We come now to the last portion of this Inquiry——to the last portion,
indeed, but not to the least.
For we have now to consider what Evidence there is tending to prove that
_subsequent_ to the penning of the Letter by Father Edward Oldcorne, he
was _conscious_ of having performed the meritorious deed that, I maintain,
the Evidence, deductions, and suggestions therefrom all converge to one
supreme end to establish, namely, that it is morally (not mathematically)
certain that his hand, and his hand alone, actually penned that immortal
Letter, whose praises shall be celebrated till the end of time.
Before considering this Evidence let me, however, remind my readers that
there is (1) _not only a general similarity_ in the handwriting of the
Letter and Father Oldcorne’s undoubted handiwork——the Declaration of the
12th day of March, 1605-6——_a general similarity_ in point of the size of
the letters and of that indescribable something called style,[141] _but
(2) a particular similarity_ in the formation of the letters in the case
of these following, namely, the small c/s, l/s, i/s, b/s, w/s, r/s, long
s/s (as initials), short s/s (as terminals), while the m/s and n/s are not
inconsistent.[A]
[Footnote A: Bentham aptly terms the comparison of Document with Document,
“Circumstantial real Evidence.”——See Best’s “_Principles of the Law of
Evidence_,” and Wills on “_Circumstantial Evidence_.” See Miss Walford’s
Letter (Appendix).]
Moreover, there is (3) this fact to be remembered, that in both the Letter
and in the said Declaration, the name “God” is written with a small “g,”
thus: “god.”
It is true that, of course, not only did this way of writing the name of
the Supreme Being then denote no irreverence, but it was commonly so
written by Englishmen in the year 1605.
Still, it was certainly _not by them universally so written_. For in the
fac-simile of “_Thomas Winter’s Confession_” the word “God” occurs more
than once written with a handsomely made capital G,[142] to mention none
other cases.
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.]
Furthermore, in reflecting on these preliminaries to the general
discussion of the Evidence tending to prove a consciousness on Edward
Oldcorne’s part, _subsequent_ to the penning of the Letter, of being
responsible for the commission of the everlastingly meritorious feat, let
it be diligently noted that the Letter ends with these words: “_the
dangere is passed as soon as yowe have burnt the letter and i hope god
will give yowe the grace to mak good use of it to whose holy proteccion i
contend yowe._” (The italics are mine.)
Now, I opine that what the Writer intended _to hint at_ was a suggestion
to the recipient of the Letter to destroy the document. _Not_, however,
that as a fact, I think, he really wished it to be destroyed.[144] Because
it is highly probable that (apart from other reasons) the Writer must have
wished it to be conveyed to the King, else why should he have said, “i
hope god will give you the grace to mak _good_ use of it”?
And why should the King himself in his book have omitted the insertion of
this little, but here virtually all-important, adjective?[145]
Besides, the Writer cannot have seriously wished for the destruction of
the document. For in that case he would not have made use of such a
masterpiece of vague phraseology as “the dangere is passed as soon as yowe
have burnt the letter.”[146] But, on the contrary, he would have plainly
adjured the receiver of the missive, for the love of God and man, to
commit it as soon as read to the devouring flames!
Lastly should be noted the commendatory words wherewith the document
closes. These words (or those akin to them), though in use among
Protestants as well as Catholics in the year 1605, were specially employed
by Catholics, and particularly by Jesuits or persons who were “Jesuitized”
or “Jesuitically affected.”[147]