EMAHUEL SWEDENBalG

MD
niE REVOLT AGAINST DEISM

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Faculty or the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Brandeis University

Department of History of Ideas

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements of the Degree
. Doctor of Philosophy

By

Robert H. Kirven

I April 196,5

ProCessor Herbert Marcuse

Principal Advisor

 ' .
1'hIa c:Uuertatloa ha bMD

.,
j
mlaofllmed euc;t1,. u ree:e-cl
65-14,424 !
I
KIRVEN, Robert H•• 1926­
EMANUEL SWEDENBORG AND THE REVOLT
An....mST DEISM.
I
Brandeis University. Fh.D•• 1965
Philosophy

University Microfilms. Inc., Ann AlOOf, Michigan.

@ Copyright by

Robert H. Kirven

1966

·This dissertation, directed and approved by the candidate'.

Committee, has been accepted and approved by the Graduate
Facqlty of Brandeis University in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOaOF PHILOSOPHY

JUN .,.. ,"..

Date

Dissertation Committee
 TABLE OF CClITENTS
.age
r-
I LIST OF ABBREVIATI~S.
• • • • · . . • • • • • • • • •
vi
INTRCDUCTI~ • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . .. . . . 1

The Problem ot IndIvIdual Ideas and

Intellectual Movements • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

"Swedenborg and the Revolt AgaInst OeIs.­

as a Signiticant Case Study• • • • • • • • • • 3

c- The Background ot the Revolt Against DeIs• • • • S

Swedenborg and DeIs• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 12

A ContrIbutIon to the Revolt AgaInst DeIs.:

Swedenborg's Idea ot EmpIrIcal RevelatIon • • • 16

Plan ot the'Study• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 24

Notes. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 27

PART I.

SWEDENBCRG' S C~CEPT AND THE KEY ISSUES

. CF THE REVa.T

~
haPter
(~ E~"PIRIC\L REVELATIOO AND THE BASIC

~ PlU::SUPPOSI1I~S OF' RELIGIaJS THaJGHT • • • • • 32

Relevant Factors In the G~rman Intellectual

Climate, c. l~SO: PIetIsm, and HistorIcal

CrIticism: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 32

PIetIsm~ • • • • • • • ·......
Historical Criticism: J. A. ErnestI • • • • •
•• ••• 33

3$

German Reaction to Swedenborg'.

Pre_~~stlcal Phllo~Qphy• • • • • • • • • • • 44

lro'J':'."\nuel Kant, "od His Reaction to

,~w~danborg • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• 46

-:.. Two DacC"18nts. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4.'/

The Three An~c~~t.,. • • . .......... 50

jtan t' s Amb i gill toy • • • • • • • • • • • • • I 51

IH
Chapter Page
Kant's Reaction to Swedenborg• • • • • • • • • 57

F. C. Oetinger's Reaction to Swedenborg• • • • 65·

The Religious View. • • • • • • • • •• 70'
The Philosophical View • • • • • • • • • • • 71

The Theological View • • • • • • • • • • • • 79

Cr-iteria for Judgment of Empirical

Revelation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 82

The Course of Development of Oetinger's

.Attitude • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 85

Minor Reactions to Swedenborg. • • • • • • •• 90

Heinrich Clemm • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 90

Johann ~aspar Lavater. • • • • • • • • • • • . 93

Summary Conclusion • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • 95

N~te.. • • • • • • • • • • • ..
• • •• • • • 96

SPEC IAL REVELAT ICN, CHURCH REFOOM AND

SECTARIANISM • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 109

Thomas Hartley (1707.1784) • • • • • • • • • • 118

John Clawes (1743-1831) • • • • • • • • • • • • 127

Robert Hindmarsh (1759-1835l-.--.~• • • • • • • 135

Swedenborg's RevelaUon: the RepUe. JJ

to Dr. Priestly. • • •• • •••••••• 141

Notes. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1$0

CD POLF.MICAL AND ANALYTICAL CRIGINS CE THE

PSYCHOLOGY CE RELIGION • • • • • • • • • ·.
• 158

P~~JmJlca! ~!y~hology or Religions

'..:!.Oh~Y!.l• • • • • • • • • • • • •• •• 164

Analytical Psychology or Religions

Johann Gottfried Herder. • • • • •

• • • • • 173
Not... • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • 184
PART II.

SWEDENBORG' S ccr'C~PT AND THE DEVELOPMENT

OF THE REVOLT

® DEVELOPMENTS IN ~~Gl.AND • • • • • • • • • • • • • 188

Th~ Sectarian =0Sdenborgian Traditio~• • • • • 190

___ T~e Romantic Swedenborgian Tradition in

England • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 198

Iv
 Chapter Page
1. William Blake • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 198
2. Sou they ana e Quincey Contra
·Swedenborg • • • • '. • • • • • • 204
3. Coleridge on Swedenborg• • • • • • • • • 206
Summary of the English Developments • • • • • • 211
Notes • • • • • 4e ••••••••••••••• 213
~ DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE • • • • • • • • • • • • • 211
The Expatriates. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 219
The Intellectuals• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 226
Personal Revolts. • • • • • • • •••• 228
The Ecclesiastical Movement • • • • • • • • • • 239
Honor' de Balzac • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 243
Conclusion • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 253
Notes. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 254
® GERMAN DEVELOPMENTS• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 259
Romantic Literature • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 259
Romantic Philosophy• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 265
Johann Friedrich Immanuel iafel • • • • • • • • 21i
~ilosophy • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 278
Ecclesiology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 284
Psychology • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 290
Summary. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 294
Notes. e
•• _ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 296
,-
CONCLUS ICJl • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 301
Swedenborg's Idea: "Empirical P . &lation" •• 301
The Revolt Against Deism • • • • • • . • • • • • 309
General Conclusions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 311
Note.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 323
B IBL100RAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 324

v
 LIST OF ABBREVIATICNS USED FCR

SWEDENBORG'S WORKS

!& Co·r, Al"cana..)_-Arcana Coelestla, etc. (The Heavenly Myster­

Ies, which are in tht: Sacred Scripture or the Word ot
the Lord; disclosed). London: John Lewls, 1749-S6.
!l-g~~s.
Ad_~versarla. (Written 1745-46, published posthumously by
-- J. F. I. Tafel, Tublngen: Verlagsexpedltlon, 1842-47,
six volumes). References are also given for the English
translation, which has Incompatible paragraph number.s
The Word Explained, 10 volumes (Bryn Athyn, Pa.s The
Academy of the New Church, 1948-51).
~--Apocalypsls Expllc~ta (The Apocalypse Explained according
to its spiritual sense, wherein are revealed the myster­
ies there foretold), 4 volumes. (Written 1745-59, pub_
lished posthumously by Robert Hlndmarsh (London: Robert
Hindmarsh, 1785-89).
~_-Apocalypsis Revelat~ (The Apocalypse Revealed, wherein are
disclosed the mysteries there foretold, which have hith­
erto remained concealed). Amsterdam: ~priv~te), 1766.
De Anlma__ (On the Soul), Part VII of Regnum Anlmale (~), ~.~.
English translation, The So~l, or Hatlonal Psychology
(New York: New Church Board of PUblication, 1887).
Doe, Llfe_..Doc . Ina Vitae pro Nova Hlerosoh;ma ex 'praecepUs
Oecalooi (Uoctrine of Life for the New Jerusalem from
the precepts of the Decalogue). Amsterdam: 1763.
DLW_..De Divino Amore et de Divine Saplentla (Angelic Wisdom
- concerning the Divine Love and the DIvine Wisdom). New
York: American Swedenborg Printing and Publ~shing
Society, 1890. .
DP_-Dlvina ~ vldentia (Angelic Wisdom respecting Divine
-- Providence). Amsterdam: 1764.
E~U._-Qe TeJlurfbus in Mundo nostro Solari, etc. (Ear.ths in
tha UnlverQe; or, ~arths in our Solar System which are
called ~lanets, and the earths in t~e ,tarry ~eavens;
the 11" Inhabitants, and also tile spirl ts and angels
there; from things heard and seen). London: 1756.
liruD" Cuto et CW,.us mrl'.b111.h "s,a"J..L.!!! In~r""J ~x a'.1.cUj},!
et. vb! .. [Heaven and h .1 J or, H(l., ;,;" !'.nd :i ls wonders,
and of Hell, from things Heard and Seen). Londons 17S6.

vi
Infin ••-Prodromus Philosophiae ratiocinatis de Infinite et
----- causa finali Creationis: deque mechanismo opera--Animae
et Corporis ("On the Infinite n or, Preliminary attempt
at a philosophical argument on the Infinite, and on the
final cause of Creation; and on the mechanism of the
operation of the Soul and Body). Dresden/Leipzig:
Hekel, 1734. .
11-.oe Ultimo Judicio, etc. (The Last Judgment and the Destruc.
tion of Babylon, showing that what was foretold in the
Book of Revelation has been fulfilled in the present day;
from things heard and seen). London: 1758.
On Influx_.oe Commercio Animae et Corporis, etc. (The Inter_
course between the 50ul and the Body, which is supposed
to take place either by physical influx, or by spiritual
influx, or by pre_established harmony). London: 1769.
S!!--Qeconomia Regni Animalis (The usual English title, "Econ.
omy of the Animal Kingdom" is misleading; "Function (or
Structure) of the Domain of the Soul" is more descrip.
tive of the work). English trans. London: Newber,y,
1845-46.
~ •••Principia Rerum Naturalium, etc. (The First Principles
of Natural 1bings, being new attempts toward a philoso.
phical explanation of the elementar,y world). "Part I­
of era Philoso hica et Mineralia, 3 vols. Dresdeq/
Leipzig: ekel, 17 • n~lish translation, 2 vols.,
London: W. Newbery, 1845-46-;---­
RA••Reqnum Animale, etc. (The Animal Kingdom [i.e., the Soul's
-- --nomain] considered anatomically, physically and philo.
sophically). 1743-44. Several volumes of this work
were projected, but it was dropped at the beginning or
Swedenborg's psychic experiences. Of the volumes edited
and published posthumously, two are cited in this work:
De Anima (~.v.) and Part I (On the viscera of the abdo.
men; Which aTso includes a "Prologue" to the Whole work).
S.1J English translation, London: W. Newbe~y, 1843.
TCR__Vera Christiana Reliaio (True Christian Religion).
--- Amsterdam: 1771.
~._T!)e lord Explained, Engli3h title or ':y!',ersaria (M), g,•.J!.

NarES TO ABBREVlATIOlS
Unless'oth9~lse noted, all works are available in'a number
of English translattons, including thos~ of the Swedenborg
Foundation, New York; most quotations are drawn from these
editions. Also, unless olheniis" no"~'l, all references are to
paragraph numbers, rather than to payes, the former being uni.
form in all editions and translations.
vU
 INTROOOCTIaf

The Problem or Individual Ideas

and Intellectual Movements

The texts to be examined In this essay In the

history or Ideas have two things In common. The subject

ot each Is an Idea which vas posed and developed by a ma•

. named Emanuel Swedenborg; the author ot each vas a _.

Involved In the Intellectual movement known as the Revolt
against Del... Thus. tro. the outset. the st.dy Involve•.
assumptions about the problematic relationship between the
Individual and the collective; and In the end. It testltl••
tor or against the validity ot these assumptlons./ Sloee

sophlcal. an~se
­
the treatment ot material Is historical. rather than phllo­
..
assumptions are not prominently explicit

In the course ot the study. It Is necessary to state the.

brletly by way ot Introdactlon. I

The tlrst ot these assumptions Is axiomatic. and the

second Is at least presumptively valid; they are stated here
to show the limits ot what Is pre-supposed.~There are such '\
things as Individual Ideas. which In some sense are originated l
by one man; and· thes. m~y be distinguished and Identltled I
by their author and the date ot these expresslons.r Secondly.
there ~~e historical instances In whlch,lt Is usetul to study
1
 2

a particular set ot Ideas as a unit, because the Idea.

within the group stand In a relation to each other that
Is slgnltlcantly dltterent trom their relation to other
Ideas. Such a group ot Ideas l~vol~lng many Individual.
j ,
may be called an Intellectual-moveme~,~hensome__coherent
I ternal resslon distinguishes It trom an Intellectual
development, or trom variations ot a single Idea (e.g., ·the
"
Copernican Revolution, or the _Idea ot Progress); and when
some geographical dlver$lty among the authors, and the ab­
sence ot one determining Idea or author, distinguishes It
trom a school (e.g., the TUblngen, or the Hegellan school).
this detlnltlon ot an Intellectual aovement entail.
the assumption that the relationship between Individual
-
Ideas and whole .oveaents Is necessarily complex. The dl.­
tinction between a MOvement and ·a development preclude.
the possibilIty that one Idea could have the same relatIonshIp
to all the Idea. wIthIn a movement; and the dIstInctIon be­
tween a movement and a .chool excludes decIsIve determlnatlon-­
In either dlrectlon--as characterizIng the relationshIp be­
tween an Idea and a movement. Cause-and-ettect relationship.
In this situation are pluralistic and relative. Internal a.
well as external relatlon8hlps may be slgnltlcantly Intlu­
entlal In either a positive or a negative way.
On the ba.l. ot these pre-supposltlon., It I.
a ••um~d hypothetically that the characteristic relationship
between an Idea and a movell:tu t• la one ott Interaction, j a. In
the case ot Swedenborg's idea ot, emp...!rical revelation,l and
the movement known as the Revolt against »eh..

"Swedenborg and the Revolt against ~i~·

as a Significant case studY

Swedenborg participated in the Revolt against Deisa,

but, was not determined by it. His par~icipation will be

shown by the 'course ot development of bis thougbt in co~

parison to Deism in general, and by the siailarltles aDd

differences between his final position and that of a repre­
sentative deist, Mattb~ Tlndal. Tbese coaparlsons demon­
strate that Swedenborg vas seriously affected by De I sa, aDd
that he sought an effective alternative. Svedenborg'.
relative independence vis-A-vis the Revolt will beco..
apparent trom the fact that his reaction vas atypical of the
movement as a whole.
On the other side of the coin, Swedenborg influenced

the Revolt, without either originating It, or decisively

determining It. His Influence will be demonstrated by the
explicit textual references; that he did not originate, or
decisively determine the movement, .ay be assumed from the
consensus of hIstorians, and tacitly demonstrated by the '
analyses In this study.
In addition to being actaal, and mutually but not
decisively Influential, the relationship between Swedenborg
and the Revolt against. Dehm may be ;;:onsldoili'ed a significant
 4

one as well, If an Investigation of It, reveals any n~~­

---_.
torlcal Inslghts. Su~h Inslghts might further Illualne the
meaning and the Influence ot Swedenborg1s thought; the
development of the thought of any of the subject authors;
or the structure of Inter-relationships between key Ideas
Within the Revolt against Deism, and between th!-Revolt and
Deism Itself. Any significant results produced by this ]
Inquiry may provide (evidence In suppor~ o~ the thesis that .
t~e relationship between Ideas and movements Is 0_ ot
~~~!~action; and also of a corollary, that analysis ot
(minor, or non-determinative, Idea~ Is Important·to tba
understanding of an intellectual movement, and ot the
thought.ot all who participate In It.
this hypothesis and Its corollary bear l~rt8nt
J
Implications tor the study of primary historical source.,
tor th~y suggest a standard for the evaluation ot texts
that Is relatively Independent of their direct Influence or
Independent significance In the history of thought. In the
present paper, tor example, It will be seen that the sectar­
lan Swedenborglan movement, called the New Church, became a
dominating stream of the Swedenbcrglan t~adltlon, and vas
largely det~:~!natIve

-
ot thp. Issue on which the principal
Interaction o-:cut'ud bet'"een 5\i·~de:.borll' s Idea and 'the Revolt
against De~~m. Th~ fact t~at ~h~ tonnd~

---
the New Ch~rch ar~ se~n her~

and HerdtJr, for in-:tar,:e, d.::·,

as !
I~'t
'~!rect r~r~end~r. with Kant
Imply" "Jahe JUdgMnt on
 s

their relative historical significance; It simply describes

the Incompatibility of the different lines of tr~nsmlsslon

of Swedenborglan thought, and the effect of this Incompat-

Ibility on the kind of Interaction which took place between
the . Idea and the movement under examination.

The Backaround of the Revolt against Dels.

Some of the seeds of the anti-deist revolt may have

been older than Deism Itself. In Its definitive form- English
~IS~Of the early eighteenth century--the religious thought --
of Rationalism was a product 0 Natural Theologylandlratlo~­
list. PhIlOSOPhy.lj'
~ Westfall has pointed out so clearly, the Natural
Theology of Boyle, Ray, Newton and others, was radically
ambiguous: the very force of their Insistence that natural
science coul claims be ond any shadow of
doubt, amounted to a covert admission of concerning
doub~

any religious claim that had not been so proved. 2 For Locke,
the notion Implied In his title, the -
Rea~onablen~ss of -
\
Christianity (1695) redounded to the credit of Reason; re-

-
Ilglon needed defense, but reason did not.
Involved no overt attack on revealed religion, It rather
Ignored It as such. Vh~t was revealed, and also $ubJect to
rational proof, was acceptable. What vu. revealed, but not
demonstrable, could not be consl~Hed as v~ry Import."nt to
reasonable men. An intent to d~reud the Chrlstf~n religion
 6

had led to a reconstitution of It. this re on~LLt~s

Inconsistent with the ,supernaturallst ontology, and the ·ab.­

solute epistemological authority of Holy Scripture, that

together formed the basis of traditional 'Christianity; but

It had not faced the Inconsistency, nor deflned'its new

philosophical pre-supposltlons. It was, in a sense, a reli­

gion without a philosophy.

Considered as a philosophy of religion, the classical

Rationalism of Descartes, Lelbnltz and Wolff was distinguished
by the dualism of Its ontological and epistemological theories,
and by the plstemoloa!cal.authorlty given to the faculty of
Reason. 1\ The_ duall ty, variously expressed as mind and body,
thought and extension, spirit and matter, or other equival­
ent ldlchotomles) divided all o! reallt~ ~nto two parts:
each equally real, but discretely dls~inct, with no attributes
,
or qualities shared by both. Extended to theolog , this
rontology]carrles with It not only dualism's perennial problem
of communication between the two kinds of reality, but also
a problem of values: equal r~allty Implying equal signifi­
cance In God and Creation, soul and body. Interdependent
with ontological dualism Is Rationalism's characteristic
epistemological dualism: two distinct faculties of percep­
tion Inform two distinct systems ot kno~ledge, and the ••

.
perceptions and'systems are somehoY ~nlted (the vagueness of
the -how· having bean cloq~ed In ~ermlnologlc~l explanations,
e.g., -oc~aslonal cause- or ·pre-establlsh~d harmony-) In the
 7

Reason--the reasoning faculty of man, This dualism provides

clear epistemological support for the method of Natural
Theology, but the corollary entails an important further step
which the .natural theologians did not take. Philosophical
Rationalism, seeing the dual ism of knowledge united in Reason,
makes Reason the ultimate epistemological authority. Since
Reason is a human faculty, however, the theological consequence
of this is the authoritative superiority of human reason over
revelatJon.
~ a general theological position, Deism vas charac­
terized by explicit expression of the implications Inherent
in Natural Theology and Rationalism. On the basis of the
mechanistic world-view of the natural theologians, It des­
cribed God In the transcendent--and specifically nonlmmanent-­
role sYmbolized by the -watchmaker- analogy. On the basis
of rationalist on\ology and epistemology, It ascribed equal
status to spirit and nature, and to revealed and perceived
knowledge at least In principle. However, where traditional
theology had made revelation superior to reason, and Natural
Theology had made them eq~at" .the rationalhtic corollary-­
that Reason is ultimately authorltatlve--tended to prevail
In practlce. Thus Deism In g~neral represented the religious
cons~quence of the rapidly advancing· natural science, and
of the philosophical Rationalism. The elevation of reason
over revelation made Deism the religious thought ot
Empiricism as well. Rationalism and Empiflcl~m had little
-- --- ~

else In common, but Ideas Intuited from perception, and

 8

ideas directly resulting'from perception, could and did

serve as ··c03rdinate alternatives to revealed ideas, in the

deistic attack on the authority of revelation.

~ism\as a general theological position found its

paradigm in English Deism of the early eighteenth century.

C:Herbert of Cherbury]CDe Veritate, 1624) is usually regarded

as -the Father of Deism,- because of the implications ot
his Natural Theologt; but the definitive
explicit Deism can be date {from 1696 to
derive froa the pUblication of
Mysterious at the beginning of the period, an
----~
Christianity as Old as the Creation: or, the Gospel.

RepUblication of the Religion of Nature. This dating in­

cludes T~d, Shaftesbury, Wh~n, Collins, Vollaston,

Voolston andfTindal1 as the pri~y deistic writers; Herbert

-
ot Cherbury, Hobbes, Tillotson, Locke and Blount as the

main precursors; and Chubb, Bolingbroke and Hume as the main

figures in its decline.

The fact that~ound its

~~~isti~ expression i~ En land
=
most complete and

oes not mean that it

!l
was an. internati~nal movement. The samelcontext ot
philosophical and religious problems hat produced English
Deism were present and important in France and Germany as
11sh daists, in the original language
and in translation, found signirIc~nt readershIp and accept­
ance in those countries. He.1 ,t or Cherbury'a work was as
~
 9

well known In France as In"England;3 To land. Colllns.

------
Ro an
----
Woolston and other Deists were translated Into French; and
....--.. Voltalre circulated characteristically dehUc
vlews. 4 In Germany. ~~tz and Moshe Im had commented on
Toland. C. M. Pfaff on~lns, and Lemker on Woolst~n;S
--
=--- - -- ­ -
-

and beginning as early as 1714. delstlc writers were the

SUbject of academic debates and controversial writings In
the German universities. particularly Helmstldt and TUblnsen. 6
r;lnda~7 wor~. famo~s as the so-called~~sf Blbre;-"j:".
translated Into G!:ma~ln 1741. 7 Even where the Revolt
against Deism was directed against Deism as a ~eneral_posl­

tlon In religious thought. rather than against! the EngliSh]

Delst~-of 1696-1730J these writers represent a sort or (
paradigm of the explicit.
When It occurred.
from another quarter. and on a different basis. than the
antl-del~t polemic Which had been prosecuted with vlgor by
the detenders ot Pietism, Protestant Scholasticism. Thomls.,
--
and other traditional torms ot Christianity.
-
The pole.lc
was conservative, callln tor a reJecti~n ot Deism. and a
return to "true rellglon.- The Revolt. on the other hand.
((I
developed a~o~~ ~en who had been Influenced by Deism. or
by the forces that had shaped It. to~ strongly to turn back.
;C Those who revolted In detense of a tradition did so by
seeking a new ground that would be more .dequate than the
) l old ground which the deists had cut away. and mOr~ adequate
 .10

than Deism itself. Others, apparently feeling that Deisa

represented an indecisive break with~n UDs~tlsfactory trad­

~
-
Ition, sought a cleaner break with Christianity, or at lea.t
with the church. For the former group Deisa vas not religious
enough to be an adequate system of religious thought; for the
too reli io~s; but for both, anl acceptable
alternative to Deism had to be consonant with modern advance.
In science, systematically adequate, and convincing Without
appeal to tradition as an authority.
In Germany, where the concern at first vas prl. .rlly
with the p~ilosophlcal pre-supposltlons required for a .ore
adequate alternative to Deism, the Revolt centered on onto­
logllcal and epistemological issues.
----
As has been noted, Delsa

vas dualistic In these respects. The ground of Its develop­

me~~~~
-
the progressive nature of the Revolt, precladed

-
a return to Su ernaturalism. Therefore
were toward a theoretical or practical Naturalism, on the
t~ open alter~lves

~~or, 0 alnd ~
and body, spirit subs tan­
t..!!.!..- !:!a 11 ty• aware that this op~ to ontologl­
cal dual~ vas -named- In the eighteenth or early nineteenth I
--.J
centurits, though It vas e~presse~ptlvely. It vas
used by Swedenborg In the foundation of his system, and
appea~8 ~o have been the goal of a tendency in the thought
of some of his commentators,L8~ a title for-!t-ls ~1ded In
this study. From ~s a~1 Progoft, I have borraved the
-
 11

--signifying the notion that spirit and matter

are equally and similarly objectl~ely real, together
a whol;]that Is Indivisible except In Intellectual" conception
~oralDg
-
:::::::==- -- 8
based on Incomple~e perception. The term Is not completely
satisfactory, because It Is also used In a largely Irrelevant
context, by those who attribute a special ontological status
to collectlvltles. The obvious alternative, however, would
be 5is'::';1 and this ~rm Is ~s~ I-n precisely the present
context, with materialistic Implications which specifically
contradict Swedenborg's position. Because Smuts. and
especially Pr~off. have :used[~ollaIQ. th:=:xact sense
Intended here. and the contusion comes from what really Is
another field. It seems the best word for the purpose--as
long as Its special usage Is kept In mind.
1. In England.] where phllosophlcal and theological
Issues had become Inseparably Involved with Institutional
forms and practices. the.Revolt centered on the question of
reforming the established church. or separating from It.
France reflected both the' philosophical and institutional
developments, less decisively than England or ~rmany.

Emanuel Swedenborg. whose personal revolt against

Deiam was ~fle~ted in his writings on cystical theology
as compareJ With his writings on natural philosophy. vas
a subject of comment and some controversy, on all si4es of
the Revolt a8 just de3cribad. The ex. eais of these coa.ents
and controversies, Which forms ~he body or this stUdy. reqUire.
 12

a brief Introductory description of Swedenborg, and of his

Idea which was central to his contribution to the Revolt

against Deism.

Swedenborg and Deism

Emanuel Swedenborg (E. Stockbom, 1688; ~. London,

1772) was the son of a pletlst Lutheran bishop and court
preacher. Graduated from Upsala, he studied on the Continent
and in England; became proficient In mathematics and mechanics,
and well-Informed In the natural sciences. He took an appolnt­
.ent to the mining bureau, working at these duties while he
pursued an avocation of Investigations In natural science
and philosophy. He published nine books (leaving several
more In manuscript), as well as articles and pamphlets on
cosmogony, physics, chemistry, physiology, psychology and
other subjects. Like the seventeenth century Christian
Virtuosi, he was seeking. sclCAU.t c support tor religious
__belief; be wanted to tlnd the soul. 9 As a rationalist, he

. . the soul was a~ce$slble'to rational

was convinced that
discovery and demonstratlon. lO Slgnlt!cant yarallels, and

a~undant explicit references, clearly show him ...In line with .

the scientific rationalism of Descartes, Woltf, Boyle,. Newton

and others. He stood close ~nough to Deism to be tully
qualified to revolt against It.
His revolt occurred ~etwten 1743 and 1745, ~her. be
aban-:01\"ld the natural sciences as the ground ot his pili:')$ ,hy,
 1)

replacing it with mystical experiences. Even after this

revo1t--decisive as it was--he remained close enough to
Deism to suggest thatrto a considerable extent, his was a
revolt from within. Matthew Tinda1 1 s Christianity as old as
the Creation may be taken as repres~ntativ.e o~ deist thought;
a brief comparison with Swedenborg will clarify the kinds ot
similarities and differences.
Tinda1 had four main assertions about what religion
!! (along with much, in the vein of characteristically deistic
iconoclasm, about what it is not): religion is reasonable,
et~a1, natural, and selfish.
The first and most i~ortant point--the reasonable­
ness of re1igion--is repeated many times In many ways. On.
of the clearest Is:

God [has) designed all Mankind should at a1f Times know,

what he wills them to know, believe and practice; and
has given them no other Means for this, but the Use of
Reason• • • • What God requires us to know, believe and
practice, must in itself be a reasonable Service; but
whether what is offered to us as such, be really so, Itls
Reason alone which must JUd9e'.~
Swedenborg agreed fully In 1734.
Philosophy, If it be truly rational, can never be con­
trary to revelation• • • • The rational cannot be
cont~ary to the Divine; since the end for which reason
is given us, is, that ve may be empo·",er~d to perceive
that there Is a God, and to know that He Is to be wor­
shfpped. 12

He agreed again, in 1770, When he had a vision of a temp1.,

with -this inscription above the door, Nunc tlc?t, which
signified that now It Is permitted to enter with the
understanding Into the mysteries of faith. I) The Interval
between these two statements. and the differences In them.
suggest that Swedenborg the mystic theologian held reason
In as much esteem as did Tlndal. but In doing so, he expanded

-
his definition of reason from the one he originally shared
with the Deists.
Tlndalts second assertion, that religion Is ethical.
stems from his definition of -Natural Rellglon.- a's consist­
Ing of three essential elements: belief In God's existence.

­
knowledge of our relation to him and to our fellow-creatures.
and practice of his wlll. 14 Which of these three Is most
Important Is soon made clear: -We may define True Religion
to consist In a constant Disposition of Mind to do all the
-----
Good we can.-
-t -
In spite of one maJor difference. this
--
closely resembles Swedenborg:

There are three essentials of the Church,--the

acknowledgment of the Divine of the Lord, the acknowledg­
ment of the hQllgess of the Word. and the life which Is
called charity.! .,
All religion has to do with life. and the life of

religion to do that which Is good. l ?

The difference here--In the second essential. since Tlndal

had no Interest In -the holiness of the \brd"--Is not complete;
for Swedenborg, this would Include all that Tlndal Intended
In his second e3sentlal. Th~ primacy of ethical practice Is
entirely parallel.
 IS

Tindal's fou~~h principle, the naturalness ot

-
religion, may be epitomized in two statements:

God's Will is so clearly, and fully manifested in the

Book of Nature, that he who runs may read it. 18
Was there an instituted Religion which di££~ from that )
o~ature, its Precepts must be arbitrary, as not founded .)
on the Reason and Nature of Things, b d~p'ending on meer
[sic] Will and Pleasure • • • • God, the great-Gov~or
of the n[verse, can't give mankind any such Precepts. 19

Similarly, Swedenborg:

In nature are represented the celestial goods and

truths which are of Heaven.20
God t s omnipotence does not enable Him to do this

[transform men outside the orderly nature of things,

and against mants will], for the reason that It would

be contrary to the laws of His order In the universe,

and at the same time contrary to the laws of order

enjoined upon every man. 21

Tindalts fourth assertion, that religion Is Wholly

devoted to the "l~lf!!.e and happiness of him. who beUeves
and practices It,
22'
Is ~d
.
to a limited extent by ~
r1.J.J ,...A d<>'-J'­
u-.fJ ..........

1"'-"
~.denborgts claim that self-love, Including enjoyment ot
the wealth and status attendant on doing important work,
is an essential part of true religlon. 23 But Swedenborg
emphasizes repeatedly In the same passage, that this is
true only when self-love is subordinated to love to the
neighbor, and both of these are subordinated to love to
the Lord. 24 Tindal assumes that doing good for others
makes men happy,25 but says nothing about loving God-­
worship being merely for elevating the mind. 26
 The differences between Swedenborg and Tlndal can be
summed up rather simply, and the summation would hold for
a more detailed comparison. S~o~~ made stateme~parall~l

to almost every positive assertion made by the deists; In some

cases (as especially In point four), he would place the asser­
tion In a larger context; ~, he mad~ny more assertions
t~w~-!e unacceptable to Deism. Swedenborg's personal re­
volt against Deism was essentially n expansion of the deist
concept of religion, on the grounds o~lhls conviction that
Deism was not reIl lous enough to be an adequate system or
rellglous thought. If His expansion was prlmarlly In the dlrec- \
tlon of InclUding mystical, or spiritual, concepts In his
---~....;;..--
system of thou9htWhe tried to make this Inclusion co~ent
with his own Inclination toward Rationalism and scientific
method. It was In thl~ attempt that he developed the Idea
~

that constituted his major contribution to the general

Revolt against Deism.

A Contribution to the Revolt a~alnstDelsm:

~{enborgis Idea ef implrlca Revelation

In 1769, Swedenborg described himself In an auto­

biographical letter written at a friend's request. He began
by listing his travels, his public service and recognltlons,
his scientific accomplishments, family connections, hlghly­
---.
placed friends and royal favor. -But all that I have thus
far related,- he continued, -I consider of comparatively
 17

little importance.- "What ~ important, he said, ~s his

Christ-vision of 1743, and the extraordinary experiences that
folloved.

He [the Lord] opened my sight into the spiritual world,

and enabled me to converse with spirits and angels, in
which state I have continued to the present day. Fro.
that time, I began to print and publish the various'
arcana that were seen by me or revealed to me, concerning
• • • most important matters conducive to salvation and
wlsdom. 2 7

Some of 'his works bore the subtitle, -tro. things

heard and ,seen (ex audltls et vlsu), _28 and bls chief work,
Arcana Coelestla (1747-58), Includes In the tull title,
-wondertul things seen In the worldot spirits and the
heaven of angels.- He recounted hundreds of conversations
with spirits, visits to places In the spiritual world, and
other such experiences.
-
otten these accounts vere casual
references In the course ot a discussion; but trequently,
too, he would narrate one or a group of such anecdotes, at
length, under the heading of -Memorabllla---somevhat after
the manner of the then-tashlonable memorabilia ot travelers
returned from the OTient, Atrlca, or South ~rlca. He ~s

not writing tor entertainment, however, nvr to satlsty Idle

curiosity. He maintained that these stories were written

the Lord Himself • • • has sent me to do that Which 1

am doing now, and • • • for' this pur!'o'5e he has opened
the int~rioi's of my mind, whl',h ar~ th,jtS" of my spirit,
so that I rr£y S~€ those things ~hich Are In the spiritual
world, and hear those who are there. 2 9
 18

What he vrote as a result of these experiences of seeing

and hearing, came under the category of ·revelation,· as
opposed to "predictions,· (Revelatlones, prophetiae), and
vere ·sensible revelations· (revelatio sen$ibiliter fiebat ,
as distinct from automatic vriting, or verbal inspiration. 30
He claimed to have experienced the other varieties ot revel­
~

ation, too, so that he knev vhat they vere, but he did not
use them in his published vorks. Further, iD-C_qntradistlnc­
tion to that revelation vhich he said Is universally acees­
.-­
)1 ­
sible through proper reading of the Bible, his experiences
of seeing and conversing vlth spirits and angels constituted
·immediate revelation" (immediata Revelatlo).32

-----
SvedeQborg vas avare that his claim to Immediate
revelation by means of sensible experience I n the spiritual

of supp'ortln~
--------- -
vorld vould be hard to accept, and he offered various kinds
evidence and explanation.
One kind of support might be called the evidence ot
empirical certainty:

I am veil avare that many persons viii Insist that It

is Impossible for anyone to converse vith spirits and
angels during his life In the body; many, that such
Intercourse-must be mere fancy; some; that I have In­
vented such relations In order to gain credit; vhllst
others viII make other objections; for all these,
hovever, I c~je not, since I have heard, 1 have seen,
1 have felt.

Here and elsevhere, Svedenborg's certainty regarding hi.

psychic experiences appears equivalent to the certainty that
 19

normally accompanies sense perception. To the certainty

that be did see and hear something, ~s added the certainty
that he saw and heard clearly and distinctly:

1 affirm In truth that they [the Memorabilia] are not

Inventions, but were truly seen and heard; not seen or
heard In any slee~~ng state of mind, but In a state ot
full ~kefulness. ~

-- Another kind of evidence might be called comparative

data. Clearly, this was his favorlte. A kind of -formula­
recurs on what may veil be an average of once per page:
"That [A Is B (an assertion based on his empirical revelation)]
may be seen from [C, D, E, • • • N (comparative observatlons»).­
Most frequently, the comparative observations were biblical
texts,35 a preference for which he had a systematic basls. 36
Sometlme3, however, the comparisons were drawn from observations
In nature,37 from general human experlence,38 from the tradi­
tions of the Church,39 and from other sources.
-- Also In support of his assertions, "he adduces an
explanation based partly on his empirical revelation, but
based equally on the psychological theory he had elaborated
at length In his earlier studies of natural philosophy.
Immediately following the first assertion of empirical cer­
tainty cited above,40 he adds the explanation that "Man.
Is capable of conversing with angels, • • • for he Is one
with them, being a spirit clothed with a bOdy._4 1 This uni­
versal capability was only potential, having fallen Into
 20

disuse, and had become unknown; but In Swedenborg1s case,

the theoretical potentiality had been ac~ualized to a unique
degree. 42
.
Swedenborg1s reterences to his spiritual experiences,
to data derived trom them, and to evidence tor the validity
ot the data, run to hundreds ot citations. Nevertheless,
he had comparatively little to say aboat the underlying
~--the actualized possibility ot such a ~d.'ot knowing.
He devoted no explicit discussion to its tundamental role
In his system; he gives It no name to distinguish It trom
the common conception ot experiential knowing. For brevity
and convenience in this paper, I have coined the tera -em­
pirical revelation- to denote this distinctive idea ot
Swe~enborgls; but some care must be taken to specity and
limit the meaning intended by the coinage. Swedenborgls
claim was that his psychie experiences were revelatory, and
that the revelation he was commissioned to transmit to th.
world was received In and through these experiences. Thus,
both terms ot the coinage are Intended to be descriptive ot
Swedenborg1s Idea, and the claim entailed by It. No attempt
Is made to pre-Judge either part of the question (I.e.,
whether he did In tact receive a revelation, or--It he did-­
whether or not It constituted empirical knowledge), by
echoing Swedenborg1s claim In the term, -empirical revelatlon--­
even though it is used trom here on without quotation mark.
or annotation. The lAtention to use the term In a non-prejudicial
 21

sense should not, however, obscure the full extent of the

el aim. It was not Just that S"!'edenborg had "experienced­
revelation (a sense in which all revelation must necessarily
be called empirical); the point vas that Swedenborg claimed
to have received revelation, not through visions or voices
for which he vas a mere amanuensis, but in and through psychic
experiences--experiences which he recorded, but also inter­
preted, an~ whose data he regarded as methodologically com­
patible With all empirical data, and of equal truth value
with the data of sense perceptions.
In his methodology--both theory and practice--it is
characteristic of this idea, that no distinction is made
between physical and psychic experience or perception. The
parallel between the treatment of physical and psychic
experience is quite complete. Physical experience is commonly
cited without recourse to the idea of experience; physical
experience contains its own evidence of having occurred;
its data is compared with other data for evidence of valid­
ity; the possibility of physical experience must be accounted
for in an adequate psychological theory. We have Just seen
hoW Swedenborg viewed spiritual experience in Just the same
way on all four points. Empirical revelation was posited as
being epistemologically equivalent, and systematically com­
patible, with all empirical perceptions.
Out of the complete theological system whose basis
included these epistemological presuppositions, the concept
 22

most frequently commented upon as an example of the consequences

of the idea of empirical revelation,43 probably was the concept
of ·correspondence· b~tween spiritual and natural realities.
Swedenborg had speculated on it in his earlier philosophicaf
works,44 but he adopted it as a basic principle after his
psychic .experiences had fully confirmed it, and given it
detailed substance. Fundamentally, it was a corol~ary to
his ontological theory.

