famous controversy. Works It has been contended that Báñez was at least virtually the founder of present-day Thomism, especially in so far as it includes the theories of physical premotion, the intrinsic efficacy of grace, and predestination irrespective of foreseen merit. To any reader of Bañez It is evident that he would have met such a declaration with a strenuous denial. Fidelity to St. Thomas was his strongest characteristic. [...] He singles out for special animadversion the views in which his professors and associates dissent even lightly from the opinions of the Angelic Doctor. Báñez's zeal for the integrity of Thomistic teaching could brook no doctrinal novelty, particularly if it claimed the sanction of St. Thomas's name. In the voluminous literature of the De Auxiliis and related controversies, the cardinal tenets of Thomism are ascribed by its opponents to a varied origin: Gerhard Schneeman, the Rev. Father De Regnon, S. J. and the Rev. Father Gaudier, S. J. are probably the foremost modern writers who designate the Thomists as Bannesians. But against them appears a formidable list of Jesuits of repute who were either Thomists themselves or authorities for other opinions. Suárez, for instance, credits Medina with the first intimations of physical premotion and elsewhere admits that St. Thomas himself once taught it. Toletus and Pererius considered as Thomistic the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which was the work (1566) of three Dominican theologians. The Rev. Victor Frins S. J., gives it as his opinion that whilst Medina and Pedro de Soto (1551) taught physical predetermination, the originator of the theory was Francisco de Vitoria, O.P. (d. 1546). The Dominicans Ferrariensis (1576), Cajetan (1507), and John Capreolus (d. 1436) are also accredited Thomists in the estimation of such authorities as the Jesuits Martin Becanus and Azorius, and the theologians of Coimbra. Molina, strangely enough, cites the doctrine of a "certain disciple of St. Thomas"—supposedly Báñez—as differing only in words from the teaching of Duns Scotus, instead of agreeing with that of Aquinas. These striking divergences of opinion of which only a few have been cited would seem to indicate that the attempt to father the Thomistic system on Báñez has failed. The development of Thomistic terminology in the Dominican school was mainly due to the exigencies not only of the stand taken against Molina and the forbidden propositions already mentioned, but of the more important defense against the attacks