Cap. III Rej. Rat. 1: Vasquez infants — deny invented common good-pleasure will
Even Vasquez, pressed by the facts, grants that for some infants no sufficient Christ-remedy could be applied by human care. I add: nor was it applied by divine providence. So a posteriori God never had that invented common good-pleasure will to save every single person. Finally — and this most cuts their argument's nerve — I deny that the will by which God, before foreknowledge of merits, decreed eternal life for the elect was only that common, inefficacious "simple affection / complacency" will; I affirm it was a special, most efficacious will.
Latin
Ipse Vasques ante rei evidentiam coactus, concedit nobis, quibusdam parvulis nec sufficiens remedium per Christum humana diligentia potuisse applicari. Ego addo, nec Divina providentia fuisse applicatum. Atque hinc a posteriori colligimus, Deum non habuisse hanc communem, quam comminiscuntur, salvandi omnes & singulos beneplaciti voluntatem. Postremo, quod maxime facit ad argumentationis propositae nervos incidendos, nego illam Dei voluntatem, quae ante praescientiam meritorum decrevit dare vitam aeternam electis, fuisse solummodo hanc communem, inefficacem, & quam vocant, simplicis affectus sive complacentiae; atque affirmo fuisse specialem quandam & efficacissimam voluntatem.