There is a perfect union of things spiritual and

natural with man • • • [and similarly with} each
and everything in the world; there is the spiritual,
which is the inmost of the cause, and there is the
natural, which is its effect, and these two make one;
and the spiritual does not appear in the natural,
because it is in it as the soul is in the bod3/:, and
as the inmost of the cause is in the effect.~>
1

But the idea of correspondence had important epistemological

. implications as well, particularly in biblical interpretation,
because:

It is similar with the Word; that this in its bosom

is spiritual, because it is Divine, can be denied by
no one; but as the spiritual does not appear in the
sense of the letter, which is natural, therefore the
spiritual sense has been hitherto unknown; nor could
it have been known beforegenu!ne truths,yere revealed
by the Lord, for that sense is in these.4b

Although Swedenborg appreciated the boldness of his

claim to be a revelator, and realized that many would doubt
the possibility of sensible contact with spirits--and doubt
the possibility of the existence of spiritual beings, or ot
 23

a life after death--it may be that he was unable to appreciate

fully the revolutionary nature of the idea of empirical revela­
tion itself. Rant realized it, and his question was a basic
one:

5011 er [der Philosoph] nur eine einzige dieser

Erzahlungen [des. Geistererscheinungen] als wahrscbein­
lich einraumen1 Wie wichtig ware ein solches Gestand­
niss, und in welche erstaunliche Folgen sieht man
binaus, wenn auch eine solcpe Begebenheit als bewiesen
vorausgestzt werden k8nntel47

Whether serious or supercilious (the possibility that it may

have been both will be considered later), the question reflects
the anxiety that would be raised by serious consideration ot
Swedenborg's idea. A similar anxiety had been recurring in
various quarters of philosophy all through the modern period:
it characterized the reaction to the idea ot the movement
of the earth, attraction at a distance, and other shocks ot
the new science. Galileo, who did not share the anxiety,
expressed it sympathetically, in terms not unlike Kant's:

This is a bald denial of manifest sense; and it the

senses ought not to be believed, by ~hat other portal
shall we enter into philosophizing74~

John Donne, who did share it, expressed it more desperately:

-'Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone.- 49 The fact that
Swedenborg's idea did not stir such violent and widespread
reactlons--that in many cases, it was dismissed without
serious consideration--may obscure the radical challenge
 24

It presented to systematic thought. Its potential Impact

~--
Is fully appropriate to comp~rlson with the Copernican
Revolullin, t:or--.-the .. assumpt_lo_~ that psychic .!!!d physl'c_al data
could be SQDside-ped.. ··tE)g~lh.er. If taken seriously, would
have threatened the philosophy of being. of knowledge. and
of God. with the same kind of anxiety.
Swedenborg did not feel the anxiety. an~ he did not
speak to It directly. The Idea of empirical revelation vas
self-certifying to him. and lts Impllcatlons f.ltted e,slly
Into the system he had already begun to develop. He apparently
felt no need to Justify It--except pragmatically. by using It.
His readers were troubled by It. however. The ways In which

-
they managed to accept It or reject It were various; but In
-
each case. the- reaction vas Inextricably bound up with the
~arch for an ~~tlve to ~Is-;:-~fo:n~n SWede~rg's
Idea of empirical revelation a basis fer a satisfactory alter­
native to Deism; who could not accept it. found In
It a suggestion which they developed Into an anti-deist posi­
tion; ~~found their direction for a revolt against
Deism In the arguments which they marshalled to reject
Swedenborg1s idea.

Plan of the StUdy

Taking the foregoing ~eflnltlons of the Revolt a alnst

~Jsm. and of SvedenborgtB Idea of empl2:lcal revelation. as
the movement and the Idea which form he two poles of this study,'
 now begln~ In Part I
~
with an Issue which
l£ll centra) tQ.. the ~evo1t against Deism, and In which Sweden­
borg's Idea became Involved In the thought of the participants
In the Revolt. Each of these first three chaptersl follows a
( slmllar outllne{1 after an Introduct0.TY dellneatlon ~he
\ Issue, attention Is focused on ~the men and the .xts that tlrst
\\ 4. __ _ _ r,
ralsed~he Issue In connection with Swedenborg's Idea •. Treat­
----...
m~slvary slightly according to situation: more personal
background Is given fo~r-relatlvely obscure tlgures than tor
~ us ones; and{the exegeses of the-texts are more or less
de~ed, depending on a Judgment of their relative~l­

-cance In this particular study. JI Occasional comparhons,

.
and observations on Influence, as well as chapter Introduc­
tions and summaries, are Intended to contrlbute((to the con­
tlnult which underlies the sequence of studles~of ~~~al

men and works. In this way, Part I attempts to describe t~e

basic Issues which arose from the Interaction of Swedenborg's

Idea and' the~evolt a~S~DeI~ Because each chapter
deals with one Issue, no geographical or chronologlcalJunlty
• Is Intended; the fact that Ch~ter One (on the philosophical

-
-~--~
Issue) deals with Germans of the 1760's and '70's, and
C~pter Two (on the ecclesiastical Issue) deals with Engll~h­

)J
------
men of the 1770's snd '80's, Is a coincidence for Which an
explanation Is suggested In the Conclusion. The diversity
 26

of subjects in Chapter Three (on the psychological issue)

-
approximates what might-have been expected from the topical
arrangement.
Part 11 trac~~e d~elopment of the Issues described
in Part I. and abandons the topical arrangement in favor or

-
a geographical one:
- the three chapters deal in turn with
English. French and German developments. occurring between
----:--'\

L the turn of the ce~uryand 1840./ Though the cut-off point

Is arbitrary to a degree. It allows the tracing of forty
years of nineteenth century developments of issu~s which
arose'in forty years of the eighteenth century. and Is late

--_-..--
enough to show the direction
.. _- ­
of development which did In .
fact continue for some time In all three countries. Though
the chapters of Part 11 also consist mainly of a series or
stud!es of Individual men and texts. more frequent oppor­
tunities f9r comp-arisons and Influence-tracing make the
-­
continuity more evident.
 27

NOTES - INTRODtX:TION

2Rlchard S. Westrall, Science and Religion InSeve1\-)\

teenth Century England (New Haven: 1958): see esp., p. 219. I

)De Verltate w~s first published In Paris In 1624,

with a French translation appearing In 1639; It has never
been translated Into english.. 11Y~ 6 ••

and others classify Rousseau and Voltaire

among

SLechler, Ope clt., pp. 446-7.

6.!£!2., p. 2)0.

71bld ., p. 448. Lechler points out a significant

evidence or--the relation or Deism to German Rationalism:
Tlndal was translated by a well-known Wolffian, J. L. ~chmldt,
and the project was begun in 1740, the year of Rationalism's
resurge~, marked b~ Wolff's return to Halle. J
L:!ra Prog.21.tJ OCPth P'Iycholo.9Y and ~('ldern r-1an (New \
york: 1959 ; see esp., hap. 47 )
- ----.
9RA, I, 19.
 28

10 Prin., v. 1, p. xiv; OOA, I, 10-12; Il, 217.

as the Creation:
or
Vo •
12 Infin., tr.'Wi1kinson, pp. 5-6. £2., Tinda1, Ope eit.,
p. 13·

13 lCR , 508

14Tinda1, Ope elt., p. 13.

15 Ibld ., p. 21

16DP , 25~.
17Doe. Lite, 1.

18 Tlnda1, Ope eit., p. 28.

19 Ibid., p. 114.

20~, 3703.

21 lCR , 58.

2~Tinda1~ Ope eit., pp. 15, 46.

~, 403.

24Ibid ., 403-05.

25Tlndal, Ope eit., p. 19.

26 Ibid ., p. 46.

27s edenborg, Letter to Hartley, 1769 tin R. L. Tarel,

Documents concerning tne-~'e and Character of Emanue1
Swed~nborg-;-2 vols., lio";-as-:f"(l:oruron: Swe-<Ii'ill5org socr.ty,
1875-7)], p. 6.
 29

30Ad ., Ill, 7167 (WE, 7006) •.

31~, 86942.

32 HH, 1.

68.'

34 TCR , 851.

3SE. g., AC, 3008.

36 TCR, 229-30.

37£'9" ibid., 10.

38£.g., DP, 211.

39£.g., TCR, 8.

40~ove, note 33.

41Sw~denborg, AC, 69. £E. De Anlma, 473-75.

42Above , n.n., 27, 29.

43See below, pp. 63-64, 82-83, 126-127.

44see esp., Swedenborg, ORA, Chapt. VIII.

45Swedenborg, ~, 1.

46 Loc • clt.

 30

47Emanuel Kant, Trgume eines Geistersehers, erl!utert

durch Traume der Metaphyslk (KBnIgsberg: 1766), In Kant's
~sawne1te Schriften, hgb v. der KOniglich Preussischen
ademle der WIssenschaften, vol. 4 (Berlin: Georg Reimer,
1902), p. ,318.

48Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chiet

World Systems, tr. Stillman Drake (Los Angeles: Unlverlsty
of CallfornIa Press, 19$3), p. 171.

49 John Donne, -The Anatomy of the World,· in Works

in Six Volumes (London: John W. Parker, 18,39), vol. 6~91.
 PART I

SVEDENBORG'S CONCEPT

AND
THE KEY ISSUES OF THE REva.T

, ..
 CHAPTER I

EMPIRICAL REVELATION AND 'mE BASIC PRESUPPC6ITIONS

OF RELIGIOUS THWaHT

After the beginning ot his psychic experiences in

1744-45. Emanuel Swedenborg wrote as a theologian. but the
Initial German reaction vas concerned primarily with the
philosophical Impllc~tions ot his thought. This account.
tor the tocus on his Idea ot empirical revelation. rather
than on the use ot the Idea In his theological system; and
this particular tocus. in turn. helps to distinguish these
comments trom those ot English. and ot some later German
writers. The English, on the whole. tocused on the ec~o~

logical implications ot ~s
theology.l while later Germans
concentrated on his theolog; itselt. 2 or on the psychological
Implications ot Its existence as a rational system;) but hi.
tlrst German commentators--notably, Kant and Oetinger--dealt
almost entirely with the ontological and epistemological
issue ••

Relevant Factors In the German Intellectual Climate,

c. 1760: !JTeITSllI. and HISTorical Criticism

In addition to the Indigenous Rationalism ot Leibnitz

and Woltt. and the imported English neoism,4 which together
produced German Deism. two other intellectual trends must be
 33

noted. One vas the declining tradition of Pietism. and the

other vas the emerging tradition of historical crltlcls.
of the Bible.

PleUsa

Though It had an analog In English Evangelicalism,

vhlch viiI be discussed later. Pietism vas uniquely and
characteristically German In origin and development. InIU­
ated by Jacob Spener In 1675. as a revolt In reaction to the
moral and emotional sterJllty of Protestant Scholasticism,
It had roots--through the Influence of Johannes Arndt--In
the German mystical tradition embodied In Eckhart, Tauler,
Schvenkfeld, and especially Jacob Boehme. Though It vas
more a pattern of religious attitudes and practices than
a system of theological concepts. Pietism had great Influence
on German religious thought, especially as It vas developed
In the universities (notably Frankfort. TBblngen, LeJpzlg
and Halle>.5
In the Duchy of WUrttenberg. vhere Johann Albrecht
Bengel1s Influence at TUblngen fostered an Interest In com­
bining the mystical elements of Pietism vlth natural philo­
sophy and dfscfplfned relfglous thought. the clfraate vas
particularly conducive to eclecticism an attitude vhlch
~tlnger adopted In his search for a more holistic alternative
to del.tlc dualism. It was this eclp.ctlc Inclination vhich
led ~tlnger to JoIn Svedenborg1s pre-mystlcal philosophy with
 the Kabbala and Boehmels mysticism,6 and which prompted his
first reaction to Swedenborgls Arcana Coelestia:

Wander sind darin, erstaunlich unerhSrte, wichtige

Dinge • • • • M1ch irrt nichts, 1ch kann alles combinier­
en, ich bin kein Theologe von einem einzigen Leist.7

In KSnigsberg, where the pietist tradition was led

by Franz Albert Schultz until well Into Kantls lifetime, the
consequences were quite different. While Pietism was an
authentic way of life tor Schultz, It became a pattern or
hypocritically-observed devotions enforced upon tha" pupil.
In his school; with the result that some of them, notably
Kant, came to see Pietism as wholly empty and hypocritical.
His school experience having produced a bad Impression or
Pletlsm--and Schultz and his successor, Knutzen, closely
identified with Wolffian Rationalism8--it is plain that"
Kantls early association with Schultz and later association
"with Knutzen contributes to the explanation of Kant's revolt
against what pious religion remained in Deism. It also
explains--in part--hls grouping the mystical religion that
associated with Pietism, and the metaphysical speculations
that he associated with Rationalism, as ·zwei Fliegen, die
er mit einer Klappe schlagen k8nnte.· 9
These two results Df Pietistic influence are impor­
tant t~ the background of Kant an~ Qetinger. They serve, too,
to illustrate again the complexity of the relations between
movementa and ideas. It Is a complex relatlon'hip in Which
 35

it is possible that one movement--specifically definable.

compact in its traditions, and less than a century old-­
could produce two consequences as disparate as these.

Historical Criticism: J. A. Ernesti

Besides Deism itself, and its older opponent. Pietism,

there vas another element in turn-of-the-century German religi­
ous thought that influenced the initial reception of Sweden­
borg1s work. This was historical criticism of the Bible. It
is true that Deism produced a school of ~istorical criticism.
too; its groundwork had already been laid in the works ot
the English Deists. and its earliest example already existed
in manuscript; 10 and for a time in the nineteenth century.
especially with such figures as Bauer and Strauss, histori­
cal criticism vas an essentially deistic enterprise. At
this period, however, the first published attempts at scienti­
fic historical criticism of the Bible were intended as anti­
deist defenses of traditional Protestant biblical interpreta­
tion. Protestant Scholasticism had been undercut in its
hermeneutics. first by pietist attacks from within, and then
by deist attacks from without; Protestantism needed a new,
and rationally defensible, system of exegesis to restore it
to respectability. The attempt to provide this through
objectively historical interpretation of the text itselt
(avoiding traditional dogmatic assertions). was begun more or
less simultaneously by Johann Salomo Semler. and Johann August
ErnestI. The latter's InstItutIo InterpretatIs NovI TestamentI
(LeIpzIg: 1765) Is often cIted as the foundatIon of modern

exegetIcal scIence, 11
and hIs revIew of Swedenborg's Arcana
CoelestIa In 1760 was probably the fIrst scholarly review of
the work,12 and vas cIted by Kant.
ErnestI began his scholarly career as a classical
phIlologIst, and Is wIdely credIted wIth havIng done out­
standIng, scIentIfIcally hIstorIcal work in this field.
When he moved from hIs chaIr as professor of eloquence at
LeIpzIg, to the theologIcal faculty of the same unIversity
(In 1759), he began applyIng the methods of classIcal philo­
logy to bIblIcal InterpretatIon. HIs lectures on this ap­
proach to bIblIcal studIes were later developed Into his
InstItutIo ot 1765, as he explaIns In hIs Introduction. Since
the vIewpoInt set forth In that work had been used and developed
sInce 1759, It vas characteristic of ErnestI at the time be
reviewed Swedenborg in 1760.
The new line of defense Which thIs vIewpoInt provided
against attacks on the authorIty of ScrIpture vas based
.qulte dIrectly on his background as a classIcist. He vas
troubled by the tact that since the beginnIng ot hIs century,
the deIstlc notion that the Bible was no more than ancient
literature had opened a fIeld day for antIbIblical dogmatics
masked as lIterary crIticism. Such attacks were based on
Inadequate scholarshIp, he was sure, 13 but defenses ot the
Blble--wh~ther by Jews, the early Fathers, the Scholastics
 37

or the Pletlsts--were on equally shaky philological grounds. 14

The trouble, as he saw It, vas that words of Scripture can
mean anything that an Interpreter chooses to make them mean,
unless there Is some necessity for their meaning ~ thing;
and that necessity can be provided only In the framework or a
phllologlcally sound principle of Interpretatlon. IS He
thought that such a hermeneutical system could be based on
one solid, consistently observed principle:

Though this connexlon [between words and assigned

meanings] was In Its commencement and Institution
arbitrary, yet, being once established by custom,
It has become necessary. Not that one word has, or
can have only one meaning; for the fact Is manifestly
otherwise; but that we are not permitted to give what
sense we please to a word, either In writing or
Interpreting; nor, at the same time and place, nor
In the same. style of speaking, can the sense be
various. 16
On these considerations rests all the certainty which can
exist In Interpretatlon. 17

Any exegesis based without deviation on this ·one

word, one meaning- precept would be safe from rationalist
accusations of superstftlon, arbitrary allegorizing, or
dogmatizing. Coupled with a recognition of the. direct
Inspiration of Scripture by God (a principle which he assumed
as axiomatic without defense,18 without being conscious or
his Inconsistency with his own strictly historical method­
ology19>, It was to provide fulJ Justification of biblical
authority.
Shortly after Joining the theol~glcal faculty, he
began to publish a monthly journal of reviews or books or
 38

religious Interest. Early In this enterprlz~, he came

across several of Swedenborg1s minor works--probably Includ-.
Ing The White Horse, New Jerusalem and Its Heavenly Doctrine,
and The Last Judgment, all of which were published In London
In 1758--deallng with various passages of the book of Revelation.
Apparently he read these because they concerned his speclalty,
New Testament studies, but he did not review them. However,
because -fast auf alIen Selten,- these works referred to the
Arcana Coelestla, he purchased this work--notlng its high
cost, as Kant vas to do later, as an excuse for reviewing
it--and pUblished a review in the sixth issue of the first
volume of his Journal.
The Arcana is ostensibly (and, in fact, centrally)
an exegetical dissertation. Ernestl vas primarily a biblical
scholar, so it is not surprising that he turned his attention
first to Swedenborg1s hermeneutics. -Es 1st ein allegorischer
und mystlscher Commentarlus,- he began. 20 In the light or
his own interpretive principles, there vas not much worse-­
or much more--to be said of an exegesis, so he virtually
contented himself with that comment. For another five pages,
he quotes and paraphrases Swedenborg, accurately, represen­
tatively, and without comment; then he moves for prIma facie
dismissal of the whole hermeneutical system, method and
content.:
 39

Wlr schonen Zelt und Papler velter fortzufahren: und

dleses venlge vlrd hlnlangllch seyn, zu sehen, vie
der Verfasser erklart, und vie er slch die Concordanz
dabey zu Nutze gemacht hat.21

But he vas not through vlth the Arcana. Svedenborg1s

accounts of spiritual experiences vere still to be dealt vlth,
and he had somevhat more to say about them. Again, he seemed
to feel that Svedenborg vas his oYn vorst vltness, for he
devoted most of his space to quotations and paraphrases that
must be Judged as generally faithful to the text and signifi­
cant In the system. This time, hovever, he vas less sparing
in his comments, for, as he said in conclusion, • leider
viele Leute anfangen, an solchen Traumen elnen Gefallen zu
haben.· 22
He introduced the accounts of empirical revelation
vith a humorous note, vhlch he obviously intended to set
the tone in vhlch the vhole vas to be read.

Was er davon sagt, hat er alles in elner EntzUckung

gelernt. Die Beschreibung davon ist so vervlrrt und
dunkel, dass man sleht, er 1st noch nlcht recht bey
slch gevesen, da er sle beschreiben hat. 2 3

Where he vas afraid a point might be taken seriously, he

Inserted a sarcastic reminder. For example:

Er hat in selner EntzUcKung mlt elner geredet, velche

nlcht geglaubt hatte, das eln Gelst elne ausgedehnte
Substanz (eln Extensum) sey, sle hat slch ab~r von
Ihm elnes bessern belehren lassen, Ihren Irrthum erkannt,
und sich qevundert, dass ale iro Leben so dumm gevesen
vare. Die VertheldlQer der auspedehnten Geister k8nnen
den Bevels, veichei·so kraftlg ge~esen 1st, und aUI dem
Hlmmel Kommt, selblt nachlesen. 2 4
Finally, however, r~dicule gives way to serious Judgment:

Diess ein Roman von einer neueren Art sey, welchen

ohngefghr mit Klimms unterirdischen Reise zu
vergleichen seyn mochte: nur dass die letzte Erdich­
tung unschuldig, Jene aber, das sie die heil. Schrift
unter dem vorgebenen innern Slnne, misbraucht und
verdrehet, hochstrafbar ist. 2 5

Ernesti's rejection of Swedenborg Is not surprising. In

one of the passages he cites, Swedenborg says ·of the Word
of the Lord, -each of its words presents In form Its own
idea • • • and in the ideas are things so Innumerable • • •
that it can never be believed.-26 Clearly, this Is antithetical
to Ernesti's chief principle; and since Swedenborg's whole
idea of an Internal, spiritual sense in Scripture stems origin­
ally from his empirical revelations, Ernesti's Judgment con­
cerning them needs no more than simple consistency on his
part for explanation. Apparently Ernesti wanted to leave
it at that. He apologized for troubling his readers with
consideration of such a ~00k,27 and took care to disassociate
himself from any Interest in mystical ~ecrets: -Vir glelch
sonst eben so wenig, als die Herr~ Medici auf die Arcana
halten.- 28 In defense of this claim to indifference regard­
Ing the work, It should be noted that he drew none of his
references to it from outside the first of the Arcana's eight
volumes, on Which he -etliche und dreisig Thaler wegwant•• - 29
Against the claim, however, another circumstance must be
considered; one Which suggests that at least the first volume
of the work attracted more of his attention than he hoped
It would attract In his readers. In his paraphrases ot
Swedenborg's exegesis and descriptions of the spiritual world,
he cited supporting references that Swedenborg gave trom
parallel biblical passages. 30 apparently as examples ot ·vle
er [Swedenborg] slch die Concordanz dabey zu Nutze gemacht
hat.· But In at least two cases, which are distinguished
In no way from his biblical citations copied trom Swedenborg,
he cites similar supporting references that Swedenborg does
not glve. 31 This would seem to show how Ernestl had made
use of his awn concordance, and that his own researches Into
Swedenborglan hypotheses had been more thorough than he chose
to take overt credit tor. Even If there Is no evidence that
he read all eight volumes, there Is fairly good evIdence that
he read allot the first (his references are veIl scattered
over the first 624 pages). and this hardly amounts to dis­
missing the work out-of-hand on the basis of superfIcial
obJections,
Ernestl dId, Indeed, have grounds more relevant than
this: and the nature of these grounds Is of some Interest •
. Swedenborg was an allegorlzer and a Coc~eJan,32 because .he
found spiritual significance Within, and In addition to, the
literal denotation of bIblical words. Further, he was an
Epicurean and a naturallst,33 because he described extended
spiritual substance, and claimed that all angels and spirits
are souls of men who have dIed. 34 In other words, Swedenborgta
position was at once too spiritualistic and too naturalistic
to suit Ernesti: ~ spiritualistic in hermeneutics, too
naturalistic in philosophy. It was noted above that Ernestl
wanted the Scriptures to be read strictly according to their
denotative meaning. at the same time assuming complete
divine revelation. 35 This inconsistency of Ernesti1s was.
more or less the obverse of the inconsistency which he found
in Swedenborg. Furthermore. his .denial of the possibility
of extended substance suggests an unstated presupposition
on Ernestl1s part of a Cartesian (I.e •• rationalist) dualism;
and Swedenborg1s holism was totally incompatible with dualistic
presuppositions.
Three years later, Ernestl devoted another article to
a group of five smaller works that Swedenborg published al­
most simultaneously.36 Four of them have frequently been
reprinted together. as his four leading doctrines--concern­
ing the Lord. the Sacred Scriptures. Life. and Falth--and
one concerned the Last Judgment. Except that the Arcana had
been anonymous. and he now knew the "Person und Namen- or
the author. but did not feel at liberty to disclose It,37 his
opinion ~f the Swedenborglan system remains unchanged. Either
his knowledge of the author. who had been respected as a
philosopher in Leipzig,
38 or the style of the new works, made

him a little more tolerant. but no less accepting. He found

two things. to agree with. but immediately disclaimed each.
He liked the Identification of the Lord (-Domino·) as the
 43

Messiah, "Aber das alles saget er in einem andern Sinne,

als man es sonst saget. n39 Similarly, "Das Dritte StUck,
[Doctrine of Life] • • • hat viel Gutes in sich; darinne
aber doch nichts neues. n40 Otherwise, he simply paraphrased
as before, repeated his charges that the system was Sabellian,4 1
Socinian and naturalistic. 42 His conclusion on the whole
was a curious mixture of pit7 and scorn:

Man muss bedauren, das ein sonst gelehrter Mann so

welt verfallen konnen und dass er sich und seine 'Leser
mit solchen phantastischen und ihm kostbaren Umschweiren
(denner muss dieser BUcher von sein Geld drucken lassen,
und er lasst sie alle prachtig drucken) plaget, und
nicht sein sabellianisches und naturalistisches System
gerade heraussagt, damit er in wenig Bog~n fertig werden
konnte, wenn es Ja gedruckt seyn mUsste.4~

While there is no evidence that Ernesti was signirl­

cantly influenced either positively or negative~y. by

Swedenborg, and Ernesti's own part in the Revolt against

Deism was indecisive because of the inconsistence or his
hermeneutics, still his attitude toward Swedenborg is Im­
portant at this point. He commented on two of Swedenborg's
commentators, Oetlnger and Clemm, and his review of Swedenborg
was cited by Kant. Considered in himself, he demonstrates the
difficulty of incorporating Swedenborg into a dualistic
ontology. Further, he exemplifies to some extent, a pattern
of anti-deist revolt that was independent or, and incompatible
with, any Swedenborgian influence or involvement. Finally,
he demonstrates the presence of a tendency in German thought
as early as 1760, not only to reject Swedenborg, but to
ridicule him as well. All three of these demonstrations
will be significant In the discussions of Kant and
Oetlnger.

German Reaction to Swedenborg's

Pre-Mystlcal PhIlosophy

The fact that the first review of the Arcana

Coelestla came from Lelpzlg--and that several of Swedenborg's
minor works came to Ernes~I's attention there shortly after
their publlcatlon--may be related to the fact that his earlier
works In the field of natural philosophy had been known and
reviewed there. The three volumes of his Opera Phllosophica
et Mlneralla (Including the Prlnclpia Rerum Naturalla, cited
elsewhere, and two mineralogical works), as well as his
Prodromus de Inflnlto, were published there In 1734. The
~ was reviewed favorably in DeutscheActa Erudltorum,
a Leipzig Journal;44 seven years later, other Leipzig
Journals were reviewing his physiological and psychological
study, Oeconomfa Regnl Anlma 11s.4S
What effect these notices had on Swedenborg's reputa­
tion in Germany Is Impossible to assess accurately, but the
tact that Oetlnger read the Prlnclpla In folio, £. 173S,
while he was In TUblngen,46 suggests that the work was known
and circulated. His Impression was favorable then, and
developed Into considerable Interest after 1700, as will be
discussed later.
 There is no evidence that Swedenborg1s philosophical
writings were not favorably received. The reviews tended
to be favorable; ~tinger regarded Boehme, Swedenborg and
Newton as the greatest cosmologists; and Kant felt no fear
of ridicule when he published a cosmology essentially
similar to Swedenborg's in his Allgemeine Naturgeschichte
und Theorie des Himmels in 1755. Hans Hoppe has noted the
similarities between Kant and Swedenborg on this point, and
has raised the question of influence,47 but no decisive
evidence is available. Kant gave credit only to a review
of Wright1s cosmology, and Wright did not mention Swedenborg;
Hoppe's list of parallels do strain the credibility of •
coincidence theory, but only a probable conclusion is pos-
sible. For the present purpose, however, it is enough to
note two conclusions that are reasonably apparent. One,
which affects the general study of German reactions to
Swedenborg's theological writings, is that his philosophical
writings had not created an anti-Swedenborgian prejudice in
German philosophical circles--at least none that Kant knew
about; where the works were known at all, they tended to
create a favorable atmosphere for the reception of his new
works--especially with Qetinger, and possibly to some extent
with Ernesti. 48 The second, which is significant for the
analysis of Kant's reaction to Swedenborg, is that whether
that latter's natural philosophy i~fluenced Kant or not, it
was remarkably similar to that of the K8nigsberg thinker.
Since Swedenborg Incorporated his natural philosophy Into
his visionary theological system, the two men had something
tangible In common at the outset of their decisive encounter.
this shared philosophy should not be over-valued, for there
waa no empirical revelation Involved In Swedenborg's work
at this stage; but It should not be overlooked, either. The
significance of It vUI be discussed below. 49

Immanuel Rant, and His Reaction to Swedenborg

It Is unnecessary to establish Rant's Importance in

any Intellectual history covering his period; all that ia
required Is a definition of the intersection of Rant and
the problem at hand, and perhaps an excuse for attempting
to add even a little that Is new to the great mass of
meticulous *Kantstudlen* already In existence. Three
secondary quotations should suffice to meet these require­
ments in a preliminary way.
With regard to the Revolt against Deism, John ~r

summarizes the veIl-known situation:

Deism had been very confident of the complete power or

the human mind to know God. Herbert of Cherbury had
considered such knowledge as Innate. Deists after Locke
had considered knowledge of God not as innate, but as
readily attainable by the Re~son. By such arguments as
the ontological, cosmological and teleological, deists
had been snre that men could know God. But from the
standpoint of Kant1s the0ry of knowledge, these arguments
lo!St t.hefr vaUdlty • • • • Wlt;.h thi~_E':lnt in mind, some
have called Kant :!h~ execuZIOner 91 ~lsm.·SO
 47

With regard to Swedenborg, Ernst Benz may be cited:

In der Tat ist dieses .Verdienst- [the -value- ot having

provoked Rant to write the RritiksJ dem Ansehen
Swedenborgs in der deutschen Geistesgeschichte Bhel
bekommen, denn die ungewohnlich scharten Urteile, in
denen Rant den nordischen Seher als aErtzphantasten
unter all Phantasten" und sein grosses Werk als _acht
Quartb~nde voll Unsinn ft bezeichnet hat, sind an Sweden­
borg seither hangen geblieben und haben seine bisherige
Beurteilung durch die zunftigen Vertreter der Philosophie
so stark beeinflusst, dass sich niemand diesem Urteil
Rants entgegenzustellen gewagt hat und eine kritische
Sichtung des philosophischen und theologischen Gesamtwerks
Swedenborgs und seiner Auswirkung auf die deutsche
Geistesgeschichte unterblieben ist.5l

And by way of Justification tor tendering a fresh hypothesis

regarding Rant, let us turn again to Prot. Benz:

Die Auseinandersetzung Rants mit Swedenborg • • • ist

zwar bereits verschiedentlich historisch-kritisch
untersucht worden, hat aber bisher eine Erklarung des
eigentUmlichen Widerspruchs, der zwischen der Stellung­
nahme Rants zu Swedenborg in den verschiedenen Epochen
seiner geistigen Entwicklung besteht, nicht gelietert. 52

The '!'wo Documents

This analysis of Rant's reaction to Swedenborg

essentially amounts to an exegesis ot two documents-­
Rant's Brief an Frttulein von Knobloch (presumably written
in 1763),53 and his Traume eines Geistersehers, erlautert
durch Traume der Metaphysik. 54 To say that the tlrst of
these documents is favorable to Swedenborg and the second
is unfavorable, is certainly to understate, and probably to
oversimplify the case. The understatement can be corrected
first, by detailing some of the more important differences
between the two documents. 55
1. In the Brief, Kant refers to Swedenborg by his
correct name, and with marked respect, calling him -Herr
von Swedenborg-;56 in the Traume, he accorded him no honor-­
including the honor of spelling his name correctly--calllng
him RHerr Schwedenberg.- 57
2. In the Brief, he described Swedenborg as a -Gelehr­
8
ter n ;5 in the Traume, as a -gewissen Herrn Schwedenberg ohne
Amt und Bedienung.- 59
3. In the Brief, he regarded Swedenborg" as a RvernU­
nftlger, gefalliger und offenherziger Mann n ;60 In the Trlume,
as an -Erzphantasten unter alIen Phantasten,_61 and the
-irgsten SChwarme;s unter allen,n 62 and his work as utterly
Void of °a single drop of reason. 63
4. In the Brief: he spoke of walting with longing
for Swedenborg's next book;64 in the Traume, he seemed to
know only of Swedenborg's Arcana Coelestia (which was pub­
lIshed 1747-1758, so It could not have been that -next
bookn In 1763), and consIdered that work to be -acht
Quartbande voll Unslnn.- 65
5. In the BrIet, Swedenborg appeared as a remarkable
man whom Kant wIshed very much to meet and converse With;66
In the Traume, as a generally unknown character who had
foisted upon the world a vast and ridiculOUS book called
Arcana Coelestia. 67
6. In the Brief, Rant seemed to accept the opinion
of his English frlend,68 and the most respectable people In
Stockholm,69 that Swedenborg was learned, reasonable, polite
and open-hearted, and that the stories about him were true;
In the Tr~ume, he said that all of Swedenborg1s acquaintances,
as well as his works, testified to his being the wErzphantasten
unter alIen Phantasten. w70
7. In the Brief, Kant's tone Is serious and respect­
ful; in the Tr~ume, it is derisive, insulting, and--although
masterfull wltty--bordering on what a modern reader (at
-------------
least) might consider vulgar. 71
8. In the Brief, Kent apologized for not being able
to say more on the matter;72 In the Tr~ume, he apologized
for saying so much73_-and, in~~e~r bringing up the matter)
at all. 74
9. In the Brief, Rant clearly took seriously, and
apparently ac~epted the truth of, three anecdotes which
illustrated--and supposedly confirmed--Swedenborg's psychic
abilities; he recorded the precise details of his investi­
gation of them,75 and Indicated his own desire to examine
them further. 76 In the Tr~ume, he said he had found out
wnlchts· about them, 77 ad~ised someone else to take the
trouble to disprove them,78 and dismissed them as wMlrchen
• • • die ein VernUnftiger Bedenken trlgt mit Qeduld anzu­
h8ren.· 79
 50

If these comparisons fairly state the obvious dif­

ferences between the ~ and the Traume, two further
considerations may raise questions about the basic signifi_
cance of those differences. The first concerns the three
stories Just mentioned in point 9: the second concerns the
implications of the two styles referred to in point 7.
The Three Anecdotes (capitalized, this title will
refer throughout this paper to these three stories which
Kant madel ca~se~ c~l~bres) probably were essentially faith­
ful records of actual events. The first one, "The Queen's
Secret"--in which Swedenborg reportedly told the Queen of
Sweden in 1162 a secret which he could not have learned ex­
cept through communication with her dead brother--was
endorsed in substantially similar detail by twenty sources
besides those cited by Kant. "The Lost Receipt"--Which told
how Swedenborg helped a widow find an important receipt in
1161, by learning from her late husband of a secret compart_
ment in which it was kept_-had eight such endorsements.
"The Stockholm Fire"--the story in which Swedenborg des_
cribed to a crowded party in Gottenburg precise details ot
a fire in Stockholm, which was burning at the same time he
was reporting it__had five corroborating testimonies. 80
Although all of these testimonies were second hand, only
three contrary evidences have been produced; and these were
notably leas reliable than the affirmative testimony. In
 $1

spite of this presumptive probability, however, no "hard­

evidence has ever been produced that could positively prove
or disprove any of the stories. The significance of this
will be discussed presently.
Neither the Three Anecdotes, nor any of the compar­
able stories that have been circulated, were started by
Swedenborg, or considered important by him. Bl To Rant,
however, they represented Swedenborg's credentials--which,
if authentic, would entitle him to a serious hearing.
~
Furthermore, he saw them as a challenge to basic presuppositions

of rational thought: if they could be indisputably authentkated-­

which is to say, if Swedenborg should be taken seriously--the

consequences would be astonishing. B3 From this perspective,

Rant's most important question concerning Swedenborg vas,

were the Three Anecdotes true? Apparently, he answered the

question affirmatively in the Brief, negatively in the Trlume.

