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

and therefore as exempt because it belonged to a cleric. This measure is justified,
according to the law, because bishops from Italy, Spain and Africa at Constantius’
court have indicated that it was appropriate. The law then went on to remind the
readership that Church lands were taxable and then finished with a contradictory
clause: “all clerics must be required to sustain all compulsory public services and to
provide transportation.” 199 Despite this text of the law it may be safe to assume that
this clause related to clerics with “landed estates” to whom the whole of this third part
relates and not actually to all clerics including those whom the second part of the law
had exempted from liturgies and taxes on small businesses. It should be noted that the
law only speaks of “bishops” in the justificatory clause referred to above; throughout
the rest of the law Taurus preferred to use clerici. The avoidance of episcopus was
probably a device to include all clerics who possessed estates liable, in order that, for
instance, a wealthy but junior cleric (although such would seem unlikely) could not
claim exemption on the basis that the law had specified bishops. Thus although
bishops were the main targets of this law in practice, Taurus made the law sufficient
robust to withstand any anomalies or potential exemptions that may have arisen.
In addition to this rather unfriendly law against wealthy clergy, presumably
bishops, though not to ordinary clerics, Constantius issued the second law addressed to
Taurus, CTh 12.1.49 of 29 August 361. This also dealt with clerics and their property
in relation to the municipal councils and would appear to be a clarification of some of
the requirements of CTh 16.2.15. Again, ordinary clerics were treated better than
bishops. Like Taurus’ previous law, it too is effectively divided into three parts. The
first part began by emphasising the unique privilege that bishops possessed as the only
group in the cities to hold property immune from the councils and that their property
should not be surrendered to anyone; “he shall remain a bishop and not make any
surrender of his substance.” 200 Presumably bishops did not have to surrender their
property to the councils, but, in view of the recent CTh 16.2.15, would still have been
198 eosdem ad pensitanda fiscalia perurgueri
199 ad univ ersa m unia sustinenda translation esque faciendas om nes clerici debeant adtineri
52