He took for his foundation, as it would seem(641), the difficulty of explaining the origin of evil consistently with holding the perfection of God. He was thence led to make matter co‐eval with the Creator, and to declare that all the defects of created things arise from that portion of matter which he left untouched in the work of creation, as unfit for his use. This idea he doubtless borrowed from the Platonic philosophy: but how from this he passed into the absurdities of Gnosticism we are not informed. We only learn from Irenæus that he fashioned them into a new system. It is curious, however, that he is said by his followers to have derived his notions from a disciple of St. Paul(642), and that he endeavoured to represent them as perfectly consistent with the Scriptures(643). He had attained such a degree of notoriety before the year 142, in which Justin Martyr offered his First Apology to Antoninus Pius, that Justin therein speaks of having written that book against all the heresies(644), to which Tertullian is believed to refer when he mentions Justin amongst those who had written against Valentinus(645). And this agrees with what Irenæus says(646), that he came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and continued to the time of Anicetus. For whether we take the Chronology of Eusebius(647), who places his coming to Rome in the year 141, or third of Antoninus, or that of Eutychius, favoured by Bishop Pearson(648) who makes Hyginus contemporary with Adrian, this would equally agree with Justin having already written against him in 142: for he made himself known in his own country as an opposer of the truth before he came to Rome(649). Whatever may be thought of the precise year at which he came to that city, he remained there fifteen or twenty years, for he continued to the episcopate of Anicetus, and retained some character for piety and correctness of faith up to that period(650). Thenceforward, however, he cast off all such pretensions, and retiring to Cyprus, taught without disguise all the impieties his system naturally led to(651). It has so happened that Irenæus did not write directly against him, but against his followers: and as every disciple held himself capable of improving upon the system of his instructor, that which the Bishop of Lyons gives in full detail differs in some particulars from that taught by Valentinus himself. It was in fact more nearly that of Ptolemy, his most noted follower(652): but still Ptolemy had some peculiarities of his own(653). Yet Irenæus has preserved to us the leading features of the scheme as taught by Valentinus, and by their help, and that of a fragment preserved by Epiphanius(654), which corresponds with what Irenæus has told us, (although Bishop Pearson rightly contends that it is not the work of the heretical leader himself). I will endeavour to place it before my readers.