The Fifth Document need not detain us long, as nearly all that can be said about it has been said above. But the picture of the murderer’s soul tied by the tongue to a great demon in the shape of a horse is found again in the Coptic Life of Bishop Pisentius which mentions the invasion of the Persians in the reign of Heraclius and cannot therefore be earlier than the end of the seventh century.[113] The descriptions of the torments of hell, without being identical, are cast in the same mould as those in the _Apocalypse of Paul_, which is attributed to the year 380 A.D. The doctrine that it is the nature of the sins committed by the soul which determine the bodily infirmities allotted to it in its next incarnation also first appears formally stated, so far as I am aware, in the _Acta Archelai_ written for the refutation of the teaching of Manes, and therefore not earlier than the end of the third century. It was probably this which led Lipsius to think that he could perceive Manichaean features in our text. * * * * * To sum up, then, I believe that all the Documents in our text belong to the School of Valentinus. As to date, the First and the greatest part of the Second are probably taken from documents written by Valentinus himself, and therefore before A.D. 160, while the last part of the Second, and the whole of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth, are by the degenerate successors of his school and are arranged in date order. These last may be of any date between A.D. 245 and 388, when we last hear of the Valentinians as an organised sect, and some parts of them may not improbably be later still. Footnote 2: _Not_ Greek, as has been sometimes said. The point is of importance for dating. Footnote 3: Where not otherwise mentioned, this pagination is used in all references hereafter. Footnote 4: Cf. alternative ending of Mark and Apocal. of Paul. Budge, _Misc. Coptic Texts_, p. 1084. Footnote 5: See my article “Some Heretic Gospels” in _Scottish Review_ for 1893. Footnote 6: _Archæological Report_ of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1897-1898, p. 62. Footnote 7: _Album de Paléographie Copte._ Footnote 8: F. Granger, in a review in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, v. v. (1904), pp. 0400 ff., says he sees no reason why Coptic should not have been its original language. I am inclined to agree with him, particularly with regard to the Fourth and Fifth Documents. But the balance of expert opinion is distinctly against this view. Footnote 9: In the Preface to the Coptic text of 1851, he states his intention of publishing later a “tractate,” showing the Ophite origin of the work; but this promise, like others affecting it, remains unfulfilled. Footnote 10: All this is dealt with in the Introduction to my translation of the _Philosophumena_, published by the S.P.C.K. in 1921, pp. 5, 6. Footnote 11: