A.D. 381 heretics, pagans, and the dawn of the monotheistic state ( PDFDrive )

to the Nicenes, he kept his personal beliefs to himself. According to Ammianus
Marcellinus, ‘He took a neutral position between opposing faiths and never
troubled anyone by ordering him to adopt this or that mode of “worship”.’ 23
When a group of bishops came to ask for permission to hold a council, he told
them: ‘I am but one of the laity and have therefore no right to interfere in these
transactions: let the priests, to whom such matters appertain, assemble where
they please.’ 24 His senior appointments show that he was as likely to favour
pagans as Christians. His desire to put good order first is shown in his treatment
of the bishopric of Milan. The incumbent, Auxentius, was a subordinationist but
was challenged by the Nicene Hilary of Poitiers, who hoped that a Nicene
emperor would support him. Valentinian sent Hilary packing as a troublemaker.
When Auxentius died in 374, Valentinian acquiesced in the process by which
Ambrose emerged as the man most likely to keep good order among the factions
in the diocese. In the bitter conflicts over the bishopric of Rome in 366 and 367,
Valentinian once again put the need for peace over the support of either side. His
city prefect stood aside while the fighting between the henchmen of the rival
candidates was going on, and then backed the victor, Damasus. Brutal though he
may have been in his military campaigns, Valentinian deserves recognition as the
man who kept Constantine’s policy of tolerance intact.
Valens also maintained a tradition of broad tolerance in the east but in a much
more unsettled atmosphere. Constantius’ Homoian settlement of 360 was still
predominant, and Valens chose to uphold it as the status quo. This seemed the
most sensible way of keeping overall good order. However, there were important
Nicene bishops, the irrepressible Athanasius in Alexandria and Basil in
Caesarea, for instance, who had powerful local followings. The emperor allowed
both of them to stay in their posts. Other Nicene bishops were removed, but in
many cases this seems to have been related to breaches of discipline that Valens
could not condone. Some Nicene supporters seem to have returned to their sees
as a result of a deliberate policy of reconciliation he initiated in 375. Although
later Nicene historians rewrote the events of these years to suggest that Valens
persecuted the Nicenes, there is very little evidence for this, and one might sum
up his policy as one of pragmatic tolerance. 25
By 380, the debate had progressed considerably. Christian intellectuals of the
period had shown themselves to be well read and highly sophisticated and
ingenious in argument. It is true that some participants, such as Athanasius, used
invective rather than reason in their dealing with rivals, and both sides felt able