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

contributed to its composition. Indeed, this technique of naming representatives of
orthodoxy, established by Cun ctos populos, was almost certainly more useful in
ensuring the success of orthodoxy than would have been possible if the government
had required clerics to submit to a doctrinal formula which would have been open to
arguments, interpretation and reemphasis and would also have been time-consuming.
The law also empowered bishops, since only they knew with whom they were in
communion and so they effectively had the power to remove heretics from their
churches. It was a simple law, but well designed for maximum effectiveness and
efficiency.
At the same time however, it should be noted that the area affected was only a
fraction of the empire, and probably issued only because Asia had failed to send any
bishops to the council with the result that no one in that diocese would have had any
immediate and first hand knowledge of the results of the council. Moreover, the law
does not indulge in any extreme rhetoric against the heretics, indeed, only calling them
heretics once. The fact that no punishments are prescribed for any heretics that might
have (illegally) “obtained” a church should also be balanced against the underlying
intolerance of the law. Essentially, it may be said that this law was particularly
intolerant, but only towards a small geographical area and contained no instrument by
which that intolerance could be visited upon dissidents, beyond that of the
confiscation of their churches.
CTh. 12.1.104 of 7 November 383 was addressed to Postumianus, Praetorian
Prefect of the east, 56 and was the latest of many laws attempting to prevent decurions
evading their municipal duties by joining the Church. 57 The law suggests that
decurions were joining the clergy and keeping their property: “if they wish to be what
they pretend, [they] shall hold in contempt those goods which they stealthily
56 Postumianus 2 PLRE 1.718
57 Honoré (1998) 52-53 attributes this law to his quaestor E5 who held office briefly from 30 th August
383 to 8 th November 383 and then again for two years from 30 th December 383 to 18 th December 385
180