or THE HOMAN EMPIRE.
339
was chosen to express this mysterious resem-blance, bears so close an affinity to the ortho-dox symbol, that the profane of every age havederided the furious contests which the differ-ence of a single diphthong excited between thehomoousians and the homoiousians. As it fre-quently happens, that the sounds and charac-ters which approach the nearest to each otheraccidentally represent the most opposite ideas,the observation would be itself ridiculous, if itwere possible to mark any real and sensibledistinction between the doctrine of the semi-arians, as they were improperly styled, and thatof the catholics themselves. The bishop of Poi-tiers , who, in his Phrygian exile, very wiselyaimed at a coalition of parties, endeavours toprove that, by a pious and faithful interpreta-tion, 1 * the homoiousion may be reduced to a con-substantial sense. Yet he confesses that theword has a dark and suspicious aspect; and,as if darkness were congenial to theologicaldisputes, the semi-arians, who advanced to thedoors of the church, assailed them with themost unrelenting fury.
The provinces of Egypt and Asia , which cul-tivated the language and manners of the Greeks,had deeply imbibed the venom of the arian con-troversy. The familiar study of the platonic
b Fideli ct pia intelligontia .... De Synod, c- 77, p. 1193. In liiisliort apologotical notes (first published by the beuedictines from a Ms.of Charters) he observes, that he used this cautious expression, quiintelligerem et impiam, p. 200. See p. 1140. Philostorgius , whosaw those objects through a different medium, is incliucd to forget thedifference of the important diphthong. See in particular, viii, 17, andGodefroy, p. 352.
CHAP
XXI.