The Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of actual things Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.. But God, Who is good and brought us out of nothing into being that we might share in His goodness, and Who gave us the faculty of knowledge, not only did not impart to us His essence, but did not even grant us the knowledge of His essence. For it is impossible for nature to understand fully the supernatural Dioyns., De div. nom., c. 1.. Moreover, if knowledge is of things that are Text, εἰ δὲ καὶ τῶν ὄντων αἱ γνωσεις, τὸ ὑπερούσιον πῶς γνωθήσεται; a variant, εἰ δὲ αἱ φύσεις ἄγνωστοι, αὐτὸ ὑπερούσιον πῶς γνωθήσεται. If the natures are unknown how can the superessential itself be known?, how can there be knowledge of the super-essential? Through His unspeakable goodness, then, it pleased Him to be called by names that we could understand, that we might not be altogether cut off from the knowledge of Him but should have some notion of Him, however vague. Inasmuch, then, as He is incomprehensible, He is also unnameable. But inasmuch as He is the cause of all and contains in Himself the reasons and causes of all that is, He receives names drawn from all that is, even from opposites: for example, He is called light and darkness, water and fire: in order that we may know that these are not of His essence but that He is super-essential and unnameable: but inasmuch as He is the cause of all, He receives names from all His effects.