CHRIST IN "LI TAI SHEN HSIEN T'UNG CHIEN." 245 



Buddha (standing for Buddhism) is here rightly placed in 

 a position of prominence. All my Chinese friends strenu- 

 ously insist that the ^ "three" cannot refer to one of the 

 figures only, that the figures are those of Lao Tzii, Con- 

 fucius, and Buddha, and none will admit that the "Buddha" 

 is "Christ." 



Professor Giles' solvuntur tabula is useless, for there 

 is no "President" to decide the issue. But, if any suffra- 

 gium were possible, the majority of China's four hundred 

 millions (who may be supposed to know their own sages and 

 gods when they see them — perhaps more intimately than 

 many Western peoples know theirs) would certainly not 

 be on Professor Giles' side. As far as I can see, the majority 

 of Western scholars would not be on his side either. The 

 matter, in any case, surely does not possess the importance 

 which Professor Giles seems to attach to it. Even if he 

 had discovered a Chinese outline drawing of Christ so ill- 

 disguised as a Nestorian priest a.s to be mistaken by most 

 people for Buddha and attended by two Nestorian priests 

 closely resembling Lao Tzii and Confucius, that could hardly 

 warrant so much ado. All the Chinese and Western scholars 

 I have consulted are dead against him. The "hilarious 

 laughter," by the way, to which Professor Giles replies with 

 his tu quoque "friendly giggle," was theirs, not mine, and 

 though hilar'ous laughter might effectually drown a giggle, I 

 have no desire to engage in so childish a competition as 

 striving for the "last word" or the "last laugh." I would 

 prefer to smile and shake hands, if there were any prospect 

 of agreement. If it is to be a matter of laughter rather than 

 giggles, surely the sentence on p. 36: "No Chinese artist 

 could have painted such a picture without infinite risk to his 

 valued skin," etc., is enough to excite it in no> small degree! 

 But I can discern no profitable future for the discussion, 

 and have no wish "to spend further time in continuing it 

 m i tli a stiffnecked controversialist who dubs as "absurd" an 

 explanation supported by many Chinese and Western 

 scholars, who have given their opinions independently, unless 

 (which seems extremely unlikely) any useful object is to be 

 attained, and unless, there being a reasonable prospect of 

 agreement, the discussion is carried on in a spirit of sweet 

 reasonableness and constructive lovingkindness. As it is, 

 nothing which Professor Giles has said hitherto, and nothing 

 which he says here, causes me to change my conviction that 

 he is mistaken in his interpretation of the picture and its 

 motto. While I hold that there can rightly be none but 

 a negative answer to his question, "Art Thou the Christ?'* 



