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

ishops if they had fraternised with Arians, even under compulsion. His ultra
orthodox stance earned him exile under Constantius along with only two other
bishops. 203 The dating of Theodosius' reply is uncertain, either 383 or 384, but since
the Luciferians were concentrated in Sardinia and since Theodosius' ruling was
addressed to Maternus Cynegius, it is likely that it was given in 383 when Maternus
was still Com es Sacrorum Largition em and before he became Praetorian Prefect of the
East in 384 in which capacity he would obviously have no jurisdiction over Sardinia.
Sardinia was, of course, under the nominal control of Valentinian II’s government, but
evidently the petitioners felt that they would have a better chance with Theodosius'
eastern government than with the Arian-sympathetic western government.
Theodosius evidently thought he had the right to respond to their concerns.
In contrast to many of the laws above, Theodosius' response to the petition is
quite reasoned. He begins by stating that there should be “no greater reverence for
human hearts than for the divine law,” and also indicated that nothing should be added
to that law; which may be an indication that the Luciferians practice of anathematising
anyone who had fraternised with heretics was not acceptable. 204 Indeed, Theodosius
states that no one “should decide for [Catholic] teachers what ought to be followed;”
which may be a reference to the fact that Luciferians did not, presumably, accept the
practice of leading Church figures in associating with ex-heretics or their apostolic
successors. 205 Equally, the injunction against adding anything to the faith could also be
taken to be a statement against the Arians. As such, this ruling displays an ambiguity
consistent with much of Theodosius' legislation on the Church and Christianity.
203
Coleman-Norton (1966) 390 has a brief introduction to the sect. Lucifer was regarded as a saint,
although his position now appears to be uncertain. The petition of his successors, Marcellinus and
Faustinus, to Theodosius is given in the CSEL 35:5-44; See Hunt (1998b) 26-27 for the exile; The two
other exiled bishops were Dionysius of Milan and Eusebius of Vercallae. Theodosius' reply follows the
petition in the CSEL 35 (2.a) at 45-46 and is the text given here.
204
2a.1 Etsi nulla hum anis pectoribus m aior quam biv inae legis debet esse rev erentia n ec adici quicquam ad
eam posit
205
2a.3 nem o enim um quam tam profanae m entis fuit, qui cum sequi catholicos doctores debeat, quid
sequendum sit, doctoribus ipse constituat.
230