31.12.2012 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

and not to “heretics and schismatics.” 66 Constant<strong>in</strong>e also ordered that such should also<br />

be “bound and subjected to various compulsory public services.” 67<br />

CTh. 16.5.2 of 25 of September 326 was addressed to Iunius Bassus, Prefect of<br />

<strong>the</strong> City. 68 It concerned <strong>the</strong> Novatians, who had been one of <strong>the</strong> heretics addressed<br />

and condemned <strong>in</strong> Constant<strong>in</strong>e’s Letter to Heretics, but his attitude towards <strong>the</strong><br />

Novatians was more conciliatory <strong>in</strong> this law. The law stated that Constant<strong>in</strong>e had<br />

“not found that <strong>the</strong> Novatians were precondemned to such an extent that we should<br />

suppose that those th<strong>in</strong>gs which <strong>the</strong>y sought ought not be granted to <strong>the</strong>m.” 69<br />

Therefore <strong>the</strong>y were allowed to reta<strong>in</strong> churches and property which <strong>the</strong>y had had s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />

<strong>the</strong> schism (of 251), but anyth<strong>in</strong>g which belonged to <strong>the</strong> Catholics s<strong>in</strong>ce <strong>the</strong> schism and<br />

had come <strong>in</strong>to <strong>the</strong> possession of <strong>the</strong> Novatians should be returned to <strong>the</strong>m.<br />

Constant<strong>in</strong>e ordered that <strong>the</strong>y should “firmly possess without disquietude, <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />

Church build<strong>in</strong>gs and places suitable for burial,” 70 regardless of how such places were<br />

acquired. These provisions are evidently a direct repeal of those conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Letter<br />

to Heretics and are an effective statement of toleration.<br />

Constant<strong>in</strong>e and Judaism<br />

When Constant<strong>in</strong>ian legislation is concerned solely with Jews and not with<br />

Jewish-Christian relations, it almost gives <strong>the</strong> impression that <strong>the</strong> state valued both<br />

Christians and Jews equally. But Constant<strong>in</strong>e's first law on Jews, CTh. 16.8.3 of 11<br />

December 321 and issued to <strong>the</strong> decurions of Cologne 71 may be seen as an exception to<br />

this impression and as evidence that <strong>the</strong>re was a rise <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>tolerance under Constant<strong>in</strong>e<br />

towards <strong>the</strong> Jews. This law allowed councils to nom<strong>in</strong>ate Jews to <strong>the</strong>ir councils. But<br />

Constant<strong>in</strong>e allowed “two or three persons from each group <strong>the</strong> perpetual privilege” of<br />

65 Corcoran (2000) 155 n 147; Dracilianus PLRE 1.271<br />

66 haereticos…atque schism aticos<br />

67 sed etiam div ersis m uneribus constr<strong>in</strong>gi et subici<br />

68 Iunius Bassus 14, also <strong>the</strong> recipient of CTh 16.2.3<br />

69 Nov atianos non adeo conperim us praedam natos, ut his quae petiv erunt crederem us m <strong>in</strong>im e largienda<br />

70 ecclesiae suae dom os et loca ssepulcris apta s<strong>in</strong>e <strong>in</strong>quietud<strong>in</strong>e eos firm iter possidere praecipim us<br />

71 Corcoran (2000) 104 n82, 166-7, 192 n93, 313<br />

20

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!