The chief casuists, collected to _answer the purpose_ in the new conspiracy against the Jesuits, are the following: Lamy, Moya, Bauny, Berruyer, Casnedi, and Benzi. Since, next to the _Monita Secreta_, that infamous forgery so {63} completely exposed in the subsequent Letters, the writer of the pamphlet relies on the immoral doctrines to be found in the writings of these priests, let us see on what foundation they stand. I shall first observe, that the _Apology for the Casuists_, said to be published by the Jesuits, so far from being avowed as a work of their own, was disavowed by the superiors of the order, and condemned by the pope and many prelates. It was written by Pere Pirot, who seemed, in a manner, determined to justify Pascal's Satires, by defending certain opinions, in spite of their having been condemned, as D'Avrigny informs us, in his _Memoires Chronologiques et Dogmatiques pour servir à l'Histoire Ecclesiastique depuis 1600 jusqu'en 1716, &c._[28] The author laments the hard fate of religious societies, of which he observes, _que toute faute personelle dans le jugement du public devient une faute generale, et les enfans portent l'iniquité de leurs peres jusqu'à la troisieme et la quatrieme generation_. {64} The _Course of Theology_, by LAMY, is classed with the _Apology_, as justifying murder, &c. This author was a Neapolitan, whose name was AMICI, and the work, from which the charge in question is extracted, consists of nine volumes folio! The proposition attributed to him, to blacken him as a Jesuit, was not his, nor ever adopted by him. It had been taught, long before, by the celebrated casuist Navarre, and others totally unconnected with the Jesuits. Amici mentions it, and alleges the reasons which had been given in support of it, but adds, _nolumus a nobis (hæc) ita sint dicta ut communi sententiæ adversentur, sed tantum disputandi gratia proposita_. The proposition was omitted altogether in the second edition of his work, and, being formally condemned by Alexander VII, in 1665, was never after defended by any catholic divine. MOYA seems to have been a very virtuous man, though, perhaps, rather indiscreet in his zeal for the credit of his society. The facts are {65} these: a book had been published by one Gregory Esclapey, reproaching the Jesuits with teaching many erroneous doctrines. To this work Moya published an answer, under the name of Guimenius, in which he professedly abstains from all inquiry into the merits of the doctrines; but, being imputed to the Jesuits by their adversary, he undertakes to show, that they were not responsible for them, as they did not originate with them, having been taught by the older divines, previous to the existence of the order. The doctrines were condemned at Rome in 1666, and Moya, in the third edition of his work, proves the justice of the condemnation, by entering into a refutation of them.