Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T03:47:17.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Episcopal Career of Gregory of Elvira

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2014

KARL SHUVE
KARL SHUVE*
Affiliation:
Department of Religious Studies, University of Virginia, PO Box 400126, Charlottesville, Va 22903, USA; e-mail: kes3ba@virginia.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The writings of Gregory of Elvira are among the most important sources for understanding early Latin biblical exegesis as well as the culture and theology of the Spanish Church in the fourth century. The paucity of ancient sources on Gregory's episcopal career, however, renders a proper assessment of these works difficult, and he has not been well served by historians. In this essay, I propose a modified account of Gregory's life and career, arguing that the dates of his birth, ordination and death are fixed later than they should be and that his involvement with the ‘Luciferians’ has been significantly overestimated.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 65 , Issue 2 , April 2014 , pp. 247 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 
CCSL

Corpus Christianorum Scriptorum Latinorum

CSEL

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum

PL

Patrologia Latina

HE

Historia ecclesiastica

PLRE

Prosopography of the later Roman Empire, I: AD 260–395, ed. A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale and J. Morris, Cambridge 1971

RBén

Revue Bénédictine

SC

Sources Chrétiennes

Tract.

Tractatus Origenis

The writings of Gregory of Elvira are among the most important sources for understanding early Latin biblical exegesis as well as the culture and theology of the Spanish Church in the fourth century. Although nearly all Gregory's extant works were transmitted under the names of more famous theologians, such as Origen and Gregory the Great, the careful philological work of Dom André Wilmart, undertaken at the turn of the twentieth century, restored a significant portion of his writings. Wilmart successfully attributed to Gregory a collection of twenty homilies, known as the Tractatus Origenis, on various books of the Old Testament and Acts;Footnote 1 a homily on the story of Noah's ark;Footnote 2 and a short fragment on the Psalms.Footnote 3 Gregory's extant exegetical corpus, which also includes a five-book commentary on the Song of Songs discovered in the mid-1840s,Footnote 4 covers a greater portion of the Bible than any Latin writer before Ambrose and Jerome.Footnote 5 He is, moreover, one of the few Iberian theologians from the period whose writings are extant, and he can therefore offer a rare glimpse into the life of the fourth-century Spanish Church. In particular, Gregory's writings are a valuable source for understanding the development of the Trinitarian controversy that took the West by storm in the 350s and led to significant fractures in the Church.

The paucity of ancient sources on Gregory's life and episcopal career, however, renders a proper assessment of these works difficult, and he has not been well served by modern historians. Only one text, the De fide orthodoxa contra Arianos, can be dated with relative certainty. This polemical work, which survives in two distinct recensions, was likely first composed in the aftermath of the Synod of Ariminum (359) and revised several years later to respond to charges of modalism.Footnote 6 For the exegetical works, the range of potential dates is as expansive as Gregory's tenure as bishop. It is, therefore, imperative to construct an account of his career that is as accurate as the sources will allow.

The generally accepted narrative of Gregory's episcopate states that he was born around 327 in Hispania Baetica, ordained bishop of Elvira in 357, and died sometime after 392 – perhaps as late as 410.Footnote 7 He became involved in the ‘Arian’ controversy almost immediately after his ordination as bishop, being pressed to hold communion with the ‘transgressor’ Ossius.Footnote 8 When the majority of Western bishops subscribed to the Homoian Creed at Ariminum, Gregory circulated his De fide to defend the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.Footnote 9 In the 360s he forged a relationship with the schismatic Sardinian bishop Lucifer of Cagliari, perhaps even becoming leader of the so-called Luciferians upon Lucifer's death, and he refused to hold communion with any bishop who subscribed to a homoian formula.Footnote 10 According to this narrative, all of the exegetical works must have been composed and circulated long after the dramatic events at Sirmium and Ariminum, possibly as late as the first decade of the fifth century.

In this article a modified account of Gregory's life and career will be offered based on a critical reassessment of all the extant evidence. It will be argued that the dates of his birth, ordination and death are fixed rather later than they should be, without any particularly compelling reasons for so doing. A close reading of the sources reveals that 327 and 357 are the absolute termini for his birth and ordination, rather than the probable years in which these events occurred. Gregory's involvement with the Luciferians, moreover, has been greatly exaggerated because of a misreading of the tendentious Libellus precum ad imperatores, a petition written by two Roman Luciferian presbyters.

This revised account has significant implications for the study of Gregory's exegetical works and the world in which they were produced. First, it opens the possibility that some of Gregory's homilies were delivered and circulated in the early 350s, a period for which there are very few extant Latin sources.Footnote 11 Gregory's Tractatus de epithalamio is a particularly appealing candidate for such an early date, because its Christology is drawn entirely from Tertullian and Novatian and it evinces no knowledge of the Nicene Creed, which Gregory certainly knew by 359.Footnote 12 It could thus serve as a crucial source for the examination of early Latin reactions to the Eastern conflict over the relationship of Christ to the Father. Secondly, the proposed chronology virtually eliminates the possibility that Gregory was active in the early fifth century and made use of Rufinus’ translations of Origen.Footnote 13 His writings must, therefore, preserve earlier Latin translations of Origen that are no longer extant and they witness the considerable spread of elements of Origen's thought in the West in the middle of the fourth century. Thirdly, criteria that Mark DelCogliano has recently established for studying fourth-century ecclesial networksFootnote 14 will be used to argue that the Luciferian ‘alliance’ was largely confined to Rome and Suburbicarian Italy;Footnote 15 that there were a number of small rigorist communities throughout the empire that offered varying levels of support to one another, rather than a monolithic Luciferian schismatic Church governed first by Lucifer and then Gregory. Gregory was at most a marginal participant in the Luciferian alliance and certainly not its leader.

