C. God Cannot be Known under his Proper Idea

56. I say third [n.24] that God is not known naturally in particular and properly by the wayfarer, that is, under the idea of this essence as this and in itself. But the reason set down for this in the preceding opinion [n.20] is not probative. For when the argument is made that a thing is only known through a likeness, it either understands by ‘likeness’ the likeness of univocity or that of imitation. If in the first way then nothing is known of God according to that opinion, because in nothing does God have a likeness of univocity in that way [n.20]. If in the second way, and creatures not only imitate the essence under the idea of general attribute but also imitate this essence as this essence, or as it is existent bare in itself, according to him [Henry], for thus is it rather an idea or exemplar than taken under the idea of a general attribute - then the creature could, because of this likeness, be a principle for knowing the divine essence in itself and in particular.

57. There is, then, another reason for this conclusion, namely that God as this essence in himself is not known naturally by us, because under the idea of such a knowable he is a voluntary object, not a natural one, save only in respect of his own intellect. And so by no created intellect can he be naturally known under the idea of this essence as it is this, nor does any essence naturally knowable by us sufficiently display this essence as it is this, not by likeness of univocity nor by likeness of imitation. For univocity only exists in general ideas; imitation too is deficient, because imperfect, for a creature imperfectly imitates God.

Now whether there be another reason for this impossibility, namely because of the idea of first object, as others posit [Thomas Aquinas, ST Ia q.88 a.3] - about this in the question about the first object [nn.110-119, 185-187].