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.

16.5.13 of 21 January 384. Although this law only appears to target bishops <strong>in</strong> regards<br />

to <strong>the</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g of heretical doctr<strong>in</strong>es, it is quite reveal<strong>in</strong>g as to <strong>the</strong> attitude that <strong>the</strong><br />

authorities had developed towards heretical beliefs. As noted, it orders that bishops<br />

should not “teach a faith which <strong>the</strong>y do not have.” Self evidently, <strong>the</strong> heretical bishops<br />

did have “a faith” (<strong>the</strong>ir own) which <strong>the</strong>y could teach if <strong>the</strong>y were allowed to, but <strong>the</strong>y<br />

did not have <strong>the</strong> Nicene faith itself and <strong>the</strong>refore <strong>the</strong>y had no faith at all; no faith of<br />

any description or of anyth<strong>in</strong>g worth <strong>the</strong> designation of faith. Therefore, accord<strong>in</strong>g to<br />

this law, Nicene faith is <strong>the</strong> one and only faith, <strong>the</strong> only true and proper vessel for<br />

worship of God. Noth<strong>in</strong>g of which <strong>the</strong> heretics have <strong>the</strong>refore, can approximate <strong>the</strong><br />

truth of religion as uniquely shown through and by <strong>the</strong> (Nicene) faith.<br />

Conclusion: Theodosius and heretics.<br />

Much of Theodosius' legislation on heresies does not support <strong>the</strong> conclusion<br />

that he was a Christian “fanatic.” 248 Although it cannot be disputed whose side he was<br />

on, much of <strong>the</strong> details of <strong>the</strong> laws does not <strong>in</strong>dicate that he was a zealous crusader for<br />

<strong>the</strong> Catholic Church. Never<strong>the</strong>less, Theodosius does emerge from <strong>the</strong> legislative<br />

record as be<strong>in</strong>g more <strong>in</strong>tolerant than his predecessors with <strong>the</strong> result that heretics were<br />

possibly <strong>in</strong> a worse position <strong>in</strong> 395 than <strong>the</strong>y had been <strong>in</strong> 379. Much of this<br />

impression formed by <strong>the</strong> sheer volume of legislation that he passed on heretics,<br />

twenty laws and one rul<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> his sixteen years compared to a mere two under<br />

Constant<strong>in</strong>e (plus twelve letters on <strong>the</strong> Donatist dispute), none from <strong>the</strong> reign of<br />

Constantius, two from Valent<strong>in</strong>ian’s reign (with a fur<strong>the</strong>r eight deal<strong>in</strong>g with <strong>the</strong><br />

Urs<strong>in</strong>ian phenomenon), and none from Theodosius' immediate predecessor Valens.<br />

Such a volume suggest that <strong>the</strong>re was a greater concern apropos heresy which should<br />

necessitate legislation and that <strong>in</strong> itself is a measure of <strong>in</strong>tolerance. Moreover, such a<br />

dichotomy <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> volumes of material cannot be wholly and reasonably attributed to a<br />

248 As suggested by Williams and Friell (1994) 56<br />

247

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!