There are three key late fourth-century ‘biographical’ sources for Gregory: Jerome's De viris illustribus and Chronicon, and the Libellus precum ad imperatores of Faustinus and Marcellinus. Each source will be examined individually to elicit pertinent information about Gregory's life.

The De viris illustribus and the date of Gregory's death

According to Jerome in the De viris illustribus, ‘Gregory Baeticus, bishop of Elvira, wrote a number of treatises in moderate style [mediocrem sermonem], even into old age, and an elegant book On the faith. He is said to be alive today.’Footnote 16 Jerome provides no specific information regarding when Gregory became bishop; this can only be deduced from the Libellus precum. Scholars have generally taken Jerome's assertion of Gregory's extreme old age to mean that he died soon after the composition of the work – that is, around 392/3. But it remains possible that Jerome's information was not up-to-date: when did he hear it said (‘dicitur’) that Gregory was still living and who was his source? Was Gregory such a prominent bishop that news of his passing would quickly have spread from Baetica to Bethlehem? In all likelihood Jerome's source was his amicus Dexter, the son of Pacian of Barcelona.Footnote 17 The two seem recently to have been in contact: Dexter sent him a copy of his ‘Universal History’ and Jerome in turn dedicated to him the De viris illustribus.Footnote 18 Dexter, however, had gone east with Theodosius in 379, was proconsul of Asia 379/87, served as the comes rei privatae in 387 and was praetorian prefect of Italy in 395.Footnote 19 His information on ecclesiastical events in Spain, particularly in the south, was thus likely to have been limited. Jerome's remark cannot therefore be taken as a sound basis on which to date the death of Gregory. He may have lived a few years beyond 392, but it is equally possible that he had died several years earlier.

The Libellus precum and the beginning of Gregory's episcopacy

It is the Libellus precum ad imperatores – a petition for tolerance to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius and Arcadius composed by the Roman Luciferian presbyters Faustinus and Marcellinus in 383/4 when they were resident at Constantinople – that provides us with a narrative of the beginning of Gregory's episcopate.Footnote 20 The work is a justification of the theological orthodoxy and ecclesiastical integrity of the Luciferian group, a label that the authors themselves reject.Footnote 21 They simply believe that they are the small remnant of fideles, orthodox believers, who have not been tainted by communion with heretics. It opens with a tendentious history of the ‘Arian’ controversy from Nicaea to Ariminum, which demonstrates the complicity of most Western bishops in the Arian heresyFootnote 22 – including the venerable Ossius, who is singled out for particular condemnation in a libellous assaultFootnote 23 – and presents the dangers of holding communion with any bishop who has ever subscribed to a heretical formula.Footnote 24

Gregory of Elvira appears several times in the narrative. The first occurrence is when, as a new and principled bishop, he refuses to hold ‘nefarious communion [nefariam communionem]’ with Ossius, following the latter's assent to the Sirmian manifesto.Footnote 25 But the Libellus states that Ossius, in exchange for subscribing to the manifesto, received a iussio from Constantius that required all bishops to communicate with him under threat of exile.Footnote 26 Gregory was thus summoned to Cordoba to stand trial before Ossius and Clement, the vicarius Hispaniarum,Footnote 27 and the authors depict him as Christ before Pilate.Footnote 28 The appearance of this rudis episcopus in the city, challenging the venerable Ossius, caused a stir.Footnote 29 The scene plays out predictably: Gregory, the holy young bishop, relies upon the word of God; Ossius, aged and worldly, upon the word of the emperor. The latter is exposed as a heretic.Footnote 30 Embarrassed and enraged, Ossius demands that Clement send Gregory into exile in accord with the emperor's wishes. His guilt, however, is so patent that the vicarius, who is not even a Christian, refuses.Footnote 31 Seeing that Ossius will not be assuaged, Gregory prays to God for assistance, who responds by striking Ossius dead.Footnote 32 Clement is so awed by Gregory's holiness and power that he prostrates himself before him and becomes a Christian.Footnote 33

The story is clearly apocryphal, which has been noted in scholarship.Footnote 34 If the emperor did indeed rule that all those who refused to communicate with Ossius should be sent into exile, Clement would have had no grounds for protecting Gregory. And the sequence of events concerning Ossius’ death and Clement's prostration at the feet of Gregory has all the marks of hagiography. Moreover, whether or not Athanasius can be trusted in his assertion that Ossius recanted on his deathbed, he makes it clear that the aged bishop did not set aside his scruples in Sirmium: he never anathematised his dear friend, as he was pressed to do.Footnote 35 Ossius clearly made a compromise so that he could depart and die with dignity, surely weakened by his ordeal. When he returned to Cordoba, he would likely have gone into quiet retirement, making an aggressive campaign of persecution against his detractors an unlikely event.Footnote 36

There may, however, be a kernel of truth in the story. What has not been noticed is that the story serves an etiological function: ‘This is why Gregory alone out of all the number of defenders of the true faith was neither put to flight nor suffered exile.’Footnote 37 This fact clearly called for some explanation. Thus a great legend may have developed from Gregory's actual refusal to hold communion with Ossius. Eusebius of Vercelli's letter to Gregory, to be placed c. 360/1, clearly asserts that Gregory had ‘withstood’ Ossius.Footnote 38 It is not clear what he means by this, but it is not improbable that Constantius would have set some measure in place to coerce the pro-Nicene Spanish bishops into communicating with him. Gregory may also have made a public denunciation of Ossius and his impiety. It was likely Ossius’ death due to old age and maltreatment that rendered the issue moot and spared Gregory from punishment.

