Well, then, if God did not exist formerly, or if there be a time when He will not exist, He cannot be called either unending or without beginning; and so also neither inalterable, nor incorporeal, nor imperishable, if there is any suspicion of body, or destruction, or alteration with regard to Him. But if it be part of our religion to attribute to Him none of these things, then it is a sacred duty to use of Him names privative of the things abhorrent to His Nature, and to say all that we have so often enumerated already, viz. that He is imperishable, and unending, and ungenerate, and the other terms of that class, where the sense inherent in each only informs us of the privation of that which is obvious to our perception, but does not interpret the actual nature of that which is thus removed from those abhorrent conditions. What the Deity is not, the signification of these names does point out; but what that further thing, which is not these things, is essentially, remains undivulged. Moreover, even the rest of these names, the sense of which does indicate some position or some state, do not afford that indication of the Divine nature itself, but only of the results of our reverent speculations about it. For when we have concluded generally that no single thing existing, whether an object of sense or of thought, is formed spontaneously or fortuitously, but that everything discoverable in the world is linked to the Being Who transcends all existences, and possesses there the source of its continuance, and we then perceive the beauty and the majesty of the wonderful sights in creation, we thus get from these and such-like marks a new range of thoughts about the Deity, and interpret each one of the thoughts thus arising within us by a special name, following the advice of Wisdom, who says that “by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionately the Maker of them is seen138    Wisdom xiii. 5..” We address therefore as Creator Him Who has made all mortal things, and as Almighty Him Who has compassed so vast a creation, Whose might has been able to realize His wish. When too we perceive the good that is in our own life, we give in accordance with this the name of Good to Him Who is our life’s first cause. Then also having learnt from the Divine writings the incorruptibility of the judgment to come, we therefore call Him Judge and Just, and to sum up in one word, we transfer the thoughts that arise within us about the Divine Being into the mould of a corresponding name; so that there is no appellation given to the Divine Being apart from some distinct intuition about Him. Even the word God (Θεὸς) we understand to have come into usage from the activity of His seeing; for our faith tells us that the Deity is everywhere, and sees (θεασθαι) all things, and penetrates all things, and then we stamp this thought with this name (Θεὸς), guided to it by the Holy Voice. For he who says, “O God, attend unto me139    Ps. lv. 2.,” and, “Look, O God140    Ps. cxix. 132.,” and, “God knoweth the secrets of the heart plainly141    Ps. xliv. 21.,” reveals the latent meaning of this word, viz. that Θεὸς is so called from θεασθαι. For there is no difference between saying “Attend unto,” “Look,” and “See.” Since, then, the seer must look towards some sight, God is rightly called the Seer of that which is to be seen. We are taught, then, by this word one sectional operation of the Divine Being, though we do not grasp in thought by means of it His substance itself, believing nevertheless that the Divine glory suffers no loss because of our being at a loss for a naturally appropriate name. For this inability to give expression to such unutterable things, while it reflects upon the poverty of our own nature, affords an evidence of God’s glory, teaching us as it does, in the words of the Apostle, that the only name naturally appropriate to God is to believe Him to be “above every name142    Philip. ii. 9..” That he transcends every effort of thought, and is far beyond any circumscribing by a name, constitutes a proof to man of His ineffable majesty143    The theology of Gregory and his master Origen rises above the unconscious Stoicism of Tertullian, and even that of Clement, which has an air of materialistic pantheism about it, owing to his attempt, like that of Eunomius, to base our knowledge of God upon abstractions and analogies drawn from nature. The result, indeed, of the “abstraction process” of Clement is only a multiplication of negative terms, “immensity,” “simplicity,” “eternity,” &c. But they will lead to nothing, if there is not already behind them all some positive idea which we have received from a different source. Faith is this source; it is described by Origen as “an ineffable grace of the soul which comes from God in a kind of enthusiasm;” which formula expresses the primary fact of religious consciousness such as Leibnitz demonstrated it: and the positive idea supplied by this faculty is with Origen Goodness (rather than the Good). He would put Will as well as Mind into the Central Idea of Metaphysics, and would have the heart governed as well as the reason. All that he says about the “incomprehensibility” of God does not militate against this: for we must have some idea of that which is incomprehensible to us: and the Goodness of the Deity is the side on which we gain this idea..

Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἢ οὐκ ἦν πρότερον ὁ θεὸς ἢ οὐκ ἔσται ποτέ, οὐκ ἂν κυρίως οὔτε ἀτελεύτητος οὔτε ἄναρχος λέγοιτο: ὡσαύτως δὲ οὔτε ἀναλλοίωτος οὔτε ἀσώματος οὔτε ἄφθαρτος, εἴπερ ὑπονοοῖτο περὶ αὐτὸν ἢ σῶμα ἢ φθορὰ ἢ ἀλλοίωσις ἤ τι τοιοῦτον. εἰ δὲ τούτων εὐαγές ἐστιν οὐδὲν περὶ αὐτὸν ἐννοεῖν, εὐσεβὲς ἂν εἴη πάντως τοῖς χωριστικοῖς τῶν ἀπεμφαινόντων ῥήμασιν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ κεχρῆσθαι καὶ λέγειν ταῦτα ἃ ἤδη πολλάκις εἰρήκαμεν, ἄφθαρτόν τε καὶ ἀτελεύτητον καὶ ἀγέννητον καὶ ὅσα τοῦ τοιούτου εἴδους ἐστί, τῆς ἐγκειμένης ἑκάστῳ τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐμφάσεως μόνον τὸν χωρισμὸν τῶν ἡμῖν προχείρων εἰς κατανόησιν διδασκούσης, οὐκ αὐτὴν τὴν φύσιν τὴν τῶν ἀπεμφαινόντων κεχωρισμένην ἑρμηνευούσης. τί γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ θεῖον τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων σημασίας προδεικνυούσης, τί ἐστιν ἐκεῖνο κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ὃ ταῦτα οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἀδήλῳ μένει. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων, ὧν ἡ σημασία θέσεώς τινός ἐστιν ἐνδεικτικὴ καὶ ὑπάρξεως, οὐκ αὐτῆς τῆς θείας φύσεως, ἀλλὰ τῶν περὶ αὐτὴν εὐσεβῶς θεωρουμένων τὴν ἔνδειξιν ἔχει. νοήσαντες γὰρ ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶν ὄντων τῶν τε φαινομένων καὶ τῶν νοουμένων αὐτόματόν τινα καὶ τυχαίαν ἔχει τὴν σύστασιν, ἀλλὰ πᾶν, ὅτιπερ ἐν τοῖς οὖσι καταλαμβάνεται, τῆς πάντων τῶν ὄντων ὑπερκειμένης φύσεως ἐξῆπται κἀκεῖθεν τὴν αἰτίαν τῆς ὑπάρξεως ἔχει, τό τε κάλλος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει θαυμάτων κατανοήσαντες, ἐκ πάντων τούτων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἄλλα νοήματα περὶ τὸ θεῖον λαμβάνοντες ἰδίοις ὀνόμασιν ἕκαστον τῶν ἐγγινομένων ἡμῖν νοημάτων διερμηνεύομεν, ἀκολουθοῦντες τῇ συμβουλῇ τῆς σοφίας, ἥ φησιν ἐκ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς κτισμάτων ἀναλόγως δεῖν τὸν τῶν πάντων γενεσιουργὸν θεωρεῖσθαι. δημιουργὸν μὲν τὸν ποιητὴν τῶν θνητῶν προσαγορεύομεν, δυνατὸν δὲ τὸν τῆς τοσαύτης περικρατήσαντα κτίσεως, ᾧ ἐξήρκεσεν ἡ δύναμις οὐσίαν ποιῆσαι τὴν βούλησιν. τό τε τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν ἀγαθὸν ἐννοήσαντες ἀκολούθως τὸν ταύτης καθηγησάμενον τῇ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ προσηγορίᾳ κατονομάζομεν, τῆς τε μελλούσης κρίσεως τὸ ἀδέκαστον παρὰ τῆς θείας παιδευθέντες γραφῆς κριτὴν αὐτὸν καὶ δίκαιον διὰ τούτων προσαγορεύομεν: καὶ πάντα συνελόντι φάναι, τὰ περὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐγγινόμενα ἡμῖν νοήματα εἰς ὀνομάτων τύπον μεταλαμβάνομεν, ὡς μηδεμίαν κλῆσιν δίχα τινὸς ἰδιαζούσης ἐννοίας ἐπὶ τῆς θείας λέγεσθαι φύσεως. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν θεὸς φωνὴν ἐκ τῆς ἐποπτικῆς ἐνεργείας κεκρατηκέναι κατελαβόμεθα. πᾶσι γὰρ παρεῖναι τὸ θεῖον καὶ πάντα θεᾶσθαι καὶ διὰ πάντων ἥκειν πεπιστευκότες τὴν τοιαύτην διάνοιαν τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ διασημαίνομεν, πρὸς τοῦτο παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας ὁδηγηθέντες φωνῆς. ὁ γὰρ εἰπὼν ὅτι Ὁ θεός μου πρόσσχες μοι καὶ Ἴδε ὁ θεός καὶ τὸ Ὁ θεὸς γινώσκει τὰ κρύφια τῆς καρδίας, σαφῶς τὴν ἐγκειμένην τῇ φωνῇ ταύτῃ διάνοιαν ἑρμηνεύει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεᾶσθαι θεὸς ὀνομάζεται. διαφέρει γὰρ οὐδὲν Πρόσσχες εἰπεῖν καὶ Ἴδε καὶ Θέασαι. ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ θεατὸν ὁ θεώμενος βλέπει, θεὸς εἰκότως τοῦ ὁρωμένου ὁ θεώμενος λέγεται. ὥστε καὶ διὰ τούτου μερικήν τινα τῆς θείας φύσεως ἐνέργειαν διδαχθέντες τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς ἐν περινοίᾳ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης οὐκ ἐγενόμεθα: οὐ μὴν ἐπειδὴ ὀνόματος προσφυοῦς ἀποροῦμεν, ζημιοῦσθαί τι τὸ θεῖον εἰς δόξαν ὑπολαμβάνομεν. ἡ γὰρ ἀδυναμία τῆς τῶν ἀνεκφωνήτων ἐξαγορεύσεως κατηγοροῦσα τῆς κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν πτωχείας μείζονα τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δόξης τὴν ἀπόδειξιν ἔχει διδάσκουσα ἡμᾶς, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ὅτι μόνον ἐστὶ θεοῦ προσφυὲς ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν αὐτὸν εἶναι πιστεύειν ὄνομα. τὸ γὰρ ὑπερβαίνειν αὐτὸν πᾶσαν διανοίας κίνησιν καὶ ἐξώτερον εὑρίσκεσθαι τῆς ὀνοματικῆς περιλήψεως τεκμήριον τῆς ἀφράστου μεγαλειότητος τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καθίσταται.