The account which Hippolytus gives of the Valentinians also contains an allusion to the fourth Gospel; ’All who came before Me are thieves and robbers’ (cf.  John x. 8).  But here the master and the disciples are more confused.  Less equivocal evidence is afforded by the statements of Irenaeus respecting the Valentinians.  He says that the Valentinians used the fourth Gospel very freely (plenissime) [Endnote 301:1].  This applies to a date that cannot be in any case later than 180 A.D., and that may extend almost indefinitely backwards.  There is no reason to say that it does not include Valentinus himself.  Positive evidence is wanting, but negative evidence still more.  Apart from evidence to the contrary, there must be a presumption against the introduction of a new work which becomes at once a frequently quoted authority midway in the history of a school.

But to keep to facts apart from presumptions.  Irenaeus represents Ptolemaeus as quoting largely from the Prologue to the Gospel.  But Ptolemaeus, as we have seen, had already gathered a school about him when Irenaeus became acquainted with him.  His evidence therefore may fairly be said to cover the period from 165-175 A.D.  The author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ seems to be somewhat beside the mark when he says that ’in regard to Ptolemaeus all that is affirmed is that in the Epistle to Flora ascribed to him expressions found in John i. 3 are used.’  True it is that such expressions are found, and before we accept the theory in ‘Supernatural Religion’ that the parenthesis in which they occur is due to Epiphanius who quotes the letter in full himself [Endnote 302:1], it is only right that some other instance should be given of such parenthetic interruption.  The form in which the letter is quoted, not in fragments interspersed with comments but complete and at full length, with a formal heading and close, really excludes such a hypothesis.  But, a century and a half before Epiphanius, Irenaeus had given a string of Valentinian comments on the Prologue, ending with the words, ’Et Ptolemaeus quidem ita’ [Endnote 302:2].  Heracleon, too, is coupled with Ptolemaeus by Irenaeus [Endnote 302:3], and according to the view of the author of ‘Supernatural Religion,’ had a school around him at the time of Irenaeus’ visit to Rome in 178 A.D.  But this Heracleon was the author of a Commentary on St. John’s Gospel to which Origen in his own parallel work frequently alludes.  These are indeed dismissed in ‘Supernatural Religion’ as ’unsupported references.’  But we may well ask, what support they need.  The references are made in evident good faith.  He says, for instance [Endnote 302:4], that Heracleon’s exegesis of John i. 3, ’All things were made by Him,’ excluding from this the world and its contents, is very forced and without authority.  Again, he has misinterpreted John i. 4, making ‘in Him was life’ mean not ’in Him’ but ‘in spiritual men.’  Again, he wrongly attributes John i. 18 not to the Evangelist,