oyed to dissolve the connection between the
Old and the New Testament; since they adored the latter as the oracles
of God, and abhorred the former as the fabulous and absurd invention of
men or daemons. We cannot be surprised, that they should have found
in the Gospel the orthodox mystery of the Trinity: but, instead of
confessing the human nature and substantial sufferings of Christ, they
amused their fancy with a celestial body that passed through the virgin
like water through a pipe; with a fantastic crucifixion, that eluded the
vain and important malice of the Jews. A creed thus simple and spiritual
was not adapted to the genius of the times; [7] and the rational
Christian, who might have been contented with the light yoke and
easy burden of Jesus and his apostles, was justly offended, that the
Paulicians should dare to violate the unity of God, the first article of
natural and revealed religion. Their belief and their trust was in the
Father, of Christ, of the human soul, and of the invisible world.

But they likewise held the eternity of matter; a stubborn and rebellious
substance, the origin of a second principle of an active being, who has
created this visible world, and exercises his temporal reign till the
final consummation of death and sin. [8] The appearances of moral
and physical evil had established the two principles in the ancient
philosophy and religion of the East; from whence this doctrine was
transfused to the various swarms of the Gnostics. A thousand shades may
be devised in the nature and character of Ahriman, from a rival god to
a subordinate daemon, from passion and frailty to pure and perfect
malevolence: but, in spite of our efforts, the goodness, and the power,
of Ormusd are placed at the opposite extremities of the line; and every
step that approaches the one must recede in equal proportion from the
other. [9]

[Footnote 7: The six capital errors of the Paulicians are defined by
Peter (p. 756,) with much prejudice and passion.]

[Footnote 8: Primum illorum axioma est, duo rerum esse principia; Deum
malum et Deum bonum, aliumque hujus mundi conditorem et princi pem, et
alium futuri aevi, (Petr. Sicul. 765.)]

[Footnote 9: Two learned critics, Beausobre (Hist. Critique du
Manicheisme, l. i. iv. v. vi.) and Mosheim, (Institut. Hist. Eccles. and
de Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum, sec. i. ii. iii.,) have labored
to explore and discriminate the various systems of the Gnostics on the
subj