Rant's Ambiguity

Consideration of this appearance introduces another

issue, however--the implications of Rant's style. Behind
the polite affirmation of the ~, and the d~~e negLtion
of the Trlume, there is an ambiguity which suggests the possi­
bility that Rant's ayes· and Rant's "no" to Swedenborg's
claim ~mpirical ~latlon ~€re equally and fundamentally
ambiguous.
 In the Brief, every direct statement of assent to
Swedenborg's claim may be seen as balanced by a covert
disclaimer-:

Ich doch jederzeit der Regel der gesunden Vernunft am

Gemassesten zu seyn erachtet habe, sich auf die ver­
neinende Seite zu lenken •• • bis die Gescbichte des
Herrn Swedenborg mir bekannt gemacht vurde. B4

This sounds affirmative tovard Swedenborg; but though

it is clear that he tended to reject such stories before his
encounter with Swedenborg, what was his tendency aftervard7
It cannot go unnoticed that he did not say. Again, he ob­
served that -man kann es schwerlichannehmen- that an
Ambassador would have falsified the information in -The
Queen's Secret,_85 but he had already pointed out, a few
lines before, that it vas difficult to believe such stories;86
there is no definite indication as to which he chose to sur-
mount--the difficulty of believing, or the difficulty of not
believing. He did, indeed, say that QThe Stockho~ Fire­
anecdote ·benimmt wirklich allem erdenklichen Zweifel die
ausflucht,·87 and asks, "Was kann man wider die GlaubwUrdig­
keit dieser Begebenheit anfnhren7 88 Almost immediately,
however, he suggests an answer to the question, thus raising
a doubt about the assertion:

Wie sehr wUnsche ich, dass ich diesen sonderbaren

Mann selbst h~tte fragen konnen: denn mein Freund ist
der Methoden nicht so wohl kundig, dasjenige
abzufragen, was i§geiner solchen Sache das meiste
Licht geben kann.
 53

Although the ambiguity of this respectful analysis would not

have offended Fri. von Knoblochls presumed good opinion ot
Swedenborg, It scarcely committed Kant to Swedenborglan
dlsclpleshlpl
Similarly, the ridicule with which Kant rejected
Swedenborg in the Traume may be Interpreted as covertly
qualifying the negative JUdgment. It has been suggested
above that Kantls reference to the astonishing consequences
that would be entailed by belief In even ale ot the Three
Anecdotes, could be read as either a serious or a super­
cilious statement. 90 The interpretation would hinge on
Kantls attitude toward the Three Anecdotes, but this Is not
explicitly revealed. He expressed qualified acceptance ot
them In 1763, but In 1766 he made It plain that he kn~ ot
no solid evidence that could confirm or deny them: his own
search had revealed nothlng,91 and documentary refutation
(or, tor that matter, confirmation) would require on-the-spot
Investigation in Sweden--which he did not undertake. 92
Throughout the work, his humor suggests ambiguity.
His description of his discussion of Swedenborg, as a work
which • • • • er [the reader] das Vornehmste nicht verstehen,
das andere nicht glauben, das Ubrige aber belachen wird,·93
also admits alternative interpretations, for It implies but
does not say definitely that the fault lay with the sUbject
rather than with the reader. When he apologized for the
length of his discussion, by noting how much he ~s leaving
out, he observed that

• vofUr ich mir von ibm [the reader) eben so viel

Dank verspreche, als ein gevisser Patient glaubte den
Arzten schuldig zu sein, das sie ihn nur die Rinde
von der Quinquina verzehren liessen, da sie ihn leich- 9~
tlich hgtten nothigen konnen den ganzen Baum aufzuessen. ~

Again, the implication that Svedenborg vas a bitter draught

vas the obvious intent but Rant did not deny the alternative
suggestion that the draught ~s salutary as veIl. His des­
cription of Svedenborg's Arcana as ·acht Quartblnde voll
Unsinn· 95 also Is an obviously negative value-JUdgment on the
vork, but In the context,96 it makes equally good sense It
·Unslnn· Is taken literally according to Its etymology (l.e.,
as non-sense, as veIl as nonsense), as descriptive ot a vork
full of data other than sense-data. Still more significantly,
Kant's bantering style became half-serious vhen he compared
Svedenborg's "Tauschungen,· a~rchen· and ·Schwlrmerel· vlth
his own system.

Zudem habe ich das Ungluck, dass das Zeugnlss, voraut

Ich stosse unci vas meiner phllosophlschen Hlrngeburt
so ungemeln ghnlich ist, verzvelfelt mlssgeschaffen
und albern aussleht, so dass Ich vlel eher vermuthen
muss, der Leser verde urn der Verwandtschaft mlt tol­
chen Beistlmmungen villen melne VernunftgrUnde fUr
ungereimt, als Jene um dieser villen fUr vernUnftig
halten. Ich sage demnach ohne Umschvels, dass, vas
solche anzUgllche Vergleichungen anlangt, Ich kelnen
Spass ver$tehe, und erklgre kurz und gut, dass man
entveder In Schvedenbergs Schrlften mehr Klughelt and
Wahrhelt vermuthen mUsse, als der er3te Anschein bllc­
ken lasst, oder dass es nur so von ungefahr komme,
venn er mlt melnem System zusammentrlfft.97
 Whether considered singly or collectively. these
passages--and others that might be taken as similarly
ambiguous--certainly do not contribute acceptance or endorse­
ment of Swedenborg; but it is hard to believe that Immanuel
Kant could not have phrased his rejection of Swedenborg and
Swedenborg's claim less equivocally than this if he had
chosen to. That he did. in fact. choose humor ~o cover a
conscious ambiguity. was suggested by Kant himself.

In der That wurde es mir schwer. die Methode %u

ersinnen. nach welcher ich meine Gedanken einzukleiden
hatte. ohne mich dem Gesp3tte auszusetsen. Es scheint
mir a1so am rathsamsten, andere dadurch zuvorzukom­
men. dass Ich Uber mtch selbst zuerst spottete. wobey
tcn auch anz aui'r1cfitlQ verrahren bIn, Indem wlrkllch
der ustand menes emut s ebey w ~ers nn sc s
und sowohl was dIe Erz~hlung anlangt. Ich mich nlcht
entbrechen kann. eine kleine Anh~nglichkeit an die
Geschichte von dieser Art als auch, was die Vernunft­
grunde betrifft. einige Vermuthung von ihrer Richtig­
keit zu nahren. ungeachtet der Ungereimtheiten. welche
die erstere, und der Hirngespinste und unverstandlich­
en Begriffe. welche die letztere urn ihten Werth bringen.98

The italics are mine. to underscore the point.

If Kant was equivocal toward Swedenborg's idea." he
knew it; and if he left the equivocation unresolved. it was
intentional. A primary point of the Traume--namely that,
according to the rules of thought explicated later in the
Kritiks. Swedenborg's claim was not a'subJect for philo­
sophical diloussion99 _-may be taken as a ~acit admission that
Kant's attitude toward it was ambiguous. IOO
The suggestion made above. that Kant saw the Three
Anecdotes as more significant than the Arcanaj and the tact
that no evidence has ever provided unquestionable confirma­
tion or refutation of the Three Anecdotes; and Rant's recog­
nition that--even in 1766--such evidence was inaccessible
to him in K8nigsberg; together form a plausible explanation
of this .over-all ambiguity. Certainly, care must be talten
not to over-extend the limits of the implications of this
ambiguity: specifically, it in no way mitigates Kant's
final negative judgment on Swedenborg's idea of empirical
revelation, nor his obvious intention to propagate that
judgment as effectively as he could, nor the equally obvious
influence of that negative jUdgment on Herder, Colerldge,
DeQuincey, and all the Germans discussed in Chapter Six.
However, it does suggest, as a plausible but admittedly un­
confirmed hypothesis, 101 that during the period between 1763
and 1766, Rant considered Swedenborg's claim more seriously
than he later chose to admit; and that his ultimate rejection
of Swedenborg was based less on errors or fallacies. of
Swedenborg's system, than on the circumstance that after his
encounter with Swedenborg, Rant realized the necessity of
restricting the quest for philosophical knOWledge to within
the limits of certainty.102 What alternative pursuit was
latent in his ambiguity toward Swedenborg's idea must be
considered moot;I03 the fact is that the program he set for
himself in the Tr~ume occupied most of the rest of his life.

Die Metaphysik, in welche ich das Schicksal habe

verliebt EU sein, • • • ist sine Wissenschaft von den
 57

Grenzen der menschlichen Vernunft • • • • Ich habe diese

Grenze hier zwar nicht genau bestimmt • • • • 104

In the Kritiks, he did determine those boundaries. In doing

so, he dismissed the question of Swedenborg's claim, and his
dismissal was tantamount to--and;was accepted as--a univocal
condemnation of It.
To suggest--essentially with Cassirer,105_- that the
Traume was the work of a man who had Just disposed of a
problem, and marked the beginning of the development of the
Critical Philosophy, is not meant to entail any specific
Judgment as to the weight of Swedenborg, or Swedenborgian
thought, among the elements that Influenced Kant's intellectual
development. Kant wrote on many subjects, and criticized many
ideas; that Swedenborg's idea was involved to some extent In
. the decision that led to the Krltiks, is obvious on the face
of Kant's own testimony, but no claim is made here as to
the relative Importance of that Involvement, vls-!Tvls other
influences, or Kant's independent thought.

Kant's Reaction to Swedenborg

On this theory, Kant's reaction to Swedenborg's idea

can be Interpreted as a process, rather than a firm position.

The process .moved from interest in 1763 to disillusionment
by 1766; and then to analytical selection.
The first distinction produced by the analysis was
between the idea of empirical revelation itself, and its
primary contents. namely the exposition of an internal
spiritual sense within the literal meaning of the words
in the Holy Scriptures.

Alle diese schw~rmende Auslegung gehen mlch hier

nichts an • • • • Nur die audita et visa, d. i. was seine
elgene Augen sollen gesehen und eIgene Ohren geh8rt
ha ben, slnd alles, was wir vornehmlich aus
Beilagen zu seinen Capitalen ziehen wollen. 0
faG
This distinction is Kan~'s (though Ernesti. whose review
he cites at this point. made a similar distinction. and
Oetinger did. too--only independently and In a different
vay). and its legitimacy would not have been easy for
Swedenborg to admit. Repeatedly, he links his biblical
exposition inextricably with the ontology and epistemology
entailed by his idea of empirical revelatio~.I07 The literal
and spiritual meanings of scriptural words correspond to the
natural and spiritual aspects of the Wholeness ot things; the
literal meaning is derived trom perceptions ot the physical
senses. and the spiritual from subliminal perceptions ot
man's spiritual taculties. However, the distinction vas
necessary trom Kant's standpoint, tor his problem was tot­
ally dltferent from Swedenborg's. Aft£r a short period ot
confusion, and tear ot demon-infestation or insanity, 108
Swedenborg had entertained no doubts about the tact ot empir­
Ical revelation; he had Incorporated It Into his Weltan,chauung,
and now vas primarily Interested In communicating Its contents.
 ,
59

Kant, on the other hand, had great trouble in believing that

such perceptions actually vere possible at all; and he
toresav that it they vere, all philosophy vould have to
be revised. 109 Time enough for that, and later tor such
details as biblical interpretationl First, he had to look
at the basic concept itself; that vould be important, vhat-
ever contents It bore. •

Seine Erz~hlungen und ihre Zusammenordnung sehelnen

in der That aus fanatischem Anschauen entsprungen zu
seln und geben gar venig Verdacht, dass speculative
Hlrngespinste elner verkehrt grUblenden Vernuntt Ihn
bevogen haben sollten, dieselbe zu erdiehten und zum
Betruge anzulegen. In so fern haben sle also elnlge
Wichtigkeit und verdienen virklich in einem kleinen
Auszuge vorgestellt zu verden, vlelleieht mehr, als
so manche Splelverke hirnloser Vernunttler, velch.
unsere Journale anschvellen, veil eine zusammen-
hangende T~uschung der Sinne Bberhaupt eln vlel
merwurdiger Phanomenon ist, als der Betrug der Vernuntt,
dessen GrUnde bekannt genug sind, und der auch grossen
Theils durch vlllkBrliche Richtung der GemUtskratte und
etvas mehr Bandigung eines leeren Vorvitzes k8nnte ver-
hUtet verden, da hingegen Jene das erste Fundament aller
Urtheile betrifft, davider, venn es unrichtig 1st, die
Regeln der Logik venig verm8gen\ Ich sondere al~o bel
unserm Vertasser denWahnslnn vom Wahnwltze ab und
ubergehe dasJenige, vas er auf eine verkehrte Welse
flugelt, indem er nicht bei seinen Visionen stehen blelbt,
eben so vie man sonst vielf~ltig bei einem Philosophen
dasJenige, vas er beobachtet, von dem absondern muss,
vas er vernunftelt, und sogar Schelnerfahrungen mehren-
theils lehrrelcher sind, als die ScheingrBnde aus Vernuntt. IIO

Examination of ·vas seine eigene Augen sollen gesehen und

seine eigene Ohren geh8rt haben,· was, In tact, the point
ot the vhole essay. These things, he says. ·zlemllch In
das Abenteur einschlagen, das vir aben aut dem Luttschlft.
der Metapnyslk gevagt haben.~ll This Is an explicit signal,
and not the only one,112 that the first tvo-thlrds or the
 60

work had been leading up to this. The thesis, antithesis

and synthesis of the First Part served the purpose or
pointing out the Implications of the Issue before It vas
raised In this specific example. The first chapter or the
Second Part, dealing with the "Three Anecdotes,· vas Impor­
tant only Insofar as It affected the credibility or Swedenborg
as a witness to such experiences. Thus:

Veil Indessen das Credltlv aller Bevollmlchtlgten

aus der andern Velt In den BewelsthRmern besteht, die
sle durch gewlsse Proben In der gegenwlrtlgen von
Ihrem ausserordentllchen Beruf ablegen, so muss ich
von demJenlgen, was zur Beglaublgung der ausserordent­
lichen EIgenschaft des gedachten Mannes herumgetragen
wlrd, wenlgstens dasJenlge anrUhren, vas noch bel den
melsten elnlgen Glauben flndet. ll )

Vlth the Issues raised, and the credentials examined,

Kant arrived at his "Zwecke, nlmllch zu den Schrlrten
melnes Helden."~.4 These audita et visa of the Arcana not
only were of greater Importance than the ·schvlr.. n~e
Auslegung,· more significant than the "Three Anecdote.~i

they were the Zwecke of the whole preceding philosophical

discourse.
Despite their Importance, however, It vas not simply
to surprise the reader that he postponed any mention or the.
until the last third of the book. The critical Issue vas
epistemological, and once that had been settled In the First
Part, the matter was already pre-judged, and he could Intro­
duce them as a "zusammenhlngende rruschung der Slnne,· and
 61

use them primarily as an example of the necessity of defining

-den Grenzen der menschlichen Vernunft." In this respect,
the decisive statement of the essay Is placed before the name
or ideas of Svedenborg are even mentioned:

Die gelstlge Natur, velche man nicht kennt, sondern

vermuthet, nlemals posltlv konne gedacht verden,
veil keine data hlezu In unseren gesammten Empfln­
dungen anzutreffen seln, und das man slch roit Ver­
nelnungen behelfen mUsse, urn etvas von allem Slnnllchen
so sehr Unterschledenes zu denken, dass aber selbst die
MOgllchkelt solcher Vernelnungen veder auf Erfahrung,
noch auf Schlussen, sondern auf elner Erdlchtung berahe;
zu elner von alIen HUlfsmltteln entblosste Vernunft Ihre
Zaflucht nimmt. Auf diesen Fuss kann die Pneumatologle
der Menschen eln Lehrbegrlff Ihrer nothvendlgen Unwlssen­
helt In Abslcht auf elne vermuthete Art Wesen genannt
verden ynd als eln solcher der Aufgabe lelchtllch adlqult
seln.ll~

this conclaslon Is based on a cogent argument trom logical

necessity, not the mere absence of any Instances ot splrlt­
ual data being perceived. Nevertheless, It Is an argument
avovedly constructed after he had sought to trace the truth
of the Three Anecdotes, and had found nothlng;116 and he
apparently recognized that It vas an argument vhlch might
disintegrate, as one of the -erstaunllche Folgen man sleht
hlnaus, venn aach nur elne solche Begebenhelt als bevelsen
voraugesetzt verden k8nntel- 117 this suggests again ~ov
Important the Three Anecdotes vere to Kant, and how serious
for the nature of his reaction to Svedenborg vas the tallure
of the search for positive confirmation of them.
After Introducing Svedenborgls vork as a systematic
delusion of the senses, he proceeds to give an analytical
 62

summary of the system. The summary runs to four and a halt

pages in the K8niglich Preussischen Akademie edition~118
and offers a concise and quite complete presentation ot
Swedenborg's idea of empirical revelation, ~learly setting
forth the epistemology and ontology implicit In It, and
describing the leading derivative doctrines. The tunda­
mental ~ntologlcal conception Is called -eln Hauptbegrltf,_lt9
and the vay In which It entails Swedenborg's characteristic
exegetical system is correctly described. 120 Rant's separation
of the system from the Idea vas not unconscious or unknowing'
In cpntrast to Ernestl's summary, Kant's Is not quoted
or paraphrased. It Is a complete reconstruction that could
have been achieved only by a careful analysis and a serious-­
not to say profound--effort at coherent synthesis. The sequence
of presentation Is original, and the Interdependence and con­
sistency ot Ideas Is so cogent, that It suggests Itselt as
the result of a whole-hearted attempt to comprehend as an
organic whole what Ernestl had called "himmllschen Gehelmnlsse
• • • welche sich endllch wohl In ein System brlngen lassen.- 121
Kant seems to have been conscious of the possibility that he
might give this Impression: lest anyone mistake his Inter­
nally consistent presentation for a sign of discipleship, he
labels concepts as ·Phantasterel," "abentreulichsten und
seltsamsten Elnbildung,- and MHlrngesplnsten des Irgsten
Schwlrmers.- 122 Certainly this adjectival disassociation
must be taken seriously. Kant should not be accused ot
 6)

adopting the system Just because he took the trouble to

understand it. But the apparent fact that he took the trouble
to understand it well enough to present it so cogently by
his own standards that he felt compelled to insert frequent
disclaimers in addition to his introductory one: t~at

becomes significant in the light of the hypothesis that

Kant took Swedenborg seriously for a time, and ultimately
rejected Swedenborgls claim by avoiding it rather tha~ by
refuting It.
It is customary to describe Kant as one who epitomized
his age before he transcended it. We have Ernestils witness
that interest in psychic phenomena was alarmingly (for him)
widespread In Germany of the 1760 l s,l23 and Kant appears to­
have been representative of this. Furtnermore, the spread of
skeptical criticism in this period Is well known, and Kant
was a culmination of this tendency. Thirdly, because his
earliest teachers had combined Pietism and Rationaliam,l24
Kant was in a unique position to share fully the reaction of
his generation against these two influences that had dominated
the first half of the century. In this light, his linking
of empirical revelation and metaphysical specuiatlon may not
have been the ·sehr Uberraschende Parallele" that it appeared
to Fischer. 125 In addition to his influence on sUbsequent
philosophical and religious thought, Kant appears from this
perspective as an explicit pa~adigm of widespread, but less
clearly enunciated, intellectual trends of his time. The
 64

psychic trend challenged Deism, by seeking -more religiou.­

presuppositions for religious thought; for some, such as
Qetinger, this trend determined the direction of the anti­
deist revolt. But for many, indeed for the main stream ot
German religious thought in this period, Kant's experience
was characteristic. When critical analysis defeated any
possible or latent tendency toward a mystical and holistic
alternative to Deism, the reaction vent beyond Deism to a
general rejection of all revelation and traditional religious
presuppositions as relevant to human affairs: beyond the
-reasonable religion- of the Deists to -religion vithin the
bounds of reason alone.- Whether for· Kant, or tor other.,
this critical attitude harbored any subconscious or covert
tendencies in the other direction is a further study; the
conscious intention matched the apparent result Just described.
Svedenborg's idea of empirical revelation vas a
participating cause of this reaction--at least in Rant's case,
and through Kant, in others. Though the effect vas negative,
it was strongly catalytic. By exhibiting the consequences ot
a total commitment to mystical holism in the presupposition.
of religious thought, Svedenborg provided the occasion for
the critical revolt against mysticism and rationalist meta­
physics as a common enemy. Rant led this revolt, but he can
hardly be held as its sole cause, nor assigned full responsi­
bility tor Svedenborg's later bad reputation in much ot
German thought; after all, Ernesti had been ridiculing
 6$

Swedenborg since 1760. The Traume's undeniably powerful role

in this effect must be partly explained by the fact that Kant
was the epitome of his age,. and the Tdiume was in some sense
aparadigm of a widespread reaction in German philosophy or
re ligion.

F. C. Oetingerts Reaction to Swedenborg

Friedrich Christoph Oetingerts involvement with

Swedenborg presents fewer obstacles to a clear evaluation.
but is no less interesting than Kant's. To be sure.
Oetinger holds a less Important place in the history or the
Revolt against Delsm--and In Intellectual history In general.
for that matter--but his Influence on Theosophy. and on
Romanticism. and on certain developments In these move­
ments. was not Inconsiderable. Furthermore. he Is or parti­
cular Interest In the present study. because he read more
of Swedenborg's works. and wrote more about them. ihan Kant
did; he carried on a protracted correspondence with Swedenborg.
and with other contemporaries about Swedenborg; and he was
directly involved In defending hlmself--and defending Swedenborg
In the process--In controversies concerning the Swedenborglan
theology. Benz has shown how Oetlnger was the primary medium
of Swedenborg's Influence on German thought;126 In addition.
of all the Germans whose revolts against Deism were Influenced
but not determined by Swedenborg, Oetinger displays moat
explicitly the nature and limitations of that influence.
 66

~tlngerts encounter with Swedenborg began with the

latterts writings on natural phllosophy--as distinct trom
Ernestl, and probably trom Kant I21 __ and this acquaintance
was ot long standing when he discovered the new viewpoint
expressed by Swedenborg In his theological works. In hi.
Swedenborgs und anderer Irdlsche und hlmmllsche Phllosophle
zur Prufung des Besten ans Llcht sestellt, 1765, he wrote:

Da Ich nun schon vor 15. Jahren die Swedenborglsche

Phllosophle zusammen gezogen, • • • so 1st mlr erat
I. J. 1765 bekannt worden, dass dleser grosse mechan­
Ische Phllosoph Swedenborg schon 1749 eln anders Buch
habe In Lateln ausgeben lassen, darln fie was er I.
Hlmmel gesehen und geh8rt, beschrelbt.

In March of the tollowlng year, he wrote to Herzog Karl

von WUrtt~mberg:

Geraume Zelt [1763] hernach kamen mlr, ohne meln

Gesuch, da ich von Kanzler Reuss einen Brier aua
Kopenhagen angeh8rt, von Swedenborgs Schlcksalen,
durch Professor Kies [Dekan der Philsophlschen .
Facult~t, Tublngen] die hlmmllschen Gehelmnlsse zu
Handen. Schon von Drelsslg Jahren her studlerte leh
des Swedenborgs (des Verfassers der Gehelmnlsse)
Principien der natUrlichen Dinre In Folio dureh,
un~ zog sIe der Volflschen PnI osophle welt vor,
weii sle zur heiligen Schrlft fUhrten. 12 9

These two statements are supplementary, rather than contra­

dictory, for zusammenziehen and studleren need not be con­
aldered as synonymous. The sugge~tlon Is that within a
year or so after the 1734 publication or the Prlnclpla,'
~tlnger read It, and preferred It to the Wolffian vlev.
Then, sometime around 1750, during his deanship at Welnsberg,
 66 ~

he began a systematic study of Swedenborgian philosophy in

comparison with competing views. The results of this study
appeared in his Lehrtafel der Prlncessin Antonia~130 written
in 1763 from his sickbed. 131 During this same illness~ in
which he -vor den Pforten der EWigkeit stehend, da ich
todkrank war,- he wrote what became Part 11 of Swedenborgs
und anderer, usw., DaIs mein Letztes Testament, vor Gottes
. 132
Angesicht, darauf zu sterben.- In these works, from his
stance as a Bengelian Pietist,133 he found Swedenborg as
meaningful as his greatly esteemed Boehme, but not so ob­
scure; as systematic as Leibntz and Wolf! on the one hand, and
Baglivius on the other, but not so one-sided as either of
these two extremes. 134 Then, after his recovery, his contacts
with Reuss and Kies led him to Swedenborg's Arcana. ~zed

that Swedenborg gist aus dem gr5ssten Philosophen ein kleiner

Apostel worden,_135 his estimate of the book was significantly
~

different from Ernestils or Rant's. -Wunder sind darin,

erstaunliche, unerhorte, wichtige Dinge. Seine Erfahrungen
sind sch8n, aber • • • ---his main objection to Swedenborg
was already apparent--Dseine Schrift-Erkl~rungen sind !!
uno visu._ 136 This did not trouble him too much at first,
for -mich irrt nichts, ich kan alles combinieren, ich bin
kein Theologe von einem einigen Leist. Aber 0, welch ein
Such ist diss\ M. Krafft sagt, die Sachen seien so detaillirt,
dass er glaubt, es sel besser im Glauben allein Uberg~hen (in
die Ewigkeit), als mit sclchen detaillirten Nachrichten.· 137
In spite of any reservations he may have had, however, he
was ready to translate the Arcana, "wenn gute Freunde
contrihulren."13 8
With Baron von Bernardin and Baron von Leiningen aa
the "good friends,·139 he did translate what he considered
to he the most important parts of the Arcana--descrlptlona
of the spiritual world--and prefaced them with a detailed
summary of Swedenborg1s cosmogony. The latter was the
"earthly," and the latter the "heavenly" philosophy ot
Swedenborg; these were placed as a First Part before the
two-year-old Second Part, In which he had compared
Swedenborg1s philosophical system with that of Malehranche,
Newton, Cluver, Wolff, Boehme, Ploucquet, Baglivius, Fricker,
and the Prophet Ezekiel. These two parts together made up
the major work, already cited, Swedenborgs und anderer
irdische und himmlische Philosophie zur Prnfung des Besten
ans Licht sestellt.
~tinger apparently wanted the title to be taken
seriously: he was presenting a range of viewpoints for
comparative examination, and for comparison with Holy
Scripture. 140 Ho.ever, his Theologia ex idea vitae deducta,
published in the same year, expressed ai "his own view several
points of similarity with Swedenborgls concepts about the
spiritual world and life after death. 141 As Benz points out,
the Theologla probably does not show any influence of Swedenborg's
theological thought upon oeting~r, but only parallels that help
 66

explain the favorable reception. 142 Nevertheless, the Theologia

was sever~ly criticized by Ernesti, on a basis not unlike the
latter's criticism of Swedenborg, for in scholarly exegesis,

Erstlich muss die Hauptidee eines Systems nicht

tropisch und allegorisch seyn. • •• Zum andern wird
das Wort hier offenbar in mehrerley Verstande gebrauchet,
welche Zwydeutigkeit dJe Einfaltigen, die meist nur­
nachbeten, verwirret. 143

Because of its failure by these standards, Oetinger's work

"wird vielleicht Leuten gefallen, die an Wortspielen Gefallen
haben."I44 By comparison to his treatment of Swedenborg,
Ernesti's ridicule of his countryman was rather heavy_handed.
"Diese Dinge, sagt er ferner, sind nie auf Academien gelehret
worden (Gott sey dafUr gedankt)"i I45 "Welche eine Erklarung
oder vielmehr verdunkelungl"146 With the conclusion, It
became obvious that heterodoxy In a German was more serious
a matter than In a forelgnerf

Hier muss man furwahr Mitlelder mit dem Hrn. Vert.

haben: und wir wUnschten auch urn de! KirY~1 willen,
dass der Hr. Censor mit ihm gehabt hatte. 4"(

Apparently this double standard was shared by other churchmen,

for although Professor Kies gave the imprimatur to Swedenborss
und anderer,l46 and Professor Schott told Oetinger that "das
Buch set langst publik, die Uebersetzung wUrde mlr nlcht ~u .
Schulden kommen, nl 49 Prelates Fromman and Faber, Chancellor
Reuss and Court Chaplain Fiseher Joined In the attack on
Oetinger. The internecln~
.

struggle between the Conslstory,

 69

the Privy Council and the Duke is beside the point here; even
the outcome is of secondary importance (the Swedenborgs und
anderer was confiscated. and eventually Oetinger was prohibited
from writing about. or seeing. Swedenborg); the steps he took
in self-defense are more interesting.
In defending himself in WUrttemberg. he made a very
intertsting .tripartite. distinction regarding the viewpoints
from which Swedenborg might be read and evaluated. These
might be called the viewpoints of philosophy. religion, and
theology. Religion was a matter of personal decision and
inner commitment. As such it did not allow the freedom ot
philosophy. to examine all opinions without initial concern
for their truth or falsity. testing al~ and keeping what was
good; in this respect it was posterior to philosophy. On
the other hand, being a matter of personal commitment, It had
more freedom than an objective study of the theology ot the
church; it was posterior to that, too, being conditioned
but not determined by it. But despite the logical posterior­
ity, religion was the prior authority in questions ot con­
science and action. Religion and philosophy are most clearly
distinguished in his 1766 Brief an Herzc4 Karl. a'ready cited;
the second distinction is most evident in hIs 1767 Fragen and
Antworten zur PrtJfung der Swedenborg'!schen L~hren. which
he addressed to the Privy Council as a counter to the charges
made there against him by the ConsIstory.
 70

The Religious View

Qetinger told Herzog Karl of the motives vhich led

him to vrite Svedenborgs und ander~r:

Betreffen das erste. so hat mich. vor den Pforten der

Evigkeit stehend. da ich todkrank var. mein innerer
Beruf. Speners WUnsch zu erfHllen. angetrieben. Diesea
war unmoglich zu viderstehen. Die Fieberhize za
e.rstehen. ergriff ich Nachts um 10. 12. 1 Uhr die Feder
in Sett • • • • Ohne Sorge fHr die Familie. die ich Gott
vorfHhrte. var ich gedrungen es zu thun. da ich es Jetzt
nicht mehr thun konnte. Der tveiter Theil dieses Suchs
ward also zuerst entvorfen. als mein leztes Testament,
vor Gottes angesicht. darauf zu sterben• • • • Geraume
Zeit hernach kamen mir. ohne mein Gesuch, • • • die
himmlische Geheimnisse zu handen• • • • De nun seine
Nachrlchten mI£ den~In meiner Krankheit bekriftigten
Wahreheiten Hbereinkommen, so besprach ich mich nicht
mit Fleisch und Blut. und Hbersezte das Buch vor Gottes
angesicht. sehend, dass die Thocheit Gottes veiser ist,
als mechaniscfier Menschenwitz. 151
E. H. D. geruben hleraus zu ersehen, dass ich mit
viel Bedacht vor Gott dies Buch geschrieben, und das
Thorichte Gottes buchstablich verthei~lge: Fttrchtet each
nicht vor denen, die den Leib T8dten. 52

Similarly. he said in the Fragen und Antvorten, though with

less emphasis (ansvering the twelfth out of thirteen questions,
vhereas the above vas the first motive mentioned in the Brief):

Er [Qetlnger) ist geviss, vie Gott bey dem ersten Antrieb,

das Buch lSvedenborgs und anderer) zu schreiben, mit ihme
gevesen, so verde er auch In der Apologie mit ihme seyn.
So gut Arnd, Spener, Sengel denen Symbyllschen BBchern
zugethan varen. so gut ist er es auch. 53

~ Benz points out, this is a strange and unsatis­

factory argument for oetinger to use ,in hi. ovn defense,l$4
and It is scarcely any mor~ an ~rgument in defense of Swedenborg-­
 71

especially in view of the fact that it was on exactly the

same basis that he opposed Swedenborg's scriptural inter­
pretation and idea of the Second Coming. l $$ It makes more
sense. however. when it is read as a religious credo. ex­
plicitly distinguished from the relevant philosophical and
theological arguments. The use of this viewpoint immediately
separates Qetinger from Kant; his distinguishing it from the
grounds of philosophical and theological arguments essenti­
ally separates him from his age. If. in Pietism. religion
determined theology, and in Deism. philosophy determined
religion. the determination vas covert. because the distinc­
tion was not recognized. The fact that Qetinger did recog­
nize it helps explain the nature of his revolt against Deism.

The Philosophical View

Qetinger also listed in his Brief an Herzog Karl a

collection of incidents with philosophical implications.
or these 6

Das allerdringendste Motiv is noch diss. dass H.

Hofprediger Fischer gegen mir Uber die Plouquetische
Philosophie geklagt. dass sie nicht zur heiligen
Schrift tauge. dass Weiss' en Metaphysik besser wire.
Ich vusste auch. vas fch mit Plouquet ehemal fUr
Gesprache von Jak. Bohm gefUhrt; sah wirklich. dass
seine~.lbstoffenbarung (Gottes)" aus Bohm genommen
und mit Leibniz embellirt (verschonert) sei. Mir lag
an der Wahrh~it der Sar.he. Geheimerath von Creue griff
den philosophfschen Satz an. dass es kein Drittes gebe
~ischen dem Einfachen und Zusammengesezten. Diesen
Herrn informirte ich i. J. 1134 ill Hessen-Homburg 6 und
sah. dass er selnen Lehrmeister Ubertroffen. und dass cur
heiligen Schrift nichts BUndigers sei. als diesen Sate
 zu widerlegen, Indem man die gewlssen und wahrhafte~.
Worte Gottes ohne dlss allezelt ~rgerllch erkl~rt.l56

How thIs forms a motive for translating Swedenborg is made

clear In the answer to· questIon SIx In the Fragen und
Antworten:

Swedenborg die Seele als eln Mlttelding zwlschen dem

SImpllcI und composlto anslehet, woraus folget, dass
alles elgentllch und proprie von der Seel zu nehmen~ so
wle die Heilige Schrift nlcht mlt verblUmten, sondern
eIgentllchen Worten von der Seele redet. 157

The adequacy of Swedenborg's posItIon in thIs respect

depended on hIs dependability as a witness, so two testi­
monies in favor of Swedenborg cIted to Herzog Rarl as addi­
tional ·motives· are judgments of Swedenborg from a philo­
sophIcal viewpoint. One of these Is the "Queen's Secret·
story, which had traveled from the Queen herself to her
sister, the Herzogerin von BraunschweIg, and thence to Baron
von Weltheim, who was so impressed by it that he asked
~tinger to translate Swedenborg. The second is an instance
ot parallel testlmony'with no dIrect relation to Swedenborg.
Since ~tinger aligns this with one of the three anecdotes
that impressed Rant, and because he comments on its meaning
tor him, it is worth some examinatIon here. To Herzog Karl,
he said:

Ich mit PrKceptor Schill von Calw, noch Hirsau, ala

Intimer Gevatter, ehemal vlel conterirt. Er erz~lte
mlr dIe zweistUndIgen Gesprache mit dem Manen ~chlin.,
der sehr lamentirt, dass er Ihn wegen der Sachen vom
 73

Zustand nach dem Tod ungerUttelt gelassen. Er zeigte

mlr den Platz unter selner StubenthUr. Er sagte, dass
er es Dr. WeIssmann Uberschrleben, und die Brief sind
noch an Ihrem Ort. Eben das, was In Swedenborg abenteur­
lIch scheint, erzahlte er mlr in heIlger Furcht, klagend,
dass er um des AergernIsses wille~es verschweigen mUsse.l$6

In hIs Selbstbiographle, Oetinger recounts this incident

in more detail, wIth a signifIcantly similar concern for
the same features of the story.

Oechslln blieb auf seinem kritischen Eigensi~

unter dem Pratext, man mUsse bei dem Wort Gottes
bleiben. Er starb. Nicht lange nach seinem Tod
kam Oechslln zu Schill. Schill wollte zur Stuben­
thur hinausgehen, dIe mlr hernach Schill mit dem
FInger gezeIgt; da h8rte er Oechsllns Stimme, .Halt
Still, Bruderl- Er stund also unter der StubenthUr
und dIe Unterredung wahrte lange. Er erzahlte, dass
er nach dem Tod In elne Finsterniss gekommen, darin
er nlcht wusste, wle ihm war. Angst und Bangigkeit
uberflel Ihn deswegen, well ihm seIne Ueberzeugung
von der EwIgkelt dleser Strafe nachfolgte. Er repro­
schirte Schill1en sehr hart, dass er ihn nicht lusserster
Instanz habe von seiner Melnung abgebracht. Schill
antwortete ihm, er habe es ihm Ja oft widerJegt. Aber
er, Oechslin, sagte, er hatte Ihn rUtteln und schUtteln
sollen und nlcht nachgeben, bIs 'er des Gegentheils wire
uberzeugt worden. Er ware elne gut Zelt in dleser
DesperatIon gesessen aber endllch habe Gott sein Gebet
erh8rt und ihm Llcht werden lassen da er seinen Irrthum
erkannt und gesagt: 0 ihr Theologen, wle seid ihr so
blInd in dem engen Bezirk euer Thesel l $9

Commenting on the significance of Schillls story, Oetinger

said:

Wenn ich die Nachrichten von Schlll nicht voraus die

sechs Jahre gehort hatte, so wUrde ich Swedenborgs
VIsa et Au1ita nlcht so bald angenomm~n haben. Ich
habe aber soIche nur geprUft und wegen seiner irrlgen
Sf:ize nicht a112s ventOrfell, vas mi t Schi lIs Erzllhlungen
ubcreln kam. 160
Qetlnger vas Impressed by the fact that Schlll could point
out--wlth his flnger\--the spot where the Incident took place,
and that a record vas In existence In other hands even as he
wrote. Here va~ a trustworthy and first-hand account of human
contact with the spirit-world, and It paved the way for easy
acceptance of Svedenborg1s relations of things seen and heard
in that'realm. The pasallel to Rant Is striking. Both had
heard of, and were impressed by, aThe Queen1s Secreta; both
felt that a verified' account of physical-spiritual communi­
cation did or would help in accepting Swedenborg; Qetinger
had a first hand account, even though it did not concern
Swedenborg, but Rant had none. It will not do, however, to
conclude that the chance occurrence that Qetlnger knew of
a case, and Rant did not, explains the difference in their
respective reactions to Swedenborg. Even if no other differ­
ences were apparent, the small but decisive difference between
the following almost parallel passages would be suggestive.
After relating Schlll1s story to his own reception of
Swedenborg, Oetlnger generalized:

Wahr 1st, man 1st nlcht auf ErzKhlungen der Todten

gevlesen, aber man muss auch nlcht verwerfen, was

Glaubwurdlge aus treuem Grund sagen. lb2

By contrast, Rant told Fri. von Knobloch,

So vlel 1st gewlss, dass ungeachtet aller Geschlchten

von Ersch~lnunqen und Handlunqen rles Gelsterrelchs,
davon mir elne grosse Menge der vahrschelnllchsten
 7$

bekannt ist, ich doch jederzeit der Regel der gesunden

Vernunft am gemassesten zu s~yn erachtet habe, sich auf
die verneinende Seite zu lenken; nicht als ob ich vermeinet.
die Unm5glichkeit davon eingesehen zu haben. (denn. vie
venig ist uns doch von der Natur eines Geistes bekannt7) "
sondern. weil sie insgesamt nicht genugsam bewiesen sind. 162

Neither Rant's rejection nor Oetinger's acceptance vas a

simple result of a simple prejudice; but the difference in
"these two starting points strongly influenced the outcome
of the two encounters.
To Oetinger. the inadequacy of lohe contemporary
philosophy of religion vas the urgent motive for his intro­
duction of Swedenborgian ideas into German scholarly discus­
sions; and it vas Swedenborg's philosophy that most interested
him. Swedenborg's gift of spirit-seeing. certified by the
testimonial anecdotes and circumstances. and Swedenborg'a
revelatory mission. certified by his testimony alone. vere
of interest only as background to the philosophy. In ansver
to the question. ·Worinnen bestehet die neue Schwed,enborgische
Lehre7· 163 he noted that ·um darauf zu antworten. muss man
vorher eine kurze Beschreibung von dem Leben und Person des
berUhmten Schwedenborgs haben. nl64 Swedenborg's short auto­
biographical letter to Hartleyl6$ is enough to serve this
purpose. showing that Swedenborg neine ausserordentliche
Person vare. nl66 What was new in Svedenborg's philosophy
derived from what vas extraordinary about Swedenborg.

Er hat zum Grund die scientiam correspondentlarum

oder die ~!9naturam ry[,um. velche dfe Innere

Geistervelt abblldet. 7

 76

From this fundamental vision of the nature of thing~, accord­

ing to which they correspond to, and represent, spiritual
reality, stemmed Swedenborg's characteristic scriptnral
interpretations, his view of man as internally and unconsciously
connected with his psychic environment, his distinction between
the internal and external man and his concept of the eternal
life of the former in organic communion with other spiritual
beings. -Diss sind die innersten Lehren diese Sehers, woraas
die andere alle fliessen.- 168 These philosophical--more
specifically, ontological--doctrines were important, because
they clarified much scriptural philosophy, explicated diffI­
cult but important biblical passages, made clear many details
about life after death which had been knawn in Patristic
times but had been suppressed by dogmatism which needed to
be combatted; and because in the present skeptical time,
there were signs that the Hand of God was pushing skepticis.
to the limits of absurdity that would lead to the realization
of a more religious world-view. 169 Thus, what might have
been, hypothetically, an early tendency in Kant, was the
explicit preJud·ice of Oetinger: he was seeking a more holistic
philosophy of religion, which would make religions ideas
meaningful. He found Swedenborg's ontology to be a signifi­
cant step in this direction.
The difference between Kant's and Oetlnger's starting
points with respect to Swedenborg, m~now be compared with
their respective conclusions concerning what may be the mOlt
 77

abstract and obscure of Swedenborg's main concepts: the

idea of a community of spiritual beings organically related
according to functional form of the human body, or the notion
of the MaximusHomo, which is Heaven, or the Body of Christ.
Oetinger said:

Elne Hauptlehre 1st dleses: so wle verschledene

Krifften and Fahigkeiten die Einhelt des innern
Menschen aasma.hen, so machen auch verschledene
Gelster eine Societat aus, welche die Apparenz
elnes grossen Menschen an slch zelgt. Alle Gelster­
societaten und die ganze Verfassung dieser unslcht­
baren Wesen erscheint zulezt selbst wider In der
~igur des grossen·Menschen. In dlesem unermess­
llichen Raum ist elne durchganglge Innlge Gemeln­
schaft elnes Geistes mit alIen und aller mlt elnea
Jeden. Ob aber der Sinn Jesa, dass wlr alle elnea
seyen, dadurch getroffen se i, Joh. 17, das stehet
dahln. 170

Kant's summary of the Idea Is similarly accarate and

Insightful, bat significantly different in tone--partly
because of his attempt at adjectival dlsassoclatlon,171 and
partly because of an unwillingness or Inability (after his
failure to verify Swedenborg1s psychic claims) to consider
symbolic language with fall symbolic seriousness, even when
he perceived the Intent of the symbolism.

Hleraus kcnn.man slch nun, wofern man es der MUIle­

werth halt, einen Begriff von der abenteurllchsten
und seltsamsten Einbildung machen, in welche slch
alle seine Traumereln vereinbaren. So wle namllch
verschiedene Kraffte und Fahigkelten dleJenige
Einheit ausmachen, welche die Seele oder der Innere
Mensch ist, so machen auch verschledene Gelster
(der hauptcharakter slch eben so auf einander be­
zlehen, wie die mancherleir ffihlgkelten .1n••
 76

Geistes untereinander) eine Societat aus, welche

die Apparenz eines grossen Menschen an sich zeigt,
und in welchem Schattenbilde ein jeder Geist sich an
demjenigen Crte und in den scheinbaren Gliedmassen
sieht, die seiner eigentumlichen Verrichtung in
einem solchen geistigen Korper gemass sind. Alle
Geistersocietaten aber zusammen und die ganze Velt
dieser unsichtbaren Wesen erscheint zulezt selbst
wiederum in der Apparenz des gr6ssten Menschen.
Eine ungeheure und riesenmassige Phantasie, zu
welcher sich vielleicht eine alte kindische Vorstel­
lung ausgedehnt hat, wenn etws in Schulen, um dem
Gedachtniss so HUlfe zu kommen, eine ganzer Veltheit
unter dem Bilde einer sitzenden Jungfrau u.d.g. den
Lehrlingen vorgemalt wird. In diesem unermesslichen
Menschen ist eine durchgangige innigste Gemein­
schaft eines Geistes mit alIen und aller mit einem,
und wie auch immer die Lage der lebenden Vesen
gegeneinander in dieser Welt, oder deren Veranderung
beschaffen sein mag, so haben sie doch eine gan&
andere Stelle im gr8ssten Menschen, welche sie
niemals verandern und welche nur dem Scheine nacb
ein Crt in einem unermesslichen Raume, in der Tbat
aber eine bestimmte Art ihrer Verhaltnisse und
Einflusse ist.l1~
The numerous verbal similarities, and significant
dissimilarities in these two paragraphs raise some curi­
ous problems: both are describing the same subject, but
not necessarily the same text (there are more than eighty
passages in the Arcana in which Svedenborg discusses the
Maximas Homo); and Oetinger cites favorably the summary
of Swedenborg's system from which the Kant quote vas
taken;173 thus suggesting the ironic possibility that
Traume eines G~istersehers contributed to Oetinger's
affirmative understanding of Svedenborgl Quite aside from
this, however, it is worth noting that tvo descriptions of
a concept--equally perceptive, and so nearly identical-­
served to illustrate Swedenborg's foolishness in the one
 79

case, and to exemplify his original and important contri­

bution to the philosophy of religion on the other. This,
and the former comparison of ~tinger and Kant, highlight
the central fact about their reactions to Swedenborg's works
that stemmed from his idea of empirical revelation: both
men concentrated on the same parts of his work; both evalu­
ated it by comparaQle criteria, namely the credibility ot
. <
accounts of psychic experience, and the epistemological
problems involved in accepting such accounts; both inter­
preted the int!nt of his ontological statements in aboat
the same way; both had reservations or exceptions in their
conclusions about his total system; but those general con­
clusions were almost diametrical. To an important extent,
~tinger's affirmative interpretation of Swedenborg's philo­
sophy was a result of his separating this trom theology.
Turning now to his theological appraisal of Swedenborg, which
has only an apparent parallel in Kant, we will see that his
disagreements with Swedenborg were essentially similar to
Rant's, so that Oetinger's separation of the two kinds ot
Judgments must be seen as critical in explaining the ditfer­
ence in their total reactions.

The Theological View

Particularly in the Fragen nnd Antworten, Oetinger

discussed Swedenborg from a viewpoint distinctly different
from those already described here as the religious and the
 80

philosophical. This Is the stance of the churchman, the

defender and explicator of orthodox theology, as opposed
to the stance of the personally committed Individual Christian,
and that of the philosopher who presupposed faith In seeking
to define the bases of It. The distinction between theology
and philosophy Is not made directly; It Is most apparent
from the contexts~ When Oetlnger discussed the motives
and the personal justification for his translations and
commentaries on Swedenborg, his perspective Is that of Indl­
vidual religion, as seen above. In Fragen und Antworten,
on the other hand, mach attention Is devoted to the relation
of the Swedenborglan system to formulas and positions ot
orthodox dogmatic theology. He makes a direct distinction
between this viewpoint and the philosophical, in his act
of seeking the Imprimatur for Swedenborgs und anderer
from the dean of the Tttblngen philosophy faculty, rather than
from the Conslstory; and by describing what vas new and Im­
portant in Swedenborg In philosophical terms, before defending
Swedenborg's acceptability In theological terms.
This latter project, defense of Swedenborg as theo­
logically acceptable, had considerable Inherent difficulties,
which Oetinger clearly recognized.

lch blelt mlch Im Gewlssen verbunden, es [Swedenborgs

and andererJ In Cruck zu geben, und zvar nTCht den
Theologen zur Censur zu reichen, sondern dem Dekan
der ph11osophlschen Facult;t, Kies • • • • Canzler ReusI
wollte mlt mlr nlcht In dlese Materle entrlren (elntreten),
 81

sagend, er k8nnte nicht selig sterben, wenn er nicht

bei den gemelnsten Sprtichen zu denken anfange. Folgllch
war es bei Theologen vergeblich, es Ihrer Censur zu
Ubergeben, weil sie sich Irgern. 174

Apparently he kept this opinion, and never addressed himself

to the Consistory on this matter, answering the theologians
only indirectly in his self-defense before the Privy Council.
His answers suggest that the Consistory had charged .that
Swedenborg's descriptions of life after death and punishments
for sin, his concept of the Trinity, and his detailed teach­
ings about things, -davon die Hellige Schrlft keine umstlnd­
lichen Berlcht giebt,- were unorthodox, and in some cases
heretical. 175 His reply to these accusations was two-fold.
In the first place, if Swedenborg were read in a philosophi­
cal search for truth, rather than as a dogmatic authority,
-was in Swedenborgs Lehren nlcht echt ist, das wird die Zelt
widerlegen,_176 so the question of his orthodoxy did not need
to be regarded as crucial. In the second place, some of the
theological positions which he seemed to controvert, are
either -fanatique,_177 or -eine Vervlrrung der concePte~;178
in these cases, Swedenborg's positions were in fact consistent
-mit der Lehre der dreihundert ersten Jahre richtlg,_179
and "folglich die alten unvermischten Id~en der Kirchenvlter. nl80
The point of both arguments was not that Swedenborg's theology
was either the same as, or better than, that which the Conelst­
ory considered orthodox, rather it was that Svedenborg's theo­
logical positions were not so bad as to prohibit sludy of his
 82

ideas by Christian philosophers. This was the thesis that

the Consistory could not accept, and that made theologians
like Ernesti -die Zahn Uber ihn [Swedenborg] zerbeissen-;181
as Chancellor Reuss had said, critical examination of the
traditional theology might endanger their very souls. Thus,
it was Kant, who had no concern for theological orthodoxy,
and Oetinger, who could separate it both from his personal
conviction and the discipline of philosophy, who took the
greatest interest in Swedenborg's revolutionary idea.

Criteria for Judgment of Empirical Revelation

In 1771, Swedenborg was under much the same kind or

persecution in Stockholm that Oetinger had felt In VUrttemberg.
Oetlnger Inserted himself Into this controversy ~ address-
Ing a letter to the Gottenburg Conslstory, and pUblishing
the essence of the argument In Germany as correspondence
between Oetinger and an "Unknown.- 182 His double motive-­
defending Swedenborg and JustifyIng himself--was well served
by his making the correspondence public: this made it harder
for the Gottenburg Consistory to overlook it, and also brought
It before the German-speaking scholarly world. In his ~

an einen Ungennanten, Oetlnger reaffirmed his acceptance of

Swedenborg's psychic ability as factual, and oC Swedenborg's
descriptions of the spiritual world as valid data. 183 How­
ever, he sharply separates Sw~~enborg's claim to spiritual.
 8.3

experience from Swedenborgls claim to divine authority for

the conclusions from that experience.

Dass aber Herr von Swedenborg sich berufen achtet,

die heilige Offenbarung und ganze heilige Schrift
als ein Bergrath zu erklaren, das dUnkt mich nicht
seine Gabe zu seyn: es muss diss dem geistlichen
Urtheil der Weisen in Gott Uberlassen werden. Ich
finde Keinen, der unmittelbar erleuchtet worden,
welcher nicht viel menschlichen, viYe4Fehler und falsche
SchlUsse dabei mit geschleppt • • •

following which, he lists four areas of serious theological

error that he found in Swedenborg:

a) dass er auf seine Aehnlichkeit der Gesichte, oder

auf seine scientiam correspondentiarum mehr Vertrauen
sezt, als aur das klare Wort, welches keiner Anslegung
bedarf; b) das er deshalben Paulumbeschuldigt, er habe
in seinem Episteln den innern Sinn nicht, da doch Paull
Erkenntnis im Grund weiter reicht, als Swedenborgs;
c) dass er eben darum die positive und klar Veissagung
Gottes von Christo auf dem weissen Pferd, and von der
Herabkunft der Glaubigen auf weissen Pferden zum Gericht
des Antichrists, nicht nach dem klaren Wort verstanden
haben will, sondern in einen bildlichen, etwas anders
bedeutenden Sinn versezt, damit er seine Lehre in seiner
neuen Gemeine, welche schon seit zwei Jahren sich genl­
hert haben sollte, erhebe; d) dass er die Auferstehung
der Todten eben wie das ewige Gericht nach der Aufer­
stehung vernichtet, oder venigstens der heiligen Schritt
zuwider erklart, folgl!ch in sehr vielen Stellen mehr
den Literal-Sinn in heiliger Schrift zweielbhaft macht. 18 S

In other words, Swedenborgls claim, which I have called

-empirical revelation,- was seen by Oetinger as thoroughly
empirical, but only partly revelatory. There was enough
good in the whole, he thought, "dass man die :rrungen des
Herr Assessor Swedenborg toleriren, aber nicht besch8nen
soll.a l86 The crucial need, he felt, vas for criteria by
 84

vhlch the true and valuable In Svedenborg's wrevelatlon­

could be distinguished from the false and dangerous; and
he vas certain that the Bible provided such criteria, If
applied to the vhole Svedenborglan system, and not to partl­
cular theological statements alone.

Man bedenke, venn Jemand vie Svedenborg so lange

Jahre seln gelstllches Geslcht mlt so vlel ungevohn­
ten Dlngen sollte erfttllet flnden, ob er nlcht auch
zumahl bel elnem redllchen GemHth vUrde dafUr elnge­
nommen seln. Ehe man Uber Svedenborg urthellet, muss
man vor seine andern kostbaren BUcher, die vor selner
Revelation geschrelben, z. B. seine Prlncltla rerum
naturallum vohl durchsuchen, die mancherle Phllo­
sophlen gegenelnander halten und sehen, velche der
helllgen Schrlft am nachsten kommt. Dazu In Wahr~
helt elne grosse Pansophie und Pollhlstorle, aber
noch eine gr8ssere Demuth und Verliugnung. Obne 187
dlss kan man Uber Svedenborg nlcht recht urthellen.

In other vords, ~tlnger vas saying In effect to

Svedenborg's critics In Sveden, and his own In Germany,
·Study Svedenborg as thoroughly, as open-mlndedly, and vlth
as much regard for biblical authority as I have, before you
judge either Svedenborg or me.­
This crlterlon--the Word of God, applied to the
system In toto--vas one to vhlch Svedenborg himself could
not have objected, since It conformed perfectly to his ovn
principle that the literal sense of the Word vas the standard
by vhlch all religious teachings should be conflrmed. 188
The fact that the application of it led Oetlnger to reject
significant portions of his teachings and claims, seems to
have been partially, if reluctantly, accepted by Svedenborg.
 8$

Swedenborg did not usually reply to his critics (e.g•• Ernesti

or Kant). but he continued to correspond with Oetinger even
in the face of sharp criticism of his biblical method. and
hoped to visit the Swabian on the trip he was planning when
he died. This suggests a kind of endorsement of Oetinger's
criteria as valid for JUdgment of Swedenborg's thought, in
spite of the fact that the judgment was partially negative.

The Course of Development of Oetinger's Attitude

If this extended presentation of Oetinger's reaction

to Swedenborg's idea of empirical revelation has indicated
that his attitude was a static one, a brief examination or­
his correspondence with and about Swedenborg will quickly
correct the impression. I observed in reference to the
first letter Oetinger wrote after reading the Arcana, that
what was to become Oetinger's main objection"to Swedenborg
was already there. in the comment on the one-sidedness or
Swedenborg's biblical interpretation. 189 In 176$, however,
it was a criticism in passing; he felt broad-minded enough
to include it in his eclectic worldview. As time passed,
however, two things worked against this attitude. In the
first place. having continually to defend himself on account
of Swedenborg, he became less magnanimous toward this weakness
in the system. In a letter to Swedenborg, dated 16 December,
1767, he began:
 86

Die Liebe will lass werden vor unertr!glichen Vor-

wurfen; sie muss angefrischt werden. Wie viel ich
noch immer urn Ihrer will zu leiden habe, k3nnen Sie
kaum glauben. .190

and then observed toward the end:

Ihre Begegnisse sind glaubwUrdiger, als die Schrift-

erkl!rungen• • • • Ich wunschte, Sie selber m3chten
bekennen, dass Ihre Schrifterkl!rungen nicht eben
so glaubwUrdig seienk als Ihre Gesichte und Offen-
barungen vom Himmel.l~l

Since, to Swedenborg, the scriptural explications ~

revelations from heaven, the wish was somewhat futile, but

there is no indication that Oetinger meant it as a serious
plea, for he had already separated Swedenborg's good
philosophy from his bad theology, by his biblical criterion,
as he wrote to von Castell in 1766:

An Swedenborg muss man nichts als seine Ga'be suchen,

nemlich die willkurliche Eroffnung des Herrn. Er is
kein Exeget, sondern ein Bergmann und Philosoph.
Alle SchlUsse konnen fehlen. Dass Sie aber sagen,
er stosse den Grund der Relig:.'n urn und sage Phan-
tasien, das braucht eine bessere Limitation. Sie
urtheilen hier nicht geistlich, sondern en general
(im Allgemeinen). Ich will gegen ~le solche Entgeg-
nungen loaicissime bestehen, und fordere heraus alle
Universltaten. lch weiss, dass ich sie alle retundire
durch das Wort Gottes. 192

In 1770, he was still favorably impressed by Swedenborg's

ontology:

Welche eine grosse Sache ist es nu~, das gance

Weltall von der Unendlichkeit der Himmel und der
Bleibst~tten auf den Begriff (terminus) des Reichr
Christi und des Reich~ der Hi~r.~l zurUckzuftthrenl 93
 87

By the next year. the appearance of Swedenborg's last major

work. True Christian Religion. exerted a new pressure toward
a negative JUdgment. fbr now Swedenborg was making explicit
the implications that ~tinger formerly had seen as dangerous.
He wrote to Hartmann:

Swedenborg hat mir seln neues Such geschlckt. darln

slnd erst seine Griffe endeckt. Christl Zukunft soli
nicht nach dem Buchstabllchen genommen werden. Er
(Swedenborg) sel die Zukunft. ~eine Noten Uber Sweden­
borgs Sache sind noch gelind. 194

This second motive toward B negative assessment wBsmuch

more effective than the first. for a year later. ~tlnger

wrote again to Hartmann (19 Sept. 1771):

Selner [Swedenborg's] Sache wIre zu helfen. wenn

er alles. was er sagte. ein wenig purlflcirte. und
seine Hieroglyphen nlcht so seichte erheben thlte. 19S

This much he had said to Swedenborg. five years before.

Now. however. he went further:

Thorlcht ist aber alles. Das Krlnkt mich. dass er

so toll schrelbt • • • • Vielleicht werde ich noch
seln grosster Widersacher. l 96 .

This last statement represented the furthest SWing

of ~tlnger's pendulum from the 1765 Judgment expressed to
von Castell: aMich irrt nichts. Ich kann alles combinieren•
• Aber o. welch ein Buch ist dissl- Swedenborg wrote
nothing to provoke furth~r opposition. and indeed influenced
~tinger effectively toward a return to a more accepting
 88

vl~olnt. In December of 1771. Oetinger wrote to Hartmann

that Swedenborg had written him ·curieuse Nachrichten- of
a spfri tual conversation with Oetinger l s late teacher, Bengel,
and late student. Fricker. 197 The importance of this news
can be seen from Oetingerls 1767 letter to Swedenborg already
cited:

Dieses Elne bitte ich mir von Ihnen aus, dass Sie
meinen Indess verstorbenen Freund Fricker, welcher
Heifer an der Kirche zu Dettingen gewesen. und auch
lhre Parthei ergrUfen hatte. angehen. mlt ibm zu
sprechen. und. vas er aussagt. mir wieder zu berichten.
Diss wird mir anstatt eienes Zelchens seln. wie Sle
versprochen haben: vielleicht wlrd ein solches noch
gegeben. 19ts

Now that the ·slgn- vas given. but with no details, Oetinger
seemed ready to defy the government1s prohibition. and meet
with Swedenborg for further dlscusslons--ror, according to
plan. ·Er kommt doch noch vor selnem Tode.- 199 However,
since Swedenborgls death interrupted the plan, the errect
of this sign on Oetingerls assessment vas dubious. In any
event. the conclusion or the matter came not from Swedenborg
himself. but--Just as the original confirmation of Swedenborg1s
visions came indirectly from Schill--it came from another
visionary. the famous Jungfer ~ipper~nnln. By her account,

Er [Swedenborg] ist selig • • • • Das. vas er gesehen

und geh8rt. ist richtig. Fricker hat es selber gesagt,
mit dem BelfUgen. er, Swedenborg, bleibe immer ein
wichtig'er Mann• • • • Ober H. Pralat OeUnger 1st auch
ungem~!n vl~l Freude unter den seligen Geistern. n~~onders
freut sich Bengel sehr Uber ihn, well er den Buchstiblichen
mit dem gelstllchea 511'10 verbindet. 200
 89

So, in the end. ~tinger considered himself confirmed in his

view of Swedenborg. and in his contra-Swedenborgian view of
the Bible as welll
In summary, it is clear that Swedenborg's idea ot
empirical revelation was a potent factor in the streaa ot
influences that affected ~tinger in his search for an
eclectic, theosophic alternative to Deism. Although ~tinger's

reaction to Swedenborg was not one of total acceptance, nor

anything like discipleship, still his criterion for JUdgment
and selection was consistent with Swedenborg's treatment of
empirical revelation as empirical data, to be judged like
other data against relevant criteria; and by this criterion,
he accepted far more of Swedenborg's psychically-perceived
data than he rejected. In this, he exemplifies the obverse
of Rant's reaction. He fully accepted Swedenborg's ontology,
which Kant did not specifically reject; he stumbled over the
epistemological issue of Swedenborg's knowledge claims about
the Bible, virtually dramatizing the reason for Rant's SUM­

mary rejection of the whole system. The difference see••

to have been that the biblical criterion was valid tor
~tinger, but irrelevant for Rant, forcing Kant to reject
the whole from which ~tinger felt equipped to select. Also,
there was a question of relative values: ~tinger's appreci­
ation of 'the ontology outweighed his difficulties with the
critical aspect of the epistemology; for Rant, no benefit
could outweigh the inaccessibility to critical judgment.
 90

Therefore. just as Kant reacted In the dIrectIon of crItIcal

contractIon of the domaIn of knowledge. Oetlnger moved In the
dIrectIon of expansIon toward holIsm.

MInor ReactIons to Swedenborg

Helnrlch Clema

Helnrlch Clemm became margInally Involved with

Swedenborg through Oetlnger. The fourth volume or hi.
Vollst~ndIgeElnleltung In dIe RelIgIon und gesammte Theologle
was In preparatIon at the tIme of Oetlnger1s dIffIcultIes in
Stuttgart. and as a favor to hIs Swablan frle.nd he Included
In the text a commentary on the begInnIng of the Oetlnger­
Swedenborg correspondence. PUblIshIng the InItIal exchange
of letters as footnotes. 201 Thus. he served Oetlnger1s
purpose of gettIng hIs objectIons to Swedenborg establIshed
as a matter of publIc record. GoIng further. Clemm.polnted
out the epIstemologIcal dIffIcultIes In reachIng a defInItive
judgment wIth regard to Swedenborg1s psychIc data.

Entweder sInd Herrn Swedenborgs Nachrlchten blosse

ElnbIldungen und Phantaslen. oder sIe sInd durch
efnen Falschen GeIst als eln Blendwerk ihme vorge­
spfegelt. oder sIe verhalten sich wirkllch so, vie
er erzehlt. Von alien drey Fallen kann Ich keinen
zuverslchtllch behaupten. 202

After some cons&deratlon of each of the three alternatives,

he returns to his starting poInt:
 91

Dann ich wollte gar nicht urtheilen, sondern nur

meine Bedenklichkeiten Uberhaupt anzeigen. Allein
genug hievon; lch glaube meine Leser sind nun Uber­
zeugt, dass ich nochmalen die zwei Lateinische
Buchstaben am Ende hinsetzen darf: N. L. non liguet;
die Sache is nicht klar; weiter weiss Ich nlchts zu
antworten. 20 3

By this means, Clemm was able to Justify Oetinger's interest

in Swedenborg without taking the risk of personal endorsement
of the Swede. His position amounted to this: since Sweden­
borg was ambiguous, and Oetinger was such a devout Christian
scholar, the Prelate made use of the best that was in Sweden­
borg's works--but others should be wary of such equivocal
testimony.
The effect of Clemm's assistance to Oetinger may
not have been too great; certainly it did little to placate
Ernesti. In his generally respectful review of Clemm'.
work, he-made it clear that this serious treatment ot
Swedenborg was carrying matters too far, and the time had
come to be less delicate in JUdging him.

Aber noch mehr wunschen wir, dass der Anhang dieses

Capitels von Swedenborgen, und dessen Briefen an seinen
wiirdigen Correspondenten, den Hrn. Oettinqer, weggebl1eben,
am wenigsten Uber die Swedenborgiscne Erz~hTungen ein
blosses Non liquet gesprochen ware. Es ist sus Sweden­
borgs Schrllrten und den Auszugen, die wir davon gegeben
haben, klar, dass er ein Naturalist ist, wie die groben
Fanatici, und seine Naturalisterey unter biblische
AusdrUcke versteckt, oder die biblische Theologie in
einen N3t.ural1sll1um verwandelt, wie es die Socinianer aut
eine andere Art thun. Und das ist der Schlttssel zu die
der Hr. D. setzt, class seine Erzahlungen entweder blosse
Phantasien, oder Rlendwerke eines bosen Geistes, oder
Wahrheit sind~ ist noch ein vierter, der sonderzweitel
der rechte 1st. Es konnen Erdichtungen seyn, damit er
 die Welt betriegen will; und er mag wohl in seinem

Herzen die Leute recht auslachen, wie sie es auch

verdienen, die ihm glauben, und seine Kunst nicht

verstehen. 2 04

Going on to lament that the times are ripe for gathering a

following to the wildest of heretical phantasies, he concludes,
aDas mag Swedenborg wohl wissen.-
Though Clemm could not reject Swedenborg as violently
as Ernesti, nevertheless he could not accept him as fully
as Oetinger did. The insertion of ihe commentary in his. work
obviously reflects his friendship for Oetinger, far more than
it reflects any serious intere~t in Swedenborg. In fact,
his final reference to the matter, in the fifth volume, Is,
as Benz points out, -eine Rechtfertigung Oetingers aut Kosten
Swedenborgs,- in spite of the fact that th~_concept of life
after death, put forward as Clerom's own, is virtually identi­
cal with the Swedenborgian essay on the subject which Oetinger
had pUblished in German translation,20S
Such appearances of parallels and similarities to
Swedenborg, in the works of writers who had had some encounter
with him, are numerous, but too equivocal to be pursued in
this study except in a few particularly striking cases. In
the present instance, however, the influence seems fairly
obvious, and it is relevant to the point of the chapter. The
very concept of the possibility of a description of any clr­
cumstance or situation in the spiritual world, as experienced
 93

by souls after death, participated in the Revolt against Deism;

rationalist epistemology could not admit the possibility of
any knowledge of such things. To present such descriptions
as fact, amounted to a corroboration of Swedenborg~ epistemo­

logical claim, as over against the deistic one. When the

description was presented more or less adjacent to a comment
on Swedenborg, as by Clemm, the corroboration was fairly
specific. The failure to refer· to Swedenborg is not surpris­
ing; it would only have required a further Justification,
since the intellectual climate In Germany at the time clearly
made Swedenborg a weak reed to lean on for authority. Never­
theless, Swedenborg's expansive effect on epistemology, lead­
ing away from Deism, is clearly illustrated.

Johann Kaspar Lavater

The Swiss pastor who founded the system of Physiognomy

completely accepted the validity of Swedenborg's psychic
experiences, and appeared ready in 1768, to accept as much
as he knew of the philosophical and theological system derived
from them. In that year, and again in 1769 he wrote to
Swedenborg, asking him to serve as a medium to seek answers
to four questions from Lavater1s six-months-dead friend, Felix
Hess. 206 It is not known whether Swedenborg answered these
letters in any way, but he felt enough connection with Lavater
to plan a visit to him on the same trip that was to have in­
cluded the visit to Oetingerj207 it is easy to speculate that
 94

the purpose of the visit was a three-year-delayed answer to

Lavater's plea for information. If this was the plan, then
Lavater never got his answer. Whether because of disappoint-
ment over this, or simply because of further reflection, his
final estimate of Swedenborg was somewhat cooler than was
suggested by the almost worshipful tone with which he asked
Swedenborg's help in communicating with the dead. By 1785,
Lavater had concluded:

I believe he [Swedenborg] is a sincere and true

seer • • • • But it does not follow therefrom that all
which Swedenborg saw was absolutely the tLuth. It was
true for him. If he told us truly, and ~ost can-
not doubt this, 'he had certain visions; but these
visions were adapted to his faculties • • • • I regard
his visions as his personal views of the universe, be~
cause he was a specially organized individual. I do not
think of them as oracles. His visions I accept as true
only insofar as they are easily fitted int~~~y.ste. J'
~~l my proven experiences-ana ntuitions.

The similarity of this Judgment with ~tinger's is obvious

in that Lavater accepted the possibility of psychic data,
but accepted the truth of such data only on condition that
it accorded with his own criteria for admission of all data.
There is no reason to assume that he reached this attitude
independently, since lavater and ~tinger corresponded, and
Oetinger's criterion for Judgment of Swedenborg appeared in
several of his published works.
In this way, in this and other cases, Oetinger'a
approach to Swedenborg was t~ken up by those who tended toward
 95

mystic or holistic world views, Just as Kant's approach

became normative for the critical philosophers of the time.

Summary Conclusion

In Germany of the 1760's. It vas generally recog­

n I zed tha t ~denbof_9.'s I de.!...-2.L.&mp...lrl.~~1lil.a::tJilJ!.) affecte d

the philosophy of religion In a way that vas crucial for the

time. Many people, as state~ by Ernestl, and as Implied by

the urgent concern of the Stuttgart Conslstory. were ready

and willing to accept such a mystical and hollst-tendlng

ontology and epistemology. The thinkers of scholarly stand­

-~ r,
Ing were not ready to accept It ~~, but Oetlnger accepted
much (Including the Inherent criterion for acceptance). and
(. Kant gave evidence that may have Indicated a willingness to
do the same. For Oetlnger, and those who followed his lead,
Swedenborg provided a~tlmu!us and a guide-post for. an expan­
-----
slon of the domain of perceived knowledge In the philosophical
pre-supposltlons of religious thought; while for Kant and the 1
critical school. Swedenborg served as a catalyst and a negatlveJ
stimulus for the strict delimitation of such knowledge, and
--"
a consequent rationalization of religion that was decisively
m0r! tb~rough-golng than Deism had been.
 96

NarES - CHAPTER 1

IBelow, Chap. 2.

2Be1O"" , Chap. 6.

3Be1O"" , Chaps. 3, 6.

4Above , p. 9.

5The Pietist Movement is described by Cragg in The

Church and the Age of Reason, Chap. 1; by McGiffert, op:-Cit.,
Chap. 9; and Williston Walker, A Historf of the Christian
Church, rev. Richardson, Pauck ! Handy New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1959). . .
~riedrich Christoph Oetinger, Die Lehrtafel der
Princessin Antonia~ u~. (1163) in "F. E. oetingers sammt_
llche Schriften," art 11, vol. 1.( hgg. R. C. E. EhDlann
(Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf, 185~).
70etinger, ~, Ope cit., 541, p. 676.
8Theodore M. Greene, "The Historical Context and
Religious Significance of Rant's Religion," forematter in
1. Kant, ReIi ion within the Limits of Reason Alone, tr. T. M.
Greene & • H. Hudson New York: Harper & Brothers, Torch_
book, 1960), pp. XXii-xxvii, has an excellent discussion ot
the Pietism in Rant's background.
9Runo Fischer, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie,
4 vols. (Heidelberg: Friederich Bassermann, 1865-69), vol.
3, p. 232.
10 1• e ., Reimarus' work of 1143, published in 1114-8
by Lessing, as Wolfenbuttel Fragmente.
ll E• g ., Amand Salntes, A Critical Historv of Rational_
r
ism in German (English trans.;-tOnJon: Simpkin, Marshal!
and Co., 1849 , p. 94.
12Johann August Ernestl, "Arcana Coelestla • • • .
[etc.] (Review), ~Ee Theologische Bibliothek, I l1160), 6,
pp. 515, 521. .
 91

I, I, 8.
I, 1, 6-8.
I, 1, 4.
I, I, 6.

20Ernestl, "Arcana," P. 516.

21~., p. 522.

22 Ibld ., p. 527.

23 Ib1d ., P. 522.

24 Ib1d ., p. 523.

5 "

2 Ibid., p. 527.

26Swedenborg, ~, 1870.

21Ernestl, "Arcana" pp. 515-16, 522, 527.

28
~., P. 515.
29 Loc , elt,"
301bld" e.g., 520, 522,
31Ibld., p. 520; Matt. 23:31, £! "Gelst Gottea";
Aposteg. 2, ~ the speech of spirits.
32Ibld" pp. 515, 525,
33~" pp. 524, 527.
34 Ib1d ., pp. ,23, 52$.
 98

35Above , pp. 37-38~

36 J • A. Ernesti, "Ooctrina novae Hieroso1yma de
Domino, et de Scriptura Sacra, it. Ooctrina Vitae pro Nova
Hierosolyma ex Praeceptio Deca10gi, & de Fide it. Continuatis
de ultimo Judicio & de Mundo Spirituali." (Review), Neue
Theologische Bib1iothek, IV (1763) 8, pp. 725-733. ----­
37 Ibid ., p. 725 •.
38 Below, p......
1.1.

39Ernesti, Ope cit., p. 726.

40Ibid., p. 731.
41~., p. 726.

. ­
42Ibid., p. 731 •
43 Ibid ., p•. 73).
440eutsche Acta Eruditorum, OCt. 1734, pp. 407-420,
cited by eyriel Odhner Sigstedt r The Swedenborg Epic (New .
York: Bookman Associates, 1952), pp. 121_2.
45Neue Zeitun en fur elehrten Sachen (1740), pp. 533-4;
Z.uverlassiqe achrichten, usw • • • . 0. 17 June, 1741l, pp.
203 ff, and (August, 1741), pp. 488-513; cited by Signe Toksvig,
Emanuel Sweden~or Scientist and stic (New Haven: Yale
niversity ress, 19 , pp. 1
46See below, pp. 66_67.

47See Hans Hoppe, "Die Kosmogonie Emanuel Swedenborgs

und die Kantsche und LaPlacesche Theorie," Archiv Cur Ge_
schichte der Philosophie >ON (19121) 1, pp. 53-b8, reprinted
in Orfane Tore (Zurich) IV (1960), 1, pp. 25-27; 2,pp. 46-50;
4, pp. 111-116 [without original citation], & trans. in New
Church Magazine (London), XXI (1912), No. 369, pp. 385-39ijT
No. 370, pp~ 446~54.
4 8See above, p. 42.
49see below, pp. 56 and S7.
50 err , ope cit., pp. 199-200.
51Benz, ope cit., P. vii.
 • ·f

99

52Ibld •• p. xl.
53Immanuel Kant, Brief an FrI. Charlotte von Knobloch
(17631) KGS, Ope clt., X, pp. 43=48. For a discussion of the
dating problem see below, PP. 282-283.
54Immanuel Kant, Traume eines Geistersehers:
erlautert durch Traume der Metaphysik lKonigsberg: 1766).
KGS, Ope clt., 11, pp. 317-373. .
55Thls list follows closely a similar list by Ernst
Benz, Swedenborg In Deutschland, Ope clt •• pp. 245-6.
56Kant, Brief, Ope clt •• p. 44. 11 20.
57Kant , Traume, Ope clt •• p. 354. II 9.
58Kant. Brief, OPt clt •• p. 45. 11 20.
59Kant • Traume, OPt clt•• p. 354. II 9-10.
6°Kant • Brief, ope clt •• p. 45. 11. 18-19.
61Kant • Traume, OPt clt •• p. 354, !! 21.
62Ibl~., p. 366, !! 10-11.
63 Ibld ., p. 360, 11 3.
64Kant , Brief, Ope clt •• p. 48, 11 3-4.
65Kant , Traume, Ope clt., p. 360, !! 14-15.
66Kant , Brief, OPt clt., p. 47, .ll 37; p. 48, !! 3.
67Kant , Traume, Ope clt., p. 354, 11 9ff.
68Kant , Brief, OPt clt., p. 45, !! 4-8.
69Loc • clt., 11 10_11. ,~
70Kant , Traume, Ope clt., P. 354, l! 21-23.
71 See especially Kant, Traume, op, clt., p. 348,
11 24-29.
72Kant, Brief, op, clt., p. 48, !! 7-8.
73Kant , Tr·aume,op. elt., p. 361, !! 3-18.
 100

74Kant , Traume, Opt cH., P. 318, .!!17-25.

75Kant , Brief, passim.

76 Ibid " II 8.ft.

77Kant , Traume, ~p. cit., P. 318, .!! 13-17.

78~., p. 357, .!! 17.27.

79Kant , Traume, OPt cit., P. 356, II 11_13.

