A Third LETTER From a Gentleman in the COUNTRY, To his Friends in LONDON, Upon the Subject of the Penal Laws and Tests.  

Licenced,  
May the 16th 1687.   
LONDON, Printed, for J. H. and T. S. and to be had of most Booksellers in London and Westminster, 1687.   

My Honoured Friends,  
SInce my last Letter was so happy as to please more of the Party than my first Offended, and that even those are somewhat softened by it, I prevailed with myself, once more, to give you my thoughts upon the same Subject: And though I think the Objections you have sent me, are come too far for an Answer, yet I will give you mine, with all the plainness, brevity and temper I can; for they that seek the public good, are not to be nice in their endeavours for it; and such who go upon Principles, have the advantage of being secured by their Sincerity, even where their mistakes cannot be defended. But as I think I am not in the wrong, so I sincerely profess, if I knew I were, no temporal consideration should engage me against my Opinion; for though I am for the Liberty of pursuing ones own Judgement, I abhor the Latitude of Dissembling it. But to the point before us.  
You tell me, that the generality of the Soberest and Wisest of those, that would be esteemed Members of the Church of England, of your Acquaintance, do declare, They have no Aversion for Liberty of Conscience, and that they always liked an Indulgence to Dissenters, but they are angry at the present manner of it, and with the Addresses of Thanks the Dissenters have made to the King for It.  
To say nothing then of who they were that made the Penal Laws, or by whom they were Executed, or upon what Motives; and less, what Prejudices thereby have followed to the Persons and Estates of Thousands of the King's Subjects (because that History might look harsh, and I resolve to be as healing as I can) Let me ask, why these Gentlemen should be offended at the way of the Ease the King has graciously given? 'Tis certain, that some of them reproached the severe Conduct he has changed, and thought it ill in the Government to expose so many useful Men in their Persons and Estates to a pack of lewd Informers, that yet now quarrel the stop he has given to those severities. They will, I hope, pardon me if I say; Christ's Answer to the Pharisees about the breach of the Sabbath came in my mind upon reading their Objection, What man among you that should have a Sheep fall into a Pit on the Sabbath day, will, not lay hold on it and lift it out? He excused David and the Priests in a Case of the like nature, and thought a good deed was to be done at any time, when he healed the poor man. This was he that preferred Mercy before Sacrifice, and exalted the good Nature of the Samaritan above the strict Priest and Levite, that with all their Reverence to the Law, left the Rifled and Wounded unregarded. But to turn the stile of the Discourse: Why should any of the Church of England be offended, when it is a less Power than has been publicly maintained by the most venerable of their own Clergy, in all times since the Reformation? You will find Archbishop Whitgift, in his Letter to Q. Elizabeth, asserting her Power in Ecclesiastical Matters to rest wholly and absolutely in the Queen, & that he advises her, by no means to allow the Parliament to have the fingering of those things; and that what Cannons were made by the Clergy in Convocation, by her Majesty's Authority, might be OBSERVED or ALTERED at HER PLEASURE.  
And in another Letter to the Lords of the Council, he tells them, that the Queen her own self, had in express Words, immediately committed Causes Ecclesiastical to him, as to one, who was to make Answer to God and her Majesty in that behalf, and not to their Lordships, wherein, as he supposed, he had no Judge but herself. Archbishop Laud, and Bishop Sanderson, Dr Heylin, Dr Hicks and several other dignified Divines of the Church of England, all grave and learned Authors, follow the same Sentiments touching Regal Power, in a more extended manner, as you may shortly see by an Ingenious hand, who hath exactly Transcribed their own Writings in this great Point. But in general, it is resolved by Dr Starky, in his Assize Sermon at St Edmondsbury, concerning the divine obgation of human Ordinances, Printed by John Field, Printer to the University of Cambridge, 1668. That Constitutions, as they had their Original and Establishment from the Reason of the supreme Magistrate, consulting for the conveniency and good of the Society, so the condition of things and State altering, upon their Burden and Inconvenience, may, by the Authority that established them, be altered, suspended, abrogated, and taken quite away. Thus a Divine of the Church of England; but to proceed on that Lesson, argumentum ad hominem.  
