For these one hundred and fifty years, our history affords one only instance (of 1681) in which this authority of their general might have been any way prejudicial to the state; and if, on that occasion, the loyalty of the French Jesuits underwent a very severe trial, it had no other effect than to convince the whole kingdom how well they deserved that honourable testimony of your parliament, that their prudence guarded them against all surprise, and their loyalty against corruption. But nothing, perhaps, can be of greater weight in this matter than the judgment of your majesty's royal {371} predecessor Henry IV, of glorious memory[136], who, in the midst of all his troubles, when the kingdom was in the greatest ferment, and he beset by persons, who spared no pains to instil into his mind the greatest distrust of the Jesuits, desired no other security for their good behaviour than this alone, that he might have one of that body ever near his person in quality of preacher to his majesty, and that a French assistant should be established with the general at Rome. Your majesty is still possessed of the same security; and, since we are taught by the experience of a hundred and fifty years, that this is abundantly sufficient for the purpose, there can be no need of any farther caution or new regulation; especially as the Jesuits, in the late declaration, which they had the honour to present your majesty, have assured us in the most express terms, that, if their general was to require any thing of them contrary to the laws of your kingdom or to the obedience and respect due to your majesty, they neither could nor would pay any regard to such commands; and that their vow of obedience, as it is explained in their rule, doth no way bind them to such a compliance. This so peremptory declaration of the Jesuits, and the wise dispositions of the edict in 1603, leave no room to apprehend any danger from the general's abusing his authority to the prejudice of your majesty's kingdom. We are, &c.