Despite the hagiographical and etiological aspects of the narrative, scholars persist in using the account to date the start of Gregory's episcopate to 357, since Faustinus and Marcellinus call him ‘rudis episcopus’. Nearly thirty years, however, separate their account from the event, so there is no reason why this should be taken as a precise remark. Gregory's designation as ‘rudis episcopus’, moreover, serves an important literary function in the story: the unknown new bishop stands up to the aged and (in)famous transgressor and none the less prevails. I thus propose that, as there is likely some historical truth to the account, Gregory cannot have become bishop after 357, but that there is no reason why he could not have done so some years previously, in the early 350s or perhaps even late 340s. Moreover, it is also surprising that scholars continue to date his birth to 327 – subtracting the canonical minimum age of thirty from 357 – when the account nowhere reveals his age. I would argue that Gregory cannot have been born much after 320, but that this date could be considerably earlier, since there is no good reason to believe that he was exactly thirty when he became bishop.

The problem of Gregory's ‘Luciferianism’ in the Chronicon and Libellus

In the Chronicon, composed c. 380, under the heading of the 287th Olympiad, Jerome writes: ‘Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari, dies, who with Gregory, bishop in Spain, and Philo of Libya, never mixed with the Arian depravity.’Footnote 39 The three bishops clearly shared an ideological opposition to holding communion with any bishop who had subscribed to an Arian formula. What, however, was the extent of Gregory's relationship with Lucifer and did he become leader of the Luciferian alliance?

The question turns on the proper interpretation of the Libellus precum, which is the lynchpin for the Luciferian argument. Henry Chadwick, for example, asserts that the Libellus ‘treats Gregory of Elvira as being in every sense a full member of the Luciferian group’.Footnote 40 F. J. Buckley, however, takes the opposite line, arguing only that the authors ‘hold up Gregory as an example of intransigence and associate themselves with him insofar as they can’. He goes on to claim that Gregory enjoyed ‘an excellent reputation in 383’ and that, as a Spanish bishop, he would have been a particularly appealing authority for the Spaniard, Theodosius.Footnote 41 It must be said that neither case is fully convincing. Gregory's reputation cannot have been ‘excellent’ in 383: the Libellus relates the story of the Spanish presbyter Vincentius, who suffered persecution at the hands of Hyginus, bishop of Cordoba, and Lucosius, an otherwise unknown bishop, ‘Because he held communion with most blessed Gregory.’Footnote 42 It is difficult to see how unassailable Gregory's credentials were in Catholic eyes if communication with him resulted in harsh punishment. Chadwick's assertion, however, misses the rhetorical aim of the Libellus. The key objective of the Libellus is to make it appear as though there was a well-organised global alliance of rigorist churches, which are the lone true heirs of the anti-homoian movement of the late 350s and early 360s, and that it is in the clear interests of its authors to claim as close an association with Gregory as possible. As Jerome makes clear in the Chronicon, a number of intransigent movements arose in the wake of the conciliatory mandate of the Synod of Alexandria, and it is unclear precisely how these various communities were linked with one another.

In order to determine the nature and extent of Gregory's relationship to the Luciferians, the criteria that Mark DelCogliano has recently developed in his analysis of the fourth-century ‘Eusebian’ and ‘Homoiousian’ alliances may be used. He argues that these are ‘characterised by features such as the performance of ecclesiastical communion, sufficient doctrinal agreement with respect to both principles and terminologies, the struggle with common enemies, the activity of mutual defence, the exercise of public ecclesio-political support, loyalty to revered figures, local ecclesiastical traditions, and personal friendship’.Footnote 43 On the basis of such criteria, it is possible only to speak with confidence of a Luciferian alliance that is confined primarily to Rome and Suburbicarian Italy. In what follows an account of the origins and spread of the Luciferians and Gregory's position in it will be offered.

The Luciferians almost certainly began as a schismatic group at Antioch. The schism seems to have originated with Lucifer's rash ordination of Paulinus as pro-Nicene bishop of Antioch, which violated the Nicene canons on procedural grounds and led only to further division between the Meletians and Eustathians in the city.Footnote 44 When Eusebius of Vercelli reached Antioch bearing the judgement of the Synod of Alexandria (362), he could not disguise his disapproval of Lucifer's mishandling of the situation, causing the latter to break communion with him in a fury.Footnote 45 Lucifer was, moreover, unhappy with the decisions reached at the synod, and although he could not fully reject them, he did make his displeasure known. His rigorist attitude towards lapsed clergy resonated with some in Antioch, probably the extremists in the Eustathian party, who came to be known as ‘Luciferians’, partisans of Lucifer.Footnote 46 Lucifer returned to Sardinia soon thereafter, and there is no clear evidence that he remained in close contact with the schismatic community that came to bear his name. The Luciferian group at Antioch resurfaced briefly in 378, when they rejected the compromise that upon the death of Meletius or Paulinus the other was to be recognised as legitimate bishop of Antioch.Footnote 47

When Lucifer returned to Sardinia, he seems to have separated himself from communion with the wider Church, giving rise there to a community of purists who were later dubbed Luciferians.Footnote 48 Aside from brief remarks by Rufinus and Theodoret, there is no information about these Sardinian Luciferians and what, if any, was their relationship to the schismatics at Antioch. It is only of the rigorist community in Rome that there is a fairly clear picture, thanks to the Libellus precum.

