suspicion on the Mussulmans, must have produced forged manuscripts, and declared they were older than the time of Mohammed. It is moreover very unlikely that the character of such a manuscript could be even deciphered by any one nowadays (pp. 448, 449).

It is evident that the Padre Sahib is not on terms of intimacy with any of the distinguished gentlemen who preside in our Courts, otherwise he would have known that if contending parties adduce ancient documents in favour of their claims, Do reliance whatever can be placed on the mere ancientness of the paper, and of the date. If then in worldly matters the oldness of the paper is no test of the age of the writing, how shall, it become a test in religious affairs ? And, especially, is this to be doubted, when we recollect that the heads of the Christian religion in those days, were not such as we find the English gentlemen now to be, but were very perfidious and deceptive in their faith, such as they whom they call "Pope" and "Papa." Therefore, until due proof be advanced, I cannot concede the ancientness of these manuscripts, as assumed by the Padre. And the more so, as such a conclusion would be in opposition to the commentators of the Bible, Urbanus VIII., etc., for if these ancient manuscripts be really genuine, whence and how came the corruptions of the text, which they admit to exist. But all this reasoning would only then be necessary, if it were really admitted, that the Padre spoke the truth, and that these manuscripts really do exist, bear the date of completion inscribed on them, and are clearly legible; otherwise, the whole statement seems to me to be unfounded (pp. 454, 455).

It is evident, from the way in which the Reverend gentleman speaks, that these books are not written like our commentaries in which the entire text is quoted verse by verse; but that the words of Jesus appear in them as in our scientific or religious works, where the Coran and the traditions are often referred to. But have I ever held that the whole of the Old and New Testaments has been altered, or that the pure Gospel was not written by some of the apostles? Thus even admitting, which I do not, that these books are really true and correct, and the authority of their writers acknowledged, their correspondence with the manuscripts handed down, would neither injure my argument nor benefit yours (pp. 458, 459).