 Thomists’ discussions of analogy from the beginning of the fourteenth century onward are dominated by controversy with the arguments of Scotus and the Scotists. Beginning with the fifteenth-century Thomist John Capreolus and culminating with the fifteenth-sixteenth century Thomist Thomas de vio Cajetan, a set of influential Thomists turned to the threefold division of analogy in Thomas Aquinas’s commentary on the Sentences as providing the key for resolving a set of questions inspired by Scotus about (a) the number of rationes, intentiones, or concepts involved in analogy, (b) the distinction between logical and metaphysical univocity and analogy, and (c) how analogy is compatible with valid syllogistic demonstration. The approach of these Thomists marks a departure from earlier Thomists, such as Hervaeus Natalis, and arguably a departure from the later works of Thomas Aquinas himself (such as the Summa Contra Gentiles, De Potentia, and Summa Theologiae). Montagnes and Wippel have argued strongly that these fifteenth-sixteenth century Thomists depart from the mature position of Aquinas. Hochschild has argued to the contrary. McInerny argued that Cajetan not only misses the mark on the mature thought of Aquinas, but even misinterprets Aquinas’s early commentary on the Sentences. Dewan has contended that McInerny’s criticism of Cajetan relies both on overlooking direct statements by Aquinas in the commentary on the Sentences passage in question and on omissions of words and phrases from the passage that support Cajetan’s interpretation.