Lucifer founded the Roman community when he visited the city upon his return from exile.Footnote 49 Why he came to Rome and what he did there is not known. It is very possible that Lucifer came to petition Liberius to reconsider his adoption of the lenient ruling of the Synod of Alexandria;Footnote 50 or, he may well have come to confront and condemn his former ally for anathematising Athanasius and subscribing to the homoian faith of the Eastern bishops.Footnote 51 In any event, Lucifer would have attracted a following during his stay. Memories of Constantius’ installation of Felix as bishop and Liberius’ capitulation whilst in exile must have aroused resentment from hard-liners in the city.Footnote 52

There was a succession of at least two rival Luciferian bishops at Rome, Aurelius and Ephesius, as well as a number of presbyters; Aurelius, indeed, could have been ordained by Lucifer himself. The strong defence of Lucifer's orthodoxy and authority in the Libellus reveals that this group continued to perceive itself as his disciples even after his death: Faustinus and Marcellinus make the bold claim that Lucifer ‘wrote in the prophetic, evangelical and apostolic manner [more]’, which he achieved by the ‘grace of the Holy Spirit’.Footnote 53 They reject the title ‘Luciferian’ – preferring instead to call themselves fideles – because this would imply deviation from apostolic doctrine and adherence to human teachings. Lucifer ‘believed, taught and conquered according to the divine Scriptures’ and likewise the fideles believe ‘what Christ taught through the apostles’.Footnote 54 We can, therefore, speak concretely of an organised intransigent group at Rome that claimed for itself the authority of Lucifer, which likely retained close links with other rigorist churches in Italy and Sardinia. One of these local allies must have been Taorgius, the ‘most steadfast [constantissimo] bishop’ of an unnamed diocese who ordained Ephesius ‘for the undefiled [intaminatae] people of Rome’, since ordaining a bishop is a very clear and public gesture of ecclesiastical support.Footnote 55

The fideles at Rome were harshly persecuted. This began with the maltreatment of Aurelius and his presbyter Macarius. At some point, Damasus began a more organised persecution [persecutio], targeting the bishop Ephesius, presbyters and even the laity using the constitutiones that the emperors enacted against heresy.Footnote 56 It is within the context of the account of Damasus’ persecution that Faustinus and Marcellinus relate that they are called ‘Luciferians’, a ‘false surname [falsi cognomenti]’ that their opponents have given to them.Footnote 57 This designation of the Roman rigorists as a sect of ‘Luciferians’ – those whose authority comes from Lucifer and not Christ – makes perfect sense if Damasus wished to prosecute them under laws intended to punish heretics.

Faustinus and Marcellinus attempt, however, to situate their persecution within an empire-wide backlash against Churches that refused to reconcile with the lapsed. They recount, therefore, the persecutions of a number of other rigorists, whom they also call fideles. In the West, they single out Vincent in Spain and Bonosus in Trier. On the grounds of their inclusion within the Libellus, scholars have identified these individuals as members of the Luciferian group, but this is to presume that all rigorists identified themselves with – or were identified as members of – a defined ecclesial alliance under the leadership of Lucifer and his successors. The evidence does not bear this out. Vincent the presbyter, for example, was attacked because he held communion with Gregory, with no mention of Lucifer or Luciferians.Footnote 58 Bonosus the presbyter, moreover, is persecuted for holding to an ‘uncontaminated faith [intaminatae fidei]’, which presumably means that he refused to hold communion with lapsed clergy, but no attempt is made to link him with Lucifer.Footnote 59 Indeed, the brevity of Bonosus’ story seems to indicate that Faustinus and Marcellinus knew little of him. We cannot, therefore, speak with confidence of the Luciferian alliance extending to other Western provinces of the Roman Empire.

The same dynamic is evident in their accounts of persecution in the East. They begin with a long account of the travails endured by the saintly Heraclides, bishop of a rigorist group (‘pars populi’) in Oxyrynchus.Footnote 60 The city's rival bishop, Theodore, who aligned himself with George, Athanasius’ temporary replacement in Alexandria, took a strong line against Heraclides, demolishing his church and subsequently sending him into exile.Footnote 61 Heraclides, of course, was not persecuted as a member of Lucifer's alliance – his episcopal tenure predated the Council of Alexandria and the subsequent schisms. Lucifer did spend his third exile in the Thebaid, not far from Oxyrynchus, so the two may have had at least a passing acquaintance, although no mention of this is made. Faustinus and Marcellinus make the vague assertion that Heraclides held ‘fellowship [consortium]’ with ‘blessed Gregory and the other holy bishops’,Footnote 62 which adheres to their pattern of claiming the authority of a saintly figure without specifying the nature of the relationship. Indeed, the authors make no claims about Heraclides's activities after his altercation with Theodore.

There are, however, a few tangible links between the Roman Luciferians and certain Eastern rigorist communities. Ephesius travelled East with Faustinus and Marcellinus, whom he left in Constantinople to intercede with Theodosius. He then travelled on alone into Palestine and Egypt, ostensibly in search of Heraclides, whom he never seems to have found. Ephesius established a small community in Eleutheropolis in Palestine and was accepted by the rigorist group at Oxyrynchus, which ‘led him out with many tears when he departed’.Footnote 63 It is not insignificant that Lucifer had ties with both of these cities. Not only did he spend time in the Thebaid, but his fourth exile was in Eleutheropolis itself. Ephesius seems to have made an effort to cultivate relationships with rigorist communities that may already have had some ideological link to Lucifer. But we only know of two such groups, and both of them are quite small. There is also the glaring omission of Antioch, which Ephesius seems not to have visited en route from Constantinople to Palestine, although this was ostensibly the birthplace of the Luciferian group.

It is, therefore, problematic, on the basis of the Libellus precum, to argue for the existence of a cohesive, empire-wide alliance that operated under the direction of a single leader. There were a number of bishops from Spain to Palestine who refused to hold communion with any clergy tainted with the stain of heresy. They were the minority and offered varying levels of support to one another, yet it is difficult to discern the strength of their ties. We can, however, speak of an organised alliance in Italy that cast itself as Lucifer's disciples, and which forged strong links with several small rigorist communities in the East, notably at Eleutheropolis and Oxyrynchus.

What was Gregory's relationship to this group? All we know for certain is that Gregory held communion with Lucifer, Aurelius and Heraclides. Given the vague language of the Libellus, this communio or consortium may have been no more than a very occasional letter;Footnote 64 it does not necessarily reflect personal friendship, the public exercise of support, or even doctrinal agreement on questions other than the reintegration of lapsed clergy, which DelCogliano has identified as important criteria when assessing the cohesion of ecclesial alliances. Gregory clearly had some marginal involvement with the Luciferians, but there is no evidence that he was one of their leaders. Indeed, it should be noted that the rigorist bishops with whom Gregory is said to have held communion – Lucifer, Aurelius and Heraclides – were active in the 360s, when the crisis reached its pitch. It is striking that Faustinus and Marcellinus do not make the claim that Gregory held communion with Ephesius, whose ministry dates to a later phase of the controversy. Perhaps Gregory initially took a more prominent role in the alliance out of loyalty to his fellow pro-Nicenes, especially Lucifer, who had vigorously resisted Constantius’ efforts at imposing homoian theology on the Church, only to withdraw after their deaths.

If Gregory was, therefore, only on the fringes of the Luciferian alliance and if his reputation was not unassailable amongst Catholics, then why does he play such a prominent role in the Libellus? The most likely answer is that Faustinus and Marcellinus presumed that Theodosius would remember Gregory's significant contribution to the resistance of the homoians in Spain; indeed, the story of his opposition to Ossius seems to have transformed him into a kind of miracle-working folk hero who possessed the power of the Spirit. The account of Gregory's visit to Lucifer in the Libellus has been misread as a kind of ‘passing of the torch’ of leadership of the movement. Gregory, rather, is being used to validate the orthodoxy of Lucifer: ‘What a great man was Lucifer, when even Gregory admired him, who is admirable to all, not only on account of his conflict with Ossius, but also because of his divine miracles, which he worked having the grace of the Holy Spirit in him.’Footnote 65 Gregory's authority is invoked alongside that of Athanasius to prove Lucifer's sanctity. The rescript of Theodosius to Cynegius, praetorian prefect of the diocese of Oriens,Footnote 66 shows how effective was this rhetorical strategy. Theodosius writes that he is convinced of their orthodoxy because ‘they are in communion with the Spanish Gregory and the Oriental Heraclides, truly saints and praiseworthy bishops’.Footnote 67 Although the petition nowhere demonstrates that Faustinus, Marcellinus and Ephesius are in communion with either Gregory or Heraclides, they have claimed their mantles, and on this basis Theodosius granted them tolerance.Footnote 68

If Lucifer's intransigence led him to establish a rival church (or churches) of the pure, Gregory's led him to isolate himself. He continued to preach regularly, but aside from this, we know nothing of his activity. Gregory seems in no way to have been involved in the affairs of the Priscillianist crisis.Footnote 69 His extant sermons do not evidence any sustained ecclesiastico-political activity: he preaches against JewsFootnote 70 and heretics – those who deny the consubstantiality of the Father and the SonFootnote 71 and the veracity of the resurrectionFootnote 72 – and to exhort his listeners to live pure lives and adhere to proper doctrine. He draws on well-worn polemical tropes, and he often quotes third-century Latin writers nearly verbatim on these topics.Footnote 73 Whatever the level of Gregory's involvement in ecclesiastical politics, he kept a profile that was low enough to prevent other bishops or imperial authorities from trying to depose him.

This analysis of the main primary sources suggests a rather different picture of Gregory's life and career. He was born sometime in the early fourth century, likely no later than the year 320. He became bishop of Elvira in the late 340s or early 350s and, as a relatively junior bishop brashly condemned Ossius following his assent to the Sirmian manifesto. After the capitulation of the Western bishops at Ariminum he wrote the De fide orthodoxa contra Arianos to defend the Nicene faith, relying on Phoebadius’ anti-Arian treatise and Hilary's work De synodis. The work had circulated sufficiently widely that it came under close scrutiny and Gregory was compelled to revise his initial presentation, which did not stress fully enough the genuine distinction between Father and Son, leading to the charge of Sabellianism. He withdrew from the ecclesiastical scene in Spain well before his death, perhaps fomenting hostilities with bishops from nearby sees on account of his harsh judgement of their forebears. Over the course of his impressive forty-year term as bishop, he produced a vast exegetical corpus of great interest to historians of early Christianity and the history of biblical interpretation; his sermons and commentaries are amongst the earliest preserved in Latin. Sometime in the late 380s or early 390s (and almost certainly not any later), at a great age, Gregory died, largely to be forgotten by the Church beyond Baetica.

References

1 Wilmart, André, ‘Les Tractatus sur le Cantique attribuées à Gregoire d'Elvire’, Bulletin de la litérature ecclésiastique vii (1906), 233–99Google Scholar. Germanus Morin had earlier proposed Gregory as the author, but the attribution was widely discounted: ‘Les Nouveaux Tractatus Origenis et l'héritage littéraire de l’évêque espagnol Grégoire d'Illiberris’, Revue d'histoire et de littérature religeuse v (1900), 141–61. Wilmart's argument, which establishes strong philological and theological similarities between the Tractatus Origenis and the more securely Gregorian De fide, won over Morin's detractors. See LeJay, Pierre, ‘L'Heritage de Grégoire d'Elvire’, RBén xxv (1908), 435–57Google Scholar, and Butler, Cuthbert, ‘Tractatus de Epitalamio [sic.] and Tractatus Origenis’, JTS n.s. x (1909), 450–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Wilmart, André, ‘Arca Noe’, RBén xxvi (1909), 1–11Google Scholar. Wilmart first ‘discovered’ the text embedded in manuscripts of Beatus of Liebana's In Apocalypsin, as an independent homily following the commentary on the seven letters to the seven churches (Apocalypsin 2–3). The discovery of a manuscript in Spain further confirmed his suspicions of Gregorian provenance, on which see Wilmart, André, ‘Un Manuscrit du Tractatus du faux Origène espagnol sur L'Arche de Noé’, RBén xxix (1912), 47–59Google Scholar.

