And here it is that the deadliest blow is aimed against the Jesuits. If their system of morality makes virtues of "prevarication, perjury, and every crime, when it serves ghostly purposes," the reproach is fatal. On this head, the writer
of the pamphlet gives us a string of casuists, to confound the order at once. Desirous either of clearing away or substantiating this charge, and recollecting the remark of Voltaire, which I have already cited, that "the extravagant notions of a few Spanish and Flemish Jesuits were artfully ascribed to the whole society," I inquired more particularly into the character and objects of the casuists of the order; and, the more I reflected, the more I was convinced of the malignity of the adversaries of the society, on whom the charge might well be turned, changing Hume's derisive epithet of ghostly into two other qualifying words, viz. rebellious and revolutionary; for who will deny that prevarication, perjury, and every crime, have been resorted to, and justified for rebellious and revolutionary purposes?
In such a number of casuistical writers, it may be imagined, that some have erred. The Jesuits never wished to defend them. It may be presumed, that the number of errors was not great,
since their enemies found it necessary to commit so many falsifications to make up the volume of Assertions. In many instances, the author of that book attributes to the casuist, opinions which he only cites to refute. In moral theology the Jesuits had two rules, from which few of them ever deviated; one was, to follow the opinions which were most common; the other, never to defend an opinion when prohibited or condemned by the holy see. Some of their casuists taught doctrines, which, in their time, were the most usual in schools, but which were afterwards condemned or prohibited at Rome. Their enemies imputed these doctrines to them as crimes. The Dominican and Franciscan casuists might have been equally charged; but, as Voltaire observed, it would not have answered the purpose.
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
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.
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
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.