The supposed allusion to St. John we shall pass over for the present.

There is a string of allusions in the first book of Irenaeus, ‘Adv.  Haereses,’ to the visit of Jesus as a child to the Passover (Luke ii. 42), the jot or tittle of Matt. v. 18, the healing of the issue of blood, the bearing of the cross (Luke xiv. 27 par.), the sending of a sword and not peace, ‘his fan is in his hand,’ the salt and light of the world, the healing of the centurion’s servant, of Jairus’ daughter, the exclamations upon the cross, the call of the unwilling disciples, Zacchaeus, Simon, &c.  We may take it, I believe, as admitted, and it is indeed quite indisputable, that these are references to our present Gospels; but there is the further question whether they are to be attributed directly to Valentinus or to his followers, and I am quite prepared to admit that there are no sufficient grounds for direct attribution to the founder of the system.  Irenaeus begins by saying that his authorities are certain ’commentaries of the disciples of Valentinus’ and his own intercourse with some of them [Endnote 197:1].  He proceeds to announce his intention to give a ’brief and clear account of the opinions of those who were then teaching their false doctrines [Greek:  nun paradidaskonton], that is, of Ptolemaeus and his followers, a branch of the school of Valentinus.’  It is fair to infer that the description of the Valentinian system which follows is drawn chiefly from these sources.  This need not, however, quite necessarily exclude works by Valentinus himself.  It is at any rate clear that Irenaeus had some means of referring to the opinions of Valentinus as distinct from his school; because, after giving a sketch of the system, he proceeds to point out certain contradictions within the school itself, quoting first Valentinus expressly, then a disciple called Secundus, then ’another of their more distinguished and ambitious teachers,’ then ‘others,’ then a further subdivision, finally returning to Ptolemaeus and his party again.  On the whole, Irenaeus seems to have had a pretty complete knowledge of the writings and teaching of the Valentinians.  We conclude therefore, that, while it cannot be alleged positively that any of the quotations or allusions were really made by Valentinus, it would be rash to assert that none of them were made by him, or that he did not use our present Gospels.

However this may be, we cannot do otherwise than demur to the statement implied in ‘Supernatural Religion’ [Endnote 198:1], that the references in Irenaeus can only be employed as evidence for the Gnostic usage between the years 185-195 A.D.  This is a specimen of a kind of position that is frequently taken up by critics upon that side, and that I cannot but think quite unreasonable and uncritical.  Without going into the question of the date at which Irenaeus wrote at present, and assuming with the author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ that his first three books were published