“'Who hath known the mind of the Lord?' the apostle asks; and I ask further, who has understood his own mind?[...]"

“'Who hath known the mind of the Lord?' the apostle asks; and I ask further, who has understood his own mind? Let those tell us who consider the nature of God to be within their comprehension, whether they understand themselves – if they know the nature of their own mind. […] The image [εἰκόνα] is properly an image so long as it fails in none of those attributes which we perceive in the archetype; […] therefore, since one of the attributes we contemplate in the Divine nature is
incomprehensibility of essence (τὸ ἀκατάληπτον τῆς οὐσίας), it is clearly
necessary that in this point the image should be able to show its imitation of
the archetype. For if, while the archetype transcends comprehension, the
nature of the image were comprehended, the contrary (ἐναντιότης )
character of the attributes we behold in them would prove the defect of the
image; but since the nature of our mind, which is the likeness of the Creator,
evades (διαφεύγει) our knowledge (γνῶσιν), it has an accurate (ἀκριβῆ)
resemblance (ὁμοιότητα) to the superior nature, figuring by its own
unknowableness (ἀγνώστῳ) the incomprehensible Nature (τὴν ἀκατάληπτον
φύσιν). ” (De op. 155-156)