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.