Thus Cerinthus, who is made by tradition the opponent of St John, is said to have been a Jew and to have been trained in the doctrines of Philo at Alexandria (Theodoret, _Haer. Fab._ Bk II. § 3). Cf. Neander, _Ch. Hist._ (Eng. ed.) vol. II. pp. 42-47. Neander says the same thing about Basilides (_op. cit._ p. 47 and note) and Valentinus (p. 71), although it is difficult to discover any authority for the statement other than the Jewish features in their doctrines. There is more evidence for the statement regarding Marcus, the heresiarch and magician whom Irenaeus (_op. cit._ Bk I. c. 7) accuses of the seduction of Christian women, apparently in his own time, since the words of Marcus’ ritual, which the Bishop of Lyons quotes, are in much corrupted Hebrew, and the Jewish Cabala was used by him. Renan’s view (_Marc Aurèle_, pp. 139 _sqq._) that Christianity in Egypt never passed through the Judaeo-Christian stage may in part account for the desire of Jewish converts there to set up schools of their own. Footnote 34: For Marcion, see Chapter XI, _infra_. Summary accounts of the doctrines of other Gnostics mentioned are given by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the works quoted. See also the _Dict. of Christian Biog._, under their respective names. Footnote 35: The lesser heresiologists, such as Philaster of Brescia, St Augustine, the writer who is known as Praedestinatus, the author of the tract _Adversus omnes Haereses_ wrongly ascribed to Tertullian, and the other writers included in the first volume of Oehler’s _Corpus Haereseologici_, Berlin, 1856, as well as writers like Eusebius, all copy from one or other of these sources. The _Excerpta Theodoti_ appended to the works of Clement of Alexandria are on a different footing, but their effect at the time spoken of in the text was not appreciated. Cf. Salmon in _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Valentinus. Footnote 36: Bouché-Leclercq, _L’Intolérance Religieuse et Politique_, Paris, 1912, p. 140. Footnote 37: Ammianus Marcellinus, Bk XXII. c. 5, § 4. Footnote 38: An excellent and concise account of the discovery and the subsequent controversy as to the authorship of the book is given by Salmon in the _Dict. Christian Biog._ _s.v._ Hippolytus Romanus. For Mgr Duchesne’s theory that Hippolytus was a schismatic Pope, see his _Hist. Christian Church_, pp. 227-233. Footnote 39: Salmon’s position is set out by him in _Hermathena_, Dublin, 1885, pp. 389 _sqq._ For Stähelin’s, see his tractate _Die Gnostische Quellen Hippolyts_, Leipzig, 1890, in Harnack’s _Texte und Untersuchungen_. Both are skilfully summarized by de Faye in his _Introduction à l’Étude du Gnosticisme_, Paris, 1903, pp. 25 _sqq._ Footnote 40: De Faye does not accept Stähelin’s contention as to the forgery, but his conclusion as to the date is as stated in the text. See _Introduction_, etc. pp. 68, 71. Footnote 41: