“Let us call upon God Himself before we thus answer—not with uttered words, but stretching forth our souls in prayer to Him, for this is the only way in which we can pray, alone to Him who is alone. We must, then, gaze upon Him in the inner part of us, as in a temple, being as He is by Himself, abiding still and beyond all things (ἐπέκεινα ἁπάντων). Everything that moves must have an object towards which it moves. But the One has no such object; consequently we must not assert movement of Him.... Let us not think of production in time, when we speak of things eternal.... What then was produced was produced without His moving: ... it had its being without His assenting or willing or being moved in anywise. It was like the light that surrounds the sun and shines forth from it, though the sun is itself at rest: it is reflected like an image. So with what is greatest. That which is next greatest comes forth from Him, and the next greatest is νοῦς; for νοῦς sees Him and needs Him alone.”[463] But the conception of transcendence is capable of taking two forms. It may be that of a God who passes beyond all the classes into which sensible phenomena are divisible, by virtue of His being pure Mind, cognizable only by mind; or it may be that of a God who exists _extra flammantia moenia mundi_, filling the infinite space which surrounds and contains all the spheres of material existence. The one God is transcendent in the proper sense of the term; the other is supra-cosmic. In either case He is said to be unborn, undying, uncontained; and since the same terms are thus used to express the elements of both forms of the conception, it is natural that these forms should readily pass into each other, and that the distinction between them should not always be present to a writer’s mind or perceptible in his writings. But the conception in one or other of its forms fills a large place in later Greek philosophy. It blended in a common stream with the new currents of religious feeling. [The process is well illustrated by Philo.]