31.12.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

(<strong>the</strong>n) lack of both legislative records and of a religious history; a deficiency which <strong>the</strong><br />

Theodosian Code would partially mitigate.<br />

The law <strong>the</strong>n concluded by not<strong>in</strong>g that Donatists were cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g to meet <strong>in</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> countryside after <strong>the</strong>y had been expelled from <strong>the</strong> churches and it ordered that <strong>the</strong><br />

estates upon which <strong>the</strong>y were ga<strong>the</strong>r<strong>in</strong>g should be “<strong>in</strong>cluded <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> fiscal confiscations<br />

if <strong>the</strong>y should provide secret places for <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>ful doctr<strong>in</strong>e.” 262 It <strong>the</strong>n ordered that<br />

Donatists were not to impart <strong>the</strong>ir doctr<strong>in</strong>e to o<strong>the</strong>rs: “<strong>the</strong>y shall cherish <strong>the</strong> poison of<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir impious doctr<strong>in</strong>e to <strong>the</strong>ir own hurt, <strong>in</strong> domestic secrecy and alone.” 263<br />

This law is not strong <strong>in</strong> terms of derogatory language. It refers to <strong>the</strong> Donatist<br />

practice as an error and <strong>the</strong> effect of impos<strong>in</strong>g that error was to cause m alis to <strong>the</strong><br />

recipient. But <strong>in</strong> contrast to this and more importantly, <strong>the</strong> law made much of <strong>the</strong><br />

apparent offence that <strong>the</strong> Donatists were committ<strong>in</strong>g aga<strong>in</strong>st <strong>the</strong> Apostles.<br />

Gratian addressed a letter to Aquil<strong>in</strong>us vicar of Rome <strong>in</strong> 378/9 (o<strong>the</strong>rwise<br />

unknown) entitled de rebaptizatoribus but which was a general attack on various<br />

heresies and schisms and not just an attack on <strong>the</strong> Donatists. 264 It was a reply to a<br />

petition from Damasus ask<strong>in</strong>g that <strong>the</strong> Bishop of Rome, should have <strong>the</strong> authority to<br />

exercise jurisdiction over recalcitrant bishops throughout <strong>the</strong> empire and that <strong>the</strong><br />

Praetorian Prefect of Italy or <strong>the</strong> Vicar of Italy should be obliged to force any bishop<br />

who refused to recognise such authority to attend a hear<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> Rome before <strong>the</strong> Bishop<br />

of Rome. An offence committed by a bishop outside Italy would be dealt with by <strong>the</strong><br />

local metropolitan unless that metropolitan was <strong>the</strong> offender, <strong>in</strong> which case he would<br />

be brought to Rome to appear before <strong>the</strong> Bishop of Rome. This was presented as a<br />

‘labour-sav<strong>in</strong>g’ procedure for <strong>the</strong> emperor; he would no longer have to deal with<br />

262<br />

fundorum <strong>in</strong>licite frequentantes; quos fiscalis publicatio conprehendet, si piaculari doctr<strong>in</strong>ae secreta<br />

praebuer<strong>in</strong>t<br />

263<br />

quod si errorem suum diligunt, suis m alis dom esticoque secreto, soli tam en, fov eant v irus im piae<br />

discipl<strong>in</strong>ae<br />

264<br />

Aquil<strong>in</strong>us 2 PLRE 1.91; CSEL 35.13 = Coll. Av ell 13<br />

160

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!