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

facilitating the conversion of Christians to Manichaeism: “authors, moreover of this
persuasion, who have deflected unstable minds to their own society, shall incur the
same penalty as those guilty of such a false doctrine.” The law then went on to give
judges carte blan che when dealing with Manichaeian “authors” who were involved in
converting Christians: “Furthermore we decree even heavier penalties, according to
the discretion of the judges and the nature of the crime committed, shall in general be
extraordinarily imposed upon the nefarious artificers of this crime.” 302 No similar
injunctions were made against Jewish or pagan religious leaders.
However, in practical effects (other than those against Manichaean “authors,”)
this law was limited; it ordered that the wills of the deceased might only be challenged
on the grounds of apostasy within five years of their death: “in order that the dead
may not be harassed by the perpetual outrage of criminal accusation.” 303 Such an
accusation would have to be proved and the accuser would have to demonstrate to a
court that he did not know that the deceased had been an apostate during his life.
Although most of the general rhetoric of CTh. 16.7.3 was directed against the
Manichaeans, it should be noted that only once throughout this law was Manichaean
religion itself described in derogatory or intolerant language; the law called it a “false
doctrine” (rei erroris huiuscem odi). Nowhere in the law were Manichaeans themselves
attacked or referred to in derogatory terms. As with Valentinian's earlier CTh. 16.5.3
of 2 March 372 against Manichaeanism this latest law of Gratian is apparently more
concerned with, and intolerant of the Manichean religion itself than with individual
Manicheans. There was no derogatory rhetoric against paganism, at most it was a
“criminal act” for Christians to apostatise in favour of paganism. Although conversion
of Christians to Judaism received less rhetorical attention than conversion to
Manichaeism did, it was condemned in terms that were possibly stronger than those
302 Auctores v ero persuasionis huius, qui lubricas m entes in proprium deflexerant cnsortium eadem que reos
erroris huiuscem odi poena com itetur, quin etiam grav iora plerum que pro m otibus iudicum et qualitate
com m issi extra ordinem prom i in nefarios sceleris huius artifices supplicia cen sem us.
171