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

Nevertheless the next step was indeed that of persecution, which probably
began a few months after the letter to Eumalius in early 317. The edict which ordered
it is, unfortunately, not preserved, and the only evidence that there was an order to
persecute is a short sentence in Augustine’s Ep. 105.9. There is therefore no official
context through which we are able to judge whether there were any other
circumstances which necessitated this first persecution of a Christian community by a
Christian emperor. Possibly, and Constantine's letter to Eumalius may be seen as
evidence for this, it was simply the case that Constantine believed he had exhausted all
possible peaceful means to settle the dispute and that there was simply nothing more
that could be done; the legal avenues had run their course; decisions and verdicts had
been made; therefore compliance should be expected from good subjects.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be a ‘gap’ between the final vindication of the
Catholic party and then the decision to use force. The only circumstances which seem
to make it certain that the first had inevitably to lead to the second, are if the
ideological basis for employing persecution shown in Optatus’ appendix seven was
indeed adopted by Constantine. It seems reasonable to assume that since the sources
make no mention of any incidents or even reactions, that could have provoked
further, and more direct Imperial action than hitherto, (and it seems unlikely that they
would have omitted such useful aids to their position) then Constantine believed that
force had to be used in order that he could fulfil his self-professed mandate and
properly execute his duty to God and to the empire entrusted to him and ensure, by
the only remaining means, that correct worship occurred.
Constantine's order, preserved by Augustine, states that “he gave a very severe
law against the party of Donatus;” the confiscation of their churches was also
ordered. 119 It seems odd that this “very severe law” has not been preserved by either
Optatus or Augustine when it surely would have been in their interests to do so; as
such it may be reasonable to suggest that the law contained provisions or sentiments
119 Aug. Ep. 105.9 (PL 33.399) Legem contra partem Donati dedit sev erissim am . Aug. Contra Litteras
Petiliani 2.92.205 refers to the confiscation of churches.
82