There is to be also remembered (4) the user of the expressions “as yowe tender youer lyf,” and “deuys some exscuse to shift of[143] youer attendance at this parleament for god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme.” For these expressions are eminently expressions that would be employed by a man born in Yorkshire in the sixteenth century. Again; there is to be noted (5) the expressions as “yowe tender youer _lyf_,” and “god and man hathe concurred.” Inasmuch as I maintain that as “yowe tender youer _lyf_” was just the kind of expression that would be used by a man who had had an early training in the medical art, as was the case with Edward Oldcorne. For “Man to preserve is pleasure suiting man, and by no art is favour better sought.” And a deep rooted belief in the powers of Nature and in the sacredness of the life of man are the two brightest jewels in the true physician’s crown. Once more; (6) the expression “god and man hathe concurred” is pre-eminently the mode of clothing in language one way, wherein a rigid Roman Catholic of that time would mentally contemplate——_not_, indeed, the interior quality of the mental phenomena known as the Gunpowder Plot, in which “the devil” alone could “concur,” but the simple exterior designment of the same, provided he _knew_ for certain that it could be considered as a clear transparency only——as a defecated cluster of purely intellectual acts.[A] [Footnote A: It is manifest that if, _in intent_, Oldcorne by his own Letter had destroyed the Plot, he, of all other people in the world, would have _the prerogative_ of regarding the Plot as a clear transparency; _while of the Plot as a transparency_, he would feel a freedom to write “god and man hathe concurred to punishe the wickednes of this tyme.” If the Writer had not the prerogative of regarding the Plot as a clear transparency then these results follow——that he regarded Him (Whose Eyes are too pure even to behold iniquity) as _concurring_ in the designment of a most hellish crime, nay, of participating in such designment; _for he couples God with man_. Now the Letter is evidently the work of a Catholic. But no Catholic would regard God as the author of a crime. Therefore the Gunpowder Plot to the Writer of the Letter can have been regarded as no crime. But it was obviously a crime, _unless and until_ it had been defecated of criminous quality, and so rendered a clear transparency. Now, as the Writer obviously did not regard it as a crime, therefore he must have regarded it as defecated, by some means or another; in other words, as a clear transparency. And _this_, I maintain, proves that the Writer had a special interior knowledge of the Plot “behind the scenes,” that is, deep down within the depths of his conscious being.]