We next come to the Simon of Irenaeus which, owing to many similarities, is supposed by scholars to have been taken from Justin's account, if not from the _Apology_, at any rate from Justin's lost work on heresies which he speaks of in the _Apology_. Or it may be that both borrowed from some common source now lost to us. The story of Helen is here for the first time given. Whether or not there was a Helen we shall probably never know. The "lost sheep" was a necessity of every Gnostic system, which taught the descent of the soul into matter. By whatever name called, whether Sophia, Acamôth, Prunîcus, Barbêlo, the glyph of the Magdalene, out of whom seven devils are cast, has yet to be understood, and the mystery of the Christ and the seven aeons, churches or assemblies (_ecclesiae_), in every man will not be without significance to every student of Theosophy. These data are common to all Gnostic aeonology. If it is argued that Simon was the first inventor of this aeonology, it is astonishing that his name and that of Helen should not have had some recognition in the succeeding systems. If, on the contrary, it is maintained that he used existing materials for his system, and explained away his improper connection with Helen by an adaptation of the Sophia-mythos, it is difficult to understand how such a palpable absurdity could have gained any credence among such cultured adherents as the Simonians evidently were. In either case the Gnostic tradition is shown to be pre-Christian. Every initiated Gnostic, however, must have known that the mythos referred to the World-Soul in the Cosmos and the Soul in man. The accounts of the _Acts_ and of Justin and Irenaeus are so confusing that it has been supposed that two Simons are referred to.[79] For if he claimed to be a reïncarnation of Jesus, appearing in Jerusalem as the Son, he could not have been contemporary with the apostles. It follows, therefore, that either he made no such claim; or if he made the claim, Justin and Irenaeus had such vague information that they confused him with the Simon of the _Acts_; or that the supposition is not well-founded, and Simon was simply inculcating the esoteric doctrine of the various manifestations or descents of one and the same Christ principle. The Simon of Tertullian again is clearly taken from Irenaeus, as the critics are agreed. "Tertullian evidently knows no more than he read in Irenaeus," says Dr. Salmon.[80] It is only when we come to the Simon of the _Philosophumena_ that we feel on any safe ground. The prior part of it is especially precious on account of the quotations from _The Great Revelation_ ([Greek: hae megalae apophasis]) which we hear of from no other source. The author of _Philosophumena_, whoever he was, evidently had access to some of the writings of the Simonians, and here at last we have arrived at any thing of real value in our rubbish heap.