Religious Intolerance in the Later Roman Empire - Bad request ...

The law was short (as it has survived) and ordered capital punishment for any
man who sought to solicit “consecrated maidens or widows for the purpose of
matrimonial union.” 17 This law went beyond the provisions of Constantius’ CTh.
9.25.1.of 22 August 354 on the rape of consecrated virgins and widows. Whereas
Constantius’ law ordered punishment of an actual rape, this law sought to prevent
even an attempt to seduce or court consecrated widows or virgins. The death penalty
had already been established for rapists in Constantius’ CTh. 9.24.2 of 12 November
349 so extending it to attempted rapists and seducers is evidently an attempt to extend
protection of consecrated widows and virgins and because of that, this law may be seen
as evidence of an increase in intolerance against those who sought to abuse consecrated
women and therefore the Church. However it should be noted that the law does not
restrict such protection only to Nicene Christian or even to all consecrated Christian
women; quite conceivably the protection could be understood to extend to
consecrated pagan women such as the vestal virgins.
Therefore there is a large amount of evidence which casts doubt on the verdict
of Socrates in particular that Jovian was an innate Nicene Christian from his earliest
days. If, therefore he was not a doctrinaire Christian, then as such he may not
necessarily have been inclined to be intolerant towards other faiths. Such a lack of
intolerance may most obviously been seen in CTh. 9.25.2 whose provisions could
conceivably be extended to consecrated women of all faiths and, of course, his
apparent tolerance of blood sacrifice on his accession.
The Valentiniani: Valentinian I 364-375
[Valentinian’s] reign w as distin guished by toleration (moderamine), in that
he rem ain ed n eutral in religious differen ces n either troublin g an yon e on that
groun d n or orderin g him to rev eren ce this or that. He did n ot ben d the
17 attem ptare m atrim onii iungendi cause sacratas v irgines v el v iduas ausus fuerit capitali sententia ferietur
96