80The accounts are reproduced in Tarel, Documents,
OPt cit., 11, pp. 628-692.
81 See Tafel, Documents, OPt cit., 11, p. 388~ Johann
Christian Cuno, Memoirs on Swedenborg, ed. Scheler, tr. C.
Berninger (Bryn Athyn, Pa.: Academy Book Room, 1947), pp.
132_33; Tafel, Documents, Opt cit., 11, P. 390.
82Kant , Traume, OPt cit., P. 354, .!! 25-30.
83 Ibid ., p. 318, !! 1-4.
84Kant , Brief, OPt cit., pp. 43-44.
85 Ibid ., P. 44, .!! 22_3.
86Loc • cit., !! 2_10.
87~., P. 46, .!!. 31-2.
88~., p. ,47, !! 25·26.
89l£!S., pp. 47, ! 37 - P. 4 8 , ! 3.
90 .
Above, PP. 22-23.
91 Kant , Traume, OPt cit., P. 318, !! 13-17.
92 Ibid ., P. 357, 11 17 tt.
93 Ibid ., P. 318, 11 22_25.
94~., p. 36 1, 11 14 _1 8 •
95Kant , Trauma', oP,. ci t., p. 360, .ll 14-15.
96Compare ~~., !! 34-35.
97~., P. 3/9,
r!
11 18 .29.
 101

98Kant , Brief an Moses Mendelsohn, KGS, OPt cit., X,

pp. 69, 1 37 - p. 70, 1 10.

99l£!£., p. 318, 11 4_8; p. 368, !! 1_12; p. 369,

11 9 ff.

100Admittedly, this is controversial •. ,Kuno Fischer

(op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 232) and Moritz Kronenberg (Kant: Seln
Leben und Seine Lehre (Munchen: C. H. Beck [0. Beck] 1891),
p. 16 j ) read the Traume as univocal, disdainful sarcasm. In
doing so, however, they do not account for Rant's self-contra­
dictions pointed out by Benz (Swedenborg in Deutschland, Opt
~' Pt. 11), or the appearances of Swedenborgian influence
seen In the Kritik der Reinen Vernunft by Hans Valhlnger
(Kommentar, 2 vols. [Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Spemann, 1881_
92], vol. 2, p. 513), and opinions of authorities listed in
note 101 followin~. Significantly, one of-_if not the __first
reviews of the Tr'aume, took a position similar in thTSrespect
to mine. "Der Verfasser • • • sagt wie jmer Romer: einer
. sagt neinI der andere: jal ihr Romer, wem glaubt ihrl" The
reviewer was J. C. Herder (see below, p. 114).
101Confirmation would require detailed analysis ot
Rant's pre-critical works and examination of the implications
of the hypothesis with respect to a considerable number ot
issues in the critical philosophy. The relationship between
Swedenborg's views and Rant's later philosophy was the sub­
ject of considerable controversial discussion toward the end
of the nineteenth century, by Cassirer, Fischer, Kronenberg,
and Vaihinger, as cited, as well as the follOWing: WaIter
Borman, Kantsche Ethik und Occultismus (1900); Joseph Dippel,
Die Neuere Spirltismus in seinem Wesen dargeleQt und nach
se inem We_rte QC pruft O:ftinchen: 1897); Car1 DuPre 1 "Kants
Mystische Weltanschauung,n ih his edition of Kant's Vorlesungeg
iiber PsyChologie (M'unchen: 1889), "Kant und Swedenborg, "
S._A. a. d. Zukunft, IV, (1896), Nr. 48. pp. 145 ff.; and
Der Tod, das Jenseits. das Laben lro Jenseits (M'unchen: 1899);
Erdmann, several works cited by Vaihinger; Max Heinze, in an
article in Abhandlun en der Sachsischen Gesellschaft der'
Wiss~nschaften, XIV I 9 i Rob~rt Hoar, D2r A~ebllche Mysti_
cismus Rants (Brugg: 1895J; Paul von Lind, Kant~~~stische
Weltanschauung L ein Wahn der Modernen ~/stik~Munchen: 1892);
Riehl, as cited by VaThlnger; and MollS Valhfnger, "Kants Vor_
lesungen iiber die Met~£)~Y§.l.h," in Arch Iv (iir Geschichte d «
Philosophie, IV (T8'9>J, pp. 721 ff.; and reviews in K"ant_
studien, I (1897), pp. 477-478, III (1899), p. 362.
Also, the matter has been addressed by Swedenborg
scholars: Albert J. Edmunds, "Time and Space: Hints Given
by Swedenborg to Kant,n N~w Church Re~iew~ IV (1897), pp. 251­
265; the Rev. Frank ScwaTr;---nlntr"O'd'UCtion' to Kant, Dre?'~' ot
~rit-Seer, tr. E. r'. G8erwitz (London: 1900); ..lI;'~'J~~­
Theodore F'. Wr i ght, Ar~ ic le s in ,Ne,!" Chu:~h. Revl,€W, IV (1891),
pp. 361-370, VII (1900;, pp. 428=4~nu JIlt rr901), pp. 8,.
101. The citations, and some preliminary examination of the
literature, ,uggest that the cou~entators tended to extremism••
 102

finding either strong Swedenborgian influence (as elpecially,

DuPrel, and the New Church writers), or none at all (appar_
ently the concensus). Only Vaihinger, and, perhaps, Erdmann,
support a view that would seem compatible with the hypothesis
I have proposed. Vaihinger found Swedenborg's influence
strong into 1770, and set that as the date of the beginning
of the development of the Critical Philosophy; after 1770,
"der wild gahende Most des Swedenborg'schen Mysticismus ist
bei Kant zu dem edelm, milden und doch kraftigen Wein des
Kriticlsmus abgeklart" (Kommentar, Ope cH., p. 513). Benz'
"Swedenborg als geistiger Wegbahner des deutschen Idealismus
und de r deu tschen Romantik," Deu tsche__\Tie rte 1 ahrsch aft filr
Literaturwissenschaft und GeStesge~chichte IX 1 1, pp~
1-32, and·Swedenborg in Deutschland, Ope cit., might well re_
open the whole problem, and 1 have not found Kant's ambiguity
toward Swedenborg adequately treated elsewhere. Both Vaihinger
(Kantstudien I [1897], p. 478; and III [1899], P. 362), and
Medicus ( ibid., IV '£ 1900], p. 335, in his review of Borman),
promised a-$:Ystematic study of the whole question in a forth_
coming issue of Kantstudien, but it does not seem to have
appeared. If the hypothesis proposed in this study has any
merit, one implication would be the need for such an investi_
gation on a serious scale.
1025ee Benz, Swedenborg in Deutschland, o~. cit.~ p.
vii.
l°3was the other pole of the ambiguity the antithesis
of the first, namely, a tendency to try to expand certainty
to the limits of knOWledge? Two passages suggesting this
are: Kant, Untersuchung uber Deutlichkeit der Grundsatze der
naturlichen Theologie und der Moral (1764> KGS, OPt cit., 11,
p. 300, 11 26-33. Xant, Allgemzine Naturgeschichte und Th._
orie desHimmels, octer Versuch vcn dp.r Verfassun91 und dem
mechanischen_Urs ~un e des anzen Welt eb~udes nach Newton­
ischen Grundsatzen abgehandelt 17 , KG , OPt cit., I, p.
1
221, 23 - p. 222, 1 4. ---­
10~ant, Traume, Ope cit., pp. 367-8.
105Ernst Cassirer, Das Erkenntn~ssproblem In der
Phi losophle una Wissenschaft_cte.r Neurt:n re
It, 40 vols., Vol.
11, pp. 473-81, esp. p. 47ff. .
106Kant , TraQm~, oE. ~i~., P. 360.
107perhaps most concisely in ~ 1.
108See esp. Swedenbor~rommar, ed. Dahlgren (Stock.
holm: 1859), tr. C. 1'h. Odhner, as Journal of Dreams (Bryn
Athyn, Pa.: Academy Book Room, 1918~~ passim, & nos. $0,
6, 6,. 5,­
 103

109Above. pp. 20_21.

11?Kant. Traume. ope eit., pp. 360, 1 21 - 361. 1 9.

111~•• p. 360. 11 25-26.

1125ee Ibid •• pp. 354, 11 4-8; 351. 1 32 - 358. 1 8.

113~•• p. 354. 11 25-30.

114Ibid •• p. 359. 1 32.

115 Ibid ., pp. 351, 1 35 - 352. 1 8.

116 Ibid ., p. 318. 11 13-17.

l11 Ibid ., p. 318. 11 3~.

118~ •• pp. 361. 1 31 - 366. 1 10.

119 Ibid •• p. 363. 136.

120
~ •• p. 364. 11 16tt.

121Ernesti. "Areana," OPt eit •• p. 516.

122Kant , Traume. ope eit •• pp. 363. 1 36; 365. 1 35;

366. 1 11.
123Ernesti, "Areana," OPt eit., p. 521; "Einleltung
in die Religion und Theologie, von H. Clemm," Neue Theologlsehe
Bibllothek, VIII (1161) 10. (PP. 860-892). p. 875.
1245 ee above.
. ~'I.
p. ~.
125Fiseher. Ope eit •• P. 232.
126Ernst Benz, "Sw~denborg als Geistiger Wegbahner."
Ope eit.; see also Benz, ~wedenbor~ in Deutsehland, Ope cit ••
pp. viii-Ix; and Friedemann Horn,c.~if'~ und Swedenborg:
Eln _B_e!trag zur Prob.1emgeschlchte des deU~SCfH:ln Ideallsmus
und f,ur Geschlchte Swedenborgs in Deutschlandj nebst einem
Anhan - Ubcr K. C. F. Krause und Swedenbor sowle E', 'anzun •
zu R. chnelders F~r.chungen, Marburg Doctoral Iss. urich.
Sweden-Verlag, 19~4). passim.
121Se. above. p. 4r:'~.
128aetinger, Sammtliche Schriftcn, 11. 2, ope eit.,
p. 15.
 104

1290etlnger, Brief an Merzog Karl von W"urttemberg, In

Frledrlch Chrlstoph Qetingers Leben und Briefe, ai, urkund_
licher Commentar TU dessen Schriften, ed, K. C. E. Ehmann
(Stuttgart: 1859, Nr. 564, p. 683.
130The full title runs: Offentllches Denkmal der
Lehrtafel einer weil. Wirttembergischen Prlncessin Antonla
in Kupfer gestochen, dess Original sie von den zehn Abglanzen
Gottes in den DeinachJschen Brunnen in einem prachtigen
Gemalde gcstiftet, wobei von der Kraft der Brunnguellen, von
der Philosophie der Ebraer, ~nd uberhaupt von dem Geist.
Gottes nach alien Stellen neuen Testaments eine Erklarun
gegeben wird, Ehmann edition Stuttgart: 1
131Benz, Swedenborg In Deutschland, op, cit., p. S.
An attack of pleurisy had led to pneumonia (Ibid., p. 3).
1320etlnger, Brief an Merzog Karl, lo~. elt.
133See above, pp. 33-34 •
134Benz , op. elt., p. 16.
135oetlnger, Brief an dem Grafen vom Castell (176S)
Ehmann, op. elt., Nr. 547, p. 676.
136Loe • elt.
137toc • elt.
138 toe • elt.
139oetlnger, Brief an Merzog Karl, op. elt., p. 684.
l40Ibld., p. 685; Brief an von Castell, op. elt., Nr.
550, p. 677;arso~ op. cH., Nr. 562, p •.~ "Meine Sehrlft
1st rein PrU!ung.
141Benz, OPt eit., P. 8.
142I_bid., P. 9.
143 J • A. Ernesti, "Theologia ex Idea vitae deducts•
• • • Auetore M. Frid. Christ. Oetlnger • • • • Franco!. et
tipziae, 1765." (Review) in Neue Theologisehe Bibliothek, VI
(1765), 7 (PP. 617-643), p. 618.
144Loe , elt.
145 1bld ., P. 626.
 10,

146Ibid., p. 638.
147 Ibid ., P. 643.
1480etinger, Brief an Herzog Karl, OPt cit., P. 684.
149 Ibid ., p. 683.
150There are four versions of the questions, and
three of the answers, all apparently derived from a single
document. One copy was printed by Oetinger in Beurtheilung
der wichtigen Lehre vom Zustand nach dem Tod und der damlt
verbundenen Lehren des beruhmten Emanuel Swedenborgs theils
aus Urkunden von Stockholm, theils aus sehr wichtigen An.
mcrkungen verschiedner Ge lehrten, 1771; Ehmann, ed., Sammt •. ­
Schriften, Part 11, vol. 6. Another was included in ~
durch die Demuth grozzen Gelehrten, d~s Hochwurdigen ~ttemb.
Raths, Pralats und Abts, Herrn Fr. Ch. Oetingers hQchwichtiger
Unterricht vom Hohepriesterthum Christl, r,ur richtigen Beur.
thellun der Nachrichten des Herrn von Swedenbor s in einem
Ges rach nach Art des Buches Hiob ~ •• usw. Frankfurt
eipzig: 1 7 • • enz found another copy in the Hessischeft
Statts-Archiv Hessen-Darmstadt in Darmstadt. Also, in a letter
to Swedenborg, 16 Dec. 1767 (Ehmann, op._cit., Nr. ,82, pp.
706-8), Oetinger describes the projected writing of Hohepriest.
erthum Chri~ti, and lists the questions. The Hesse.Darmstadt
copy is the longest, and differs in order and terminology from
the Beurtheilung version, Which is authorized by Oetinger in
his Selbstbiographie (Ehmann, Leben und Briefe, OPt cit., Nr."
62, p. 302). The differences could be explained on the basis
that the text in Beurtheilung reproduces the original which
was addressed solely to the issues in the Wurttemberg Privy
Council, While the Hesse_Darmstadt copy was a rewritten expan.
sion dealing with broader issues, and intended for publication.
(See Oetinger, Brief an Landgrafen LUdwi~ IX, von Hasse.
Darmstadt, In "Neue Swedenborg.Urkunden, appended to Benz,
Swcdenborg in Deutschland, Opt cit., 12, p. 290). Despite
the ind-irect evidence for this view, Which can be addueed from
the texts, the greater probability lies with the conclusion of
Benz' detailed comparisons (~JL1., pp. 87.100), so I am
accepting the Hesse.Darmstadt text as authentic, and quoting
from his "Neue Swedenborg_Urkunden," #2, pp. 291-308.
1510etinger, Brief .an Herzog Karl, OPt clt., p. 683.·
15 2 Ib id., p. 684.
1530etinger, Fragen und Antworten, OPt cit., p. 30,.
154Benz , .()P.L. c It., p. 98: "Diese Antwort musste den
orthodoxen Zeltgenossen insofern unbefriedigend erscheinen,
 106

als Ja gerade Manner wle Arndt, Spener und Bengel von Selten
der Orthodoxle des Abfalls von der relnen Lehre der symboll_
schen Bucher bezlchtlgt worden waren und die gennanten
Frommen glelchen, wenn nlcht heftlgeren Verdaehtlgungen wle
Oetlnger selbst ausgesetzt waren. Hat man doch zum Belsplel
Spener nlcht wenlger als zwelhundertslebenzehn Abwelehungen
von der Lehre der Bekenntnlssehrlften vorgeworfenl"
l55Se • below, P. 90.
l560etlnger, Brief an Herzog Karl, oR. elt., P. 684.
l570etlnger, Fragen und Antworten, Ope eft., P. 301.
l580etlnger, Brief an Herzog Karl, Ope elt., PP.
683-4.
1590etlnger, Selbstblographle, Ope elt., Nr. 34, P.
149.
160Ibld ., P. 150.

161~., P. 15
1.
162Kant , Brief an FrI. von KnobloCh, Ope elt., pp.

163aetlnger, Fragen und Antworten, Ope elt., p_ 291

("Erste Frage").
164toe. elt.
165S.e above, p. 16.
1660etlnger, Fragen und Antworten, Ope elt., P. 292.
167Loe • elt.
168 Ibld ., P. 294.
169 Ibld ., p. 300, In answer to the Fifth Question,
"Warum er [~nger] das Buch [Swedenborgs und_Anderer, with
Its translated excerpts from Swedenborg's ~~a Cgelestla]
fur so wlehtlg ansehe?"
170~., P. 294 •
171 Se • above, p. 67.
172Kant , Traume, Ope cit., pp. 365, 1 24 - 366, ! 10.
173aetlnger, 02. elt., P. 29,.
 107

Brief an Herzog Karl, Ope cit., PP. 684-5.

Fragen und Antworten, Ope cit., pp. 296,

p. 295.
P. 301.
P. 303.
p. 296.
300.

1831.!W!., pp. 749-750.

184Ibid., p. 750.
185Loc • cit.
186 Ibid ., P. 752.
187Loc • cit.
188E.g., T.C.R., 229.
189See above, PP. 73-~.

190oetinger, Brief an Swedenbor9, Ehmann, qe. cit.,

Nr. 581, P. 706.
191Ibid.~ p. 708.
192oetinger, Brief an von Castell, Ehmann, 091 cit.,
Nr. 559, pp. 619-80.
 108

1930etinge r, Brief an Hartmann, Ehmann, Ope cit.,

Nr. 634, p. 766.
194 Ibid ., p. 766.
195 Ibid ., Nr. 636, p. 768.
196Loc • cit.
197 Ibid ., Nr. 639, p. 770.
198oetinger, Brief an 5wedenborg, Ope cit., P. 108.
1990etinger, Brief an Hartmann, op~ cit., Nr. 639,
p. 770.
200Hasenkamp, Brief an Oetinger, Ehmann, Ope cit.,
Nr. 655, p. 791. A full and interesting discussion of the
Jungfer Wippermannin affair may be found in Benz, 0~2 cit.,
Part I, Chap. 18: "Nachsplel im Himmel," pp. 225-2 •
201Clemm, Einleitung in die Reli9ion, Ope cit., pp.
209-217.
202 Ibid ., P. 213.
203.!£!!!., P. 21 6 •

204Ernesti, Neue Theoiogische Bibliothek, VIII (1767),

10, pp. 874-875.
205 Benz, Ope cit., p. 105.

206The letters are printed in English translation In

R. Tafe1, Documents, OPe cit., pp. 264-266, 267-268.
2075ee above, pp. 87-88.
208Lavater, Fragen und Briefe weiser nnd guter
Menschen, translated excerpt published by Othmar Tobisch In
"Lavater and Swedenborg,11 New Church Review, XL (1933), (pp.
210-233), pp. 216_218.
SwedenborR's influence on Lavater is further analyzed
by Ernst Benz in Swedenborg und Lavater,11 Zeitschrlft fur
Kirchengaschichte, LVII (1938), pp. 152-216; however, the arti­
cle is concerning primarily with Swedenborg's influence on the
system of Physiognomy, and refers to the German version or
Tobisch's article for discussion of Swedenborg's impact on
Oetinger's Philosophy of religion.
 CHAPTER 2

SPECIAL REVELATION, CHURCH REFaU4

AND SECTARIANISM

The situation in which Swedenborg1sidea of empirical

revelation interacted with the Revolt against Deism in
England was radically different from that in Germany. A
precise det'lnitlon ot primary dltferences will ·serve three
purposes, contributing both to the continuity of the study,
and to a clearer conception of the context of the subject.
of this chapter, and further suggesting an area of general
inquiry into the relationships between ideas a~d movement••
Six points of difference will be discussed, with the specitic
intention of avoiding any assumptions regarding cause-and­
effect relations between the factors until after.other com­
parisons have been made, and this general matter is discussed
in the concluding chapter.
The first difference to be noticed is the stage of
development ot the Revolt against ~ism at which the en­
counter with Swedenborg occurred. Deism reached its peak
of development and influence earlier in England than ia

- -
Ger:ilany, and the counter-movement began earller there, too.
---
The revolt at the level ot philosophical presuppositionl ot
religioul thought, Which was led in the context ot Geraaa

109

 110

philosophical problems by Kant and ~tinger, had been

effectively completed in England prior to the beginning
of Svedenborg'spsychic experiences and subsequent publication
of his theological works. The leaders of this English develop­
ment were Be~leYf,~and But~r.l
In 1710, Bishop George~!rkele~ had disqualified
metaphysical abstractions from discussion of the bases of
religious thought, on grounds that such abstractions are
in fact impossible, because they have no foundation in exper­
ience. 2 In this respect, Berkeley's method of "banishing
Metaphysics etc. and recalling men to common sense") vas
essentially similar to Rant's anti-metaphysical argument In
the TrlUJJIu (though Berkeley and Kant ·had little enough in
common beyond this), vith one important exception. Kant
placed conceptions of spiritual reality in the same excluded
category with metaphysical abstractions; Berkeley~ after
establishing the impossibility of abstractions, proceeded
to distinguish "causes" from" ideas, sensations, or the things
vhich we perceive," defining the former as -incorporeal sub­
stance or sPirit.- 4 In this ontology in which spiritual
substance vas not regarded as an abstraction, he placed God
at one end of the totality of cause-and-effect relationships,
and "allthe choir of heaven and furniture of earth" at the
other, defining "all those bodies which compose the mighty
frame of the earth" as perpetual manifestations of the spirit­
ual presence of 00d."5 Though it cannot be pressed too far,
 111

a parallel exists between this ontology and#swedenbor 9 '.,)

In which ·everythlng that has been created Is, In itselt,
Inanimate and dead, but all things are animated and made
alive from this, that the Divine Is In them.· 6 h
In The Case of Reason (1732), WI Uiam ~ opposed
Tlndal's Christianity as Old as the Creation on the epistemo­
logical grounds that reason based on natural experience
alone is inadequate to the problems of religious thought. 7
As Law made clear in The Way to Divine Knowledge (1752),
an adequate basis required the expansion of rationall.t
epistemology to include mystically perceived knowlcdge. 8
The parallel with Swedenborg's epistemology is obviou••
Bishop JosePh~tler}s tamous The Analogy ot Religion,
Natural and Revealed, to the Course and Constitution ot
'Nature (1733) presupposed the ·same author and causc- to
the content ot revelation and experience alikc. 9 Thl.
concept ot an analogous relation between what is revealcd
and what is naturally perceived vas parallel in principlc
to Swedenborgls notion of a corr~pondential relationship )

between spiritual and natural reality.

There is no evidence that any ot these three antl­
Deists influenced Swedenborg's religious thought; however,
the parallels Just noted do suggest that Swedenborg'. on­
tology, epistemology, and coordinating concept ot corrc.­

-
pondence, were not so novel or provocative In England

-
they were in Germany. ~t-
a.
Revolt against Deism was already
 112

in progress in England when Swedenborg Joined it, and

ground had been broken tor the direction ot development which
his personal revolt was to take. ~ will be seen presently,
Law's inclusion ot mystical epistemology in a generally
rationalistic system was particularly s ignlticant tor the
.(
\ sUbseq~ent reception ot Swedenborglan idea••
A second d issimllar i ty between the Engll.h and
German reactions to Swedenborg is seen in the ·status· ot
the individuals Involved. In Germany. we 'saw scholars,
wri t~J!9__~_!,g~_~~nd expl£>ring_philosophical implic~lon.j

--
in England, we have to do with laymen and parish ministers, 10
persuading their triends by personar testimony. In tact,
there was no one even relatively comparable to Rant working
in this period ot English religious thought. (Law.\ in hi.
old age, bought the Arcana. but did not read It. 11 The time
tor reaction was too late tor Berkeley, Butler or Humej
G~on. Burke and Adam Smith were interested in ditterent
areas ot thought ;~esl~was ~rking, but his signlt}cance
l l~y- mOre in activity and organization than in systematic

thought (and his reaction to Swedenborg occurred at this

\
leVe1)j12 no intellectual giants dominated the scene.
'A third ditterence will presently become apparent:
by comparison to the German. the English tendency at this
period inclined toward wholesale acceptance-2r r!J!~tion,

ot idea systems as units. rather than to~rd re~onstruction.

by critical distInctions on the one hand. or by eclecticism

on the other.
 11)

A fourth distinction lay in the com~arative concern

for action. ~tinger and Kant reacted to Svedenborg by
vriting books, analyzing the philosophical and theological
adequacy of Svedenborg's thoughtd!the subjects of the
present chapter, on the other hand, reacted first by want­
ing to do something about Svede~borg ~d his revelation. l )
They did, indeed, begin to publish quite promptly--mostly
translations of Svedenborg's Latin into English--but their
purpose was more evangelical than analytical, as viii be
seen.
that~he Englishvere
Fifthly, it viII be· observed
-
much more concerned vith the relations of ideas and instltu- t
tional forms, than vere the Germans. Kant's minimal regard
for the Church is veil knawn, and ~tinger's self-defence
hinged on the issue of intellectual independence from the
necessities of insti~utional conformity. ljay contrast, the
first major dispute among the Englishmen vho accepted
Svedenborg concerned the relation of SvedenborgianIsm to the
'i,~ .!!-a'.ad
Established Cburcb;!& and the Engllsb criticisms ...
1
_.
more at Svedenborgian
-) separatism than at Svedenborg'. )
iheology per se.l~'
...,;;,;...,--~

The sixth and final dIfference to be noted vas the

degree of religious freedom which existed in England vis-t­
vis Germany. One of Svedenborg" first readers, a layman, -
rejoiced that the power of the clergy vas so restricted \ ,
that they~uld~suppre!.s_ SWedf.J1borg' s vr!tlngSI~ I f
 114

another, an Anglican Rector, offered Swedenborg asylum in )

England if ecclesiastical pressure should become unbearable )
at home or on the continent. 17 I
It may be apparent that the English pattern, aa
distinguished from the German--a revolt in progress,
absence of original thinkers of major rank, a tendency
toward u~ary reaction to idea systems, a primary concern
for action( and for insti tutional relatio~ and a general
context of relative religious fr~edom--was related to the \

--------- -----------
connection of Swedenborgianism with sectarianism in England. JI
However, whether it was the pattern of reaction which pro­
duced the sectarian tendency, or vice versa, is part of the
generalization which is postponed to the concluding chapter.
One of the firat readers of Swedenborg's theological
~ writings w~s a_~n,'S Penn }of Dartmouth. He bought
the first volume of the Arcana on publication in 1749, and
wrote to the printer to place a standing order for the
remainder. Three things are interesting about Penny'.
initial reaction. In the first place, he ~ues5ed that the
anonymous author might be William Law. 18 Penny was person­
ally acquainted with Law, ~d with Law's friend, Langcake,
and may have discussed the Arcana with Law, 19 so ~ cou;';
not hav~ remained in doubt tor long on that score; but it
appears that the epistemological implications of empirical
revelation present~d no difficulty to one with this back­
ground. S~condly, Swe~e4borgts biblical interpretation
 U$

gave him "the fullest satisfaction,,;20 thus, what vas

foolishness to Rant, and an insuperable difficulty for

~tinger--on epistemological grounds in each case--vas

satisfying to a reader who had previously accepted the

possibility ofmyst~~al knowledge. Thirdly, he pointed

..-'

out the significance of religious freedom in England. Event.

were to demonstrate that Swedenborg's ideas were no more sate
there than in Germany from the ridicule which Rant teared,
but they were safe from the persecution which ~tlnger exper­
ienced. Penny may have over-estimated the seriousness with
which the English clergy would receive Swedenborg, but hi.
prediction vas essentially correct, that the Arcana's author
"must expect a considerable army of grown-men to draw their
pens against him," but he noted immediately that ·It I. a
blessing their power is prescribed within impassable bounds • .2 1
Apparently Penny's Interest in Swedenborg continued,

because in 1769, he published at Bristol a little work en­

titled Letters on the Fall and Restoration of Mankind,

I1

addressed to the serious part of every d~nomination, vhlch

( R. L. Tafel describes as the first Swedenborglan doctrinal
\\tract. 22 The work its~lf
does not seem to have had a large
printing, nor to have exerted any important influence,23
but Pe~'s personal contacts appear to have had a slgnltl­
cant influence on the timing and the direction ot Swedenborg'.
impact on English religious thought. Swedenborg's theological
---~- ---,
~vo~r~k~s~h~a~d~~e~e=n available in England since 1749. Though the
 116

full edition of the Arcana was qUite expensive. an English

translation of the second volume was pUblished simultane­
ously with the Latin. in a serial edition which Swedenborg
subsidized so that it could sell well below cost. 24 In
1758. he had sent gift editions of five works to all the
En lish bishops. and to the members of the House of Lords. 2S
But all this had produced little response. except thai one
purchaser of the Arcana was this Mr. Penny. He induced one
Richard Cookworthy. a drugg!st and Quaker minister,
- -Swedenborg;
to read -- 26 and Cookworthy, in turn. introduced
the works to an Anglican Rector. the Rev. Thomas Hartley.27
Cookw~rthy also pUblished an English version of Swedenborg'.
Heaven and Hell, and his printer's somewhat increduloas
description of the work aroused the interest of a young
London printer. Robert Hindmarsh. the son of a Methodist
preacher. 28 There are plausible grounds to suggest that

-
Penny also was instrumental in a certain Mr. Houghton'.
-
becoming interested in Swedenborg;29 Mr. Houghton is im­
portant because he often discussed Swedenborg with-his clo.e
friend, John Wesley.3 0 and also induced the Rev. John Clowes.
Rector of St. John's in Manchester. to purchase Swedenborg'.
True ChristIan Religion--which led to the latter's eventual
adoption of Svedenborgian theology. Like Penny. Hartley and

indeed. Clo~es
- - --
Cloves had been influenced affirmatively by William Law;
-- -
owed his ecclesiastical position to Dr. John
Byrom. who was one of Law's strongest supporter ••
 117