For what greater Injury (saith he) canst thou put upon thy careful Governor, then when his Contrivances and Determinations are published for public good, that his Directions should be Contemned, and by thy Rebellion that thou shouldst suggest to others (what our disorderly nature is too ready to suspect) that their Rules are the Results of erroneous and corrupt men, which ought to be looked upon as the determinations of sacred Authority derived from a most wise and just God.  
But if this were not so, is it the same thing to dispense with a Temporary, as a fundamental Law? With that which says, thou shalt not go to a Conventicle, as with that which says, thou shalt not Kill or Steal? are there not some Laws that are of that moral and enduring nature, no time or accident of State can Dispense with? and such Laws as are so specially accommodated, that the reason of them may not live three Years to an end? The Penal Laws about Religion were made for fear that divers Opinions in one Country might endanger the Government, & time shows us that nothing hazards it more than their execution. 'tis plain it puts us in a state of force, and that therefore People fly the Kingdom, and Trade dwindles to nothing: And since all Countries are greater by their People and foreign Commerce, than by their Soil and Domestic Labour and Consumption, whatever lessens them, impoverishes and weakens the Kingdom. Who will Trade where his gettings are none of his own? or live, where he is not sure of his Principle? Which is the Case of Dissenters in a Country using coercion for Religion. And when all this is said, the King is pleased to refer the matter to the concurrence of a Parliament, and such Power for the good of the Public, was never denied by any man of sense, any where, to the wisdom and necessity of Government, and It must ever rest with that part of it, which is by the Constitution always in the way, which, we all know, our Parliaments are not.  
This Declaration seems to me no more than a Royal Bill without Doors, informing the Kingdom of his Majesty's mind, and preparing both Houses to make it the Subject of their next Session: And I don't think I shall ever see a Parliament in England break with a King of his Justice and Valour, upon so reasonable and popular a Point.  
But to be free, it looks ill in any of the Sons of the Church of England, to Scandal this ease with the irregularity of the way of it, when nothing is more evident than that they cannot do it without flying in the face of that Loyalty, which made that Church so famous in 41. For as then the Distinction of the Natural and Political capacity of the King, was the great Doctrine of the Parliament against several Acts of State, which in part, gave rise to the misunderstandings and Wars that followed. So 'tis certain, that the Generality of the Church of England opposed it as a pernicious Principle to the Monarchy, and rather than suffer so Plebeian a notion to take place in the Government, drew their Swords for the Sovereignty of the Crown; and we all know what endeavours have been used, and by whom, since the late King's Restoration, to Damn that distinction as the very seed of Rebellion.  
This Reflection makes me beseech the dissatisfied Sons of the Church to Consider, how much wiser it were to approach the King with all possible Candour and Decency, and by assuring him, that their concern looks no further, than such a Legal and uncoercive security for themselves, as at the same time that others are safe from them, by the repeal of the Penal Laws, the Church may be secure that no one of those interests shall invade her Rights and Possessions, he may be induced to embrace the Mediums that in such an occasion it were the easiest thing in the World to find, as well as that they might be the most agreeable and honourable in themselves for all our happinesses. Let her then betake herself to think of some happy expedients, and rebuke those Members of her Communion, that run up and down with the falsest, as well as angriest aggravations; that we may all yet meet in some general and national Principle to adjust our several Interests upon.  
For can she take it ill of the King, that he receives the Dissenters as near him for his interest, as 'tis plain she would take them to her for her security? the Objection she makes against their former Disloyalty, vanisheth with their present Adherence and her Dissent; for it both shows they are for the Government when that is for them, and that even she herself is for it no longer; nay, it will be said by some, nor so long; for she is (say they) not satisfied to be safe, nor yet to keep the Chair, nor will she thank the King for that, unless others may be confounded that cannot offer at her Altar; who, as bad as they are, for this Gracious Reprieve, think him not only worthy of their thanks, but of their Estates and Lives when he wants them on so glorious an occasion: And it is not the foolishest thought that may come in her head, that having once lost the King to the side against which she could not maintain his Father, her case must be desperate upon the Contest, which God forbid.  
I confess, when I consider the Idea we have been taught to have of a Popish King, and what Persecuting, Massacring Murdering work was necessarily to attend his Reign, I cannot but say, I think the Church of England securer, in this Reign, upon the King's Declaration, than any other worldly support she can flatter herself with; and not to thank him, for an assurance she desired, and that is so generously given for a King of his circumstances, from whom, we were told worse things would have followed, and then too, when too many of her Children would indiscreetly have provoked other resolutions, shows her less Christian and civil than I believe she desires to be thought, and I hope, upon the main, she deserves.  
