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

and, against the teachings of all, contaminates this act of grace by repetition.” 156 This
law was a little less severe than the previous law on heretics in that it did not order any
punishments to be administered against offenders, nor did it say anything derogatory
about Donatists or their clergy other than that their bishops were unworthy of the
priesthood and were acting illegally. The law did not even seek to prevent Donatist re-
baptisms or any other Donatist practice. However, Julianus may have been seeking to
establish whether Donatist Bishops were exempt from liturgies; if so, then in this law,
Valentinian was upholding the terms of Constantine's 16.5.1 of 1 September 326 which
restricted the material benefits of Christianity to Catholics alone and specifically
excluded heretics and schismatics. Nevertheless, the law makes no mention of other
clerics in Donatism, below the rank of Bishop, being denied access to privileges which
their Catholic colleagues enjoyed.
This law CTh. 16.6.1 may have been issued in response to the revolt of Firmus
in North Africa of 372/3-373/4. 157 The revolt was suppressed by Theodosius, m agister
equitum and father of the future emperor Theodosius. 158 There is some evidence that
Firmus was sympathetic to the Donatist cause and that they in turn were supportive of
him. According to Augustine, the Donatists were labelled as “Firmians” by the more
moderate Donatist sub-sect the Rogatists and Augustine also refers to a ‘deal’
apparently attempted by the Donatist Bishop of Rusicade to surrender that city to
Firmus during the revolt on condition that he “yielded up the Catholics to
destruction.” 159 However, as the law is quite mild, it may be reasonable to believe,
because of that mildness, that it was not a response, in any way, to the revolt of
Firmus.
However, and just on the character of Julianus, it might be reasonable to expect
that the law would have been a little harsher than it actually was as Julianus was noted
156 Antistitem , qui san ctitatem baptism i inlicita usurpation e gem inav erit et contra instituta om nium eam
gratiam iterando contam in av erit, sacerdotio indignum esse censem us
157 Firmus 3 PLRE 1.340. Amm. Marc 29.5.1-56. Matthews (1989) 369-376
158 Flavius Theodosius 3 PLRE 1.902-904
159 Aug. Ep 87; c. Litt. Petil. 2.83.184
130