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

Const. Sirm. 3 of 4 February 384 to Optatus, Prefect of Egypt granted bishops
the right to be tried only by other bishops in ecclesiastical affairs. 61 The law indicates
that persons who called themselves bishops (presumably heretics) had “committed
certain deeds with rash and wicked lawlessness in violation no less of the divine laws
than of the human laws” 62 by harassing orthodox clerics “they have exhausted such
clerics with journeys and have delivered them to torturers.” 63 Therefore Theodosius
ordered that clerics of all ranks should have their “own judges and shall not have
anything in common with the public laws” as regards to ecclesiastical matters. 64
Theodosius specifies that in Egypt such cases should be heard by Bishop Timotheus
“who is both to be venerated because of the high esteem of all the priests and one who
has already been approved by our judgment also.” This was not a new right and is first
recorded as having been granted by Constantius in his CTh. 16.2.12 of 23 September
355. No punishments were proscribed against any future offenders and Constantius’
law has more derogatory rhetoric.
It seems clear that the impetus for this law came from the clerics of Egypt
rather than from any report from Theodosius' officials in Egypt. Theodosius makes
no reference to Optatus having done so (as Constantine had done in his Sirm. 1 to
Ablavius). Moreover, the law says that “supplications have been read in the imperial
consistory whereby the episcopal piety makes some plea and contests in that
tribunal.” 65 Socrates describes Optatus as “a pagan in religion and a hater of the
Christians.” 66 From both the evidence of the law and Socrates’ statement it seems clear
that in this case the addressee of the law was not also the suggeren s. As for Optatus
himself, as a pagan (even if he were not a “hater of the Christians”) we can speculate
that he may not have thought that he should concern himself with inter-Christian
61
Optatus 1 PLRE 1.649-650; Honoré (1998) also attributes this law to the quaestor E5, in his second
period as quaestor.
62
perpetrata et contra leges non m inus div inas quam hum anas inproba tem eritate conm issa
63
fatigatos itineribus, quaestion ariis deditos
64
Habent illi iudices suos nec quicquam his publicis com m une cum legibus
65
denique lectis in constitoria precibus, quibus episcopalism pietas aliquid postulans refragatur in eo
66 Soc 6.18.19
182