But you tell me, that this liberty is by divers persons rendered dangerous to the Monarchy, in that it strengthens the hands of those People that have always been for a Commonwealth: This looks very kind and dutiful to the Royal Family: But though no body more affectionately wishes the preservation and just succession of it than myself, I can't forbear to charge the Objection wit extreme weakness, for it is removed with a word; the King has an Army, Is that the way to set it up? And what he leaves, his Children will find. Is the love of Power first objected, and then a design to make a Commonwealth with it? But they will say, though it bened his design, it is consequent upon his measures. But I must tell them, no story shows us, that ever any Government was changed, making the People of it easy; but often t'other way: Nor is it to be thought, that folks will Plot to lose, what they might be driven to Plot to get. Let the Church think as hardly of Dissenters as she will; they cannot be any longer in pain when they are made easy. Besides, what have they further to seek, or which way can they possibly agree it? While their Conscience and Property are safe, they have no more to ask, and no body was ever against that, which is for them; nor any Government endangered by the People it seeks to preserve. The King has begun to show his inclinations to make us all easy & safe, and it will be her fault if we are not so, quickly and entirely. This is the way to prevent the mischiefs she fears; and what she would have done in their case, to have proved herself a better Christian or a better Subject I can't tell. But 'tis certain that the Church, by the power of the Monarchy, endeavoured their ruin: That they fell in with that side that favoured their relief, is as true: Were it not better that 'twere out of the power of both to do the same thing over again? one to engage the Crown, and t'other to oppose it, for t'other World's matters? Doubtless it were, and this Liberty must be the way.  
Those times, I am sure, have a double instruction to the present Church of England; One, that she be not too stiff against a reasonable Accommodation; the Other, that to support herself in it, she falls not into the inconveniencies she has objected against the Dissenters, whilst under far less provocation, if any at all. Let her remember, 'twas her cause that first engaged the King's Father, and by consequence, banished his Brother, and nothing else but this King's tenderness, lest he should be too early with her in Declaring for Liberty of Conscience, when he came to the Crown, gave opportunity for the late Western Rebellion: For as he hath well observed in his Speech to the Council, how much the want of it went to promote our civil Wars, so 'tis certain, that had he declared for Liberty of Conscience, when he told us of his Religion, there had been no Rebellion in the West: But the misguided Duke of Monmouth might have had his share at Buda, and the unhappy People of his train been alive at their Vocations. And if this delay was not for want of an Opinion that Liberty of Conscience was a just, necessary and popular thing, but his regard to the Church of England, that had served him well, and might not presently take it the right way, or be prepared to fall in with him upon that interest, 'tis certainly the highest proof how greatly he valued her concurrence, and desired to rely upon her Duty, Service and Friendship, and consequently, how much she is obliged to his goodness, and those of her Sons are in the wrong, that carry a present distance and coldness to his Administration. And when all is done, the King in this very point has but pursued the sense of a Parliament very freely chosen; for in that last Westminster Parliament, when the House of Commons apprehended their Dissolution, and that the black Rod was near the door to that purpose, they came to several Dying Votes, as a Legacy of their Aversion to the Court, and their Court to the King, dom, among which, this was not the least.  
Resolved,  
That it is the Opinion of this House, that the Prosecution of Protestant Dissenters, upon the Penal Laws, is at this time grievous to the Subject, a weaking of the Protestant Interest, an Encouragement to Popery, and dangerous to the Peace of the Kingdom.  
If the heat of those times could have left those two angry words out, it had carried the general Liberty now desired, and nothing would have hindered it in a time like this, with such a Parliament as that. For in the Reign of a King of a Popish Religion, that we laboured so much to Disappoint, to desire no more at our hands, after our fears of so much more than a mere Liberty of Conscience, indifferently fixed to all Dissenters, is such a Cure of our Fears, and an Assurance of all we can wish, that, we must be wanting to ourselves in Wit, as well as to the King in Gratitude, if we reject the motion. Let her therefore be confident nothing excluded the Papists then, but our Apprehensions that they strove for all at our Cost; and if we are offered to be secured against such Jealousies, a Parliament so Chosen, would naturally comprise them.  