It particularly Illustrates the second and fourth

factors already mentioned as distinctive In the English
situation, that of the four leading figures In the Initial
English reaction to Swedenborg, certainly three and possibly
the fourth vas led to this Interest directly or Indirectly
through the personal activities of one man--a man who had
~~~~re than an a~~r's
--------
Interest or background In syatem­

------------- -
atlc religious thought.
Discussion of the Issues of this chapter requires
an examination of these three men--Hartley, Clawes and
Hlndmarsh--In some detail, and somewhat less attention to
other writers who contributed to this discussion. Ho~ver,

It Is not appropriate to analyze their total reaction to

Swedenborg, as vas done with Ernestl, Rant and Oetlnger;
~ey~lawes and Hlndmarsh completely accepted S~e~org's

-
system as a unit, so a full exegesis of their comments would
amount to a kind of secondary-source analysis of Swedenborg.
What Is relevant to this chapter Is their reaction to
Swedenborg's central Idea of empirical revelation, and the

--
effect of this distinctive notion In determining the pattern
- ---
---
-

--
of their revolt against Deism. It vas cl~racterlstlc

English situation, as already described, that they found the

of the

most significant Implications of this Idea In the context

of the problem of special revelation, and Its consequences
for the 41 ternatlve between \internaCre"fc5'r€1 of the estab­
~ "

llshed church, and sec arlan se aratl~from It.

 118

One of the subJects, Robert Hindmarsh, will be

discussed further in Chapter Four; and one significant
figure contemporary with the material of this chapter-­
John Wes1ey--wi11 be considered in Chapter Three.

Thomas Hart1ey (1707-1784)

For most of his career, the Rev. Mr. Hart1ey was

Rector of Winwick in Northamptonshire. though he vas non­
resident for part of that time. He he1~ an M.A. trom St.
John's. Cambridge, and he had published two works of popular
theology betore the time ot his acquaintance with Swedenborg.
He published a collection ot Sermons on Various Subjects
in 1754. with a second edition in 1755; in 1764, 'he wrote
Paradise Restored, or a Testimony to the Doctrine ot the Blessed
Mil~enium. In these works, his role in the Revolt against
'Deism is more that ot a post~deist than an anti-deist, argu­
ing against certain extremes ot anti-deist reaction, and
s~~orting_ButlerL-Lawand other anti-d~L~ts, as well as
the older alternative to Deism, the mystical tradition ot
Boehme and Arndt. His relationship to the currents ot
theological thought is made most specific in the pretace
to his Sermons. -A Prefatory DIscourse on Mistakes concerning
Religion, Enthusiasm. Experiences, &c,- and the appendix to
Paradise Restored, -A Short Defence of the Mystical Writers,
against a late Work, intitled, The Doctrine ot G~ace, or the
otticC'l ~~ ~lj>,!.!!1+"on~"'f t,h~......!!~}y Spirit Vindicated, &c., by
 119

VIlllam [Warburton), Lord Bishop of Glouc~st~r." In th~

nMIstak~sft and th~ ftD~f~nce,ft a thoughtfully-d~v~lop~d

position Is
chall~ng~
. --------­
to
d~fln~d, primarily In
~stabllsh~d Anglicanism.
th~ context of
-----
th~ V~sl~yan

In th~ "Mlstak~s,ft he '~fend~d M~thodism (in it.

pres~paratist form) against the frequent charges of "enthu-.
siasm." He considered it to be charactert"stic of the true
Christian tradltlon--the tradition of Arndt, Henry- More, Law
and Burkltt--while at the same time, he warned against th_
dangers of enthusiasm or mysticism unbridled by Reason and
the Scriptures. In the ftDef~nse" (1764), after Varburton'.
1762 anti-Methodist treatise had struck at the very mystical
tradition which Hartl~y valued so highly, he quit worrying
about the dangers, and concentrated on the value ot the
mystical tradition. Against both Wesley on the lett, and
Varburton on the right, Hartley defended Law, Boehme,
/ Madame Guion, Fenelon and oth;;s as bearers of th~ Inspiration
l ~ -----­
which was essential to the life of true Christianity. "Th_

--
true Mystics," he maintained, "are not to be taken as a sect
or party in the church, or to be considered as separatists
from It,_3
/:.
for their doctrin~s were such as "every church
Is • • • bound to admi t.~ )
On the showing of these ~orks, Hartley was a 'supporter
of the Establlshment--i.e., of a degree of theological uni­

---
formlty--as the visible form of Invisible Christianity; but
he insisted on the reality, and the nece5slty, of continued
 120

(though perhaps continued intermittently) divine inspiration,

conveyed to the church through mystical writers; he recog­

nized the danger of error that accompanied the claim to in­

spiration, but he was confident that disciplined thinking,

with particular emphasis on conformity to biblical teaching,

provided adequate safequards. In this last, especially,

Hartley was parallel to Ottinger.

The importance or this attitude for a favorable pre­

disposition toward Swedenborg's mystical theology may be

obvious. If documentation is needed, it may be found in

[
'-
the three preface
----
that Hartley wrote for English transla­
tlons of Swedenborg's works; in each, he traces the history
of recurre~i~spirationat the vital center of the Christian .
J
l (and Judeo-Christian) tradition, defines the criteria tor
safeguard against delusion, and_d fends Swedenborg a ainst
a~ p~sible charge of sectarian sepa!!!ism. 33 Hartley did)
not find Swedenborg ~evo utlonarY) In contrast to Ottlnger
and Kant, he saw him as a new advance in the long tradition
of spiritual reneval of Christ's Church--In fact, an advance
long overdue.
When his friend Cookworthy introduced. Hartley to
Swedenborg's writings, they were still anonymous. Shortly
thereafter, their authorship becam~ public in 1768, and In
1769,'Cookworthy and Hartley paid a visit to SW~d~nborg~ ~o
- ----==:-- ---~-- - - ----­
~~tondon. Of this, or subsequent visits by Rartley-­
sometimes alone, and sometlm~, In company with S'~d~nborg"
 121

physician. Dr. Messiter 34 _-little is known except that

, Swedenbor 's impression on these three men was completely
j favorable. 35 Immediately after the first visit, an ex­
change of letters took place between Hartley and Swedenborg;
Swedenborg's first letter (second in the series) contained
the short autobiography already referred t~36 and the remain­
der of the correspondence is no less interesting.
In the first letter, August 2, 1769, Hartley expressed
serious and considerable admiration for Swedenborg, and testi­
fies t~ his personal valuation of the latter's theological
\lorks:

From them, as from a living fountain, I have drawn

so many things, as well for instruction and edification
as for my great delight, and I have been freed by them
from so many errors, doubts, and opinions, wh-lch held
my mind In perplexity and bondage, that I seem to ~­
\ self sometimes, as if transferred among the angels.J7

A comparison of this with Oetinger's most enthusia.tlc

reaction,3 8 will serve to underscore the generality already
observed, that the English reactions to Swedenborg were more
unitary than the German. The letter continues with discus­
sion of two Christological issues, and closes, significantly,
with two practical ones. The first of these is a request
for information to help Hartley and Messiter, in the event
that one or both of them ·should be called upon publicly to \
defend your writ!ngs, and if likewise an occasion should )
arise of defending you._ 39
------
The 3econd v~s an offer of asylum
.. ­
 122

in England, if persecution in S~den should become uncom-

fortable:

Dr. Messiter and myself will prepare for you a con-

I { venient place and house, either in town or in the
country, and we shall provide fPS everything that
may conduce to your well-being.~

The request for information elicited" from Swedenborg the

short autobiography; the asylum was not needed. What Is

most urgent concern

~"-~-_ ..... _.
was
- ..
------.
most significant, however, is that Hartley's first and

_._------
to "do something.
~
The nature of
this concern was made more explicit in his second letter.
~ter thanking Swedenborg for the autobiography, and gener-
alizing (with a poor score for prediction) on the reception
of Swedenborg's writings in Sweden and England, Hartley
concluded:

If, after your return to Sweden, you should at any

time do me the honor, to address a letter to me, and
make use of my services in any way Whatsoever, you viii
find me a willing and delighted servant. Instruct me,
• e~~ort me, dispose of me in any way Whatever; for if
I know myself sUfficiently, it will be of the greatest
pleasure to me to obey your admonitions and commapds,
and you will find me faithful to all my promises.41

-
Now Hartley was sixty-two years of age, and in or approaching
retirement from active parish duties at Winwick;42 but hi.
letter does not suggest an old man looking for something
interesting to occupy his time. On the other hand, nothln

. "r I that he ~rote either before or since would suggest that he

~ \.XP.ClCd to b•••k.d 10 •• rv. 43 __ or 10 •• r .. tt •• k.d44 --I.
 12)

ci t~therance of any sectarian movement. He looked on

Swedenborg's work as a voice of renewal to the church, and
he wanted to further that rcnewa.l. His first thought was
of action. more than ofanalysis--the theological.questions
were asked -because I should like to answer those who wish
to know the reason-; when he pUblished. it was translations
o~ S~denborg's work. and not commentary-~though he did
publish extensive prefaces to his translations.
He did address a set of nine theological questions
to Swedenborg within the next few weeks. receiving a reply
before the latter's departure for Sweden in October. The
use he made of this reply was interes~ing. When the peti­
tion for revision of the Thirty-Nine Articles. signed by
the Deists. Socinians and Arians of the Feathers Tavern
Association. came before Parliament in 1771. '73 and '74.
Hartley opposed it as he had opposed Methodism: he objected
J- 11 t~ the principle of challenging ecc~~~l autHority in
\ \th}S way. but sympathized with the desire for liberalization
of formal tradition~ In 1743. he published The Cause of the
Petitioners Examined. urging thi~ attitude. In the course
of the york. he defended trinitarian statements In th~ Articles
on the grounds that such ~tatements were sound i t pr~perly

inhrprchd; and for ?t'op~r inte ..pretatlon, he offered--with­

out refct>ence, whlc11 certainly would not ha~furthered his
~~o~e~-a reconstruction or SW~d~nborg's ~hought on the

subject-as exp"~3se~ in v3rlous writings. !~~lnding e3peclalIy

 l~

th~ answ~rs to Hartl~yls nln~ questlonsl Then, some tltt~~n

years att~r h~ r~celv~d them, and shortly b~or~ his death,

he gav~ th~ questions and the answers to Rob~rt Hlndmarsh.
who published them as a tract.

In the meantime. Hartley translated Swedenborg1s

most strictly philosophical tr~atlse ot his theological

(periOd, On Influx, In 1770, attlxlng a pr~tac~, -H~bly

L-addr~ssed to the Universities ot Great Brltaln.- 4S In

collaboration with Cookworthy. who paid tor the pUblication,

he translat~d Swedenborg1s Heaven and Hell, writing for this

J purpos~ a amount~d to a general Intro­

longer preface which

~ductlon to S~denborgls works. 46 When John Cloves translated
True Christian Religion, ~ley contributed extensively to
th~ preface to that work. 4 r--These pretaces wer~ among the
~ earliest printed reactions to SW~denborgls work to r~c~lve
)\general circulation In England. His pretace to On Influx
was addressed primarily to the scholarly world, and In It
;I he dealt sp~clflcally with the ~plstemologlcal problem
~ Which h~ had raised In his artlcl~ on ftMlstak~s In Rellglon,_48
namely the possibility ot delusion In Inspiration.

First, It must be owned that over-credulity Is an

extr~me to be car~tully gu~rded against, as It may
expos, us to danger trom ev~ry delusion and Impol­
ture.~9

Recognition ot that dang~r, how~v~r, did not entail reJec­

tion ot all mystical writings.
 12$

It Is a very good reason for examining, but none for

rejecting, where such marks of credibility appear in
the witness, as would challenge our belief in any
weighty ,concerns of a temporal nature.SO -

Asserting the superior adequacy of a holist-tending -theo­

sophy" over materialist ontology,$l Hartley felt that-the
epistemological necessity for confirmation of such a theo­
sophy was ·one who can testify of these things from his own
knOWledge,_52 and happily stated that ·such a witness, and
a credible one too, is alive at this day.·S3 The credibility
was an important point. Hartley referred to his own meeting.
with SWedenborg. S4 to various testimonies to the latter's
character,$~ and maintained that -the credibility of Mr.
Swedenborg, as a witness to the truth of what he related,
stands unimpeached-;56 ~wedenborg was a scholar, philosopher,
gentleman and Christian, and

• • • if these parts of character may be allowed to gain

credit to his testimony, I think it may be pronounced
Concerning him, that he is the most extrao~dinary mes­
sen~er from God to man;-lfiat has appear on art ce
\) t~ ~ostollc ag~~-r at he ma~ properly be called
. the living apostle of these days.>7

Clearly, this argument from credibility signed Hartley a.

one not personally troubled by the epistemological problem
he was facing, for it demonstrated the actuality before
establishing the possibility. The po~sibility was assumed
on the strength of the Christian mystical tradi~ion.

In his Preface to Heaven and Hell, Hartley returned

to the main theme of hi, essay on "Mistake. Concerning
 126

---
Religion" and "Defence of the Mystical Writer,· namely the
ne~ssity of
.~
inspirat~n to the inner life of the church.
Blaming the present "low ebb" of the church on DeiSm~he
demonstrated the variability and undependability of reason
alone as a criterion in religious matters,S9 and asserted
"extraordinary communications" as the source of the ·unity
of the Spirit to the edifying of the Church in love.· 60
~ .

·The issue of criteria to guard against delusion was de.lt

with more directly than in the Preface to On Influx: here,

\ the necessity of miraculous confirmation was reJected,61

along with strict ecclesiastical conformity.62 As in the
earlier preface, however, he still was less clear about the
criterion he accepted than about those he reJected. 63
It was only in 1780 or 181, when he wrote the letter
that Clowes used in the Preface to True Christian Religion,
that he finally made explicit the criterion which he con­
-----------
sidered the adequate and final safequard against delusion
in inspiratioa.

Our Application of this Rule is to bring every Doctrine

to the Test of the Gospel of Christ, and whatever agree.
not with this divine Standard is to be rejected ••
fals& • • • To tn!s Test, viz~ t e Authority ~be~
Sacred ~J:!'p~ures,~'"!. !!.-frer the _Wti ~.ings_l:)Cthe insp~red
ISwe~~n1Jorg, rpr Examrnat on and Decision in every
of DOetrl2!!...6q. - ­
o1nt

Our Author ever kept the Holy Scriptures in his View,

they were his Light and Guide, his Shield and Buckler
on all Occasions; his Reasonings are grounded on their
AuthOrity, and he is abundantly copious in the Proof.
he draws from them in support of whatever Doctrine he
( advances: On this foundation he uuilds, and a surer
one can no one lay.OS
....

127

s~crlterlon as Oetlnger.
-
Thus, In his final analysis, Hartley adopted precisely the
-
The difference In their two
reactions to Swedenborg, whatever other explanations It may
have, owes something to Hartley1s prior e~lstemologlcal con­
Vlctlons. rega~ng ~e necessity of mystical Insplr~n to

!
the vitality of the church.
I
It may well owe something, too,

to the fact that Hartley had met Swedenborg, whereas Oetlnger

hoped to)but did not. In any event, the criterion of con­
sistency with Scripture allowed Hartley to accept the
Swedenborglan system Intact.

John Clowes (1743-18'1)

The name of John Cloves Is of much greater slgnltl­

cance In the history of Swedenborglanlsm, than Is the na..
I of Thomas Hartley. Clowes translated five of Swedenborgls
works, InclUding the voluminous Arcana Coelestla. Into
lEngllsh; he founded, In 1778, the world1s first Swedenborglan
~ \ 1 organization, within his Parish at Manchester; he vas the
first preacher to cite Swedenborg as an authority from-the
-
- --
pulpit; he actively opposed sectarian separation; he pre­
pared commentaries on the four Gospels, and contributed
extensively to other aspects of the development ot a
Swedenborglan tradition In religious thought. In the present
study of the key Issues in the Revolt against Deism, hovever.
h. may be dealt with more briefly than would be appropr.lat.
In a history of the Swed~nborglan church; In many respects,
 128

"'j ~)
Clowes stands as a kind of sequel to Thomas ~artley. Like
Hartley, Clowes studied at Cambridge, receiving his M.A.
'-­
from Trinity College, to which he had been elected a Fellow.
He had received academic prizes and university honora in
( his preparation for a teaching career, and his service. were

competed for among the Cambridge colleges, before ill health

>forced his temporary retirement from academic llfe. 66 Re­

covering from his illness, he redirected his career toward

the ministry, accepting a call as the first rector of St. '

John's parish in Manchester, which post he served actively

for fifty-seven years. Like Hartley, he was affirmatively

influenced by the mystical writers--primarily by Villi. .

i{ Law,and through Law, by Fenelon, Madame Guion, Boehae,

~

Henry More, and others. 67 He was introduced to Swedenborg l •

theology by his friend, R~hard Houghton, as Hartley had

been by his friend Cookworthy.
One significant difference between the two men should
be noted at this point" however. In Cloves' case, the
friend's recommendation 'was strongly augmented by a mystical
experience, to which he attached great importance. 66 Like
Hartley, again, he promptly turned himself to translating
and publishing Swedenborg; beginning at a much younger age,69
he was able to carry this work notably farther than hi.
older contemporary had done. The desire to do s~mething,

expressed by Hartley in his. letters to S",ed~nborg, appeared

with Cloves in the founding of th~ ~~,-f~ty ~lr~.dy ~entioned.70
 129

Like Hartley, Clowes conceived his action in the tramework

ot the Anglican Establishment: his society was an internal

-
parish organization, dedicated to publishing and distributing
Swedenborg's works. Hartley retired from parish residence
about the time ot his encounter with Swedenborg, but Clowes,.
I
~ at the peak ot his ministry, preached Swedenborgian view.

openly trom his pulpit.

Clowes' opposition to sectarian se aration also

paralleled Hartley's, and may In tact have been influenced
by the latter;71 but since Clowes had occasion to develop
this opposition to a more explicit degree, this point call.
tor special attention. Betore turning to this point, how­
ever, a briet analysis ot Clowes' expressed attitude toward
Swedenborg is in order.
In Clowes' pretace to True Christian Religion, already
cited tor its inclusion ot Hartley's letter, Clowes echoed
~/HartleY,S incl~ion ot Swedenborg in the tradition ot pro­
phets, apostles and mystics, adding the note that these were
rejected by the majority ot their contemporaries, and reader.
ot Swedenboig would do well to be more open-mlnded. 72 He
proclal~~d himselt ·not ashamed to confess his entire
Acquiescence In the Doctrines and Sentiments· ot Swedenborg,73
and then devoted two pages to preparing the reader tor the
ontological dittlculties which might arise in conn~ction with
the narratIves ot psychic exper1ences, and with reterence.
to the ~imus Horec. 74 This ontological ialn., howev~r, w••
 130

secondary with Clowes, Just as the epistemological vas

secondary with Hartley. In a pamphlet, An Affectionate
Address to the Clergy on the Theological Writings of Emanuel
Swedenborg, published in Manchester in 1785, he had mainly
two points to make. In the first place, he urged from several
arguments the appropriateness and import~ of an open mind
in approaching Swedenborg; and this partly because, in the
second place, Swedenborg's role as mystic and revelator vas
part of an honored Judeo-Christian tradition, and his teach­

I) ings were essentially consistent with the best of that trad­

--
ition. this obviously seemed to him to be a sufficient defense;
the ontological and epistemological issues were assUlHd,
rather than argued.
The basic issue that appeared more critical to Cloves,
-" "I .­
vas the issue 0 chu~~ ~rJll)as opposed to ~c:!.arian~ara­
,..
tio~ Hi. Affectionate Address to the Clergy clearly implied
.-/
the view that Swedenborg's writings did not constitute a
-special revelation- In any sectarian sense; ~e read them
as being addressed to the whole church, to the end of theo­
logical clarification and correction of errors. His position
in this regard fully satlsfl~d his bishop, when he vas called
upon to defend himself against a charge of heterodoxy brought
by other ministers of the Manchester Diocese; he vas allowed
}\ to co~tin~e tran~latJn9 and publishing Svedenborg, a~ach­
in9 Sveden~or9i.o!sm as a kind ot retorm~d Angl1canlsm, with­
out eccl~~~~·t!c~l Int~rference.75 Thus, his situation in
 131

Manchester might never have called for explicit expression

of his views on sectarianism, h~ they not been challenged

by other Swedenborglans In London.

In that city, In 1783, a group for reading and dis­
cussion of Swedenborgls theology had been organized by Robert
Hlndmarsh, who will be discussed In more detail below. The
group met first once, then twice ~ week, and attended Sunday
services together at__t~e Asylum of Female Orp_hans, In St.
Georgels Fields, where the sermon vas preached by the Rev.
Jacob Duch', an eloquent and popular preacher who had adopted
the views of Swedenborg,' and taught a weekly clas. In
Swede~borglan doctrine to groups as large as thirty In his
home. 76 Hawever, ecclesiastical authorities In London
appeared more conservative than Dr. Porteous, Clowes l bishop,
so hopes tor

the Introduction of the new doctrines gradually and

Insensibly Into the service of th~ Church of England,
by means of such able and pious preachers as Mr. Duch',
and some others of the Clergy In different parts of the

c kingdom, who like him were now become receivers of the

truth [an apparent reference to Hartley and Clawes]
• • • proved to be abortlve.77

Under these conditions, and with theological support or

Justification drawn from Swedenborgls writings, a portion
of the London group, led by Hlndmarsh, decided In 1787 to
r-------­
~t! from the Chur~h of England ftnd establish themselves
I as an In~~pendent eccI2!~8stlcal body.
 132

-
This move so distressed Cloves, that he traveled to
-
London to make a personal attempt to dissuade the dissenters,
and in 1792, he pUblished his arguments in a tract. The title
of the tract is quite descriptive: An Address from the

Jranslator to the Readers of the Theological Writings ot

Ba~on Svedenborg, Intended to Point Out the General Design
and Tendency of Those Writings, and Particularly to Shov that
They Do Not Authorize the Readers in a Separation at this
11 Time, from External Communion vith other Professing Christians
(Manchester: 1792). Taking the title as a virtual brlet ot
the essay, tvo point~ are vorthy ot special notice. The tlrst
Is that "the general design and tendencX- of Svedenborgls
vrltings "do not authorize • • • a separation." Rather
literally, this is the ground of his argument. Ho mentioft
Is made of the tradition, continuity and authority ot the
organized Christian church--an argument that might be ex­
pected in this context. With one notable exception, vhich
viii be discussed presently, little stress Is laid Oft

direct statements by Svedenborg. The argument is based on

"the general design and tendency," vith the assumption that

I he, as translator, Is more familiar vlth this design thaa

are the readers of his translations.

authority, h~n:okes that
To supplement his own

OfrHa~le~

. . . vho vas personally acquaint~g vith the Author, and

I l one of his most intim&te friends.' • • • His Authority

ought to have great Weight (If any Weight be vanting
after vhat has been already said) in determining so
 133

important a question • • • since it is hardly possible

to suppose but Mr. Hartley must have consulted vlth
Baron s--- on a Point of ' such Magnitude, in vhlch the
( ( interests of the Church vere so essentially concerned,
and of consequence ~ p_~ak th~ Baron'~Sentlments
J l/t~ber~vith his ovn, vhilst he declared himselt, In
V \tfie strongest Terms, averse to every Change at present
) In the Externals of Worshlp.79

The Identification of Hartley's vievs vith Swedenborg's may

have had no further basis than the assumption made In the
/ reference (In addition to Hartley's statement that Swedenborg
l had no Intention of founding a sect), but Cloves' Intent Is
plain: no matter vhat proof-texts his adversaries might
produce to support separation, he vas convln~ed tha~ the s~

~- )l of.Svedenborg's vritten and personal- opinion opposed It--and

this fact should have been conclusive In the matter.
The second point to be noticed, is' the qualification
on Cloves' opposition to separation, the words, -at this
time.- He used them vith reference to Hartley, vlth no
apparent Justification In Hartiey's written works (thougb
Cloves and Hartley apparently discussed the matter peronal­
ly80); he used them repeatedly throughout the essay. Hlndmarsb

( interpreted them to mean that a separation -might at some

future time be foun~ necessary, if no such reform, as that)
vhich he contemplated, should be likely to take Place.- 81
Against Hlndmarsh1s viev, is Clowes' statement that his
.I!refe.r~nce to time Is an attempt to avoid unnecessary dog­
(I maUsa,
51,((;
 l~

• • • because it must be obvious to everyone, that in

all Cases, what may be very right and expedient to be
done at one Time, may be very wrong and inexpedient at
another;-and that it is a great Part of Wisdom to knov
the proper 1!!! for doing every thing. 82

More weightily in favor of Hindmarsh1s interpretation,

however, is the fact that Cloves devoted a full page to
a quotation from Swedenborg in Latin, followed by his trans­
lation, and based the crux of his argument on the passage,
to the intent that separation would be appropriate, but only
after the -New Church- had -grown to the full.- B)

The Advocates therefore tor immediate Separation [Clove.­

italics], as it appears to me, are reduced to this Dilemma,
either to show that the Author1s Interpretation • • • [ot
the Sacred Scriptures) is not grounded in Truth and Reason,
lor to show that the Hew Church is at this Time grown to
the full, and that sufficient Provision ~~s been made tor
its Establishment among greater Numbers. ~

Since it vas a group of thirteen members that decided to

separate, and sixteen who attended the first separate ser­

l vice, Clowes must have felt safe in saying that the New
--------
Church had not reached its full· growth; and numerical weak­
ness vas his fundamental argument. As opposed to his earlier
Address tothe Clergx, this address to the -Readers- clearly
treated Swedenborg1s works as a special, sectarian revelation.
When the strongest and most prestigious Swedenborgian
opponent .Of sectarianism had no stronger argument than delay
,[
until greater strength could be developed, the_permanent
alliance of Swedenborgianism ~nd sectarianism In England
 13,

became inevitable. Alternative interpretations ot

S~denborg's theology--reading it as an ecumenical message

of renewal, rather than a special revelation; and reading

his references to the anew church,- especially in

l! ,
Apocalypse Revealed, as signifying either a renewed charch,
or a renewal of t\.Chri~anity'"on a non-ecclesiastical, per­
~onal basis-~were not even explicit hypotheses at this

point.

Robert Hindmarsh (1759-1835)

The name of Robert Hindmarsh looms even larger in an

ecclesiastical history of Swedenborgianism than that of John
Clowes. Hindmarsh was the decisive influence in separation,
and the founding of the New Church; and he figured prominently
in the origins of some of its most persistent internal contro­
( versies--nameI7, the basis of ordination, the structure ot

church polity, the propriety of a clerical hierarchy, and

the interpretation of Swedenborg's work on sexual morality.
For the present study, however, he is significant primarily
for his contributions to. the idea of sectarianism, as a
pattern for the utilization of Swedenborg's empirical
revelation and derivative theological system in the Revolt
against Deism. Since Deism tended to devaluate both revel­
ation ~nd ecclesiasticism in general, the significance of
Cl::' ~l! ideas in the counter-movement is readily apparent,
and n~e~ not be dIscussed in detail until after the major
co.~t.:1but!ons have been define••
 1)6

Hindmarsh was a layman,85 the son of a Methodist

preacher but, at the age of nineteen, -determined to unite
myself with no sect or party, until I had made a full examin-
ation of the various doctrines taught, and compared them with
the Sacred Scriptures.- 86 His objects in this examination of
authors and preachers from various denominations were almost
wholly theological, primarily concerned with questions con-
cerning the Trinity;87 the philosophy of religion was ot
so little concern that almost nothing is known or his posi-
tion in this regard except that he accepted the idea ot
revelation in his epistemological. assumptions,88 and extended
this to include a kind or mystical enlightenment: on his
rirst hurried reading of Swedenborg's works, he -instantly
perceived their contents to be of heavenly origin.- 89 It
is also to be noted, how closely Hindmarsh linked theological
position with ecclesiastical affiliation: the latter was
dependent on, and the immediate natural consequence or, the
rormer. It is plain that from such a viewpoint, no revolt
against a former theological position could be made In
intellectual isolation from ecclesiastical reform or separa-
tlon.
Immediately arter his discovery or Swedenborg'a
theology, January 2, 1782, he "began to search out other
readers or the same Writings in London, In order to form.
Society for the purpose or =preading the kno~ledge or the
great truths contaIned In th~m."90 In a year he had a group
 137

of three; by two years, the number had increased to five. 91

The five, however, decided to organize, rent a hall and
advertise, and within a few weeks there vas a sizeable 92
membership in The Theosophical Society, Instituted for the
Purpose of promoting the Heavenly Doctrines of the New
Jerusalem, by translating, printing, and publishing the
Theological Writings of the Honorable Emanuel Swedenborg.
The adopted name of the society had no sectar~ implications,
and an advertisement for it, dated Oct. 1784, and signed
by Hindmarsh, included the statement:

It is the earnest desire of each member, that their

conversation may be influenced by principles of the
most unbounded charity, bX n means subversives ot
any of the present establishments, nor in the smallest
ldegree tending t~ discountenance any religious sect
or party whatsd&ver, eithe~ by controver!y or separation. 93

As already related, however, failure to achieve a prompt

reform in the Church of England led sixteen members of the
------
"Theosophical Society to form, in 1787, a s~parated church
J known as the New Church, signified by the New Jerusalem in
I the Book of Revelation, or as-the New Jerusalem Church. 94
Besides disappointed hopes, there vas another factor. Robert
Hindmarsh's father, James, had been a teacher at Wesley's
School, and Wesley's itinerant preachers

(
KingSWO~d va~f

at the time RObert's group issued its "non-separatist­

statement. 95 Within the next year. James adopted Swedenbor­
~

gianism. His experience and ability, and his relationship

~
 l.36

to the original leader. Robert, soon gained him a position

of leadership In the group; the decision to separate vas not
made until ~ter ~es had agr::d to be or~alned as their
- 6
mlnlster. 9
) first
-
Wesley's
- It cannot be determined to what extent
attitude toward separation, communicated through
} James Hlndmarsh, was responsible for the sectarianism that
I developed In the group; conceivably. It could have been
'" decisive.
Robert Hlndmarsh contmusd, In and out of controver­
sies, to be a leader of this church, and of the subsequent
national conference of churches of the sect. until his
death; and In that role, some of his writings vere appro­
priate to the material of Chapter Four of this study. His
greatest significance for the present chapter. however, lay
In his action as a separatist, and In the basis for this
action as defined Intvo of his controversial writings.
The first of these was his reply to Clowes' The Translator
to the Readers, already discussed; and the second was a
reply to an attack by Dr. Joseph Prlestley--the Deist and
Unitarian, as noted at the time for his Involvement In
religious and political controversies. as for his discovery
of oxygen. and other scientific achievement••
Like Cloves' tract, Hlndmarsh's reply can be most
ea51ly Interpreted by beginning vith an analysis of the tull
title: Re sons for Separating fr2!:: t,"('! Old 01'.lr,;.-:'~ l:>y the

~~bers of the New Jerusalem Ch~~, Who Assemble !n Great

,J

139

Ea~t-Cheap, London. --In answer to a letter received from

, ":?
certain persons in Manchester, who profess to believe in the
Heavenly Doctrines of the New Jerusalem Church, as contained
in the theological writings of the late Hon. Emanuel Sweden­
borg, and yet remain ~n the external forms of doctrine and
\;\
worship now in use in the Old Church, notwithstanding their
-
direct opposition'to ~~of the New
the Heavenly Doctrines
Church. To which are added sundry passages from E. Sweden­
borg, on which the expediency, and even necessity, ot a
complete separation from the forme.r church is founded. 97
~ the title suggests, the first·point ot the essay
is the alleged inconsistency of t~e Manchester position, ~

l the primary effort is to turn Clo~es' argUments into support

for separation. Speaking for the Lond~n ~roup, Hindmarah
said to Clowes' followers in Manchester that

We do not wish to urge the example of our separation

as a Just reason for yours, being well persuaded that
every man must jUdge and act for himself, particularly
in matters of such importance as have respect to hi.
conscience. 98

However, it was only a matter of time before Manchester

would agree with London, becaus. IIwe trust the Lord will in
-
his mercy preserve you from your present dangerl99 i.e.,
the danger to IIfamU"ie. and offspring," of "receiving and
being confirmed in principles [of the Old Church] that can­
•
not fail hereafter to prove highly prejudicial to their
eternal life.- lOO That this danger should appear real to
 140

all "vho profess to believe in the Heavenly Doctrines of the

Nev Jerusalem Church," clearly implied the viev that Sveden­
borg's theological vritings constituted a special revelation
/'
outside the Christian tradition, specially addressed to-­
and peculiarly the property ot--the separated New Jerusalem
Church. The assumed impossibility of combining the nev
theology vith any of the "external torms and vorship of the
Old Church" entailed decisive rejection of church reform,in
favor of sectarian separatio~ In opposition to Cloves'
:Ifappeal to "the ~~al design and tendency" ot Svedenborg's
.\ lvritingS, Hindmarsh appended a catalogue ot quotations and
. paraphrases of eighty-seven specific passages in support or
-the expediency, and even necessity, of a complete scpara­
tion.'IO Hindmarsh did not ~emonstrate--nor even claim
explicit~--that these eighty-five examples contradicted
Cloves' generality; thus the tvo did not specifically dis~
agree about. the interpretation of the vhole, nor of any
particular passage in Svedenborg, although they opposed each
other on his authority alone. It is true 'that their opposi­
~
tlon vas not complete, but Cloves' posltion--certainly not
n~,llbut maybe later--vas a much less mll!tant sectarianism
than Hlndmarsh's--"necessarily nov, a~pe~il of your
{ soul'· Hovever, Just as Cloves' appeared to be driven from
-
antisectarianlsm to postponed sectarianism by Hindmarsh's
!
­
stand, so Hlndmarsh's position was partially determined by
t he attitude of the Anglican authorities in London. A little
 more than t~w_o~ __ he had put himself on record as

(, not nln the smallest degree tending to discountenance any

religious sect or party whatsoever, either by controversy or
separatlon.- 102 It was In response to action by the Establlsb~
ment against Anglican ministers' use of Swedenborglan views,
that he began to Ddlscountenance- the Church of England by
--.......

.... --
separation. and non-separatist Swedenborglans by controversy.
-­
this may have been an Impatient reaction to relatively mild
persecution, but It does appear to have been a reaction, and
not entirely his original view derived solely from Sveden­
,I borg. Hlndmarsh seemed embarrassed by Cl~es' charge of -a
sectarian splrlt,- and hoped to be excused from It on account
\ #
of his charitable attitude toward all men, and his goal of
freedom of worship for others as veIl as hlmself. I03 this
Important~nctlon between
!
Implled an an Intolerant, mon­

archical sectarianism, and a pluralistic sectarianism; reJec\­

Ing the former In favor of the latter.
~~
this dlsUnctlon and

/ choice vas made more explicit by Hlndmarsh, Bellamy

In their replies to ~.
and Proud,
'--­
Prlestly--a group of documents that
can be treated best In a separate article.

Swr.denborg's Revelation: the Replies to Dr. Priestly

It has already been mentioned.. that Hlndmarsh's reply

to Joseph Priestly Is an Important document tor the present

hlstor;.I04 ~ut his r~ply vas one of three nearly-simultane­
ous publications which together deal with the Issue of special
 142

revelation as specifically as the Clawes-Hlndmarsh contro­

------.
versy dealt with the Issue of separation, so It Is best to
treat the three together, after an analysis of Priestly's
charge In Letters to the Members of the New Jerusalem Church. lOS
=
Priestly's attack on Swedenborg vas particularly
Interesting because of Its specific limitations and sharp
focus. He vas not opposed to separatism, and expressed a
distinct sympathy with Swedenborg's Engl1shfollawers. He
praised the -evident good sense, and good conduct, of all
that I vas acquainted with of this persuasion, 106 and sug­
/Jgested that -Christianity Itself might have had no better an
(orlglrfthan such firm belief -by such numbers of persons of
unquestionable good sense, and the most upright Intentlons.· I07
He drew a favorable contrast between Svedenborglans, who had
loaned him books, and were Willing to discuss the manu-
script of his Letters to Members before their publication,
and hoodlums who destroyed his home and library In the Tory
P(Riots, In reprisal for his opposition to the ecclesiastical
j ..
and governmental Establishment. lOa He liked certain aspects
of Swedenborglan theology, though he disagreed strongly with
others. 109 Aside from a theological discussion of the per­
son and significance of Chrlst--whlch formed the main body
of the work--he had one major charge to make ~galnst Sweden­
borglanlam, and he made this rather sharply: he attempted
to dc~at~ that Swed~nborg's rev:latory cl~lm vas not
a credible one. The repll •• to Prleslley also d.vot.~ the
 143

majority ot their space to the theological Issues that he

raised, but their replies to his attack on the credibility
ot Swedenborg's revelation were most signiticant tor the
present study.
Prlestley placed the acceptance ot Swedenborg's

claim to be the bearer ot a revelation at the center or

Swedenborgianis••

It you suppose him [Swedenborg] to have been in

error In some things, especially those which he saw
and learned in the spiritual world, yoa may think hiM
liable to mistake in any thing; arid then the whole
toundatlon ot your new church tails. I wish, there­
~~r~.lYoreasonwlth you on this foundation ot your

l "h come trom God with a message to man Is a very serlou,

a~ Important thlng,"lll thought Prlestley,

accompanied by adequate confirmation.
a~ ought to be
"The only proper
evidence ot a divine commission Is doing something that God
alone could enable a man to do,"112 but "Mr. Swedehborg did
not pretend to work any proper miracles, and did not, a.
tar as appears trom his writings, toretell any tuture event.· ll )
In lieu ot miraculous testimony, Priestley suggested, there
might have been "concurrent evidence" or corroborating testi­
mony tro. other witnesses, but he knew ot none in this case. 114
He also admitted the validity ot "the plain sense ot scrip­
ture" as a criterion, it "tairly and rationally interpreted­
in "the lan~uagc In which they are written;ft l1 5 but he 4il­
btrred "any splritual sense ot the scripture." .5 evid~nc.
 144

for the existence of a spiritual sense in the scriptures, and

, 116
quoted Svedenborg to back himself up in that' The simi­
larity of the appearances of space and time, as Svedenborg

describes them, and as they are commonly experienced in

dreams, led Prlest1~ to note that -seeing an angel in a

(
drea~,is nothing more than his dreaming he say an angel.- 117

It is not easy to account for the conduct ot any

particular man, and therefore I an not able to prove
that Mr. Svedenborg vas either an enthusiast, or an
impostor. But Judging by appearances, from his
vritings, I cannot help saying that his accounts ot
vhathe say and heard in the spiritual vorld are sO
copious and particular, that it is barely possible
that the vhole should have passed so distinctly in his

-
[imagination, either in dreams or reveries; and that 8
the read very much like Inventions, and tictions. ll
'

The challenge to special revelation vas clearly stated,

and it vas significantly parallel to earlier reactions in
Germany. The concern tor miracles or clairvoyance re.inds
one of Kant's interest in the Three Anecdotes; the concern
for concurrent evidence recalls the intluence of Schill'a
testimony on ~tinger;
the final verdict of -invention • • •
L
fiction • • • impouture- 119 almost echoes Ernest~ Priestley
cited his sources, so there is no reason to suppose that he
vas dependent on the German reactions; the similarity merely
testifi8S to the basic significance of his challenge to
Svedenborg's--or any--special revelation.
The replies vere prompt. Letters to Members appeared
in the late summer or early fall of 1791,120 and the first
 145

reply, slightly longer, was in print betore the end or the

year. Titled. A Candid and Impartial Reply to the Rev. Dr.
Priestley1s Letters, Addressed by Him tothe Members of the
New Jerusalem, in Which His Objections Are Fairly Considered,
