Formal rationes one in God; analogical ens; concrete names without composition
Moreover these vocabularies have been taken and invented by us not for signifying one and the same thing, but many formal rationes. For being is said of what has essence; wise, of him to whom things taste as they are; good, of him who is lovable from this, that he helps others. Yet all these rationes are one in God. For He is not good by one thing, being by another, just by another, but by Himself is all those: indeed He is who is, not what is, as Bernard says. For these are not divided in Him, even if they are such in us. Nor yet, when we enunciate these distinctly of God, do we trifle, but as we have said above, we say many formal rationes which yet all, though they were infinite, express that one which is God, founding in His infinity all these rationes distinct by reason and, so to speak, ideally — not in the foundation, but in the term of the reasoning and in the exemplar of our things. things. Things.
We said Being is said of God and creatures analogically. God therefore is being through Himself; the other beings are not except with respect to Him, just as urine is not healthy except with respect to the health of the animal, of which it is an effect and sign. It is therefore most proper to God to be that which is. Nor is the word God a more essential name for Him than Being, except as regards us, who not grasping the infinity of Being name God from some particular effect.
For here this rule holds: Concrete names, when they are said of God, do not argue any composition or concretion, but show that He Himself is a thing subsisting through Himself, or a suppositum.
Latin
Caeteroquin ista vocabula a nobis sumpta & inventa sunt, non ad significandum unum idemque, sed multas rationes formales. Dicitur enim ens quod habet essentiam. Sapiens cui res sapiunt, prout sunt. Bonus, qui est amabilis, ex hoc quod juvat alios. Omnes tamen istae rationes sunt una in Deo. Non enim alio est bonus, alio ens, alio justus, sed seipso est illa omnia: imo est qui est, non quae est, ut ait Bernhardus. Non enim ista sunt in eo divisa, etsi sint talia in nobis. Neque tamen, cum ista de Deo distincte enunciamus, nugamur, sed ut supra dictum est, dicimus multas rationes formales, quae tamen omnes, quamvis infinitae essent, exprimunt illud unum quod est Deus, fundans in sua infinitate omnes has rationes distinctas ratione &, ut sic loquar, idealiter, non in fundamento, sed in termino ratiocinii & in exemplari rerum nostrarum. Diximus ens de Deo & creaturis dici analogice. Deus igitur est ens per se, caetera entia non sunt nisi respectu ipsius, sicuti urina non est sana, nisi respectu sanitatis animalis, cujus est effectus & signum. Est igitur maxime proprium Dei, esse id quod est. Neque vox Deus ei est essentialius nomen, quam ens, nisi quantum ad nos, qui infinitatem entis non capientes ex aliquo effectu particulari Deum nominamus. Valet enim hic regula: Nomina concreta, cum de Deo dicuntur, non compositionem vel concretionem aliquam arguunt, sed ostendunt, ipsum esse rem per se subsistentem, seu suppositum.