Although Karl Scherffer was the editor of the first, Vienna edition of Bošković’s masterwork Philosophiae naturalis theoria (1758), Pál Makó was the first in Vienna to publish a university textbook influenced by Bošković’s natural philosophy. It was Compendiaria metaphysicae institutio (1761), a textbook in metaphysics in which Makó quite openly followed Bošković’s law of forces, and Bošković’s doctrine of the principles of bodies in a more implicit form – without direct and consistent use of Bošković’s term materiae puncta, although he assessed the objections of Giovanni Battista Scarella and Moses Mendelssohn as unjustified. Soon after the textbook in metaphysics, the Hungarian Jesuit published a textbook in general physics Compendiaria physicae institutio (1762), which from the very first sentence was written from the standpoint of Bošković’s theory of forces, to such an extent that the first chapter bears the title »De lege virium inter duo materiae puncta«. In it, determining the equilibrium states for the system of three points of matter he recognised as Bošković’s valuable result. Like Bošković, he, too, attributed the force of inertia to the points of matter and not only to the body. He also accepted Bošković’s modification of Newton’s law of universal gravitation. Makó amply borrowed Bošković’s original terms, but in Compendiaria physicae institutio he introduced the term cohaerentia for cohesion (cohaesio) as one of the general properties of matter, his idea being later followed by Ivan Krstitelj Horvath in his university textbooks. When he exposed the resolution of bodies, Makó decided on the term sectilitas, while Bošković used the term divisibilitas. Makó’s textbooks in metaphysics and physics had already been published when Karl Scherffer printed the second edition of his textbook in general physics Institutionum physicae pars prima seu Physica generalis (1763), in which he included Bošković’s theory of forces, though with more caution than Makó, but failed to publicly accept Bošković’s main conclusion on the structure of matter. Instead of the points of matter he introduced »certain minimal molecules«, but endowed with Bošković’s forces. In the vis viva controversy and the understanding of inertia he did not share Bošković’s opinion, unlike in the modification of Newton’s law of universal gravitation. Scherffer most explicitly followed Bošković in his interpretation of the latter’s curve of forces. Of the general properties of bodies, only three of them he interpreted by using Bošković’s curve: impenetrability, cohesion and elasticity. He also accepted Bošković’s model of constructing particles of higher orders. The professors from Vienna were soon joined by a third Jesuit at the University of Graz, Leopold Biwald, first with his philosophical thesaurus in 1765, followed by the textbook Physica generalis (1767), in which he almost fully followed Bošković’s theory of forces and expounded its applications on the general properties of bodies and chemical operations. With the exception of the first statement, when he defined the principles of bodies as »simple substances« (substantiae simplices), he regularly used Bošković’s original term materiae puncta. Contrary to Bošković’s views elaborated in Theoria, he stated that the force of inertia did not exist in nature, because he followed Bošković’s earlier views on the force of inertia as published in the supplement De vi inertiae (1755) to the epic Philosophia recentior by Benedikt Stay. The youngest among the Jesuit followers of Bošković’s theory of forces at the Austrian universities until 1773 was Sigmund von Storchenau, professor of logic and metaphysics in Academia Vindobonensi. He introduced Bošković’s views into all three of his textbook texts: introduction to philosophy, logic and metaphysics. Storchenau’s »Prolegomenon in philosophiam« presented the Ragusan philosopher as the most original Newton’s successor and as an author of a philosophical system, but was at the same time the first text which drew attention to the previous Austrian reception of Bošković’s natural philosophy. In Institutiones logicae (1770) he accepted Bošković’s doctrine of incomplete induction in the study of nature. Lastly, Storchenau, after Makó, was the second in Vienna and Austria who in the textbook of metaphysics Institutiones metaphysicarum (1771) exposed Bošković’s philosophemes, notably the critical attitude to senses and the general validity of the law of continuity in nature. He most directly followed Bošković in the doctrine of the principles of bodies and of the forces in nature, and to his students recommended the reading of the textbook Physica generalis by Leopold Biwald. Among Austrian university professors, Storchenau was the one who praised Bošković most highly: »the gem of our century« (saeculi nostri decus) and »the most famous philosopher of our time« (celeberrimus aetatis nostrae philosophus). At the close of the first part of his Theoria, Bošković first elaborated the objections to his law of forces, and then the objections to his unextended points of matter. By dealing with the objections separately, he seems to have anticipated the importance these two groups of objections were to have on the reception of his natural philosophy. In their textbooks of physics, Makó, Scherffer and Biwald accepted Bošković’s law of forces and applied it in the explanation of the general properties of matter, though differently: Makó greatly followed Bošković, while Scherffer used Bošković’s curve to explain only three general properties of matter. Curva Boscovichiana thus found its way into the textbooks of physics at the Austrian universities. Bošković’s law of forces was also accepted in the Austrian textbooks of metaphysics. In their cosmologies Makó and Storchenau accepted the alternating action of attractive and repulsive force and adopted Bošković’s term lex virium. Curiously, the four Jesuits agreed not to accept the whole of Bošković’s doctrine of the structure of matter. Instead of regularly using Bošković’s term materiae puncta, they came up with new terms with which they tried to avoid the objections directed at Bošković’s theory of forces, most explicitly formulated by Scarella. »Simple beings« (entia simplicia) with Makó, »certain minimal molecules« (moleculae quaedam minimae) with Scherffer, »simple substances« (substantiae simplices) with Biwald, »simple beings« (entia simplicia) again with Storchenau – these terms clearly testify that the four Jesuit professors at the Austrian universities withdrew before Bošković’s original achievement: that the extended body is composed by unextended points of matter endowed with the forces. In doing so, as many as three of them, Makó, Biwald and Storchenau, pointed to Scarella’s objection to Bošković, but in this polemic decided to side with Bošković.