and the Doctrines Contained in the Theological Writings. or
the Hon. Emanu.l Swedenborg, Vindicated from Reason and
Scripture, i t was written by the Rev. Joseph rouci)or
Birmingham, one of the tirst Swedenborgians Priestley had
met~ The second, published in London, early in 1792, was
Jesus Christ the Only God, Being a Defence or That Fundamen­
[I tal Doctrine at the Christian Religion, against Arianism and
Socianism, Addressed to the Reverend Dr. Priestley, with Some
Observations on His Letters to the Members of the New Church,
Signified by the New Jerusalem in ~he Revelations, by •

at that time associated with the Xcv

The third, later in 1792, was Letters

to Dr. Priestley: Cont!lining Proofs of the Sole, Supreme
and Exclusive Divinity of Jesus Christ, Whom the Scriptures
Declare to Be the Only God of H.aven and Earth; and of the
Divine Mission of Em~nttel SW.denborg. Being a Detence ot the
N~y Church Signified by the New Jerusa~~~ in the Apoca~1

wrItten and pUblished, at the request of his London congre­

gation, by Rober Hindmarsh •

./

or these th~~e'-(he Bellamy treatise is most notable

-for what it does not contain, namely a sectarian viewpoint.
As the title 8uggests, it wal • theological reply to Priestley's
 146

theological position; it made no attempt to validate Sweden­

borg1s claimed revelation, undertaking instead to obviate

Priestley1s charge of special revelation by defending the

Swedenborgian position solely on the basis of the Bible.

He vas not covert about his Swedenborgianlsm: - I hesitate

( not to confess him [Swedenborg) a divinely inspired writer.- 122

On the other hand, he made no proprietary claim as a N~

ChurchJllan:

I am fully assured, that if the Judicious and sober

enemies to enthusiasm, would only have patience to
read his vr i t'lngs, __UJ-.l.-the-y--iJLs_01lI.J~U u de __stood
j
~_rJL~~pl~s, be they who they will, Christian, Deist.
or Atheist, they would be forced to think as I do. and
( that without either adding him to the number of the Apostle ••
\ or his writings to the sacred Canon. 12)

Clearly, this vas an interpretation of Swedenborg l • revela­

tiO~!S a message of renewal to the whole Christian church.

as over against a special revelation to anyone sect. The

fact that he could continue his theological defence without

further reference to Swedenborg, and with no appeal to

Swedenborg1s revelation as authority, was perhaps the strong­

est possible demonstration of his claim.

~ and Hindmars did undertake to validate

Swedenborg1s claim; but they took pains to clear him of the

charge of being a special revelator, and themselves of being

narrow or~mO~arch)cal '"

sectarians. Proud vas most explittt:

I know it is but too common, for one deuominatlon ot

christians to think another uncharit~ble; but the
essential principles upon whi':lI 411 our doctrln... are
 147

founded [I.e., Swedenborg's "two essentIals"], are

love to GQd, and cQarIty to man--and we are so far
from condemnIng any man on account of hIs partIcular
faIth, or opInIon, that we do most fIrmly belIeve,
everyone who lIves a good lIfe wIll be saved, although
hIs y~~nIons here may be dIametrIcally opposIte to our
own. 4

HIndmarsh, too, InsIsted that "we do not say that our doc­
trIne Is to fIll the whole earth, so as to become the pro­
fessed relIgIon of all natIons, to the exclusIon of every
other,"125 even though he claimed a special role for the Hev
Church because of its special revelation. 126 Both ~re strong
in their affirmation that reason and Scri ture were the
jl authority for their acceptance of Swedenborg.

[Pr~ud:] ·It is a rational, solid, ~~L.l_~tl~~-

~ictJ~n, that can alone compel us to believe whateverJj
relates to religion, and the happiness of our soul ••
It is upon this ground we receive the writIngs ot .
Emanuel Swedenborg, and upon no other. 121 .
[Hindmarsh:] If what has been advanced In the present
Defence of thp New Church, be neIther consistent wIth
scripture nor reason, It will and ought to fall to the
ground, as_~ work of imagination, and a delusion ot
the mind.l.2O

Regarding Priestley's point about miracles, Proud

made an interesting distinction between the dIfferent bases
of accepting "the particular communications made to Emanuel
Swedenborg" on the one hand, and "the doctrines and truth.
delivered in his writings" on the other;l29 the former
being endorsed by--not the authority of--the latter, .nd
the latter endorsed by reason and scripture. There were,
indeed, mlraculouf foretellings, "but these are things which
 146

~ lay no stress on," 130 because miracles do not in fact

convince anyone of anything. 131 Hindmarsh also made the point
about miracles being useless or worse, 132 but then recounted
the famous Three Anecdotes, adding two more for good ~eas­

ure. l3J
For the concurrent testimony, requested by Priestley,
both Proud and Hindmarsh turned to the Bible, by use of •
similar figure: if the ~escriptions of a strange country,
brought back by many travelers long ago, were conf.irmed by
the report of a traveler recently returned, the a~ and

lf fectn
'other.
- --.-/ 134 .
accounts would be concurrent evidence for each
In making this response, they further defined
their conception of ~elationship of Swedenborgianism to
( ~_!!.-..tradi~n: ~ one with primitive Chr~i­

anity, adding only a modern, rationalistic system; it was

~

sectarian with regard to other systematizations of ChrIs­

tianity. ~emPhasized this in insisting that Sweden­
borgianism was not -in itself new.­ 13S
~ .. ~ Regarding literal biblical confirmation, ~roUd,

~and Hindmarsh all devote chapters to quot~ and

exposition of proof texts. Hindmarsh quotes the most; hi.

work is three times as long as Bellamy's, four times a.
long as Proud's, and five times as long as Priestly's orlgin­
nail

Both~and Hind~rsh went beyon~ detens. of

Swedenborg's revelation, to attack Priestly's deistlc .

 149

scepticism regarding all revelatiQn,13 6 and further to

assert that he ~s not really a Christian at all. 137 Thi.
pinpointed the complexity of the controversy: Priestly
was accusing the Swedenborgians of accepting a special
revelation, essentially because he did not accept the
notion of revelation at all; thus we have the circumstance
~ .
( of a sectarian", deist accusing sectarian .. ntt-deists of

sectarianism' 7Strangely enough, this odd crossing ot

categories served to evoke a clear definition of the

Swedenborgians f view of Swedenborgfs revelation: it vas

indeed a divine revelation; it vas not special in itselt,

~ ~

\ being as universal as the primitive 1; but the unvill­

1\ingneSs of the established Churches to accept it torced.
)
Swedenborgians into a sectarian position--which they main­
tained on a pluralistic basis that claimed to accept denom­
inational differences. Though demurrers had been raised
by Hartley, Cloves and Bellamy (and have been renewed from
time to time since then in England and in America), a broad
consensus among English Swedenborgians had turned into an
adamant position by 1792: acceptance of Swedenborg's claim
~ed ecclesiastical separation. The ~Phical- ­
---.-...-- - ---::::=- --- • ...
ecclesiastical or~eOlOgiCal-ecclesiasticalquestions could
no longer be divided -In ngland--nor wherever- the English
attitude influenced Germany and France.
 150

NarES - CHAPTER 2

Chap. 4, 1~~e~~~~~tCi~g~~a:~~:~£a~~dB:~~~~~~ti~d~Ut~~~:~
pp. 93-124.
2Serke1ey, A_ Treati~e CQncerning th~ Principles of
Human Knowledge (London: 1710), quoted by Cragg, op.elt.,
pp. 103-104. ­
3 Ibid ., p. 104.
4 Ibid ., p. 105.
5 Ibid ., p. 104.
6Swedenborg, DLW, 53.
7Wi11iam Law, The"Case of Reason, cited by Cragg,
OPt cit., p. 94.
8Law, The Way to Di~in~ Knowledge, "Works," 9 vols.,
(London: 1762/1893), vol. 7, p. 189!! passi••
9Sut1er, The Analogy of Religion, "Works," vol. 1,
pp. 8-9, quoted by Cragg, op, cit., P. 115,
IONot many of them were unlearned, however. Most read
Latin with some ease. The two Anglican Rectors held M.A.
degrees; one had published two books, and the other had re_
ceived honors in preparing for an academic career.
llwi11iam Law, Letter, printed in Christ. Wa1ton, "
Notes and _Matp.ri~'s for an Adeauate sio~raThY of the Cele­
brated DivIne and Theosoph~r, ~llliam raw London: ~,
p. 592, n.
12see below, p. 172.
13E• g., Thomas Hartley, Letter to Swedenborg, Aug. 14,
1769, In R. L. Tatel, Documents, Ope cit., vol. I, pp. 10-11.
14see below, PP. 130-134 and 139-141.
ISLoc • clt.
 1$1

\.

~tePhen
~
Penny, Letter to John Lewis, InR. L. Tatel,
Documents, Ope cit., Vol. 11, p. 499.
17Thomas Hart.ley, Letter to Swedenborg, Aug. 2, 1769,

in R. L. Tafel, Documents, Ope cit., vol. 1, p. $.

18 Penny, Letter, Ope cit., p. 498.

19walton, Notes and Materials, Ope cit., p. $93, n.

20penny, Letter, ope cit., p. 498.

21

~., pp. 498-499.

22R. L. Tafel, Documents, Ope cit., vol. 11, P. 1166.

23 1 find no c~ntemporary references to it, and none

of the Swedenborgian collections outside the British Museum
appear to have a copy.
24 hn Lewis, publIsher, Announcement of "Arcana
CoelestIa", Vol. 2 (18S0)~ In R. L. Tafel, Documents, ~
£!i., vol. 2 (PP. 492-497J, pp. 496-497.
25 Swedenborg, ~, 71 6 •

2~ew Church MagazIne (London) X (1891), p. 210.

27New Church LIfe (Bryn Athyn, Pa.) XV (1895), p. 136.
28Robert Hindmarsh, The Rise and Progress of the New
Jerusalem Church (London: 1861), p. 9.
29penny, an accountant (R. L. Tafel, Documents, ~
cit., vol. 2, p. 1166), lived In Dartmouth and publishe~n
BrIstol. Houghton, a business man, encountered Swedenborg'a
works at Bath, which is on the road between Dartmouth and
Bristol. The possibility of their meeting through busIness
connections seems more likely than that Houghton would have
encountered the relativ~ly obscure works of Swedenborg In
Bath __ in an are~ in which even London papers were not regu­
larly seen (Penny, ~~, Ope cIt., p. 498).
30Samuel Noble, ~n Appeal in Behal~of the Views of
the Eternal World and St~te, and the Doctrines of Faith and
Life, Held by the Bo~y of Christians ~ho Believe thaJlJ!-New
Church is Si nHied b thll i~ew Jerusalem, 9th ed. [London:
o ,p. +(, quoting an 1 letter from Clowes to Noble).
 152

3 Thomas Hartley, "A Short Defense of the Mystical

Writers, etc. 11 in Paradise Restored, etc. (London: M.
Richardson, 1764), p. 393.
3 ~., P. 319.
3 These prefaces are cited below, where more specific
references are made to each: n. 35, n. 46, n. 41.
34Messiter sent copies of Swedenborg's works to certain
university professors, attaching a personal endorsement (R. L.
Tafel, Documents, Ope cit., vol. 2, pp~ 522-526).
35Hartley, "Preface" to Treatise on the Nature of
Influx: or of the Intercourse_between the Soul and the Bod
etc., 1st American ed., from rd nglish ed. Boston: 11
[the 1st English ed. was London: l710J), p•. xxlli; R. L.
Tarel, Documents, op.cit., vol. 2, pp. 539, 580, 1061.
36See above ,pp. 11-18.
37Thomas Hartley, Lett~r lo Swedenbor
R. L. Tafel, Documents, op.__cit., vol. I, P.
38 See above, p. 61-68.
39Hartley, Letter to SW~denborg. 2 Aug. 1769, op."clt.,
p. 5.
4 0 Loc • clt.
4lHartley, Letter to Swedenborg. 14 Aug. 1769,.
R. L. Tafel, Documents, Ope cit., vol. I, P. 11. '
4 2 If , indeed, he ever was active. The Dictionarv of
National BiographY (Stephen and Lee, ed., 44 vols. [LOndon:
l885-l903j) describes him as non-resident after 1770 (vol.
25, p. 71). But the Rev. A. E. Beilby, doing research for a
biography of Hartley, found no evidence that he had ever lived
at Winwick, or performed a wedding, baptism or funerar-there.
He may have simply lived on the income, and left his Curate,
named Peverell, to do all the work (A. E. Bellby, Rev. Thomas
Hartley. ; A.M. (London: 1931), pp. 11-15).
43 f. "Preface" to On Influx, OPt cit., P. xxv.
44cr • Hartley's co~~ent recorded in Theodore Compton,
ed., The ir~ and Letters of the Rp-v. John Clowes (London:
1874)", pp. "2;_2b. " .
45Hartley, "Preface" to On Infl~, ~, cit., p. iii.
 153

~artley, "Preface" to E. Swedenborg, Heaven and

~ (London: 1118, 2nd ed., London: 1184).
artley, Letter to Clowes, "To the Reader" In
E. Swedenborg, True Christian Religion (London: 11~1, 4th
ed., London: 1196).
4 8 See above, p. 119-_Madame Gulon.

4
artley, "Preface" to On Influx, ope clt., p. xiii.
50Ibld., p. xvi.
51~., pp. xx.xxl.
52Ibld •. p. xxlll.
/;::;-- ,
. 53 Loc • cl t.

C 54Loc • clt.

C5Ibld., p. xxiv.

56Loc • cit.

I 57.1l!.!£.,
. p. xxv.

5
artley, "Preface" to Heaven and Hell, op. cit.,

PP. ix tt.
p. xxvii.
PP. xxx.xxxl.
p. xxxiv.
pp •. xllll, xxxvi •
. artley, Letter to ClOWIS, In "To the Reader," in

--
T.C.R., OQ. cit., p~
65~.
~Clowes, Memolr, PP. 6.7.

67 Ibld ., p. IS.

68~., pp. 19.26.

 1S4

69Clawes was 31 years old when he discovered Sweden_

borg, Hartley 62.
70Above, P. 128 •

7 Compton, Ope cit., pp. 2S.26.

~lowes, "Preface" to T.C.R., ope cit., PP. 17-18.
73 Ibid ., P. 19• .
74 Ibid ., PP. 20, 21.
~~lOWeS, Memoir, OPe cit., PP. 26.28.
7~indmarsh, Rise and Progress, OPt cit., pp. 40-41.
77 Ibid., P. 40.

~1hiS may well have been true; there is no.evidence

that in his latter years Swedenborg formed any relationships
more intimate than hi s acquai ntance with Hartley.•

-.79C1awes, The Translator to the Readers, cited in the

text, pp. 34-3S.
80 ompton, Ope cit., pp. 2S.26.

\. 81

_Hindmarsh, Ope cit., p. SS.

82Clowes, The Translator to the Readers, OPt cit., P.

19.
83 bid., PP. 28 ft.
84 Ibid ., p. 31.
8SHis involvement in the ordination controversy, and
subsequent retroactivel recognized~~dina ion, is not re1e.
vant; by training, and contemp~ary acknowledgment, he was a
layman at the time in question.
8~lndmarsh, Rise and Progress, £E. clt., P. 9.
87For this and subseqllent dismissals of theological
discussions, see above, p. 117.
88Hlndmarsh, ~ise and Progr~~~, OPt clt., P. 9.
89IJ;)ld., P. 11.

'.
 90Loc • clt.

91~., pp. 14-1$.

92Forty years later, he could recall the names of

33, but sal~ th~re were "many others." See ibid., p. 23, n.
~_F Id., p. 27.
94See above, p. 131.
95See R. Hlndmarsh, Rise and Progress, ope clt., p. 59.
96l..!?!.2.., p • 60 •

97A copy of the first edition (London: 1788) Is In

the library of the Academy of the New Church, Bryn Athyn, Pa.
The tract Is reprinted in full In Appendix I to Carl Th.
I( Odli!lerTRobert Hlndmarsh (.Philadelphla: 189$), pp. 6$-8$.'
98' . ,
!bld., p. 73. .
f99 .
V~., p. 74.
l00 Ibld .,P. 71.
~~., pp. 76-8$.
102Se8 abo~e, p•. 137:
10~indmarsh, Reasons for Separation, Ope clt., pp.
69-70 a~passlm.

10 See 'above, p. 137.

105Joseph Prlestley, Letters to the Members of th~
Jerusalem Church, formed by Baron Swedenborg (Birrolngham:

1790.

106 Ibld ., P. Ill.

107Ibld., p. xli.

108 bid., pp. lv-xll.

109)

~E.g., ~., p. 2.

110 Ibld ., p. 4.

111~., p. 11.

 156

112 Ibid ., p. 8.

113Ibid ., p. 15.

114Ibid ., pp. xv-xvi, 11.

11S~., p. 17.

116Ibid ., pp. 17-18.

117Ibid ., pp. 52-54.

118 Ibid ., p. 60.

119Loc • cit.

120 Ibid ., pp. iv_v.

121At the dedication of Proud's church, Priestly heard

Proud preach, then talked with him and Robert Hindmarsh.
These two loaned him reference materials, and discussed the
Letters to Members with him.
----. 122John ~la;J Jesus 'Christ the Only God (cited in
text above, p. ~ vi.
'123Loc. cit.
l24Joseph ~roud, Candid ReplY (cited in text above, p.
145), p. 9.
l25Robert Hindmarsh, Letters to Dr. Priestly (cited in
text above, pp. 145-146), pp. 55.
126~., p. 56 •

l27Proud, OPe cit., p. 14.

l2~indmarsh, Letters to Priestly, Ope cit., p. 394.
129Proud, Ope cit., p. 10.
130 Ib id., p. 12.

131~., PP. 11-16.

l3~indmarSh, 2£. cit., pp. 7-25, 36-60.

133~., pp. 61_66.

 1~1

134 1bld ., pp. 33 rr; Proud, Ope clt., p. 10.

135Proud, Ope clt., p. 10.

1361bld., p. 4; Hlndmarsh, ope clt., P. 7.

137Proud, Ope clt., pp. 11 ff; Hlndmarsh, Ope clt.,

pp. 82-83.
 CHAPTER l

POLEMICAL AND ANALYTICAL aUGINS

OF THE PSYCHOLOOY OF RELIGIOf

The first involvement of Swedenborg1s Idea ot

empirical revelation with the Revolt against Deism occurred

In the philosophical phase of the Revolt--the search tor

ontologlc~nd e~mologlcal alternatives to the ratlon­

-----
alist presuppositions which were characteristic ot Deism, aa

discussed In Chapter 1. I1 In Chapter 2, It was pointed out

that the Interaction of Swedenborg1s Idea with the eccleslaa­

,
tlcal phase of the Revolt Involved churchmen whose phllosoph­
.-
Ical position was -post-Delst- rather tha~ actively -antl­
Delst.-IIThe present chapter, concerned with what may be
termed the psychol'oglcal ,phase of the Revoit--or, more speci­
fically, with the Involvement of Swedenborg1s Idea In the
encounter with basic psychological is sues raised by the Revol t
against Deism--de~with t~o subjects whoseLPost-Dei~t hllo­
-~had found settled expression In relation to the organ­

ized Christian Church;

This investigation does not require an Investigation
Into the theoretical necessity of philosophy's priority vis-4­
vis eccleslology, nor the latter's priority to the psychological

1.$8

 -1$9

issues; nor does it require a demonstration that this se­

quence was general in the Revolt against Deism; but it does
-reveal the fact (which may have programmatic
.., implications
for the study of the Revolt against Deism), that for all
the participants in the Revolt who r~acted to Swedenborg's
idea during their development of basic anti-Deist issues,
this pattern of development vas evident. At least there
were no instances in which the issues were addressed In
another order. This circumstance suggests that before
proceding with an analysis of the sUbject authors of this
chapter, it may be useful to discuss briefly, In a general
way, the relationships between the basic philosophical,
ecclesiastical and psychological issues in which empirical
revelation was a relevant concept. Such a discussion serves,
first of all, to underline the continuity of the stUdy;
- -
secondly, it helps to sharpen the distinction between the
psychologica 1 issues and the otholr two--a distinction that
is particularly important between the closely related philo­
sophical and psychological Issues.
The philosophical and psychological issues are easily
confused because of their interrelationship in the problea
of knOWing. An adequate epistemology must include an ex­
press or assumed psychological theory in its account of the

knowle~ge,
------------
knower and the knOWing process. Similarly, descrip'.lve
• psychology cannot evade questions of the possibility ot
of the implications of the perc~ptual proces.,
 160

and the communication between mind and body. This theoretical

interrelationship was deaonstrated in practice: epistemo­
logical discussions raised psychological issues--more explicitly
in some cases than in others--and the psychological discussions
dealt with the same issues.
The differences between the phllosohical and psycho­
logic!l concerns regarding empirical revelation can be summar­
ized in three particulars and one generality: (1) the philo­
sophical discussions implied a rationalistic assumption of the
general autonomy of reason, while the psychological assumed
a degree of de endence of~aso~ on the total per~onality;

--
(2) psychological concerns in the philosophical phase of the
Revol t were limi ted to dichotomous Judgments regarding sanity
.

was
or insanity, but the later psychologl~al interest
complex; (3) the attitudes in the former cases tended to be
- more

Judgmental, whereas in the latter they were--to different

degrees--mo~ analytical. In general, the psychological
concerns of the subjects of the first two chapters were deter­
mined by the psychological theory entailed by rationalist
epistemology, in which the essence of man ~as his rational
consciousness. This theory had the effect of almost totally
sUbsuming psychology under epistemology, with a general dis­
regard of emotional or non-conscious elements in the person­
alityof the thinker. From a modern point ot view, and in
comparison with the developments that immediately followed,
this made the rationalist interpretations of empirical
"

161

r!~latIon essentIally ~pre-psychologIcal.~ The focus of

thIs chapter Is on the IntroductIon of psychologIcal consI~er­

atIons as sIgnIfIcant factors In the InterpretatIon of relIgI­

ous Ideas, and on the Importance of these factors In tmdevelop­
ment of the Revolt agaInst DeIsm, Insofar as these factors and
Influences are exemplIfIed by reactIons to Swedenborg's Idea
of empIrIcal revelatIon.
[xpre$sIon of the pre-psycholpg~cal attItude was
most explIcIt In Rant's Trgumes. On one sIde of the ambIguity
of that work was the hypothesis that spiritual exp~nce
l
was either the cause or the consequence of !nsanltYi but
he left this hypothesis as Inconclusively defended as the
others he proposed. The degree of seriousness with which

--
he analyzed Swedenborg's system, and the energy he devoted
~Iscredltlng It, together suggest that Insanity vas not
-
his final JUdgment concerning Swedenborg--though he would
not blame his readers If they short-circuited the metaphysical
problems by making It thelrs. 2 The hypothesis was based on
the assumption that seeing or hearing what Vas not there
constituted Insanity, with the further suggestion that s~elng

or hearIng what others dId not mIght be an equivalent crlterl­

on. 3 Kant did not search for evidence of eccentrIc or abnor­
mal behavlor, nor IndIcate that such evIdence would be relevant
to an evaluatIon of Swedenborg's Ideas. Personal eccentricity
would not derogate the worth of a phIlosophical undertakIng,
but the author of a radIcally unreasonable work might veil

be assigned to a hosPItal. 4
 162

Clemm rhised the possibility of insanity, as one of

the three hypotheses that exhausted the alternatives for
an explanation of Swedenborg, but gave it no apparent en-
dorsem~nt.5 Ernesti rejected insanity as an explanation;
he preferred to hold Swedenborg fully responsible for a
conscious exploitation of the gullible, and found no evidence
to the contrary, though he claimed to know the character of
the author. 6 Oetinger displayed no doubts that Swedenborg
was fully sane, but he did not specify the basis for this
assumption or Judgment. ff He did cite Swedenborg l s. phllosoph-
Ical works, and achievements and honors In Sweden, as testi-
mony that Swedenb~rgls ·heavenly philosophy· was worthy ot
conslderatlon;~but this was an argument from prominence, and
the relation of sanlty--to Swedenborgls religious thought, or
to his other acco~pllshments--was not mentioned. In general,
It Is c.lear that .J.i<!,.n, IS a.tJ,ltude coincided closely with the
·pre- sychologLcal ft ~osltlon described above; and his German
contemporaries, though less explicit on the subject, did not
disagree.
!'r Th4L,eccleslastlcal Issues discussed by the Engllsh
writers, described In Chapter 2, offered fewer occasions tor
specific comments on Swedenborgls sanity. Hartley, Clowes
and Hlndmarsh did offer arguments for It, but not as an
Integral part of their reactions to Swedenborg. All they
said on this 3ubject was plainly subsequent to their own
tlnal evalu~tion of his religious thought, and was formulated
In explicit reaction to charges that Swedenborg was Insane.
,"

163

(( The appearance of unequivocal charges that Swedenborg's

claim to empirical revelation was a symptomatic product of
a psychopathological condition, introduced a new element into
the controversy over his religious thought. Indeed, it marked
a radical innovation in the interpretation of religion in
general: it made consideration of the psychological state of

a religious thinker ~rior to the philosophical, theological

or ecclesiastical values of his thought. pIn this respect,
the discussion of Swedenborg's sanity or insanity was one of
the earliest explicit recognitions of the problem that was
to become a central concern of the later discipline of the
psychology of religion.
Because this first part of the present study Is con­
cerned with ideas, basic to the Revolt against Deism, that
were expressed In reactions to Swedenborg's idea of empirical
revelation; and organized according to categories of these
ideas,~ather than period, school of thought, or natJonality;
the subjects of this chapter overlap·.. those of other chapters,
and include such radically disparate figures as John Vesley
and Johann Gottfried Herder. This diversity of time, place,
and viewpoint among the sUbjects in this chapter is perhaps
less surprising than the unity of the first two. The fact
that the basic philosophical issues were the concern of
Germans In the 1760' sand '70' s/; and ecclesiastical issues of J'
Englishmen of the '70's and '60's,~is curious enough to re­
ceive special consideration in the introduction to Chapter 2,
 164

and in the Conclusion of this study. The psychology of

religious experience and thought was the first of these basic
issues to receive independent international attention.

Polemical Psychology of Religion: John Wesley

Although Wesley's acquaintance with Swedenborg's

works extended over a dozen years or more, It appears to
have been sporadic and cursory. The first encounter is clearly
recorded in his Journal, as 28 Fe~., 1770. 7 SUbsequent refer­
ences indicate disconnected perusals of Swedenborg in December
of 1771,8 and April of 1779. 9 An-article in the Arminian
Magazine for 1783 describes further reading in specific pre­
paration for the article. lO The evidence suggests that he
devoted no more than a few hours at a time, on widely separated
occasi~ns to the study of Swedenborg, and that he read no single
work through. It is not clear what books he read parts of,
either. His references to -that strange book, Theologia
Coel<?stis,-ll and the -inimitable piece, De Nuptiis Cc,,:lestibus- 12
are not too helpful, because they do not correlate with any
of Swedenborg's titles. Perhaps the most probable identifi­
cations (only guesses being possible) are !ova ~~o~

~t ~Jus Doctr!na Coelestla, for the former, and the first

chapter of De Amore CO!' J"t" ~...!.! for the latter. He -looked
over" He~v~n and Hell; ~ ~, "~ft lring to be thoroughly master
of the subje("t, 11 he "took I!ln t>:ttract • • • from beginning
to ~n':l" .,'!' '1':.~ flr~' '!,~l'll"'~ (of t!1ree) of the F.:~g\hh ver­
slc~ of ""-.,-, ':hr~!.!!!!!!...,,~~11910n.13
 165

His original pre-disposition, he said, was strongly

in favor of Swedenborg, nknowing him to be a pious man, one
of strong understanding, of much learning, and one who
thoroughly believed in himself. nl4 The first and last of
these criteria for favorable Judgment are worthy of parti­
cular note, because of their non-rationalistic implications:
the conduct and attitude of a man were prima facie evidence
for the. worth of his thought.
His first reaction to what he read, however, was
different from his expectation, and roundly unequivocal:
Swedenborg was -one of the most ingenious, lively, enter­
taining madmen that ever set pen to paper.- 15 The basis
for this initial Judgment had nothing to do with Swedenborg
personally, but was an essentially rationalistic criterion
of inherent probability. Swedenborg's -waking dreams are
so wild, so far remote both from Scripture and common sense,
that one might as easily swallow the stories of Tom'Thumb,
or Jack the Giant Killer.-
Twenty months later, his reaction was slightly more
favorable: Swedenborg's book "surely contains some excellent
things.- 17 He still considered Swedenborg to be insane; but
instead of appealing to the improbability of the ideas, he
now referred to a fever as the cause of Swedenborg's lunatic
delusion of spiritual experience. Apparently, with the fever
to authentlca~e Sweden:Jorg" Insanity, and thus d1sco'Uilt any
undesfr<lole stat€mc.lt~ wI.hvut pr-:lvIng the ,-fhol~ 3ye~jill to be
 166

senseless, Wesley was .able to be more tolerant. He vas

able to discriminate between the Rexcellent things· and the
"ravings,R and find in Swedenborg "something noble • • •
Imajestic, though in ruin. IRl8
Between this, and the next mention of Swedenborg in
Wesley's Journal, two incidents occurred which were recorded
by other sources. Accounts of both are only second-hand,
and each was reported by only one first-hand witness; both
witnesses were respectable enough to be believed, but inter­
ested enough to be doubted; however, the incidents were
important enough that--with this preface--they should be
considered.
In late February of l772--perhaps ten weeks after
the last-mentioned diary entry--Wesley was in .the company
of some of his preachers, including one Samuel SmiJh, who
later became a minister of t~~ ~~Church. During the
meeting a letter was delivered to Wesley from Swedenborg,
stating that he had learned in the spiritual world that
Wesley wanted to meet him, and that he would be happy to
receive a visit. Wesley appeared astonished, said Mr.
Smith, then read the letter alood, and admitted to having
had a strong desire to see and converse with Swedenborg,
but that he had never mentioned this to anyone. Wesley
sent a reply to the effect that he would pay a call after
completing the circuit he was then planning, but received
a fu~th~r reply from Swedenborg ~hat that would be too late,
 167

f~r he ~Sw~denborg) would die on the 29th of the foll.?wing

month. 19 Wesley kept his schedule, and Swedenborg kept his.
Such was the impact of this sequence of events on Wesley,
that when he visited Richard Houghton, as his circuit took
him through Liverpool, he reportedly said, nWe may now burn
all our books of theology. God has sent us a teacher from
heaven, and in the doctrines of Swedenborg we may learn all
that it is necessary for us to know.- 20 The report includes
the observation that irony was not the apparent Intent.
Both Smith and H~[hton became SwedenborgIans, and
as such mIght have been prejudiced. On the other hand, It
Is well established that they told the storIes, and not fully
credible that they fabricated both completely. Nor is It
necessary to attribute such monolithic consIstency to Wesley,
that he could not have experIenced such a perIod of impulsive
acceptance of Swedenborg, impelled by such evidence of para­
normal powers. It might, at one poInt, have been enough to
convInce Rant, if it had happened to himl In any event,
'accepting the stories as sUbstantively factual, helps to
account for the next development in the written record or
Wesley's reactIon to Swedenborg.
In April of 179, he inserted a long denunciation or
Swedenborg into his Journal, and expanded this into an artIcle
on the same plan i~ the Arminian Magazine for 1783. In the
Journal, and in the magazine, the second--and most lengthily
developed point was a theological one: S~edenborgls doctrines
.,'
 168

were heretical, and his description of hell subverted the

authority of proscriptive religion. 21 But his first point
was the decisIve one, and the authority for ·the second:
Swedenborg1s fever had left him insane. 22
Before exploring the significance of this feve'r in
Wesley1s psychologically-grounded polemic against Swedenborg,
some attention should be given to the fever itself, and to
the context of Wesley1s interest in It.
Swedenborg began having spiritual experiences regu­
larly in 1744 and 145. In 1749, according to Thomas Hartley,
he was ill with fever, and delirious; but his recovery was
complete. 23 Further, it is reported that on one occasion
at about this time, two thieves stole a watch from Sweden­
borg1s person while he was in a trance; and then, to protect
themselves, claimed that he had thrown the watch into the
street in a fit. 24 Whether maliciously in the first inst~nc_
or not, these incidents were conflated into' one story, with
a few embellishments: in a high fever, Swedenborg went
berserk, rolled in the gutter stark naked, and ever since
had claimed to converse' with angels. Wesley heard the story
in about thIs form, he said, from Aaron Mathesius, then Pastor
of the Swedish Church In London, and from John Paul Brockmer,
a Moravian with whom Swedenborg roomed for a few months whll_
In London in 1744. 25 Brockmer later denied having told th_
story to Wesley, or having believed at any time that Sweden­
borg was insane,26 but Mathesi'ls repeated the story later. 27
 169

Whether either of these men Invented the story In Its

conflated and embroidered form, or whether It was common
gossip that .Matheslus (and possibly Brockmer)28 spread
because of an antipathy to Swedenborg, cannot be determined.
In any event, It was not a new story when Wesley heard of It;
his distinction lay In having been the first to publish It.
A brief excursus Into Vesley's attitude toward psycho­
loglcal'factors In religion will Indlca!e the significance
of the fact that Vesley used the fever story as he did.
Cragg demonstrates quite conclusively that Vesley vas by
no means an unsystematlc, emotionally controlled rellglonlst;
he had a system, and Its structure and confirmation stemmed
from a precisely defined principle of authority In Scripture
Interpreted by reason an~ confirmed byexperlence. 29 Wesley's
, .
own revolt against Deism had not Included a rejection of dis­
ciplined, rational thinking. Though this must be recognized
for a balanced view of Vesley, It should not be over-emphasized.
It was not disciplined thinking that broug~t Wesley to his
final position; It was a ·converslon,- a psychological experi­
ence described In physiological terms: "My heart was strangely
warmed." In his own experience, then, conversion vas not
marked by rational acceptance of an Idea; It was marked by
psychological reaction to an emotlon--an emotion accompanied
by a physical symptom. Though he retained a rationalistic
authority principle, for systematization and demonstration,
his primary and ~eclslve concern was with the psychosomatic
I'
.~
\ .

170

symptoms which he associated with conversion. Without

reaiizing the full implications, he developed a behaviorlstlc
approach to religion. A congregation's agreement with his
sermon disappointed him; he experimented with styles and sub-
Jects until he and his preachers learned how to get the
maximum psychosomatic reaction, observable In fainting,
stomach cramps, uncontrolled weeping, etc. 30 It Is almost
certain that he did not realize the discrepancy, but It Is
true (to the limited extent that such over-simplltlcatlons
can be true) that he practiced a behavlorlstic psychology
of religion, while he theorized a rationalistic theology.
Given this attitude, and given the likelihood that
he was drawn Into a temporary emotional involvement with a
system that he would not accept rationally, and which he
had already labelled as lunacy, it is not surprising that
he looked for something like the story ot the tever, and
that he used it in the way that he did. That Is, since his
behavioristic trust in physical symptoms ot psychological
changes went deeper than his confidence in rational argu­
ment, it is not surprising that he should counter an Im­
pending religious crisis (such as is suggested In the Smith
and Houghton stories) with an appeal to psychosomatic evl­
dence.
Notice the progression in his attitude. In 1770,
Wesley had heard the conflation of Swedenborg's tever and
the opening of his spiritual sight (but apparent,y not in
 171

the Mathesius-Brockmer versions), and JUdged Swedenborg in­

sane on that account, while finding much that was "worth­
while" and "noble" among the "ravings." In 1772, a demons­
tration of Swedenborgls psychic abilities impelled him into
temporary acceptance of the Swedenborgian system. During
the next seven years, a little further study of Swedenborg~

a good deal further reflection, and discovery of the

Mathesius-Brockmer story, dispelled the crisis. In 1779
and 183, he established the fact of Swedenborg1s insanity
on psychosomatic evidence, and-~with the complete confidence
of a man sure of his ground--proceeded to point out the
dangerous doctrines contained in the lunatic ravings. He
did not argue from the impossibility of Swedenborgl.s know­
ledge claim; he came too close to believing It himself.· He
did not even dispute Swedenborg1s ideas; he did not need to~

for he had already demonstrated Swedenborg1s insan~ty.

Whether intentionally or not, he had.~hifted. the

ground of argument from a philosophical or theol~gical~ to
a psychological one.
The response of Swedenborgian partisans met Vesleyls
charges on the same ground. Hartley argued r~om Svedenborgls
appearance, manner and intellectual accomplishments, that
he could not have been insane;3 1 he argued from chronology~
pointing out that Swedenborg1s visions--the alleged insanity-­
ante-dated the fever by some yearsj3 2 :~cm special knowledge~
attesting that Swedenborg recovered from the fever;33 and,
 172

interestingly, from a kind of psychological explanation of

the charges, as being predictable in response to such a
radical claim. 34 Robert Hindmarsh, and others in his London
group, busied themsilves with gathering affidavits from still­
living sources who could testify to the apparent sanity of
Swedenborg's demeanor and deportment. 35 Only Clowes remained
aloof, insisting that Swedenborg's writings carried their
own authorization, and did not require verification from
knowledge about Swedenborg's personality or conduct. 36
Generally speaking, it has not been possible since 1783, to
conduct a comprehensive analysis of Swedenborg's religIous
thought for English-speaking readership, without taking
account of his psychological state in some manner or other.
The foregoing analysis of Wesley's reaction to
Swedenborg suggests the follOWing conclusions about his
manner of introducing psychological elements into the dis­
cussion- of religious ideas. (l) Wesley's employment of the

fever-and-delirium story has connections with his overall

revolt against Deism: Having used psychosomatic data heur­
istically in determining the direction of his revolt, he used
such data polemically in defense of his position. (2) Wesley's
psychological argument was primarily polemical, since it is
apparent that his decision to reJect'Swedenborg was made in
the first instance before he had heard of the fever story,
and hence was made on other grounds. (3) His interest in
the psychological aspect being polemical, Wesley was not
 173

interested in using the insanity hypothesis as a basis for

analysis of Swedenborg, but he admitted that it did suggest
the possibility of distinguishing between "worthwhile· and
"lunatic· elements in the system. (4) Though Wesley recog­
nized the existence of noble thoughts among the ruins he
plainly thought in terms of a sharp dichotomy between sanity
and insanity.
A little later, but quite independently, psychological
factors were introduced into the interpretation of Swedenborg
in an almost completely different manner. As with Wesley,
it was connected to a genera·l approach to religious (and
other) problems. But, unlike Wesley, it was almost totally
analytical, with little, if any polemic interest; and it
included a strong attempt to replace the sane-insane dicho­
tomy with the concept of a continuous psychological spectrum,
in which sanity and insanity differed in degree, rather than
in kind. The author of this more sophisticated approach
was Johann Gottfried Herder.

Analytical Psychology of Religion: Johann Gottfried Herder

From Wesley to Herder is a rather drastic leap, but

Herder's involvement with Swedenborg's idea of empirical
revelation was as closely related to the subjects of Chap­
ter I, as was Wesley's to Chapter 2. Herder's original en­
counter with Swedenborg was indirect, and perhaps as inaus­
picioUS as might be; he first heard of Swedenborg by re~d.ing
 174

Rant's Tr§umes eInes GeIstersehers, whIch he revIewed in

hIs RescensIonen und AnzeIgen aus den KonIgsbergschen
Gelehrten und PolItIschen ZeItungen (1764-66).37 That ~his
was his fIrst acquaIntance wIth Swedenborg is faIrly obvious
from his reference to "Herr SChwedenberg~"38 fOllowIn~ Kant's
spelling wIthout correctIon or comment. 39 The artIcle, ot
course, Is concerned wIth Kant's work, and not wIth Swedenborg's
ideas; the more particularly, since he did not see Swedenborg
as the specIal target of Kant's essay. Neverthe~ess, certain
observatIons are relevant here.
He was not overwhelmed by the Tr~ume, whether he
knew the author's IdentIty or not (if he did, he did not
betray the anonymity). From a literary standpoint, he
observed, "Das Ganze der Schrift dorfte nicht genug Einheit,
und ein Theil nIcht genug Bezeihung auf den andern haben.- 40
He did find "neue und sehr lockende ~ypothesen" in the work,4 1
but no conclusion.

Der"Verfasser tragt die Wahrheiten von beiden Seiten

vor, und sagt wIe Jener Romer: einer sagt nein' der
and re: Ja'l ihr Romer, wem glaubt ihr1 • • • Der Vert.
den GenIus der Philosophie so zu einem Freunde habe,
als Sokrates sich mit seinem Damon auch in heiligen
Traumen besprach.42

Among the hypotheses, he particularly liked Kant's suggested

analysis of the relatIon of spirit to matter, which gave the
subJect "einer bisher unbemerkte Klarheit," and seemed quite
willing to accept Kant's classification ot Swedenborg's claim
 17S

as a philosophical question. 43 Regarding the insanity ,

hypothesis, he had this to say:

Hier theilen sich die Tr~umer der Vernunft, und der

Empfindung; unter die leztern z~let er auch die
Geisterseher, die er als wurkliche Kranken behandelt,
zeigt ihren Unterschied von den wachenden Trrumen,
und streuet uber die Art der Empfindung, Uber die
Krankhelt des Wahnwizzes merkwttrdlge Boebachtungen
hln.
(Dieses Stuck schr~nkt das vorige in der Anwendung
vollig ein; es nimmt mlt dtm vortgen einen entgegen­
gesezten Weg, und wenn wir oelde gegen elnander
abWelgen: so m3chten wlr vielleicht eben auf dem
Punkt,~eyn, der uns ohne Metaphysik der slcherste
1st. )Q4

This sounds almost as non-commital as Kant had been on the

sUbJect--whlch was inevitable, since he knew no more
about Swedenborg than he had learned from Kant; but It Is
significant that Herder felt sure that the decision between
insanity and the earliest hypotheses should be made on
another basis than the metaphysical one. His establish­
ment of this alternative to the metaphysical criterion,
opened a new line of Interpretation of Swedenborg, and
paved the way for a new approach to the study of religion.
The text for this is one of the last pUblications of Herder's
life, "Emanue1 Swedenborg, der gr8sseste Geisterseher des
achtzehnten Jahrhunderts," the sixth and final article In
the sixth and final volume of Adrastea, published in 1803. 4.5
How much Herder studied Swedenborg between 1766 and
1803 is not clear. He certainly read Oetinger's Beurthel1un­
gen,46 for he cites information which was contained only In
 176

Svedenborg's letter to Dr. Beyer, of vhIch the fIrst (and

only German) publIcatIon vas In that vork. 47 All the know­
ledge of Svedenborg dIrectly dIsplayed In hIs essay could
be accounted for by hIs havIng read that and the summarIes
and excerpts In QetInger's Svedenborgs und Anderer. In any
event, vhether he had studIed Svedenborg fIrst-hand or not,
