Cap. IV Arg. 3 Sol: same vice as Arg. 1 — Major terms incongruous; beneplacitum wider than praedestinatio
Sol. This argument is nearly the same as the first and has the same vice. Again: in the Major the terms are incongruously and unskillfully set. Good pleasure concerning human salvation is wider and more general than predestination, so it ought to be predicate not subject — thus: Predestination is God's good pleasure concerning human salvation; to will to save believers is that good pleasure; therefore to will to save believers is predestination itself. Had they framed the Major that way, they would have concluded from all affirmatives in the second figure. They preferred a preposterous wording to an open fallacy.
Latin
Sol. Hoc argumentum idem fere est cum primo, et eodem vitio laborat. Sed iterum respondemus, In majore propositione terminos esse inconcinne et imperite dispositos. Nam Beneplacitum de salute humana est quiddam latius et generalius praedestinatione, debuit itaque praedicati, non subjecti locum occupare, hoc modo; Praedestinatio est Dei beneplacitum de salute humana: Credentes velle salvare est Dei beneplacitum de salute humana: Ergo credentes velle salvare est ipsa praedestinatio. Verum si hoc modo instituta fuisset major propositio, conclusissent ex omnibus affirmativis in secunda figura. Maluerunt itaque praeposteram enunciationem facere, quam manifestam παραλογισμόν committere.