Above these we have (4) Adonai the ☉ the first power as distinguished from mere porters or guardians of gates, (5) Iao the ☽ called in the password the second, and (6) and (7) Sabaoth ♃ and Jaldabaoth ♄ above all. This would about correspond with the astronomy of the time, which tried to put the sun in the centre of our system. But the relative places of Sabaoth, Jaldabaoth, and Ailoaios are very uncertain, and Epiphanius in describing the Ophite sect whom he calls “Gnostics” says that some wished to make Ialdabaoth occupy the 6th heaven, and others Ailoaios, called by him Elilaios, while giving the 7th to Sabaoth. Epiph. _Haer._ XXVI. c. 10, p. 174, Oehler. Footnote 255: Origen, _cont. Cels._ Bk VI. c. 31. If ♄ corresponds to Michael and also to Jaldabaoth, ♃ ought to do the like to Suriel and Iao, ♂ to Sabaoth (which would be appropriate enough) and to Raphael, the sun to Adonai and Gabriel, and so on. No system of correspondences, however, can be devised that does not break down on scrutiny. Sammael, which is here Michael’s other name, is used in the _Ascensio Isaiae_ (see Charles, _Ascension of Isaiah_, p. 6) as a name of Satan. But it may well be that good and bad spirits occupying corresponding places in the universe were sometimes called by the same names. So one of the documents of the Pistis Sophia speaks of an angel cryptically named Zarazaz “who is called by the demons after a strong demon of their own place, Maskelli”: _Pistis Sophia_, p. 370, Copt. Footnote 256: Though Babylonian in origin it must early have found its way into Egypt. See Maspero, _Ét. Égyptol._ II. p. 385 and Chapter VI, _supra_, vol. I. p. 183 and n. 3. Footnote 257: Soul, perhaps, does not here mean anything more than animating principle, spark, or breath of life. Footnote 258: See p. 42, _supra_. Footnote 259: τοὺς τελείους ἀβασιλεύτοὐς γενέσθαι καὶ μετασχεῖν τοῦ πληρώματος, Hippolytus, _op. cit._ Bk V. c. 8, p. 168, Cruice. See also the same expression in n. 3, p. 41, _supra_. Footnote 260: Origen’s testimony on this point can be the better relied on, because his good faith, unlike that of writers like Epiphanius, is above suspicion. He and Clement of Alexandria are the only two writers on Gnosticism among the Fathers to whom M. de Faye (_Introd._ p. 1) will allow “intelligence” and “impartialité.” Footnote 261: He gives, _op. cit._ p. 79, a map showing their chief seats from the head of the Persian Gulf on the one hand to Crete and the Adriatic on the other. Footnote 262: