433 
first to last, within the last fifty years of the fifteenth century, 
and that by some half-learned scribe,—not by any one “ bold 
critic,” as had been averred, nor by an unprincipled forger. 
Dr. Dobbin is engaged in a course of investigation as to 
the manufacture of the paper, which cannot fail to issue in as- 
certaining, for the first time upon indisputable grounds, the 
approximate date of the manuscript. 
The author closed his paper in the following terms :— 
«‘For the reasons, then, presented before the Academy, I 
cannot refrain the expression of my decided belief, that those 
parties are entirely in the wrong who endeavour to fix a charge 
of forgery upon our Codex. A charge so dishonourable to 
literature and to religion, one rises instinctively to repel where 
not based upon the most incontrovertible ground. We vindi- 
cate our common nature and our common Christianity when 
we refute by anything like satisfactory reasons the disgraceful 
imputation, that men were to be found base enough, some- 
where about the beginning of the sixteenth century, to at- 
tempt a paltry forgery either to overwhelm a hated rival, or 
to establish what they deemed God’s truth. I do not think 
‘any candid mind, acquainted with the laws of evidence bear- 
ing on such cases, can fail to acquiesce, in the main, in the 
views we have advanced on the testimony supplied. We 
have taken nothing at second hand, but, through the courtesy 
of the custodiers, have gone to the ipsissima verba of the do- 
cuments themselves; and while we have corrected the mis- 
takes of previous writers, believe we have established the 
four following points :— 
“J. That the Codex Montfortianus, however faulty, is 
genuine. 
“JJ. That it has been’ written at different times by four 
different writers, the very last being before a. p. 1520. This 
is a perfectly new contribution to the criticism of the manu- 
script, as well as the two statements which follow. 
