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

of 2 March 372 against Manicheans. Excluding his letters on the Ursinians,
Valentinian issued only one further law, CTh. 16.6.1 on Donatist bishops, who
were still technically schismatics, rather than heretics. Gratian only issued two
laws on heretics, plus one on the Donatists and he also issued a general criticism
and attack on various heresies and schisms in his letter de rebaptizatoribus.
Valentinian's heresy legislation had been concerned with the leaders of the sects;
with teachers and bishops respectively. But Gratian’s heresy legislation was wider
ranging and its provisions extended to the members of the sects as well as to their
properties; as such, it is closer in content and range to Theodosius' later legislation
against heretics than to that of his father. Theodosius issued proportionately more
legislation against heretics and it became, according to his legislative record,
increasingly difficult to maintain doctrines and practices that were divergent from
his norm. Essentially therefore it appears unlikely that an emperor or any
individual was responsible for the growth in legislation, but rather that such a
growth was reflective of wider concerns that occurred in the 370s and onwards.
Testament to this is Epiphanius’ Pan arion, which is coterminous with this period
of the fourth century. It is constructive to note that the Pan arion gave accounts of
68 Christian sects (plus twelve non-Christian religions) whereas the emperors
discussed here issued laws and statements on just 22 heretical sects. This simple
comparison illustrates that heresy was of greater concern to clerics than to
emperors.
However, whatever factors lay behind Theodosius' legislation, there is little
evidence that the Church, or a cleric had any decisive, or perhaps even tangential,
influence, in other than a few of his laws; and none of the other emperors is shown
in his legislation to have been a tool in the hands of the Church. Constantine, who
is credited (or cursed) for conceiving the marriage between State and Church
emerges as a figure who, especially through the Donatist dispute, stood above the
Church in a dominant position. His son, Constantius, appears as a more erratic
emperor and without Constantine's ability to perceive and exploit the
opportunities offered to him. Valentinian and Valens give the impression of being
essentially non-partisan in their religious legislation.
269