Cap. III Resp. Rat. 2: execution vs intention — moral/physical mode misses the question
As for Vasquez's different operating mode in physical vs moral means: we grant they differ in mode, but deny that hurts our case. First, that angle misses the controversy's aim. We are not asking about execution-order — where we admit means related to the end act as cause toward the effect — but about intention-order, where means stand to the end as effects to a cause. His philosophy about how physical and moral means operate looks to the end as already out in external execution, not as in the agent's will and mind. In that sense means do precede the end — but that is beside the point.
Latin
Quod autem attinet ad diversum modum operandi, quem Vasques annotavit in mediis physicis & moralibus, concedimus modo differre; sed negamus hoc causae nostrae obesse. Nam primo, illa sua consideratione aberrat a scopo controversiae. Quaeritur enim non de ordine exsecutionis, in quo fatemur media relata ad finem habere rationem causae ad effectum; sed de ordine intentionis, in quo media comparantur ad finem tanquam effecta ad causam. Quae autem ille philosophatur de diversitate operandi inter media physica & moralia, spectant ad finem, non qua consideratur in voluntate & mente agentis, sed qua consideratur ut posita in exsecutione externa: quo sensu, perspicuum est media praecedere finem: Sed ad rem non facit.