whether it be visible or invisible, finite or infinite, is called by all the learned a _body_. It followeth, that all real things, in that they are _somewhere_, are corporeal. On the contrary, essence, deity, humanity, and such like names, signify nothing that can be considered, without first considering there is an _ens_, a god, a man, &c. So also if there be any real thing that is _white_ or _black_, _hot_ or _cold_, the same may be considered by itself; but whiteness, blackness, heat, coldness, cannot be considered, unless it be first supposed that there is some real thing to which they are attributed. These real things are called by the Latin philosophers, _entia_, _subjecta_, _substantiæ_; and by the Greek philosophers, τὰ ὄντα ὑποκειμενα, ὑποστάμενα. The other, which are incorporeal, are called by the Greek philosophers, οὐσία συμβεβηχότα, φαντάσματα; but most of the Latin philosophers used to convert οὐσία into _substantia_, and so confound real and corporeal things with incorporeal: which is not well; for essence and substance signify divers things. And this mistake is received, and continues still in these parts, in all disputes, both of philosophy and divinity; for in truth _essentia_ signifies no more, than if we should talk ridiculously of the _isness_ of the thing that is. BY WHOM ALL THINGS WERE MADE. This is proved out of St. John i. 1, 2, 3, and Heb. i. 3, and that again out of Gen. i. where God is said to create every thing by his sole word, as when he said: _Let there be light, and there was light_. And then, that Christ was that Word, and in the beginning with God, may be gathered out of divers places of Moses, David, and other of the prophets. Nor was it ever questioned amongst Christians, except by the Arians, but that Christ was God eternal, and his incarnation eternally decreed. But the Fathers, all that write expositions on this creed, could not forbear to philosophize upon it, and most of them out of the principles of Aristotle; which are the same the Schoolmen now use; as may partly appear by this, that many of them, amongst their treatises of religion, have affected to publish principles of logic and physics according to the sense of Aristotle; as Athanasius, and Damascene. And so some later divines of note, still confound the concrete with the abstract, _deus_ with _deitas_, _ens_ with _essentia_, _sapiens_ with _sapientia_, _æternus_ with _æternitas_. If it be for exact and rigid truth sake, why do they not say also, that holiness is a holy man, covetousness a covetous man, hypocrisy an hypocrite, and drunkenness a drunkard, and the like, but that it is an error? The Fathers agree that the Wisdom of God is the eternal Son of God, by whom all things were made, and that he was incarnate by the Holy Ghost, if they meant it in the abstract: for if _deitas_ abstracted be _deus_, we make two Gods of one. This was well understood by John Damascene, in his treatise _De Fide Orthodoxa_, which is an