But you tell me, that two things stick yet with Divers persons of that Church: One, That it is not reasonable the Dissenters should expect that they should pluck the Thorn out of their foot to put it in their own. The other, That in case the Penal Laws and Tests were removed by this Church-Parliament, another might be packed that might turn both Laws and Test upon th● present Church.  
In the first place, 'tis granted then, that the Laws are a Thorn in the Foot of the Dissenters. Is it not as just to think it ought to be plucked out, and if the Church of England will do nothing towards it, are they not excusable that endeavour it themselves? Tho when one inquires, first, who put the Thorn in, and next, that there is no necessity that she must put it into her own Foot, because she plucks it out of theirs; it should not be so hard to persuade her to pluck it out, and in my Opinion, it should be as easy to fling it away, that it may trouble no body else for the future. But that perhaps she thinks is not possible to be done, and that impossibility is given for the reason, why she chooses to leave it where it is; which naturally introduces my Answer to the second Objection viz. That if the Penal Laws and Tests were removed by this Church Parliament, another might be packed which might turn both Laws and Tests upon the present Church.  
In my last Letter, said something, that aught in my Opinion, to satisfy the most jealous in this particular: For first, all agree it is impossible to Repeal the Laws and Tests without a Parliament. Secondly, 'tis not to be thought that the present Parliament will do it, without such a Provision as will secure us in the Point feared. To say there is none, is ridiculous; for who can tell, what they may think upon, or from other heads, what may occur to them? If they won't Repeal them, let us suppose an other Parliament, as freely Chosen at least; can we imagine that such a Representative will be less careful to secure us against our fears, though they were more inclinable to abolish those Laws? If then both are like to go together, be it by the present, or another Parliament, I see no insecurity that is like to follow, either to the Church of England, or her Protestant Dissenters, who in that respect, are equally concerned, with herself.  
And for packing of a Parliament, if that were the business and Design at last; why is it not attempted at first? Certainly it is so easy to be done, that if the King did not seek a more agreeable, and lasting security to his Friends, to wit, a National one, there are men enough of no Religion to be packed to morrow, that would first conform to the Laws and Tests, and then mercenarily take them away. I know there are silly People of all Parties, for whom no body can answer; but, 'tis astonishing, that such a jealousy should have so much room with men of any share of sense, that if this Parliament should Repeal the Laws and Tests, the Papists in the next, would come into Parliament, and then make their Religion National at our charges. For, First, it supposes no other expedient, which is easy to be found and obtained, or let the other remain. Secondly, it supposes that Roman Catholics will be chosen, or returned, though they are not chosen; The one 'tis certain we don't fear, and methinks they only should be afraid of the other; for since they cannot be their own security, and this they declare, by seeking a National one; If the first would do, why don't they begin upon it, and pack a Parliament presently, and Repeal the Laws and Tests without any more to do? And if they don't do this, not because they can't think upon it, but because they don't think it worth trying, why should they attempt by such a way an harder thing? for no body would take it so ill of them to Repeal the Laws that vex them by an Indirect way, as they would if they went about to make their Religion National by it, and if they think it not assuring enough for the lesser, can they be tempted to embrace it for effecting of the greater point.  
Some of them have read the Histories of their own Country, and can't but remember, that in times, even of their own Religion, Parliaments ill Chosen came to ill Ends.  
That the twenty first of Richard the second Repealed the Acts of the Parliament of the eleven of the same King; and that the first of Henry the fourth, Repealed the twenty first of Richard the second: And that the thirty ninth of Henry the sixth, Repealed the Laws of the 38th of the same King, & Damned that Parliament, because UNDULY Elected; which is the packing meant in the Objection: So that 'tis not worth while to attempt it. If such a Parliament could be Immortal, or were able to Charm successive Reigns, or were not a violation of the Constitution of Parliaments, and of one of the tenderest points in our Government, or did not break faith with mankind, when most obliged to make a strait step, and by all this, treasure up wrath against the day of wrath upon the whole Party, which must dawn at the setting of our present King, it were something: but when all this will follow, as certain as the Night does the Day, To break all bounds of Law, and go by open Force, were an honest and wise thing to such a wooden Invention of Law, as this would be to all men living of common sense, and to the Ages that shall follow us, who of right, will have the censuring of our Actions. What then is left us, but to embrace this Gracious tender, and all Parties to meet the King in those methods, that are most likely to establish it with the greatest, satisfaction and certainty?  
If no other security can be had, I say then, let this that is, remain, if there may be such a thing, why should we not embrace it? The Church of England disclaims Severity and Partiality, then let her part with those Instruments of both, and not suspect the shaking of the Laws of Property, for stopping the execution of the Laws that undermine it. I leave one Consideration with her, and so shall leave you at this time▪ Let nothing that is Vnfair, or Indirect lie at her Door, I beg her, for God's sake. Ought she to differ thus with any body? and less with such a King, upon a point she cannot maintain, and that is better left then kept, take the Question, either as to Right or Prudence? I will not be very particular, but enough to make way for a fuller discourse on the Subject.  
The Tests, the chief, if not the only thing in debate, have they any Foundation in our Constitution? Should a Man's being of any Religion, hinder him from serving the Country of his Birth? Does his going to a Conventicle naturally unqualify him for a Constable's Staff? or believing Transubstantiation, render him uncapable of being a good Clark? It were as reasonable to say, that 'tis impossible for a Fanatic to be a good Shoemaker, or a Papist a good Tailor. The very Notion is Comical, And that must ever be the Consequence of going out of the way, and serving the Public with such a Bias to a Party, for that is the softest way of speaking of the Error.  
But when we consider the Test in Relation to the Parliament, where the Objection lies strongest against the Repeal, it appears not one jot less unreasonable to continue it: For an Opinion of Religion is made to deprive a Peer of the highest Right of his Peerage: True, he is not totally Destroyed, but he's Gelt of his chiefest Privilege. For though he loses not his Title, he has little else left him, Can the Peers of England to serve a turn, so mutely suffer a Precedent to continue, that shakes their hereditary share in the Government, and so essential a part of our ancient & celebrate Constitution, and by which 'tis made impossible to have an unconcerned House in Judgement? Let us but look back to Seventy Five, and see what was done then, by divers Lords, in a case of this nature; I will but repeat the Test and their Protest.  
I A. B. do declare, That it is not Lawful, upon any pretence whatsoever, to take up Arms against the King, and that I do abhor that Traitorous Position of taking Arms by His Authority against His Person, or against those that are commissioned by Him in pursuance of such Commission; And I do swear that I will not at any time endeavour the Alteration of the Government, either in Church or State, so help me God.  
The debate lasted Five several days before it was committed to a Committee of the whole House, which hardly ever happened to any Bill before: The Debates, were managed chiefly by the Lords, whole Names you will find to the following Protestation.  
We whose Names are under Written being Peers of this Realm, do according to our Rights and the ancient Usage of Parliaments, declare that the Question having been put, whether the Bill (entitled an Act to prevent the danger which may arise from Persons disafftected to the Government) doth so far entrench upon the Privileges of This House; that it ought therefore to be cast out. It being resolved in the Negative, We do humbly conceive that any Bill which imposeth an Oath upon the Peers with a Penalty, as this doth that upon the refusal of that Oath, They shall be made uncapable of Sitting and Voting in this House, as it is a thing unpresidented in former Times, so is it, in Our. humble Opinion, THE HIGHEST INVASION OF THE LIBERTIES AND PRIVILEGES OF THE PEERAGE, that possibly may be, and most destructive of the Freedom, which they ought to enjoy as Members of Parliament, because the Privilege of Sitting and Voting in Parliament, is an Honour they have BY BIRTH, and a Right so INHERANT IN THEM, AND INSEPARABLE FROM THEM, AS THAT NOTHING CAN TAKE IT AWAY, but what by the Law of the Land, must withal, take away their Lives, and corrupt their Blood; upon which ground we do here enter our Dissent from that Vote, and our Protestation against it.  

Buckingham  
Bridgwater  
Winchester  
Salisbury  
Bedford  
Dorset  
Aylisbury  
Bristol  
Denbigh  
Pagitt  
Holles  
Peter  
Howard E. of Berks  
Mohun  
Stamford  
Hallifax  
Delamer  
Ewer  
Shaftsbury  
Clarendon  
Grey Roll.  
