M. Notovitch render such a solution highly im-

probable.
The preface which is attached to the English edition under the form of a letter ‘ To the Publishers ’ is a bold defence of the truth of M. Notovitch’s story, but it does not contain a single additional argument in favour of the authenticity of the Life of Issci.
A work of brilliant imagination is entitled to respect when it confesses itself as such, but when it is boldly and solemnly asserted again and again to be truth and fact, it is rightly designated by
ALLEGED SOJOURN OF CHRIST IN INDIA. 199
a harsher term. The Life of Issa is not a simple biography. Such a publication, though a literary forgery, might be considered comparatively harmless. This Life of Issa contains two very striking departures from Christian revelation, as accepted by the vast majority of those who confess the faith of Christ. It practically denies the working of miracles, and it also gives a definite denial to the resurrection of Jesus- To the first of these denials is given no less authority than the words of our Lord, while the second more important article of faith is explained away very much to the discredit of the Apostles of the Early Church. M. Notovitch must remain, therefore, under the burden of what will be in the eyes of many people a more serious charge than literary forgery and per- sistent untruthfulness. He has attempted wilfully to pervert Christian truth, and has endeavoured to invest that perversion with a shield of divine authority.
I am not a religious teacher, and, great as is my respect for Christian missionaries, I cannot profess any enthusiastic sympathy with their methods and immediate aims. M. Notovitch cannot therefore charge me with 5 missionary prejudice ’ or ‘obstinate sectarianism.’
But, in the name of common honesty, what must be said of M. Notovitch’s statement, that his version of the Life of Issa ‘ has many more chances of being conformable to the truth than the accounts of the evangelists, the composition of which, effected at different epochs, and at a time ulterior to the events, may have contributed in a large measure to distort the facts and to alter their sense.’
Another daring departure from the New Testament
200
LAST ESSAYS.
account is that the blame of Christ’s crucifixion is cast on the Roman governor Pilate, who is represented as descending to the suborning of false witnesses to excuse the unjust condemnation of Jesus.
The Jewish chief priests and people are represented as deeply attached to the great Preacher, whom they regarded as a possible deliverer from Roman tyranny, and as endeavouring to save Him from the tyrannical injustice of Pilate. This remarkable perversion of the received account has led several people to ask if the author of the Unknown Life of Christ is of Jewish extraction. Such inquiries as I have been able to make are not, however, in favour of such a supposition.
In many respects it may be said that this c Gospel according to M. Notovitch ’ bears a resemblance to the Vie de Jesus by Renan, to whom the Russian author states that he showed his MSS.
We believe, nevertheless, that the great French autlior possessed too much perspicacity to be deceived by the ‘ discovery,’ and too much honesty to accept support of his views from such a dubious quarter.
The general question as to the probability of the existence of any Life of Issa among the Buddhist MSS. in the monasteries of Tibet has been already so ably dealt with by so great an authority on these matters as Professor Max Muller, that I feel it would be presumptuous on my part to attempt to deal with a subject in which I am but slightly versed. I will therefore content myself by saying that the state- ments of the Lama of Himis, and conversations with other Lamas, entirely bear out Professor Max Muller’s contention that no such Life of Issa exists in Tibet.
In conclusion, I would refer to two items of the
ALLEGED SOJOURN OF CHRIST IN INDIA. 201
Russian author’s defence of his work. The first is that in which he boldly invites his detractors to visit Hinds, and there ascertain the truth or falsehood ol his story ; the second, that passage in which he requests his critics ‘ to restrict themselves to this simple question : Did those passages exist in the monastery of Himis, and have I faithfully reproduced their substance ? ’
Otherwise he informs the world in general no one has any ‘ honest ’ right to criticize his discovery. I have visited Himis, and have endeavoured by patient and impartial inquiry to find out the truth respecting M. Notovitch’s remarkable story, with the result that, while I have not found one single fact to support his statements, all the weight of evidence goes to disprove them beyond all shadow of doubt. It is certain that no such passages as M. Notovitch pretends to have translated exist in the monastery of Himis, and therefore it is impossible that he could have ‘ faithfully reproduced ’ the same.
The general accuracy of my statements respecting my interviews with the Lama of Himis can further be borne out by reference to Captain Chenevix Trench, British Commissioner of Ladakh *, who is due to visit Himis about the end of the present month, and who has expressed to me his intention of discussing the subject with the Chief Lama.
Before concluding, I desire to acknowledge my sense of obligation to the Wazir of Leh, to the Chief Lama and monks of Himis Monastery, to my excellent interpreter, and to other kind friends in Ladakh, not only for the able assistance which they afforded 1 This paper was written at Himis in June, 1895.
202
LAST ESSAYS.
to me in my investigations, but also for the unfailing courtesy and kind hospitality which rendered so en- joyable my visit to Ladakh.
POSTSCRIPT By F. M. M.1
Although I was convinced that the story told by