3 Wilmart, André, ‘Fragments du Ps-Origène sur le Psaume xci dans une collection espagnole’, RBén xxix (1912), 274–93Google Scholar.

4 The Tractatus de Epithalamio, which is extant in both a shorter and longer recension. Three manuscripts were discovered by Gotthold Heine in Spain and Portugal, and three more were uncovered a century later by A. C. Vega. Two manuscripts attribute the text to Gregory of Elvira, and three list Gregory the Great as the author. The latter attribution is surely an error on the part of the copyists. For an extended discussion of manuscripts and authorship see Schulz-Flügel, Eva, Gregorius Eliberritanus: Epithalamium sive explanatio in Canticis Canticorum, Freiburg 1994, 99–116Google Scholar.

5 Hilary of Poitiers's exegetical corpus is larger in terms of volume, but only commentaries on Matthew and the Psalms are extant.

6 The broad consensus is that Gregory first took up the anti-Arian cause in 360 after the capitulation of the Western bishops at Ariminum (359): Simonetti, Manlio, ‘Gregory of Elvira’, in Quaesten, Johannes (ed), Patrology, iv, South Bend 1986, 86–7Google Scholar, and, more recently, see Torró, J. Pascual, La fe, Madrid 1998, 12Google Scholar. Timothy D. Barnes has argued for a date of 358 – that is, following the dissemination of the Sirmian manifesto and not the Synod of Ariminum – on the grounds that Gregory defends the homoousion but ‘ignores the formula “alike in all things” officially adopted in 359’: Athanasius and Constantius: theology and politics in the Constantinian empire, Cambridge 1993, 143. This claim is problematic for two reasons. First, although the ‘dated’ creed, which was the subject of the initial discussion, contains the phrase ‘like the Father in all things’, the Nike creed that was adopted at both Ariminum and Constantinople (360) simply reads ‘like the Father’. Since ‘like the Father in all things’ was never officially ratified by a council of bishops, why should Gregory have felt the need to address it? Secondly, and perhaps more convincingly, Gregory quite clearly repudiates the use of the much stronger homoiousion on the grounds that likeness is not the same thing as equality: De fide 22. There would have thus been no need for him separately to condemn either ‘like the Father in all things’ or ‘like the Father’.

7 Lozano, J. Collantes, San Gregorio de Elvira: estudio sobre su eclesiogía, Granada 1954, 21Google Scholar; Gómez, J. A. M., La exégesis como instrumento de creacíon cultural: el testimonio de las obras de Gregorio de Elbira, Murcia 2000, 20Google Scholar; Schulz-Flügel, Gregorius Eliberritanus, 20–3; Torró, J. Pascual, Gregorio de Elvira: tratados sobre los libros de las santas escrituras, Madrid 1997, 11–12Google Scholar. Buckley, Francis J.asserts that his birth could be set ‘as early as 320’: ‘Gregory of Elvira’, Classical Folia xviii (1964), 5Google Scholar. His death has been set as late as c. 410 because of a parallel between a passage in the Tractatus Origenis (3.15, CCSL lxix, 23) and Rufinus’ translation of Origen's Homilies on Genesis (7.3, SC vii.202–4): Dulaey, Martine, ‘Grégoire d'Elvire et le Commentaire sur la Genèse de Victorin de Poetovio’, Augustinus xxxviii (1993), 203Google Scholarn. 3. The translation was not completed until 403/4, which means that if Gregory did indeed use it, he could have died no earlier than 405.

8 Buckley, ‘Gregory’, 5–6; Collantes Lozano, Estudio, 19–20.

9 Hanson, R. P. C., The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy, 318–81, Grand Rapids 2005, 520Google Scholar; Schulz-Flügel, Gregorius Eliberritanus, 21; Simonetti, Manlio, Gregorio di Elvira: la fede, Turin 1975, 12–21Google Scholar. Barnes argues for a date of 358, following Ossius’ assent to the blasphemy of Sirmium: Athanasius, 143.

10 A long bibliography on the question of Gregory's Luciferianism can be found at Mazorra, E., El Luciferianismo de Gregorio de Elvira, Granada 1967, 19–25Google Scholar. Mazorra can name forty-four scholars (from as early as Paschasius Quesnel in the seventeenth century) who affirm Gregory's ‘Luciferianism’ – the vast majority also asserting that he became leader of the movement – whereas he lists only twelve who either doubt or deny the attribution. Two prominent sources to be added to those which affirm his participation in the Luciferian group are Chadwick, Henry, Priscillian of Avila: the occult and the charismatic in the early Church, Oxford 1975, 6Google Scholar, and Hanson, Search, 519. Mazorra himself argues that no clear decision can be rendered: ‘Probablemente no fue luciferiano, probablemente fue luciferiano. Es decir en la duda’: Luciferianismo, 61. Buckley denies that Gregory ever entered into communion with Lucifer: ‘Gregory of Elvira’, 14.

11 There are virtually no extant Latin works from this period apart from Hilary of Poitiers's Commentarius in Mattheum and the documents preserved in his Against Valens and Ursacius.

12 On the use of third-century Latin Christological sources see Shuve, K., ‘Origen and the Tractatus de Epithalamio of Gregory of Elvira’, Studia Patristica l (2011), 195Google Scholar. Gregory reproduces the Latin version of the creed at De fide praef.1, CCSL lxix. 221.

13 See n. 7 above for the discussion of M. Dulaey's late dating of the third Tractatus Origenis on the basis of a parallel with a homily of Origen translated by Rufinus. We would thus instead have to posit that either both were reliant on an earlier Latin translation of Origen, perhaps by Victorinus of Poetovio, or that Rufinus used the third Tractatus itself.

14 Mark DelCogliano, ‘George of Laodicea: a historical reassessment’, this Journal lxii (2011), 667–92.

15 In the essay the Luciferians are referred to as an ‘alliance’ rather than a schismatic ‘church’ or ‘party’, as this allows us to think in more nuanced ways about degrees of participation. I follow DelCogliano's definition of ‘alliance’ as a group that arises ‘because of some common value or [is] formed for the promotion of a specific agenda in the ecclesiastical sphere’ (ibid. 669). Members of an alliance would be bound by the ties of communion, friendship, shared doctrinal views, engagement with mutual enemies, public displays of support, and/or loyalty to a particular figure or figures (cf. 669).

16 ‘Gregorius, Baeticus, Eliberi Episcopus, usque ad extremam senectutem diversos mediocri sermone tractatus composuit, et de Fide elegantem librum, qui hodieque superesse dicitur’: De viris illustribus 105, PL xiii.703A.

17 On Nummius Aemilianus Dexter see PLRE, Dexter 3, 251, and Matthews, John, Western aristocracies and imperial court, AD 364–425, Oxford 1975, 111–12Google Scholar, 133, 259.

18 De viris illustribus 132. Matthews suggests that the exchange of courtesies may indicate that Dexter had visited Jerome in Bethlehem: Western aristocracies, 133.

19 PLRE, Dexter 3, 251.

20 It must be placed between the deaths of Gratian (25 Aug 383) and Damasus (11 Dec 384).

21 Libellus 24.86.

22 Libellus 3.5–13.50.

23 Libellus 9.33–11.41.

24 Libellus 14.51–2.

25 ‘Sed ad sanctum Gregorium, Eliberitanae civitatis constantissimum episcopum, fidelis nuntius detulit impiam Osii praevaricationem; unde et non adquiescit, memor sacrae fidei ac divini iudicii, in eius nefariam communionem’: Libellus 9.33, SC div.140.

26 Libellus 9.32, SC div.140.

27 He is otherwise unattested; cf. PLRE, Clementinus 1, 215.

28 Libellus 10.34–5, SC div.142.

29 Libellus 10.34, SC div.142.

30 Libellus 10.36.

31 Ibid.

32 ‘Ecce repente Osius, cum sententiam conatus exprimere, os vertit, distorquens pariter et cervicem de sessu in terram eliditur atque illic expirat’: Libellus 10.38, SC div. 144.

33 Ibid.

34 Collantes Lozano, Estudio, 18–19; Pascual Torró, Tratados, 11–12; Clercq, Victor De, Ossius of Cordova: a contribution to the history of the Constantinian period, Washington 1954, 527–8Google Scholar.

35 Historia Arianorum 45.

36 He died sometime in late 357, before Athanasius completed his Historia Arianorum (cf. Barnes, Athanasius, 126). De Clercq not only argues that Ossius was insincere in his support of the Sirmian manifesto and was therefore unlikely to persecute pro-Nicene Christians in Spain, but he is also inclined to believe the veracity of Athanasius’ testimony that Ossius recanted publicly before his death: Ossius, 526–7.

37 ‘Inde est quod solus Gregorius ex numero vindicantium integram fidem, nec in fugam versus, nec passus exilium’: Libellus 10.40, SC div. 146.

38 Preserved in Hilary of Poitiers's Collectanea antiariana parisina A II.1.5, CSEL lxv. 46–7. Some scholars have alleged that the letter is a Luciferian forgery; most notable is Saltet, Louis, ‘Fraudes littéraires des schismatiques lucifériens’, Bulletin de la littérature ecclésiastique iii (1906), 300–26Google Scholar at pp. 315–26. Daniel H. Williams has made a compelling argument in favour of the authenticity of the letter, arguing that Eusebius clearly presupposes that repentant bishops can remain in their office – a point firmly opposed by the Luciferians: Ambrose of Milan and the end of the Arian-Nicene conflict, Oxford 1995, 51 n. 66. It is, indeed, not surprising that Eusebius, currently in his third region of exile (the Thebaid), would take a rather dim view of the bishops who lapsed at Ariminum (and remained unrepentant) and were comfortably presiding in their own churches.

39 ‘Lucifer Caralitanus episcopus moritur, qui cum Gregorio episcopo Hispaniarum, et Philone Libyae, numquam se Arianae miscuit pravitati’: Chronicon, PL xxvii. 695.

40 Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila, 6.

41 Buckley, ‘Gregory of Elvira’, 15.

42 ‘eo quod beatissimo Gregorio communicaret’: Libellus 20.73, SC div.176.

43 DelCogliano, ‘George of Laodicea’, 669.

44 On Lucifer's ordination of Paulinus (without the consent or knowledge of Eusebius of Vercelli) see Socrates, HE 3.6.1–3; 9.1–10; Sozomen, HE 5.12–13; Theodoret, HE 3.5.1–4; Rufinus, HE 10.28. Theodoret and Rufinus make the claim – contra Socrates and Sozomen – that Eusebius had requested that Lucifer accompany him to Alexandria, and that Lucifer instead went to Antioch of his own accord. None of the historians attest the presence of any other bishops at the consecration of Paulinus other than Lucifer.