Say & Seal  
Wharton   
To say nothing here of the matter of the Test, 'tis plain from the extent of their Argument, they were against all Tests that deprived Peers of this fundamental Right of Peerage, and that nothing could, in their opinion, do it, but such crimes as tainted their Blood and took away their lives. I know not if those living are still of that mind, but the honour I have for their Understanding and Integrity forbid me to doubt it.  
Now pray Suffer me to turn the Tables, and ask our Churchmen one Question in the Language of their Fears; Can the King makes Lords, and pack an House of Commons, that shall first take, and then abolish the Test? Why then, it is not so great a security as they imagine; and it is hardly worth while to be so stiff to support it. But by the same reason that they can Repeal this, they may Enact another, and if so, may not the House of Peers be quickly another set of Men? For that Fire that Roasts a Goose can Rost a Gander. What Tides are these in Government? and what State is safe, or happy, whose Foundations float upon such movable measures? Besides, the Lords intended to be made the example of our Power in this affair, were generally observed to be some of the steadiest and best Voters upon all Questions that concerned our Public Right.  
I have done with this. Tother part of my Consideration is the other part of our Parliament, the House of Commons I mean.  
And here we are taught to believe, the People's choice is the Representatives Authority; and if that be true, it is somewhat hard to imagine which way they can hinder a man from Session that the People have freely chosen. I grant, that where Competitors have made an Election disputable, the final Judgement is in the Representative Body; but I cannot comprehend how that House can ever make void an undisputed Election, and such is a free choice of the People, of any County or Borrough; and yet that is the very business of the Test of Seventy Eight. For if I believe the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, I cannot possibly fit in Parliament, let my Election, Ability, Integrity be what they will. In this matter, let us lay aside Prejudice, and look beyond Transubstantiation, like Englishmen, jealous of our Rights; for here seems to be the Snake in the Grass; what! shall Opinion give rule to our Properties, and (like daniel's King) change Times and Laws at Pleasure?  
There is nothing more miserable in Government then that it must alter with Religious Opinion, which yet we are not assured men shall not change, and that often in an Age. I say, this does not Rest at Transubstantiation (though if it did, and it were not just, 'twere no argument to a good man) The same Power that is assumed in that case, may make a Test of what it pleases, and a Man's Dissent, a reason of Exclusion from Session in Parliament, let not this be.  
We usually say, no Stream rises higher than its Fountain, and whether this sort of Testing be not an Inversion of the natural Current of Power, may not be amiss for Englishmen to deliberate: Nay, if it be not a breach of that part of the Constitution of the Government: For if those whom the People choose, the Representatives may reject, for a reason of their own, that in the nature of Civil Government can be none, the Electors and Elected must needs be Divided, in that the one makes void the Power of the other, though it be that by which the first House of Commons sat, and is the natural Authority of every House of Commons in this Kingdom.  
Nothing, in my Opinion, can cure this mischief better than a due consideration of the true nature of things: What properly falls under our Cognizance, and what not; and then to adapt proper and suitable means to the just ends we aim at: For if the major vote in things not to be voted, could give any weight or Sanction, 'tis to be feared the Jews were too much in the right, when they cried, we have a Law, and by our Law he ought to Die, however, upon these Principles, nothing is plainer than that every Martyr was felo de se, and Died a Malefactor instead of a Saint.  
Let us then be delivered of all Tests that run not on the side of the old Government of England; and if we must have a Test, I shall pray that it may be translated from TRANSUBSTANTIATION to PERSECUTION. That is to say, that no Man shall propose or consent to any thing in Government within this Kingdom, that may infringe the Conscience or Property of any man in it; for upon that ancient Policy our Government began; and let the Excommunication and Anathama of the Government pass upon that Offender, to his perpetual civil Damnation.  
I shall say no more to you now, what ever I may do at another time, but that you use the utmost of your endeavours, to promote Piety and Charity: And as on the one hand, with all imaginable softness, you strive to oblige the Members of the Church of England to an impartial Consideration of these things, so on the other hand, you advise all Dissenters to Govern themselves towards those Gentlemen, in the use of this Liberty, with a decent and friendly Behaviour: Who knows, but that Conduct, with a little Time, may give them that sight of their Interest, and dispose them to those Compliances, which may end this present misunderstanding in the happiest civil Union, that any King and Kingdom were ever blest with. God of his Infinite Mercy grant us this great Blessing, and his Grace to use it, Amen.  
Once more, yours, with all my Heart,  
FINIS.