to the objections and to some other observations were added as an appendix, T\-ith which, sanctioned anew (25 and 30 August, 1589), the work was permitted to circulate. It was regarded as an epoch-making study, and many Fathers of the Society of Jesus ralhed to its defence. From Valladolid, where the Jesuit and Dominican schools in 1594 held alternate public disputations for and against its teaching on grace, the contention spread over all Spain. The in- tervention of the Inquisition was again sought , and by the authority of this high tribunal the litigants were required to "present their respective positions and claims, and a number of universities, prelates, and theologians were consulted as to the merits of the strife. The matter was referred however, by the papal nuncio to Rome, 15 August, 1594, and all dis- pute was to cease until a decision was rendered. In the meantime, to offset his Dominican and other crit- ics, Molina brought counter accusations against Bafiez and Zumel. The latter submitted his defence in three parts, all fully endorsed by Banez, 7 July. 1595. The Dominican position was set forth about the same time by Banez and seven of his brethren, each of whom presented a separate answer to the charges. But the presiding officer of the Inquisition desired these eight books to be reduced to one, and Baiiez, to- ge'ther with Pedro Herrera and Didacus Alvarez, was instructed to do the work. About four months later, Alvarez presented their joint product under the title: "Apologia fratrum prjedicatorum in provincia His- panise sacrce theologis professorum, adversus novas quasdam assertiones cujusdam doctoris Ludo\'ici Molin* nuncupati", published at Madrid, 20 No- vember. 1595. It is noteworthy that this work was signed and ratified by twenty-two masters and pro- fessors of theologj'. To it was added a tract on the intrinsic efficacy of Divine grace. Xearly two years later, 28 October, 1597, Banez resumed the case in a new summary and petitioned the pope to permit the Dominican schools to take up their teaching again on the disputed questions. This was the "Libellus supplex dementi VIII oblatus pro impetranda im- munitate a lege silentii utrique litigantium pani im- posita", published at Salamanca. An answer to the "Libellus" was conveyed in a letter of Cardinal Madruzzi. 25 February, 1598, wTitten in the name of the pope, to the nuncio in Spain: "Inform the Fathers of the Order of Preachers that His Holiness, moderating the prohibition that was made, grants them the faculty freely to teach and discuss, as they did in the past, the subject-matter de auxiliis div- ina gralicE et corum efpcacia, conformably to the doc- trine of St. Thomas; and likewise the Fathers of the Society, that they also may teach and discuss the same subject-matter, always holding, however, to sound Catholic doctrine". (Serry, Hist. Cong, de Aux., I, XXVI.) This pronouncement practically ended whatever personal participation Baiiez had in the famous controversy.
It has been contended that Baiiez was at least virtually the founder of present-day Thomisra, es- pecially" in so far as it includes the theories of physical premotion, the intrinsic efficacy of grace, and pre- destination irrespective of foreseen merit. To any reader of Baiiez it is evident that he would have met such a declaration with a strenuous denial. Fidelity to St. Thomas was his strongest characteristic. "By not so much as a finger-nail's breadth, even in lesser things", he was wont to say, "have I ever departed from the teaching of St. Thomas". He .singles out for special animad\ersion the views in which his pro- fessors and associates dissent even lightly from the opinions of the Angelic Doctor. "In and throughout all things, I determined to follow St. Thomas, as he followed the Fathers", was another of his favourite assurances. His zeal for the integrity of Thomistic teaching could brook no doctrinal novelty, partic-
ularly if it claimed the sanction of St. Thomas's name. In the voluminous literature on the De Au-x- iliis and related controversies, the cardinal tenets of Thomism are ascribed by its opponents to a varied origin. The Rev. G. Schneeman, S. J., (Controver- siarum de divinae gratis liberique arbitrii Concordia initia et progressus, Freiburg im Br., 1881), the Rev. Father De Regnon, S. J. (Banez et Molina, Paris, 1SS3) and the Rev. Father Baudier, S. J. (in the Revue des Sciences Eccl^siastiques, Amiens, 1887, p. 153) are probably the foremost modern writers who designate the Thomists as Bannesians. But against them ap- pears a formidable list of Jesuits of repute who were either Thomists themselves or authorities for other opinions. Suarez, for instance (Op. omn., XI, ed. Vives, Paris, 1886; Opusc, I, Lib. Ill, De Auxiliis, \'ii), credits iledina with the first intimations of physical premotion and elsewhere (Op. omn., XI, 50; Opusc. I, Lib. I, De Cone. Dei, xi, n" 6) admits that St. Thomas himself once taught it. Toletus (Com- ment, in 8 Lib. Aristotelis, Venice, 1573, Lib. II, c. iii, q. 8) and Pererius (Pref. to Disquisit. Magicarura, Lib. VI, I Ed.) considered as Thomistic the Cate- chism of the Council of Trent, which was the work (1566) of three Dominican theologians. [For Delrio see Goudin, Philosophia (Civita Vecchia, 1860), IV, pt. IV, 392, Disp. 2, q. 3, § 2.] The Rev. Victor Frins, S. J., gives it as his opinion (S. Thomre Aq., O. P. doc- trina de Cooperatione Dei cum omni natura creatil pra>sertim libera; Responsio ad R. P. Dummermuth, O. P., Paris, 1893) that whilst Medina and Pedro Soto (1551) taught physical predetermination, the origi- nator of the theory was Francis Victoria, O. P. (d. 1546). The Dominicans Ferrariensis (1576), Cajetan (1507). and Giovanni Capreolus (d. 1436) are also ac- credited Thomists in the estimation of such authori- ties as the Jesuits Becanus [Summa Theol. Schol. (Mainz, 1612), De Deo, xviii, no 14] and Azorius [Institut. Moral. (Rome, 1600-11), Lib. I, xxi, § 7], and the theologians of Coimbra (Comment, in 8 libros Phys., Lib. II, q. 13, a. 1). Molina, strangely enough, cites the doctrine of a "certain disciple of St. Thomas" — supposedly Baiiez — as differing only in words from the teaching of Scotus, instead of agreeing with that of Aciuinas [Concordia (Paris, 1S76), q. 14. a. 13, Disp. 50], These striking dive:-- gences of opinion of which only a few have been cited would seem to indicate tliat the attempt to father the Thomistic system on Banez has failed. [Cf. Defensio Doctrinie S. Thomae, A. M. Dummermuth, O.P., Louvain and Paris, 1895, also Card. Zigliara, Simima Phil. (Paris, 1898), II, 525.]
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 defence against the attacks and aberrations of the Reformers. The "predetermina- tion" and "predefinition" of Baiiez and his contem- poraries, who included others besides Dominicans, emphasized, on the part of God's knowledge and providence, a priority to, and independence of, future free acts, which, in the Catharino-Molinistic theories, seemed to them less clearly to fall under God's causal action. These terms, however, are used by St. Thomas himself. (Comment, de divinis no- minibus, Lect. iii.) The words " physical premotion" were meant to exclude, first a merely moral impulse and, secondly, a concurrence of the Divine causality and free will, without the latter's subordination to the First Cause. That such terms, far from doing violence to the teachings of their great leader, are their true expression, has, of course, been an unvaried tenet of the Thomistic school. One of the presiding officers of the Congregation De Auxiliis, Cardinal Madruzzi, speaking of Banez in this connexion, said: "His teaching seems to be deduced from the princi-