"Thus, in addition to the perfect regulations, we have added six more, making nine altogether. Do not go and turn your backs on the Father, Brother, myself, and my son, who illuminate all places, benevolently harmonizing them for a myriad myriad generations...."
The words "Father—Brother" are, in the Chinese text, raised the usual number of spaces above "myself and my son," which at once properly represents the Divinity. Any unprejudiced mind would certainly understand the sentence as meaning that—"the Father, Brother, Myself, and my Son," in our respective spheres, benevolently harmonize all things. Dr. Rennie, however, tries to prove the blasphemous nature of the Ti-pings in the following manner:—At page 90, first volume of his work, he misquotes the clause of the proclamation referred to in this way:—
"Now do not in the least turn away your back upon Ya-ko-chum and Yan (?)—God, Christ, myself, and son—who illuminate all places AS ONE BODY POLITIC, benevolently harmonizing them for ten thousand times ten thousand generations."
Where does Dr. Rennie get the interpolation from? It is a totally un-Chinese expression, but a favourite term with English diplomatists. It appears a clever attempt to alter the sense of the proclamation, and brand the Ti-pings with the crime of blasphemy. There are other cases in which the author of "Peking and the Pekingese" goes out of his way to endorse second-hand opinions inimical to the Ti-pings; but as he does not attempt to corroborate them by any mention of his own experience, it is unnecessary to further notice such valueless statements; the misquotation exposed above, not only evidences how little reliance is to be placed on the clique of Ti-ping maligners, but forms a fitting conclusion to our acquaintance with a book which would have been more valuable had the author refrained from aspersing a political cause of which he knows literally nothing.
The misrepresentation contained in "Chinese Miscellanies," though merely consisting of one sentence and a foot-note, is important and worthy of contradiction, because it is promulgated by Sir J. F. Davis. Speaking, in the preface, of the Governments of China and Japan, he states:—
"With all their faults they are, in their integral characteristics, better than the mock Christian[85] Taepings of China...."
As for the mockery of Christianity, perhaps the readers of "Ti-ping Tien Kwoh" may agree with its author in believing that it has been altogether upon the part of those who, like Sir J. Davis, have scoffed at, abused, and ridiculed the faith of the Ti-pings. Many millions of men do not establish a great revolution, and sacrifice their lives for a mock purpose, whatever Sir J. Davis may think to the contrary. If "it has been plain from the first" that the Ti-pings were no more like Christians than Mahomet was like a Jew, will the clever discoverer kindly explain the meaning of the statements of the Bishop of Victoria, Revs. Edkins, John, Medhurst, Muirhead, &c., referred to and quoted in this work?
All that now remains to be noticed are the movements of the Ti-pings since capturing the city of Chang-chew, near Amoy, their present circumstances and position.
After holding a large portion of the province of Fu-keen for about eight months, on the 16th of May, 1865, the Ti-pings evacuated the city of Chang-chew, and moved off to the westward.
This proceeding took both Europeans and Imperialists completely by surprise; for, up to the day before the Shi-wang left Chang-chew, his outposts were five miles from the city, and the Manchoo forces had not ventured to attack them for a long time. The place was also strongly fortified and well-provisioned—so much so, indeed, that large stores of grain, &c., were left behind,—while the country to the west and south was entirely under the control of the Ti-pings.