45 Socrates, HE 3.10.9; Sozomen, HE 5.13. Rufinus notes that Lucifer felt injured by Eusebius’ disapproval, but makes no mention of a break in communion: HE 1.31.

46 Sozomen, HE 5.13.4 (SC cdxcv. 195) is clearest on this point: ‘And as though from a spirit of jealousy, he attempted to reproach the decisions [τά δὸξαντα] of the synod in Alexandria. This apparently was the cause of the sect [ὅ δὴ πρόϕασις ἐγένετο τῆς ἁιρέσεως] of those who were called Luciferians after him’. Socrates, HE 3.9.6 (SC cdxciii. 290), is slightly more elliptical, writing that the conflict in Antioch drove people from the church [τῆς έκκλησίας ἀπέστησεν] and that in the wake of this a sect [ἁίρεσις] of Luciferians arose.

47 Socrates 5.5.7; Sozomen, 7.3.5. The event in question occurred upon Meletius’ return to the city following Gratian's edict of 378 that recalled all exiled bishops to their sees (cf. Sozomen, 7.2.3).

48 Theodoret, HE 3.5.3–4; Rufinus, HE 1.31.

49 ‘Sed post aliquot annos beatus Lucifer, de quarto exilio Romam pergens…’: Libellus 16.63, SC div.163.

50 On Liberius’ adoption of the ‘laxist’ position promulgated by the Synod of Alexandria (362) see the letter of Liberius to the bishops of Italy in Collectanea antiariana parisina B IV.1.1–2, CSEL lxv. 156–7. He argued that the many bishops at Ariminum who were acting in ignorance were to be spared [‘multos parcendum’] whereas the instigators of the heresy were to be condemned [‘auctores vero esse damnandos’].

51 See Liberius’ letter to the Eastern presbyters and bishops: ‘dominus et frater meus communis Demofilus quia dignatus est pro sua benivolentia fidem vestram et catholicam exponere…hanc ego libenti animo suscepi’: Collectanea antiarian parisina B VII.8.1–2, CSEL lxv. 168–9. The fifth-century ecclesiastical historians whitewash Liberius’ capitulation. Socrates asserts that it was solely because of the will of the Roman people that Constantius restored him (HE 2.37.94), whereas Sozomen reports that Eudoxius circulated a false report that Liberius renounced the homoousion, on the basis of which Constantius reinstated him (HE. 4.15.3).

52 On the exile of Liberius and the installation of Felix see Socrates, HE 2.37.91–4; Sozomen, HE 4.11.1–12; Theodoret, HE 2.14.

53 Libellus 25.89, SC div.194.

54 Libellus 24.86, SC div.190.

55 Libellus 23.84, SC div.188.

56 ‘For Damasus, who received the authority of a king [accepta auctoritate regali], sent catholic presbyters and even the laity into exile, having come after them [insecutus] as well. He brought this about by means of pagan advocates before judges who were favourable to them [perorans hoc ipsum per gentiles scolasticos, faventibus sibi iudicibus], although your constitutions [constitutiones] were enacted [decretae sint] against heretics, not against catholics, and such catholics who did not abandon the true faith even under heretical emperors’: Libellus 23.83, SC div. 186.

57 Libellus 24.86, SC div.190.

58 Libellus 20.73–6, SC div.176–8.

59 Libellus 21.77, SC div.180.

60 Libellus 26.93–28.101.

61 Libellus 26.96.

62 Libellus 27.98, SC div. 206.

63 ‘cum magno fletu deduxit proficiscentem’: Libellus 29.105, SC div.214.

64 His connection to Lucifer may have been somewhat stronger than to Aurelius and Heraclides. The Libellus makes the claim that Gregory visited Lucifer in Sardinia, which, if true, would indicate a bond of personal friendship and public support, but we simply have no way of knowing whether or not this story was apocryphal.

65 ‘Iam quantus vir Lucifer fuerit, cum illum admiretur et Gregorius, qui apud cunctos admirabilis est non solum ex conlisione illa Osii sed etiam ex divinis virtutibus, quas habens in se gratiam Sancti Spiritus exsequitur’: Libellus 25.90, SC div.194. Nearly twenty years would have elapsed between the time of the alleged visit and the writing of the Libellus, and it may be based more in legend than in fact.

66 PLRE, Maternus Cynegius 3, 255–6.

67 ‘In quo petentum laudanda illatio est qui, communicantes Gregorio Hispaniensi et Heraclidae Orientali, sanctis sane et laudabilibus episcopis, optant in fide catholica sine oppugnatione alicuius ac molestia viver nullisque’: Lex 6, SC div.240.

68 There is quite literally no evidence for communion with Gregory, and the closest they can come in regard to Heraclides is the claim that the ‘holy people of Oxyrynchus in communion with blessed Heraclides [beato Heraclidae] approved [probavit] him’: Libellus 29.105, SC div.214. That is indeed a tenuous link between Ephesius and Heraclides.

69 Chadwick, Priscillian, 7.

70 Tract. 4; 6.

71 Tract. 3.32–4; 6.35; 20.16.

72 Tract. 17.2–4.

73 The most striking example comes from the fifth Tractatus, of which nearly a third of the homily (5.3–13) is a verbatim repetition of the pseudo-Cyprianic De bono pudicitiae 8, 10–11. There is also a near verbatim borrowing from Tertullian's De resurrectione 8–9, and Minucius Felix's Octavius 34 in Tractatus Origenis 17.25–7, 29–30. There are also parallels with Tertullian's Adversus Iudaeos 2 (Tract. 4.4), Novatian's De Trinitate 6 and 18 (Tract. 1.1–2; 3.32–3) and De cibis Iudaiciis (Tract. 10.34).