19. About Being[25] then enough has been said. But Being is called not only genus, species and individual; but also matter, form and privation. But there is no difference among these while the division stands. And Being being such as it is, the ordering of the cosmos came about automatically in the same way. The cosmos is according to Aristotle divided into many [and different] parts; [and] the part of the cosmos which exists from the earth as far as the moon is without providence or governance and has its rise only in its own nature. But that which is beyond the moon, is ordered with all order and providence and is (so) governed up to the surface of heaven. But the (same) surface is a certain fifth essence renewed from all the elements of nature wherefrom the cosmos is made up, and this is Aristotle’s “Quintessence,” being as it were a hypercosmic essence. And his system of philosophy is [Sidenote: p. 342.] divided so as to agree with the division of the cosmos. For there is by him a treatise on physics called _Acroasis_, wherein he has treated of the doings of Nature, not of Providence, from the Earth to the Moon. And there is also his _Metaphysics_, another special work thus entitled, concerning the things which take place beyond the Moon. And there is also his work _On the Quintessence_, wherein he theologizes.[26] Like this also is the division of the universals as they are defined by type in Aristotle’s philosophy. But his work _On the Soul_ is puzzling; for it would be impossible in three whole books to say what Aristotle thinks about the soul. For what he gives as the definition of the soul is easy to say; but what is explained by the definition is hard to find. For, he says, the soul is an entelechy of the physical organism. What this is would need many words and great enquiry. But the God who is the cause of all these fair beings [Sidenote: p. 343.] is one, even to one speculating for a very long time, more difficult to be known than is the soul. Yet the definition which Aristotle gives of God, is not hard to be known, but impossible to be understood. For He, he says, is a conception of conception which is altogether non-existent. But the cosmos is according to Aristotle imperishable and eternal; for it contains nothing faulty and is governed by Nature and Providence. And Aristotle has not only put forth books on Nature and the Cosmos and Providence and God,[27] but there is also a certain treatise by him on ethics which is called _The Ethical Books_ wherein he builds up a good ethics for his hearers out of a poor one. If, then, Basilides be found not only potentially but in the very words and names to have transferred the doctrines of Aristotle to our evangelical and soul-saving teaching, what remains but by restoring these extraneous matters to their (proper) authors to prove to Basilides’ disciples that, as they are heathenish, Christ will profit them nothing?