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

also “ignored the admonition of the general law,” should be deported. The law
appears to be directed against repeat offenders since it indicates that such people had
failed to be “chastened by a due sentence.” 162 The vague punishment prescribed in the
previous law on the subject, CTh. 16.4.2 of 16 June 388, make it difficult to determine
whether the specific punishment in this law was worse, but if it was indeed directed
against repeat offenders, then, on that basis, it would appear to be more tolerant.
CTh. 9.45.1 of 18 October 392 was addressed to Romulus, Count of the Sacred
Imperial Largesses. 163 It ordered that “public debtors” if they sought sanctuary in a
church should be “either dragged out of their hiding places at once, or payment of
their debts shall be exacted of the bishops who are proved to have harbored them.”
The law went on to address Romulus personally (as “Your Eminent Authority”) and
then to essentially repeat the earlier provisions, making it clear that “no debtor shall be
defended by clerics or else the debts shall be paid by the clerics for a debtor who they
suppose ought to be defended.” 164 Romanus was a Christian, but, if he suggested this
law, he evidently had no desire to enhance the status of the Church whenever money
was involved. Noticeably the law does not discuss the status of sanctuary, but is solely
concerned with recovery of funds, which should come from the debtor or from the
cleric involved.
CTh. 15.5.2 of 20 May was issued to the Rufinus who replaced Tatianus as
Prefect of the East, probably in 393. 165 Amongst other secular concerns, it repeated the
provision of CTh. 2.8.20 that no games were to be held on Sundays in order that
divine worship would not be “disturbed” (con fun dat).
162
deportation e dignus est, qui nec gen erali lege adm onitus nec com petenti sententia em endatus et fidem
catholicam turbat et populum .
163
Flavius Pisidius Romulus 5 PLRE 1.771-772. Also attributed by Honoré (1998) 73 to his E11
164
publicos debitores, si confugiendum ad ecclesias crediderint, aut ilico extrahi de latebris oportebit aut pro his
ipsos, qui eos occultare probantur, episcopos exigi. sciat igitur praecellens auctoritas tua n em inem debitorum
posthac a clericis defendendum aut per eos eius, quem defenden dum esse crediderint, debitum esse solv endum .
165
Honoré’s E11 (1998) 73
206