If the king, or the magistrates who represent him, having at first permitted or tolerated the institution, come afterwards to be of opinion, that it is contrary to the laws of the kingdom, would the king’s subjects, who had subjected themselves to this institution, and who took the resolution of renouncing it, wound thereby their consciences? V. Does the renunciation of the institution import a renunciation of the vow of _chastity_ and that of _poverty_, which they had taken, and which neither the king nor the magistrates can hinder them from observing? VI. Is it making an attempt upon the rights of the spiritual power, to declare that their vow of obedience, (considered only in a civil light) is inconsistent with the obedience which they have vowed from their birth to their lawful sovereign; an obedience, by virtue of which they live in the territories of that sovereign, under the protection of the laws? VII. If the vow which they have made as subjects, be declared contrary to that which they have made as monks, is not this second vow null of itself, being destroyed by a vow more ancient and more sacred? VIII. If they think themselves, notwithstanding this consideration, engaged by their vow of _obedience_; if they prefer a religious state to that of subjects; can, nay indeed ought not the prince, or the magistrates who represent him, to declare, that they have forfeited the rights of subjects, and oblige them to quit a state of which they refuse to be members? IX. Have not the professed monks, who shall renounce the institution, and who are bound besides, by their vow of _poverty_, and by the renunciation of their effects, a right to require the state to charge itself with their subsistence? X. Would professed monks, who on refusing to renounce their vow of _obedience_, should receive either from the court, or their friends[23], notwithstanding their vow of _poverty_, pensions much greater than is necessary for their subsistence, prove by this conduct, that they were much less attached to _their vow_ than to their General; that they refused much more through pride than through religion, to renounce the society; that they were, in a word, more Jesuits than Christians? XI. Ought not those professed monks, who shall renounce the institution, at the same time, in order to put out of dispute their religion and their honour, to declare the motives of attachment to their sovereign and their country, which oblige them to that renunciation, and to demand a juridical act of that declaration? XII. Is it necessary to require of the _non-professed_ monks, any thing more than a mere juridical declaration, that they have made no vows; and a promise of not making any? XIII. And with regard to those who voluntarily renounced the institution, before the arrêt, which requires the oath, is it necessary to require of them any thing else than a simple juridical declaration that they have renounced it? XIV.