Chapter 1, Lecture 1, K

However, just as the names which we impose are able to be said of God following the fact that there is some similitude of creatures to God; likewise following the fact that creatures fall short from a full image of God, the names we impose are able to be removed from God, and their opposite to be predicated (of Him). Whence he adds that God thus is called “reason” which is also able to be called “irrationality” (irrationabilitas), and thus he is called an intellect that is able to be called “non-intellectuality” (non-intelligibilitas); and thus he is called a word that is able to be called “non-namedness” (innominabilitas); not indeed because of this that these things do not extend to Him, but because “like (?) (secundum) none of the existing things is (his) existence”, that is he does not exist according to (secundum) the manner of any existing thing; “and” He Himself, “indeed” is “the cause” of existing “for all”, pouring forth into all whatsoever (?) their similitude; and thus he is able to be named from the names of creatures; “He Himself however is non-existing” not as if lacking an essence, but “as it were” existing “above all substances”; and he is “non-namedness” (innominabilitas) “thus he utters Himself from Himself, Personally and Knowingly” that is according to the property of his own “to be” and according to His own perfect Knowledge of Himself, by which mode, no one is able to utter Him. After these things have been said, he reaches the first conclusion when he adds: “from this therefore, just as it has been said, one ought not dare to speak nor to know anything about the supersubstantial and hidden deity, save those things which have been Divinely expressed to us from the Holy Speech” which has been explained above.

Chapter 1, Lecture 1, J

Nevertheless, the created intellect is able to contemplate his essence according to some mode which shall be attained, but not through any abject of species or any creaturly similitude, because none of them is able to lead [?] into the divine essence much less than the body is able to lead into incorporeal essence. Thus therefore, according to the reasoning of Dionysius it is fitting to say that God is both incomprehensible to all intellects and incontemplatible to us in his essence, in that our intellect has been bound to created things, namely to things which are of similar nature to us; and thus it is in the state of life. And because he had called God unity, lest anyone believe it is that unity inhering in things formally, just as in things themselves by participation, in order that this be excluded he adds “unity” namely subsisting in itself, “unifying all unity” that is pouring out unity into all things which participate in unity according to any mode. Then because God had been called supersubstantial unity and good beyond the mind, someone is able to believe that God is in no way able to be called a substance or mind or anything of this kind, therefore, to exclude this error, he adds that God is indeed “a substance” but “supersubstantial.” Concerning this odd language we ought to reflect that names, when they have been imposed by us, they signify according to how things stand in our cognition. Therefore that itself which God is is beyond our cognotion, as has been made clear, our cognition however is commensurable to created things, the names we have imposed thus do not signify according to a congruence to the divine excellence, but according to a coming together to the essence of created things. The “to be” of created things however, has drawn out from the divine “to be” according to a certain sort of incomplete assimilation. Thus therefore, because of this, whatever similitude there is of created things to God, the names which we use are able to be said to be names of God—not as they would be of creatures, but through a certain projection—and Dionysius signifies this when he says that God is “a supersubstantial substance” (supersubstantialis substantia), and he puts it similarly that God is “a non intelligible intellect” (intellectus non-intelligibilis), that is not the sort of intellect which is intelligible [I’m not sure what the technical translation of this word is, it means able to be held in our intellect MNP] “and” he is “an unspeakable word” (verbum non-dicibile), that is not the sort of word which is able to be spoken by us.