before the death of Eleutherus in A.D. 190—­the latest date possible for them,—­it will be seen that the Gnostic teaching to which Irenaeus refers is supposed to begin at a time when his first book may very well have been concluded, and to end actually five years later than the latest date at which this portion of the work can have been published!  Not only does the author allow no time at all for Irenaeus to compose his own work, not only does he allow none for him to become acquainted with the Gnostic doctrines, and for those doctrines themselves to become consolidated and expressed in writing, but he goes so far as to make Irenaeus testify to a state of things five years at least, and very probably ten, in advance of the time at which he was himself writing!  No doubt there is an oversight somewhere, but this is the kind of oversight that ought not to be made.

This, however, is an extreme instance of the fault to which I was alluding—­the tendency in the negative school to allow no time or very little for processes that in the natural course of things must certainly have required a more or less considerable interval.  On a moderate computation, the indirect testimony of Irenaeus may be taken to refer—­not to the period 185-195 A.D., which is out of the question—­but to that from 160-180 A.D.  This is not pressing the possibility, real as it is, that Valentinus himself, who flourished from 140-160 A.D., may have been included.  We may agree with the author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ that Irenaeus probably made the personal acquaintance of the Valentinian leaders, and obtained copies of their books, during his well-known visit to Rome in 178 A.D. [Endnote 199:1] The applications of Scripture would be taken chiefly from the books of which some would be recent but others of an earlier date, and it can surely be no exaggeration to place the formation of the body of doctrine which they contained in the period 160-175 A.D. above mentioned.  I doubt whether a critic could be blamed who should go back ten years further, but we shall be keeping on the safe side if we take our terminus a quo as to which these Gnostic writings can be alleged in evidence at about the year 160.

A genuine fragment of a letter of Valentinus has been preserved by Clement of Alexandria in the second book of the Stromateis [Endnote 200:1].  This is thought to contain references to St. Matthew’s Gospel by Dr. Westcott, and, strange to say, both to St. Matthew and St. Luke by Volkmar.  These references, however, are not sufficiently clear to be pressed.

A much less equivocal case is supplied by Hippolytus—­less equivocal at least so far as the reference goes.  Among the passages which received a specially Gnostic interpretation is Luke i. 35, ’The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee:  wherefore also the holy thing which is born (of thee) shall be called the Son of God.’  This is quoted thus, ’The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee:  wherefore that which is born of thee shall be called holy.’