“IV. Ought we, in the said missions, to employ spittle in conferring the sacrament of baptism? _They answered in the negative._ “V. Ought we to forbid the Christians to celebrate those brilliant and joyous _fêtes_ which are given by parents when their young daughters ‘ont pour la première fois la maladie des mois?’ _They answered in the negative._ “VI. Ought we to forbid the custom observed at marriages of breaking the cocoa-nut? _They answered in the negative._ “VII. Ought the wives of the Christians to be obliged to change their _Taly_ or nuptial cord? _They answered in the negative._” And he, Father Tachard, was not content with the mere signature; he wanted, also, a solemn oath— “I, John Venant Bouchet, priest of the Society of Jesus, and Superior of the Carnatic Mission, do testify and _swear, on my faith as priest_, that the observance of the rites, as set forth in the preceding answers, is of the greatest necessity to these missions, as well for their preservation as for the conversion of the heathen. Further, it appears to me, that the introduction of _any other_ usage contrary to these, WOULD BE ATTENDED WITH EVIDENT DANGER TO THE SALVATION OF THE SOULS OF THE NEOPHYTES. Thus I answer the reverend father superior general, who orders me to send him my opinion as to these rites, and to confirm it by an oath, for assurance and faith of which I here sign my name. Signed, Nov. 3, 1704, in the Mission of the Carnatic. JEAN VENANT BOUCHET.” Fathers Peter Mauduit, Philip de la Fontaine, Peter de la Lane, and Gilbert le Petit took the same oath, and attested it by their signatures, and after like fashion swore all the Portuguese Jesuits in Madura and Mysore. Whilst two Jesuits were dispatched to Rome with this document, F. Tachard set another battery at work. The Bishops of Goa and of St Thomas were creatures of the Jesuits, and altogether devoted to their interest. At the instigation of the fathers, they, respectively, published an ordinance, by which, on their own authority, they annulled the decree of the legate, under the specious pretext that they were not satisfied that this prelate’s power and authority were sufficient to enact it. The Bishop of Goa, to whom the Pope had sent De Tournon as his representative, to whom he had granted full and unlimited power, went still further, and had the impudence to write to the Pope, telling him that he, the bishop, had annulled the decree of the patriarch, not knowing that he had power to publish it. The Pope was highly incensed, both against the bishops and Jesuits, and on the 4th January 1707 he fulminated a brief against the bishop’s declaration regarding De Tournon’s decree, giving his full sanction to the legate’s decision in all its parts. At the same time he wrote a terrible letter of admonition to the Bishop of Goa, reproaching him for his impudence, and threatening to depose him.