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.