The disciples of Swedenborg will read with interest a little book of a mildly controversial character by B. F. Barrett, which endeavors to show what the New Church really is.[20 ] The controversy is not with the unbelievers in Swedenborg, but with some prominent persons among his disciples. Its object is to show that the New Jerusalem, or New Church, is not an organized and visible body of people united by a creed and a form of worship more or less uniform. This view, although, as the writer says, it has prevailed among the students of Swedenborg for nearly a hundred years and is probably held by a large majority of them at the present day, he regards as an utterly mistaken conception. He, on the contrary, regards the theory of separation as false and vicious. The function of Swedenborgianism, if so it must be called, he believes to be to uproot and destroy the mischievous spirit of sect, to exalt charity above faith, life above doctrine, both inside and outside of all the churches. This he regards as that second coming of the Lord which Swedenborg taught; and this he sees in the signs of the times. Few of us know really what Swedenborgianism is; and some of us have tried in vain to discover what there is in it which captivates some clear-headed as well as true-hearted men. But if this be Swedenborgianism, who of us is there that will not bid it God speed?
—"The Library of Swedenborg,"[21 ] edited by Mr. Barrett, is to consist of twelve handy volumes, giving a complete summary of Swedenborg's system in a series of extracts from his writings, grouped together under appropriate headings, indicating the special doctrine they illustrate. These volumes are of the most convenient size and neatly printed and bound. They are, in short, in every respect in contrast with the bulky tomes in which Swedenborg's system is usually and so repulsively presented. Three volumes of the series have thus far been published.
A book the author of which publishes his own portrait as a frontispiece is opened with prejudice by most sensible men, we believe, and phrenology is not regarded with great favor by the majority of such readers. But here is a book which is able to stand up against both these prejudices.[22 ] Whatever we may think of phrenology, we cannot withhold our hearty approval of the methods of teaching which are recommended by Mr. Sizer. He would have the teacher study his pupil, watch the action of his mind, detect his propensities, and then direct his efforts accordingly. The author does not content himself with generalities; he goes into particulars; he indicates temperaments, describes mental traits and modes of action, and gives good counsel as to their direction. His views of training include the moral as well as the mental side of the pupil, and also his physical nature. Children trained according to the system here recommended and set forth would have the most made of them that their organizations permit. We commend the book to all teachers and parents. It will interest them, and if they study it and follow its counsels, it will profit their children. As to the phrenology of it, they may let that go. Like the allegory of "The Faerie Queene," it won't bite them.
In poetry we have before us this month only a sacred tragedy, the writer of which we fear has been misled into verse-writing by an ambition to justify his parents' choice of a name.[23 ] The incidents of his tragedy are of course derived from the Old Testament, and in every case in which they are in any way modified it is for the worse. His poetry reminds us of that dreary stuff that was written before the appearance of Marlowe and the other Elizabethan dramatists. We wonder that the writer undertook a subject which had been so ably handled by others before him, and particularly by Charles Heavysege, to whose vigorous and highly picturesque dramatic poem[24 ] we direct the attention of our poetry-loving readers.
NEBULÆ.
—The result of months of agitation and negotiation is that to Russia is left the task of driving the Turks out of Europe single-handed. Well, Russia is content, and not only content, but pleased. She does not object to being left to seek her own ends by her own means, and would like nothing better than to have all the other powers take the position of disinterested bystanders while she whops poor little Johnny Turk, and takes as much as she likes of his territory by way of indemnity. She meant this all along, and it has been amusing to see how she has with a combination of tact and persistency attained her end. Of course as to her motives there can be no doubt; they are purely philanthropic and religious. It is for the Christians in the Turkish provinces, about whom England began the disturbance, the result of which promises to be Russia's success and her own discomfiture. The attitude of Turkey wins respect and sympathy. It has been manly in tone, and in diplomacy not unskilful. The Turks have always shown a combination of stubbornness and craft which have made them, except in the field, more than a match for their Christian enemies. Without approving Turkish faith or life, we may yet admire the firmness and dignity with which they have refused to submit to a dictation which would exclude them from the rank of independent nations. They made the mistake of not putting the Czar palpably in the wrong, which they would have done by sending the embassy to St. Petersburg to treat of disarmament. But he would have probably wriggled but of this position in some way; and of this they may have felt sure. Plainly the Turks feel that they are in a crisis of their national existence, and they are desperate. They know of course that between Great Britain and Russia there is a determination to drive them out of Europe, and that their only safety thus far has been in the rivalry and jealousy of those two powers. Since the effort is to be made, they feel that they are in as good a condition to resist it now as they ever will be; and with the desperation of their character they have gone into the unequal fight. What will be the end, no one can foresee; but of one thing we may be sure, that the British Government will not fight for the Turks, and as certainly they will not fight with Russia against them. Neither Germany nor Austria is likely to spend blood and treasure for the aggrandizement of Russia. Therefore, although some publicists look for a great change in the map of Europe, it seems rather that the result of the war, even if it be unfavorable to Turkey, will be little more than the liberation and autonomy of one or two of the provinces.