Confessions, p. 140).
Louis Mackey, in his fascinating chapter on Augustine entitled, “From Autobiography to Theology,”[1] adds a creative variation on the spirit vs. the letter theme.
Materialism, the violence of the letter that kills the soul, is countered by the violence with which God chastises Augustine’s carnal affections in order to save his life in the spirit. The spirit gives life by doing violence to the letter in order to counteract the violence of the letter (”From Autobiography to Theology,” p. 23).
Mackey goes on to say that once Augustine embraced Ambrose’s spiritual orientation to Scripture, Augustine not only views the Catholic demand for faith as sane and salubrious, but he also “sees that it is precisely the Manichaeans’ rationalism, materialism, and dualism which are diseased. The pride of reason must be cured, and faith is the remedy [cf. Confessions VI.5.7] (”From Autobiography to Theology,” p. 23).
[1] The quotes from Mackey are taken from his book, Peregrinations of the Word: Essays in Medieval Philosophy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000).
7 Responses so far
Micah Tillman
September 30th, 2007
7:38 pm
What a fascinating post! I am only familiar with a few of Augustine’s texts, and unfortunately the Confessions isn’t one of them. (De Libero Arbitrio is my favorite).
I have a question about Mackey’s statement that the Manichaeans are both materialists and dualists. Dualism “is said in several ways” I am sure, but I’m having a hard time figuring out how it is possible to be materialist (a monist position that says everything is matter, yes?) and dualist (a position which says there is a fundamental dichotomy in being, or between being and what is beyond being, or in the divine, etc., yes?).
If I knew more about Augustine’s life I’m sure I’d know enough about Manichaean philosophy to understand Mackey. Or if I had read Mackey’s book . . . . So much more self-education to be done on my part.
Thanks for a great post!
Cynthia R. Nielsen
October 1st, 2007
8:14 am
The dualism of which Mackey speaks in reference to the Manicheans is a cosmic dualism in which you have a god of light and a god of darkness (both of which are conceived as corporeal) battling against one another–one “god” is not greater than the other and hence the dualism between two balanced powers.
The Scylding
October 1st, 2007
1:44 pm
Which means that the Star Wars universe is Manichean?
But it is interesting how many heresies are known by their overt rationalism – kind of links to my comments on the previous post.
Cynthia R. Nielsen
October 1st, 2007
4:51 pm
No, it means that Star Wars presents a kind of cosmic dualism, which is a category under which both Star Wars and Manicheanism would fall : )
Micah Tillman
October 2nd, 2007
5:45 am
Excellent. I thought that was what dualism meant in this context.
To what, then, does “materialism” refer?
Cynthia R. Nielsen
October 2nd, 2007
7:55 am
Micah,
I would recommend reading the Confessions–it is not only an easy read, but it is a rewarding read.
A short answer to your question particularly given the context of the quote and what it is addressing in the Confessions is that in a Manichean world, even the gods are corporeal. Thus, it is not until book VII that Augustine is given the “tools” that he needs via the Platonists for conceiving God in a non-corporeal way.
Best,
Cynthia
Micah Tillman
October 3rd, 2007
6:49 am
:-) I shall have to do so.
Thanks for the clarifications.
Leave a comment