of the archbishop. On hearing it, a vast crowd enthusiastically welcomed Archdeacon Thomas as the governor of their Church and four senior priests were appointed as his counselors, namely, Kallisseri Anjilimoottil Itty Thommen Kathanar, Kuravilangad Parambil Palliveettil Chandy Kathanar, Kaduthuruthi Kadavil Chandy Kathanar, Angamali Vengur Giwargis Kathanar. At a further meeting held at Alangat, on 23 May 1653, another letter was read stating that it was from Ahathalla. It instructed the Saint Thomas Christians in the absence of a bishop, twelve of the cattanars (priests) might lay their hands on Thomas, and that this would be adequate as episcopal consecration. The authenticity of these letters is not clear. Some are of the opinion that these letters might be forged by Anjilimoottil Itty Thommen Kathanar who was a skilled Syriac writer. However, Jerome has mentioned about an ancient tradition in the pre-Nicean Church of Alexandria by which a presbyter was elevated as patriarch by laying of hands by twelve fellow presbyters. Consequently, Archdeacon Parambil Thomas was elevated as Metropolitan by the laying on of hands by twelve kattanars and took the title Thoma I. Copies of three letters which are said to be written by said to be written by Ahathalla to Saint Thomas Christians are preserved in the archives of the Propaganda Fide and were published in facsimile by Jacob Kollaparambil, a Church historian. In the first letter, Ahathalla informs Saint Thomas Christians of his coming to India and his detention by the Jesuits; in the second letter, he gives the order for Deacon George (George Parampil, one of his visitors at Mylapore) to be ordained Archdeacon and for the Saint Thomas Christians to establish a body consisting of 12 presbyters, one of whom should be elected as bishop; and in the third letter he legislates that Metropolitan Thoma I should be nominated as Patriarch of all India. István Perczel, observes that the Syriac of these letters is very strange. The first two letters are written in a similar style, incidentally not so good Syriac, but the third one is written in a different style. Some of the historians in Kerala think that second and third letters are forgeries and some consider all three are genuine. Perczel says that it is difficult to conclude the authenticity of these letters; first and second letters are in poor Syriac, with possible Malayalam influences and moreover first letter contains so many absurd errors