4), he speaks of the hidden sacraments of the heretics—by which phrase the ante-Nicene Fathers nearly always mean the Valentinians—and the answers which the soul must make when arraigned before the _veras potestates et veros homines_, “powers and men of Truth,” the “Teleti and Abascanti and Akineti of Valentinus,” of which names some are to be found in the long catalogue of transcendental Powers inhabiting the heaven of Truth in the Second Document. So, too, in the _Adversus Valentinianos_ (c. 35), he speaks of many Powers distinguished by prefixes like _Prae_ and _An_ which according to him occupied a very high place in the Valentinian Pantheon, and which correspond fairly to the Proachoreti, the Protripneumata, and the Hypertripneumata in the last-mentioned catalogue. Nor is Tertullian here entirely alone among the Fathers of the period. Irenæus, cautious as he is not to quote the name of powers reverenced by the heretics, says (II. xlvii. p. 368 H.) that there is no Pleroma of thirty Æons ... _nec lumen virginale, nec Æon innominabilis_, under cover of which general expressions it is plain that he is referring to the Virgin of Light and the “Great Unseen Forefather” of our First Document. So, too, Hippolytus (_Philosophumena_, VI. 30, p. 283, Cr.), by a sort of slip of the pen, calls Sophia “the youngest of all the twenty-four” (not thirty or twenty-eight or thirty-three) Æons which she is indeed said to be in our First Document. Finally, Origen writing long after Valentinus and his immediate successors had passed away, speaks of the heretical stories of “doors opening of their own accord,” an episode which occurs nowhere else, so far as I know, than in Jesus’ account of His upward journey in the same Document.[103] We see, then, that there are adequate grounds for supposing that the main documents of our MS. or perhaps those upon which, according to the German commentators,[104] they are themselves based, are by Valentinus, and that in any case the Greek original from which the Coptic translation was made, must be earlier than A.D. 170. This, however, does not apply to the Interpolated Fragment, which in its present form it is impossible to date, although, as I have before said, I should myself be inclined to guess that it once formed part of the story of Jesus’ upward flight. To continue this until it described the Saviour’s entry into the realms of the Ineffable One would hardly have seemed too daring to a writer acquainted, as ours evidently was, with the literature that passes under the name of Enoch, and the author of the part of the _Bruce Papyrus_ which Dr. Schmidt calls “_Unbekanntes altgnostiche Werk_,” plunges into a description of the Source of All Being which leaves nothing to be desired on the ground of temerity. But this last is, on the face of it, a much later document than the history of Pistis Sophia, and on the whole it is better to say nothing further as to the authorship or date of the Fragment.