Ascetic Pneumatology from John Cassian to Gregory the Great by Thomas L. Humphries (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Ascetic Pneumatology from John Cassian to Gregory the Great by Thomas L. Humphries Anthony Briggman Thomas L. Humphries Ascetic Pneumatology from John Cassian to Gregory the Great Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013 Pp. xviii + 237. $99.00. Students of early Christian theology have all too often treated certain periods of time as just a precursor to later happenings now regarded as more important. Such is the case, Thomas Humphries alerts us, when it comes to the Latin pneumatologies articulated in the fifth and sixth centuries: we have been reading them with an eye fixed upon the filioque. No longer, however, for this volume offers an insightful account of the various and at times competing theologies of the Holy Spirit authored during this period. Two observations guide and to some extent demarcate this study. First, theological accounts of this period often link pneumatology and theological anthropology by attributing to the Holy Spirit the central role in human transformation. Second, pneumatogical differences during this period are sustained by different strains or readings of Augustine’s theology. Humphries proceeds chronologically. John Cassian theologized about the role of the Holy Spirit in the ascetic life: the Spirit guides the interpretation of scripture, forms virtues, reforms thoughts and affections, and grants ecstatic contemplation. Leo the Great’s contrasting orientation toward the laity led him to recognize the activity of the Spirit in the ascetic practices of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting, as well as the sacraments. Prosper of Aquitaine drew upon Augustine’s notion of the Holy Spirit as the Love of God who redirects the human will in order to address matters of the will and predestination raised by the Pelagian controversy. The pneumatological reasoning of the monks of Lérins—including Vincent, Faustus, and Caesarius of Arles—opposed Homoian (‘Arian’) theology and utilized a partial understanding of Augustine’s anti-Homoian arguments. The Scythian monks headed by John Maxentius drew upon Augustine’s thoughts on volition to formulate a pneumatological solution to the debate surrounding grace, free will and predestination—the roots of which run to the Pelagian controversy. The Holy Spirit, he argued, recreates and renews fallen human nature by restoring the will and plays a role at every moment of the Christian life discussed in the debate over predestination. Fulgentius’s grasp of Augustine’s mature Trinitarian theology enabled him to go beyond the Scythians by accounting for the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation, and beyond the Lérinians by shaping an account that brought together Trinitarian theology and theological anthropology. Lastly, Gregory the Great drew upon both Cassian and Augustine to construct his vision of the Spirit leading the Christian from fear to love, vice to virtue, ignorance to knowledge, and ultimately to ecstatic contemplation and an understanding of scriptural allegory. This theological analysis allows Humphries to address long-standing questions concerning the pneumatological influences upon the canons of the Second Council of Orange (look to Prosper not the monks of Lérins), the authorship of the Breviary of Faith against the Arians (it was not Caesarius), and the authorship [End Page 129] of Chapters of Saint Augustine (Maxentius or other Scythians wrote at least the first ten chapters). I would like to note two conceptual points that I believe would benefit from further consideration. First, Humphries offers the category of ‘ascetic pneumatology’ as a way of delineating the boundaries of his study, but it proves troublesome. He uses the term to refer to ascetics who author pneumatological accounts, to accounts that ascribe to the Holy Spirit agency in ascetic practices, and to a type of theology relatively uninterested in the doctrinal definition of the Holy Spirit. The category is too broad to be meaningful and is more of a hindrance than an aid in delineating the scope of his work. Second, the dichotomy Humphries draws between theologies interested in the doctrinal definition of the Holy Spirit and those interested in the work of the Spirit in the Christian life also proves problematic. It struggles to account for theologies with both interests, such as those of Ambrose and Augustine. It also struggles to provide a satisfactory way to distinguish eras of pneumatological reasoning. For...