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

eginning of Theodosius' reign. Firstly, it should be noted that two of the laws were
devoted in part (CTh. 16.5.7 and 9), and one wholly devoted (CTh. 16.5.10), to ascetics
or to those who appeared to have practised an ascetic lifestyle; and against them, they
were to be denied the ability to bequeath or inherit, and possibly exile (CTh. 16.5.7),
no assembling in churches (CTh. 16.5.10) and, probably for the apparent crime of
using different names, rather than for being heretics as such, death (CTh. 16.5.9).
Hence, there appears to be a disproportionate concern with ascetics; they can only
have been a small minority and against them (or a at least against a sizeable proportion
of them) the highest penalty was imposed.
Secondly, the legislation against other named heretics has a logic and a
progression about it. Postumianus’ CTh. 16.5.11 against nine named heresies forbade
them from worshipping, from having churches and from converting outsiders; five
months later Postumianus repeated the provisions of the last law with his CTh. 16.5.12
(against just four named heretics) which advanced the anti heretical cause further, by
forbidding ordinations; finally Cynegius’ CTh. 16.5.13 of seven weeks later continued
the assault by including teachers. By a process of preventing meetings and worship,
followed by the prevention of legitimate successors through ordination and finally,
effectively prohibiting the learning and teaching of the faiths through prohibiting the
teachers, indicates that the authorities were doing all they could to eliminate the actual
heresies without actually eliminating the individual heretics themselves.
CTh. 16.5.16 of 9 August 387 was Theodosius' first law after the gap and was
issued to Cynegius, still Praetorian Prefect of the East. It was against the Arians who,
the law states, had been putting forward “a general rule of our regulations” which
appeared to state that “they are permitted to usurp those practices which appear to
them to suit their advantage.” 215 The law ordered that any such “rule” was to be
215 The date for this law is given in the text as 388 and the place of issue as Constantinople; however as
Theodosius was on his way to the west in August 388, it seems safer to date this law to the previous
year, 387
234