he vas famIlIar vIth both Kant's and QetInger's Interpreta­
tIons, and had a reasonably complete and accurate knowledge
of the maIn poInts of the SvedenborgIan system. He evIdently
vas better Informed In thIs respect than vas Vesley.-
Although Svedenborg vas the tItular and ostensIble
subject of the essay, he vas not the only--and perhaps not
even the prIncIpal--subJect. One other concern vas •
rebuttal to Kant. thIs Is fIrst evIdent In the tItle, vhIch
uses ·Geisters~her· as an honorable, rather than rIdiculous
appellation; it Is further revealed In hIs legItimatIzatlon
of dream-InspIred knovledge,48 hIs appeal for a serIous con­
sIderation of Svedenborg,49 hIs solid affIrmatIon (contra
Kant's hypothesIs) that Svedenborg vas a ·Selbstbetrogner,·50
and hIs explanatIon of thIs on non-metaphysical grounds, In
a vay that nullIfIed the basIs of Kant's hypothesIs. SI
Another purpose of the essay Is the expositIon ot
Herder's own alternative to the rationalIst philosophy ot
relIgion: the ontologIcal assumption that spiritual thIngs
are both subjectIve and obJectIve,S2 and the romantIc epistemo­
logIcal theory that Is developed ~$ the ·P~ychologlsche
 177

Erklarung der Swedenborgschen Geschichte.- 53 This last, a

six-point excursus, is central to his discussion of Sweden­
borg, his rebuttal to Kant, and his own philosophical exposi­
tion, and so must be seen as the main point of the essay.
The theory in this section is fairly compact, but
carefully developed. We think in images, which are gener­
ated by an innate image-making power that is stimulated by
the arts and by our emotions, but which has its origin In
childhood imagination. These images vary between light
and dark extremes, according to our emotional and physio­
logical condition, and the latter may be the determining
factor.
This patently non-rationalistic epistemology voids
Kant's definition of insanity as seeing things that are
not there. It suggests a continuum between the free imaglng
of childhood, and the sporadically and variously stimulated
imaging of adulthood. It allows the description of Sweden­
borg as one whose image-making power extended unchecked Into
maturity. This perspective, he felt, was -genug, urn uns
Swedenborgs Engel- und Geisterreich Blatt fUr Blatt zu
erkIKren.- 54 With this explanation, Swedenborg was not to
be dismissed out of hand. The legitimacy of dreams as a
source of knowledge had already been established in general;
now Swedenborg'~ particular experiences of empirical revela­
tion, literal inspiration, and automatic writing were also
recognized.
 178

Alle drey Zust~nde kennen wIr nIcht nur aus Tr!umen

und KrankheIten, sondern auch gesund und wachend
aus Zustanden, In denen unsre PhantasIe lebhaft
wirket.55

The trouble wIth Swedenborg was not that he saw and talked
wIth angels and spIrIts; he COuWd do thIs -wIe man mI~ seInen
Gedanken sprIcht; Engel und GeIster waren seIne GebIld.- S6
The trouble was that -personIfIzIrte er wIssentlIch sic
nIcht-; they were vIsIons for him, Instead of Images, and
-dIeser Zustand war Krankhelt.- 57
SuperfIcIally, thIs IdentificatIon of Swedenborg's
claImed empIrIcal revelatIon as a psychopathology could be
equated wIth Wesley's IdentIfIcation of It as Insanity.
However, the dIfferences are radical. For Wesley, Sweden­
borg's InsanIty placed hIs thInkIng outsIde the realm ot
ratIonal relIgIous thought. For Herder, Swedenborg's condl­
tIon was located on a continuous spectrum of human experi­
ence. -In manchen Zust!nden des Gemttths sInd Menschen der
VIsIon nahe; NeIgung und LeIdenschaft kann sle f8rdern-;
the SwedenborgIan type of psychopathology was dangerous,
precisely -well In sle der Uebergang so lelcht Ist._ 56
·Und eln verst!ndlger Mann, der vor alIen andern s.ln
Traumverm3gen In ThatlgkeIt gesezt hat, auch wachend muaa
er vlel austr!umen.- 59 'Furthermore, Wesley's purpose In
Introducing the psychologIcal element was to discredit
Swedenborg, and obvIate the necessity to take seriously any­
thing he said that was Inconvenient; Herder's, by contrast,
,',

179

was to understand Swedenborg--and, through him, all claimants

to super-sensible experience.
It is hard to over-estimate the originality and
significance of this 'approach. It completely by-passed
the ontological and epistemological which Swedenborgts
claim had raised for Rant and Oetinger, and opened the
door on a completely new line of interpretation of knowledge
and experience in general, and mystical religion in partI­
cular. If It raised more questions than it answered--in the
area of critical distinctions between untrustworthy knowledge
claims based on visions, and legitimate ones based on dream­
ing or waking i~ges (Bilder), for example--still its analyti­
cal and non-Judgmental tone make it a programmatic beacon
leading directly toward the development of a psychology of
religion as a fundamental factor in the evaluation of religl­
ous ideas on non-metaphysical grounds.
It was not pro-Swedenborgian. The first and foremost
of German Swedenborgian sectarians, Johann Friedrich Immanuel
Tafel (who is discussed in Chapter 6), devoted thirty-five
pages to a detailed and strongly-worded rebuttal. 60 He
pointed out Herder's lack of knowledge of Swedenborg,6l he
disputed Herder's psychology and Physiology,62 and invoked
the testimony of Kant and Hartley as witness to Swedenborgfs
intellectual soundness. 63 But this is not the point of the
present inquiry. What is signIfIcant here, Is that, In reac­
tion to S~edenborg--or In reaction to Kant's and Oetl,lger's
 180

reactions to Swedenborg--Herder developed one of the earliest

formulat~ons of a depth psychology of religion. In view of
this fact. and of Herder's Influence on sUbsequent German
thought. and of the fact that the psychology of religion
began as a German tnterprlse. this essay of Herder1s stands
as a landmark In the history of the Interpretation of religi­
ous thought.
Its place In the history of the Revo~t against Dels.
Is no less prominent. To the extent that Deism was based
on a rationalist metaphyslc--whlch Is a considerable extent-­
the definition of a ground for religious JUdgments that by­
passes metaphysics. Is as Important as Rant1s definition of
a new ground of phllosophlca! Judgments. The role of Sweden­
borg1s Idea of empirical revelation In suggesting or provok­
Ing this formulation. Is one of Its most significant 'effects
on the anti-Deist revolt.
Herder was uniquely qualified to make this contri­
bution to Swedenborg Interpretations. HI! broadly catholic
Interests In everything that encouraged and utilized the
extra-rational capacities of human nature. made him Inclined
to be sympathetic but non-partisan with respect to Sweden­
borg1s Idea. Furthermore, he probably vas the first to com­
ment on Svedenborg after 1799, the year that saw the first
edition of Schlelermacher's epochal ~e~~n Ub~r die R~lI910n.

Although the ~ Is not mentioned In Herder1s ~Swedenborg,·

Schlefermacher1s separation of religious attitudes and

 181

emotional states from the intricate subtleties of theologi­

cal discourse, immediately and strongly suggests itself as
part of the background of Herder's thought in his essay.
That this line of thought, which so powerfully dominated
German religious thought in the nineteenth century, should
have been introduced by Herder and then immediately dropped,
is a situation which calls for explanation. one Is attempted
in Chapter 6, and the Conclusion.
Swedenborg's Ide~ of empirical revelation carried
Implications for three of the basic Issues Involved In the
Revolt against Deism. and either contributed to, or provoked,
anti-Deist alternatives In all three areas. In philosophy,
the hollst-tending ontology and epistemology contributed to
oetlnger's theosophical pietism, and helped to provoke Kant's
dualistic Critical Philosophy. In the ecclesiastical aspect
of the Revolt. In which anti-deists were faced with the
choice of church reform or sectarian separation, Swedenborgts
idea led to separatlon--In spite of an original effort by
Swedenborgians to avoid sectarianism. Also, the notion
stimulated two of the earliest introductions of expllclt~y

psychological issues into the Revolt, and one of these was

a clearly-formulated fore-runner of the discipline of Psycho­
logy of Religion.
The philosophical issues were dealt with by a genera­
tion of German thinkers who were not luterested In church
reform, and had little explicit concern for psychology. The
 182

ecclesIastIcal Issues were developed by a generatIon of

EnglIshmen who had prevIously adopted a post-DeIst phIlo­
sophIcal posItIon. If theIr names are of lIttle note among
the fIgures of Intellectual or ecclesIastIcal hIstory, it
Is because theIr separate sect dId not grow large enough to
attract extensIve hIstorIcal notIce; but the motIvatIons of
theIr separatIon were parallel to more significant separations
that occurred In response to other ideas In the Revolt agaInst.
Deism--such as the MoravIan and MethodIst movements. The
psychological Issues were Introduced by an EnglIshman and a
German, both well-known for other contributIons to the his­
tory of Ideas, both of whom had adopted a post-Deist philo­
sophIcal and ecclesIastIcal positIon before dIrectIng their
attentIon to psychological factors.
CorrelatIve to these consequences of the positive
or negatIve Influence of Swedenborg1s Idea on the Revolt
against DeIsm, each development had an effect on the trans­
mIssIon of Swedenborgts relIgIous Ideas. Rant's treatment
of the phIlosophIcal issue gave Swedenborg a decIdedly un­
favorable reputatIon, partIcularly In Germany, to such an
extent that hIs direct Influence almost dIsappeared from
the European relIgIous tradItIons; OetInger's treatment
lInked Swedenborg wIth the development of theosophIcal and
romantic trad iti on5, though often covertly because of Rant.
The separatIst movement establIshed a close connectIon be­
tween Swe~enborg's thought and sectarIanIsm, whIch may have
 183

prevented the spread of his influence to the thought ot

establishment theologians. The psychological issues raised
the question of psychopathology in connection with Swedenborg1s
claim to empirical revelation. which has been a target ot
counter-attack--especially by sectarian Swedenborgians--ever
since.
 184

NOTES - CHAPTER 3

1Kant , Traume, Ope cIt., p. 348, 11 9-17.

2Loc. cIt.

3 IbId ., pp. 342_348, passIm.

4 IbId ., p. 348, !! 13-17.

5See aboye,pp. 90-91.

6See above, pp. 91_92.

" r7~(London:
387-388~~
1872), vol. Ill, Pp.

8 IbId ., p. 450.
9 IbId ., vol. IV, pp. 149-150.
10ReprInted In Ibid., vol. XIII, pp. 425-448r
lllbtd., vo"l. Ill, p. 450.
12 IbId ., vol. XIII, p. 426.
13 IbId ., vol. IV, p. 149; ~., vol. XIII, p. 427.
~ 14.!l2.!.!!., vo 1. II I, p. 387.
-/:;. 15Loc • cl t.

16J~Id., vol. Ill, p. 388.

17 IbId ., vol. Ill, p. 450.

18
"Loc. cl t.
l~kee S. Noble, Appeal, ope cIt., p. 245. )'

20 bid., • 247.

2 Wesley, OPe eIt., vol. XIII, pp. 427-448. ~)

2 IbId., vol. XI!I, pp. 425-426.

---::=-- -.:------­
2~art1ey, llPrefac~l; to H~a"cl"'.:~l'!d Hel 1, 2l?"~_ill., p. xxxi.
 18,

24 See R. L. Tafel, Documents, OPt cit., vol. 11,

p. 609.
2'lbid., p. ,,4.
26 1bid ., p. 601.
21 1bid ., p. ,92.
28 1b id., p. 610.'
29Cragg, Reason and Authority, OPt cit., pp. 1,6-162.

30william Sargant, The Battle for the'Mind (Londons

1951), pp. 14-84, 130.
r/ CilHartley, "Preface" to On Influx, OPt cit., pp.
xXiv-xxv; Hartley, Letter to Clowes, OPt cit., p. xv.
".Pt­
~artley, "Preface" to Heaven and Hell, p. xxxi.
i'
/33 oc. cl t.
artley, Letter to Clowes, OPt cit., p. xv; "Preface"
to Heaven and Hell, OPt cit., p. xxxi.
, 35 See R. L. Tafel, Documents, oR. cit., vol. 11, pp.
601-610.
36Clowes' Affectionate Address to the Clergy, OPt cit.,

31Johann Gottfried von Herder, SammtlichgWerke, ed.

Bernhard Suphan (Berlin: 1877), Vol. 1~ pp. 125-1)0.
38~., p. 126.

39Kant , Traume, OPt clt., p. 3,4.

40Ibid., p. 130.
411bid., p. 128.
421bi9., p. 130.
43l£l!., p. 128.
44 Ibld ., p. 130.
45J. G. von Herder, Werke. !ur ~!J.~ losophle und
Geschlchte. vol. IX, "Sammlunq del' ", "r,. 'Ji.~chsten deut"chen
Cra3S~-r;il vol. 120 (Carlsruhe: 1820), pp. 478-494 •

•
 186

46See above, p. 76.

47 I •e ., "als Kind, sagte man schon von ihm, dass aus

ihm die Engel sprachen," Herder, "Swedenborg," OPe cit., p.

480.
48Ibid., p. 479.
49 Loc • cit.
50Ibid., p. 483.
51Ibid., pp. 483-486; cp. above, p. 161.
52Ibid., pp. 487, 493.
53 Ibid ., pp. 483-486.

54 Ibid ., P. 486.

55 Ibid ., P. 489.

561bid., P. 488.

57 Loc • elt,

58Lo_c • eit.

59 Ibid ., p. 491.

60 J • F. I. Tafel, Sarnmlung von Urkunden betreffend

das Leben und Charakter Emanuel Swedenborgs, 4 vols. (Tublngen:

139 I , vol. , pp. 13 -170. .
61~., pp. 135-143.
62
Ibid., PP. 144-t70.
63 Ib1d ., pp. 149-151; he referred to Kant's Brief an
FrI. von KnObloch which he considered posterior to the
Traumes.
 PART 11

SVEDENBCRG' S COlCEPT

AND

THE DEVELOPMENT CF THE REVa.T

 CHAPlER 4

DEVELOPMENTS IN ENGlAND

As the Revolt against Deism developed in the early

eighteenth century, its philosophical, ecclesiastical
aspects continued to interact with. Swedenborgfs idea or
empiri~al revelation. The basic issues that had been
raised in the primary encounters wfth Swedenborg f s reli­
gious thought, became inter-related in different ways In
England, France and Germany; so the topical organization or
Part I is replaced now by separate treatments or the national
(or, more precisely, linguistic) tradition••
In England, where the transmission or a Swedenborglan
tradition vas predominantly involved with the separatist
New Church, an institutionalized orthodoxy emerged~ and
the lines of distinction over against Anglicanism, Methodlsrn
and Unitarianism were developed with greater clarity. When
literary figures of English Romanticism encountered Sweden­
borg1s ideas, their reaction vas influenced first or all by
Swedenborgian sectarianism, and secondarily by the anti­
Swedenborgian traditions stemming from Rant and Wesley.
The earliest French-language reactions to Swedenborg
occurred outside France, in the contexts of English and

188
 189

German Swedenborgianism; so the French tradition vas

influenced from the start by English separatism and by the
German philosophical traditions. The domination of ecclesI­
astical issues by Catholicism, and philosophical issues by
Positivism, made the French situation significantly differ­
ent from either the English or the German. One particular
feature of the developments in France vas the tendency ot
different traditions to associate in combinations that had
not occurred elsewhere: Swedenborglanism became linked
briefly with Mesmerism, and more permannUy with Spiritualism
and Freemasonry.
In Germany--as In England and, with less significance,
in France--further development of the philosophical Issues
raised by the idea of emPirical revelation vas led by
literary figures. The distinctlveness of the German situ­
ation lay partly In the fact that philosophical concerns
were pursued in relative isolation from the other related
issues tor somewhat longer In Germany: sectarianism did
not become a live option until late in the period studied,
and then only briefly; the psychology of religion turned It.
attention to other SUbJects; the alternative traditions ot
Kant and Oetinger had a stronger and more direct eftect
than In England or France.
The period did not see the emergence ot new issues,
as ba3ic to the Revolt again~t Deism as those In Part I, but
it is especially notable for the ways in 'Which the luue.
were developed and Interrelated.
 190

The Sectarian Swedenborgian Tradition

One consequence of Swedenborgian religious thought

becoming consolidated in the separated New Church, was the
early development of an orthodox tradition which lent InstI­
tutional implications to differences of opinion between the
interpreters of Swedenborg. In 1792. division between those
who read a recommendation for congregational polity In
Swedenborg's description of the New Christian church, and
those who found authority for episcopal government, became
so sharp that in 1793 attempts to form a national New Church
were abandoned for fourteen years. This issue did not involva
the idea of empirical revelation, but the disorganization
that resulted from it contributed to the confusion over another
issue that did.
In 1797. the Birmingham Society divided into two
groups; the Rev. Henry~y Peacock. who had been serving
the society for a little over two years. lead the separating
group, and the Rev. William Faraday was ordained as minister
to the parent body. The cause of this division was not
recorded. and may have been related to the argument over
I
poli~y (one of the two simultaneous and competing -Fifth
General Conferences· was held in Birmingham in 1793), but
Peacock soon became involved in another dispute. In 1199,
he published five pamphlets; some of them were more or le ••
favorably received. 1 but one was highly controver.ial,
 191

relating directly to the interpretation to be made ot

Swedenborg's revelatory claim itselt.
During this period in which there were no national
conterences, the nearest thing to a "voice" ot the body ot
the New Church vas)a monthly periodical, The A~ 'Which
vas published from 1799 to 1801. Its editorial board vas
more representative ot the congregational than the episcopal
taction,2 but it appears to have been "main line" on most
other issues. In October ot 1799, in answer to a query tro.
a reader, the editors, "and several ot their respectable
correspondents," detined what became an orthodox Ne'W Church
position:

E. S. as to his theological 'Writings, is [not] an

author • • • but • • • a scribe of the LORD• • • • What
he hath 'Written is strictly true--his relations are
real facts-- • • • there is no errOr or mistake In
them-- • • • ~ ~~~ u~r th~ p~culiar dlTection ot the
Lord throughout ~ whole--and • • • his Arcana, In
particular, is no other than the Lord's own Word, opened
and exhibited in its internal sense, its tr~e spiritual
meaning, and therefore is infallible truth.
Comments on this statement, appearing in the next
few issues, were almost unanimous In their support ot the
editorial position; the only dissent came trom one "S. M.·
purporting to represent "many hundreds· ot Swedenborglans
in the Manchester dlstrict. 4 The "Manchester position·
held that meaning vas revealed to Swedenborg, but not words
and phrases, and "the expressions, the illustrations, and
confirmations were all found by E. S. in his ~~~, Which
had been previously prepared ot the LORD for that purpose.· S
.---­
 192

During the period of this controversy, Peacock. published

his pamphlet, A Letter to the Societies of the New Jerusalem
Church, on the subject of the Theological Writings of Emanuel
Swedenborg (Birmingham: 1799).6 It was written in response
to wan evil report operating greatly to his [the author'sl
temporal disadvantage, namely, of his having renounced the
writings of E. s.w7 He had not renounced them, but he had
interpreted their claim quite differently than had the editors
of the Aurora, and the Majority of contemporary sectarian
Swedenborgians.

There are two kinds of revelation: one external, by

the living voice of God himself; 'the other internal,
by a perceptible dictate affecting the understanding,
or the interiors of thought. The former is that of
the Prophets of Old; but the latter is that of the
Apostles: It is also, that of the Clerg~, or Ministers
of the Lord's Church. The former Is dIrect or immedi-
ate, but the latter is indirect or mediately through
the Word in illumination: The Writings of E. S. are of
the latter or mediate kindl
***
We are not to believe E. S. implicitly. Examine,
compare, ana reason, so as to be convinced in our own
minds • • •
The pamphlet was roundly condemned by the editors and
correspondents of The Aurora,9 as might be expected in a
heated controversy; but the pamphlet had institutional
consequences as well. Within a few months after its occur-
rence, he left Birmingham for Manchester--where many were
already inclIned to his v!~w, and where the prestigious
John Clow~1 c~'\lmed to have h~d ex~erien~e of Wmediate
 193

revelatlon.- 10 Peacock's separate group In Birmingham does

not reappear In New Church histories, arid one list of New
Church ordlnatlons omits his name altogetherl 11
A decade of Institutional tradition appears adequate
ground for the growth of a stern orthodoxy. English N~

<;:hurch publlcallins In t~!. tla.rly nineteenth ceEtury exceeded

~total pt:.0d~ctl0l! of Swedenborglan literature In Germany
anUrance together; but the English tradition displays less
variety of Interpretations regarding the controversial Idea
of empirical revelation than do the other national traditions.
This uniformity In English attitudes toward this basic
element In Swedenborg's thought could be explained hypo­
thetically as the consequence of sectarian orthodoxy.
However, the alternate hypothesis of homogeneous opinion
explains the early appearance of an orthodox tradition. The
relevance of this chlcken-and-egg question to the general
problems of the stUdy will be discussed In the conclusion;
for the present chapter It Is enough to note that a quasi­
monolithic orthodoxy did develop, and It was closely linked
with the membership and the Institutional Image of the sepa­
ra tlst body.
Further definition and development of the Sweden­
borglan sectarian tradition can be described In three cate­
gorles--dldactic, apologetic and polemic.
The first category represented th~ major thruat of
New Church l~terary effort. Between 1800 and 1840J_Jom.~0
 194

hundred books and pamphlets were devoted to the amplIfI­

cation and clarification, for the New Church membership, of
the Swedenborglan tradition In theology, ohurch polity, and
liturgy. These works represented the thought of almost
everyone of the forty three ministers ordained In the New
Church by this time, and that of a half-dozen laymen as
well. There were a few Issues of continuing controversy,"
but unity was an outstanding characteristic of the tradition.
The basic Issues concerning Swedenborg's empirical revelation
were treated for the most part as assumptions which· no longer
needed explicit discussion.
Apologetlcs and polemics were conducted almost exclu­
sively by a small group of ministers who functioned as un­
official, but commonly recognized spokesmen of the church-­
Clowes, Hlndmarsh and, from the 1820's on, Samuel Noble. 12
True to their role as spokesmen, they often wrote at
the specific request of a body of their church. Hlndmarsh's
London congregation asked him to reply to Priestly, 1) and by
a unanimous resolution, the 1819 General Conference

earnestly request[ ed that) the Rev. J~" Clowes would

again take up his pen In der~nce of the Holy Word, and
In refutation of those delstlcal pUblicatloy~ which
are now c~rculatlng In the christian world.

~y t~t time,_Clowes was 76, and though he continued ~

­
publish for another twelve years, ·he had to leave the van­
...---..--
guard of the New Church's revolt against ~Ism to younger
 19,

men. He already had translated most of Swedenborg's works,

and prod~ed 62 didactic books or pamphlets in the-!!!st
twen~y_~ears of the nineteenth century, as well as caretully
constructed, scholarly replies to attacks on Swedenborg by
an English lecturer and clergyman, W. Roby, and by a French
Jesuit, Abbe Auguste Barruel. 15 Once, too, he engaged in a
gentle polemic, against. the Methodist position, 16 but he

----
retained his anti-separation posture, describing the
Methodist in his Dialogue as one -in whom it ~s easy to
discern, that the true temper and spirit ot the gospel
prevailed over any particular prejudice ot sentiment, or
torm ot a creed,- and opposing him with -a member ot the
Established Church, who had recently taken up the writings
ot Baron Swedenborg.- 17
Hlndmarsh, In addition to his Reply to Dr. Prlestley,
and his counter-measures against Wesley's charge ot Insanlty,18
collected data to retute a claim that Swedenborg denied all
his works betore he dled,l9 and pUblished a massive polemic,
A Seal upon the Lips of Unitarians, Trlnitarlans, and all
Others Who Refuse to Acknowle~ge the Sole, Supreme, and
Exclusive Divinity of Our Lord and Savi<:)11r J9'SUS Christ.
Containing Illustrations of One Hundred ~nd Forty-Four
Passages In the Four Evangelists and the ApocalyPse, In
Proot That Jesus Christ Is the Supreme and Only God ot
Heaven and Earth. (Manchester: 1814.)
Neither Clowes nor Hindmarsh added significantly to
their position on Swedenborg1s empirical revelation, but
 196

an exchange between the Rev. Samuel Noble, and an Anglican,

Rev. G. Beaumont, Is of some Interest. Noble had visited
Beaumont's parish, Norwich, to give a series of lectures on
Swedenborglan doctrine, In 1823. In the next year, Beaumont
replied with The Antl-Swedenborg: Or a Declaration of the
Principal Errors and Anti-Scriptural Doctrines Contained
In the Theological Writings of Emanuel Swedenborg:
.
Being
the Substance of a"Lecture delivered at Ebenezer Chapel Ber
Street, Norwich, on Sunday, August 24th, 1823, with consid­
erable Additions, (London: 1824). The substance of the work
was theological, as Noble's lectures had been, but he in­
cluded a significant statement of his attitude, and hi.
opinion of Swedenborg.

I can aver before God and man, that I have no personal

animosity against, nor even dislike of any Swedenbnr­
glan In the world; but am solely actuated by a clear
conviction of the evil tendency of the whole Sweden­
borglan system. TDat~."sys m apRea..r.s to me to be nothing
less, In the design of It, than an entire revolution In
the christian dlspensatlon. 20 -
Respecting Baron Swedenborg, It may not be amiss tor
me here to gIve my opInIon of him; and my opinion Is
that he was a learned man: this cannot be denied by
those who have read his works, and will speak candidly.
Against his moral character I never heard any thing;
and as I cannot Impeach his moral character, I have no
authority whatever to call In question his piety and
sincerity. But though charity obliges us to deal
tenderly with men's sincerity, yet there may be very
good reasons for our calIlng In questlo thdr unity'
It does appear to many, that elthe uch learnlng~r
something else unknown~adJmade B~Swedenborg-mad~
If not In the highest yet;-nra-Iower degree.21-~
 197

Beaumont's meaning of "insanity" here was the simple, pre­

psychological opposite of rational coherence; but he could
recognize a subtle psychology when he saw ·one, and called
Swedenborg as an expert to describe his own malady:

A portrait of this notable man's mind and character

can scarcely be better exhibited than in his own words
respecting those who are enthusiasts, and under a spirit
of delusion: hear what he says.
nThey who so addict themselves to musing on religious
things, as to work their minds into superstitious reveries
concerning them, come in time to hear spirits talking
to them; for such religious reveries, where anyone wil­
fully gives himself up to them, to the neglect of relative
duties and usefulness in his station, enter deep and gain
a form in the interior part of man, and so taking full
( possession oL..hill!..L...£~lI1!:"lcmi_,=-ate with tlie spirltuatliCir}d,
) and excite certain spIrits tnere-fo associate wHlllilm:
such are properly visionaries and enthusiasts, who be­
I lieve every spirit they hear to be the Holy Spirit, where­
as they ~Le no other than enthusiastic spirlts, ~o being
un~r d~lusion th m elves, delUde tKose ~om they have
access to and influence overnl Treatise on heaven and
hell, No. 249.
If the above account of enthusiasm and delusion
be true, then the Baron has perhaps made out his own
case better than any other man could have done It for
hlml 22
Beaumont's reply to NOble's original lectures (un­
printed In their 182) form) amounted to 142 pages;. and almost
the whole of his comments on Swedenborg's revelatory claim
has been quoted here. Noble's reply· to Beaumont, An Appeal,23
ran 566 pages In the first edition (It was somewhat revised
through nine editions in the next fifty years); and his
reply to the above quotations amounted to 1)6 pages, one of
the most exhaustive treatments of the subject In New Church
11 terature.
 198

His argument was that a human agent was necessary tor

-the communication ot the Lord's present-day revelation, that
Swedenborg was perfectly suited to this oft Ice, and was In
fact that Instrument of divine revelation. He cited Internal
evidence from Swedenborg's works, testimonies of contemporary
·persons of rank and learning,· and the evidence ot the
famous ·Three Anecdotes." He devoted pages, and conslder­
able research and documentation to refuting Wesley's charge
of Insanity, and repeated and re-Inforced almost every pro­
Swedenborg argument mentioned In Chapter 2, above. Nothing
was added to this treatment of the sUbject during the period
of this study.

The Romantic Swedenborglan Tradition In England

1. WIlllam Slake

From' the viewpoint of this study, WIlllam Slake was

significant In a number of ways. \ Since his encounter with
Swedenborg was roughly contemporaneous with Herder's,1 he
stands among the first of the Romantics to be directly and
avowedly Influenced by Swedenborg's Idea of empirical revel­
ation. He was the first primarily artistic figure to be
affected by !3'-'~denborg,
...............
and Swedenborglan Influences had
--­
--". -­
gr~~t:~ dO~lnance ~ his work than In that of any figure ~

have studle~so f~ outside the N~w Church. His attitude

towa.'d Swedenhorg the man, and tile Swedenborglan system as
 199

a whole. rapidly deteriorated from discipleship to derisive

reJection; but his acceptance of the fact and!the eplstemo- \
logical impllca~ions of Swedenborg's empirical revelatlon./J )
r and off/the ontological $t,atu;i of symbo~S entailed by Sweden­
( borg's c:ncept of correspondence~betweenspiritual and natura~
reality. ~re enduring and decisive Influences on his poetry.
The date of Slake's original encounter with Sweden­
borgian thought has not been determined. The theory that
his father and brother were members of the Swedenborgian
church has been advanced in a New Church pUblication. 24 but
It Is not documented there. and has been effectively disposed
of. 25 However. in 1789. when the first General Conference
of New Churchmen trom all over England vas held. V. Dlake
and C. Slake (presumably Villiam and his wife. Catherine)
signed their names under the following statement:

Ve whose Names are hereunto subscribed. do each of us

approve of the Theological Writings of Emanuel Sweden­
borg, believing that the Doctrines contained therein
are genurne Truths. revealed from Heaven. and that the
New Jeru3alem Church ought to be e$tabllshed. distinct
and sepnrate from the Old Church. 2b
Slake's name does not occur in any further records of the
Conference or it~ Societies. but his marginal notation
opp~~ite parag~aph 414 of Swedenborg's Divine lo~ and
WIsdom refers to a discussion he participated in (or at
lea3t overheard) in a New Church society meeting. 27 The3e
two data sugge,t that Slake was associated With the scctar­
lan 5wedenborglans for some
...........

~riod
------
which included the spring
 200

of 1789 and that his marginal notations to Divine Love and

Wisdom were made at that time. His thorough knowledge ot
at least one other work of Swedenborg's is attested by the
existence of a copy of Divine Providence annotated by
Slake in 1790. 28 He appears to have been familiar with more
of Swedenborg's thought than he would have found in these
two books, but it is not clear how much he read, or how
much he heard in New Church meetings.
Since Slake's explicitly anti-Deist work )here Is Ho
Natural Religion was pUblished in 1788, it is not clear

priority, t~~f a connection is obvious.

---­
whether his personal revolt against deism preceded his
interest in Swedenborg, or vice-versa; but whatever the
Furthermore,
the particular direction of his revolt--to an ep:stem~~ogy ~
Which accorded high priority to mystically perceived knowledge, I
and an ontology in which -a spirit and a vision- were more
)
rea;- than -mortal -and perishing ~ature-29__was influenced
directly by Boehme and Swedenborg, the two figures detined
by Jacq~oos as central among the influences which led
to the birth of Romanticism. 30 The extent of Swedenborg's

---
influence on Blake is of course a matter of subJective
Judgment, but th~ following two quotations are not parti­
cularly radical among Blake commentators:

The writers with whom Blake has most mental aftinity

were SW~denborg, ?aracelsus, and Boehme • • • • Of the

three, Syed~nDorg had by far the greatest influence

on him. J

 201

With the exception of the Bible, probably no source

afforded Blake more help than the writings or
Swedenborg.32

The brevity of hrs connection with the New Church

does nothing to contradict this jUdgment, and is succinctly
explained in one of his Notes to Divine Love and Wisdom:
-the whole of the New Church is in Active Life and not in
Ceremonies at all.- 33 Neither is it contradicted by his
rejection of Swedenborg, as will be seen in what he accepted
and what he rejected, in the ~ to Divine Love and Wisdom~

and The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

The main point of Blake's marginalia to Divine Love
and Wisdom is hi~Jaffirmation of an epis~emC:logy that allows)
for knowledge gained through spiritual perception. He
divi~~~edge into~ral and spiritual parts~34 and
doubts that ideas can exist in the natural part ~lone.3S
He approves Swedenborg's description of the mystical state~

-a laying asleep of the body, and ... an int,lux into the

spiritual things of the mind from above- (257(4])~ and saId
later, -How absurd then would it be to say that no man on
ea~t~ ~pIritual idea after reading 2S7~·36.
Most ot Blake's disagreements with Swedenborg are
based on the contention that_Swedenborg underestimates Man'.
capability tor spiritual perceptlon. 37 This tendency to
-accept Swedenborg's claIm to er~irical revelation, vhile
Lcritlcidn~~rg tor not ~o?ln9 mystical eno~h-':...
i.e" not apprechting adequately the actual and potential
"
 202

universality of empirical revelation--is made most explicit

in The Marriage of Heaven and Hell. In title, in style, and
in the frequent use of "memorable fancies" (Swedenborg called
his anecdotes of spiritual experience -memorable relations·),
this illuminated poem was clearly intended as a derisive
satire of Swedenborg1s works. At the beginning of It he
refers to Swedenborg and his works by an ambiguous symbolism
which seems tQ I~ly an acknowledgement of the holiness of
Swedenborg1s calling, along with the Judgment that his
writings were no longer needed In the nev age which they
had announced:
'.
As a new heaven Is begun. and It Is now thirty-three
since Its advent: the Eternal Hell revives. And 101
Swedenborg Is the Angel sitting at the to~~s; his •
writings are the linen clothes folded up.J

Except for the obvious ~ent~f parody. and two pages

close to the end. The Marriage Is not so much directed

against Swedenborg !s aga~conventlonal religion In

( gene~al; but this, too. contributes to his Indictment ot
Swedenborg. Even In rejecting Swedenborg, he acce~ts~e

claim to empirical revelation; as In the ~ to ~, he

complains that Swedenborg~d~too little use of his spiritual
experience, and mistrusts Its unlversallty--but worst or all,
~ he allowed his beautiful gift of revelation to be tarnished
and restricted by conventional rellglon. o
 20)

I have always found that Angels have the vanity to

speak of themselves as the only wise; this they do with
a conficieru-insolence sprouting from systematic reason­
ing. Thus Swedenborg boasts that what he writes is
~ tho' it is only the Contents or Inaex of already
published books. A man carried a monkey about for a

(
~. & because he was a li ttle wiser than the monkey,
grew vain, and co~iv'd himself as much wiser than
seven men. It is so with Swedenborg; he shews the tolly
( of churches~ exposes hypocrites, till he imagines---­
1 that all are religious & himself the single one on

earth that ever broke a net.

Now hear a plain fact: Swedenborg has not wrltien

one new truth: Now hear another: he has written all
the old falshoods. And now hear the -T,iBsoll.---He con­
ve"rsed- '!tth Angels who are all religious & conversed
not with Devils who all ate reli ion. tor he vas in­
capa bfe---rtiro I his conceifid-notions. Thus Swedenborg.
writings are a recapitulation~f all superficial opinions,
~nd a~ ~~a~y-~is~~~~~~~ .uplime. but no turther~
Have now another plain fact: Ariy man of mechanical talents
may from the writings of Parac~lsus or Jacob Sebmen, pro­
duce ten thousand volumes of equal value with Swedenborg l . ,
and from those of Dante or Shakespear, an infinite num­
be~. But when he has done this. let him-not say that he
knows better than his master, tor he only holds a candle
in sunshine.39

There can be no question ot claiming Blake as a

disciple of Swedenborg. He not only rejected the man, but

-
also the religious values which Swedenborg would have £on­
sidered essential to the system. Berger has accurately
described the basis of his rejection of Swedenborg:

Swedenborg ne paraissait pas a Blake avoir eu assez

d'independance dlesprit; il avait fait trop de conces­
sions aux theories scientifiques et aux interpretation.
religieuses des tglises; il avait adore llesprit d'
obei5sance et cru en la saintete des anges, sur leur
I r propre parole. Cl etai t un homme fort, mala .. un Samson
) tondu par les tg} laes»o40 --­

In spite or thh, however, he retained' complete respect tor

~-
S..,edenborg l s claIm to e'~ijlirical revelation, and retained
 204

Swedenborgls concept of splrltual-mater~al corTespo~~nce

In the form of his own system of symbollsm. 41 In doing

this, Blake a~c~?ted what we have described Swedenborgls

~e~ contribution to the Revolt against Deism, and used

It as the basis for his contribution to the beginning ot the

anti-Deist movement known as Romanticism.

2. Southey and De Qulncey Contra Swedenborg

The llteratl of t~e Englls~o~~tlc ~radltlon were

by no means unanimous In even partial acceptance ot Swedenborg.
L.Ro~utheyfandf'Thomas De Qulncey, tor example, are OA
record as categorically rejecting Swedenborg, his claim to
revelation, the theology derived trom it, and the church
group distinguished by that theology.
~outhey~f in -Account of Swedenborgianhm,· ·Letter

LXII· In Letters from England: by Don Manuel Alvare~

Esprlell" described a New Church chapel as ·slngularly

handsome,- the congregation as -respectable,· the service

as -decorous,- the singing as -remarkably good-; but con­

cluded that -I have never in any other heretical meeting

- ...- ----..
0_­
heard heresy_so lOUdly Insisted upon.- 42 ~Heresy~wa. one
~

definition of Swedenborg1s system; l~ comedy was another, and

Southey produced a hilarious and well-Informed caricature ot
Swedenborg1s description of the spiritual world. One passage,
significant for t~ls survey, Is a serious suggestion to ac­
count for the claim to revelation ot the concept ot the
~!.!!':l3 l{vJno.43
 20S

Swedenborg seems to have thought upon one text and

-\ dreamt upon it, till he mistook his dreams and his
delirium for revelation. "Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness. --So God created man in his own
image, in the image of God created he him." His system
1 is a wil~_c~mment u~on this passage, as m~strous as
anz or the RaDbinical reveries. Accordingly he lays
it down as an axiom, that the whole of divine order
was imaged in man at the creation, insomuch that he
was divine order itself in a human form, and so Heaven
in epitome. Upon this he has built up a creed of the
strangest anthropomorphism,. teaching that the divinity
of the deity constitutes heaven, and that heaven itself
is in a human form, Deity and Heaven thus identit~ed
being the Maximus Home, the Grand or Divine Man.44

Concentration on a text til delirium became revelation,

la an explanation of Swedenborg's claim not unllke the one

tha lBeaumon put in Swedenborg's own mouth. If it is some­

----
what more charitable than Ernesti's charge of hoax, or
r ve;;ey' ~ charge of lunacy, it is both less subtle and lesa
~comprehending than(H;;der'. ~SYChological explanation-­
which it superficially resembles.
or[oe Quincey) there is less to say for the purposes
of this study. In 1824, he published a translation of an
excerpt from Kant's Triume--the harshes~ J~dgments, with
none of the ambiguity of the whole w~rk.45 In 1837, he
published ~ affectionate reminiscence of John Clowes, whom
he seemed to have admired as a man and~~ar, and en­
Joyed as a friend--in spite of Clowes' being a Swedenborgian.
or this latter affliction, De QUincey .aid:

Already, on the bare m~ntion of that word [Sweden­

bOTgianhm) il..Y-l'lI:3U r!;pt. I 0I1 ;lrlses . . :;;dnst '1ny 1"a.l1, that,
writing much (0-,' 'fl'ftint,j at. <.11) :;or a body of doctrine.
sO apputlntl craz &I thou o i.' P.r~d~!!.b~g.a-lUll
 206

must have ~id a~i~~_~~ all good sense and manliness or

mind. Indeed, this is so much of a settled case, that
even to have written against Mr. Swedenborg would be
-gen~rally viewed as a suspicious act, requir!ng explan­
~ , and not very easily admitting or it.4b

From this stance, he had nothing but passing derogations to

say about Swedenborg, so the specific basis of his reJection/(
is as obscure as the fact of it is obvious.

3. Coleridge on Swedenborg

Samuet Coleridge1s acquaintance with Swedenborg's

works vas thorough and of long standing, but almost completely
private. He studied Swedenborg over a long period, careful!y
annotating nine or ten or the philosophical and theological
works (there is a question as to the authenticity of one
-----
annotated volume attributed to him), and carried on cor­
respondence with two prominent New Churchmen; but he
published no comments, and generally ke t his opinions about.
(
I the Swedish seer to himself. In a 1954 doctoral dissertation,
Ccleridge1s Commentary on Swedenbors,47 Leonard Martin )
Edmiston transcrib~the marginalia from eight of these
works stl~ant (lnclud~-; the unverified notes to !liviD.
P~ovidence, Which he accept~ as genuine),48 and collected
data concerning the factors which influenced Coleridge's
attitude toward Swedenborg.
He adducesl£l~cumsta~tial ~vide~~that Co~dge
m~y ha~~ been acquainted wlt~ 5wed~nbo~g--or at least with
 207

Swedenborgians--as early as the 1780's, when he was a

student at Christ's Hospital, near the early meeting place
ot-;:bert Hindmarsh's London group,49 and traces his con­
nections with such New Churchmen as the layman, John Flaxman
(the prominent sculptor, who vas also a friend of Slake's),
and the Rev. Charles Augustus Talk.
In explanation ot Coleridge's public silence concern­
ing Swedenborg, he cites the negative jUdgments of~
L~;

[Wesle~ andlSoutheyl and demonstrates that Coleridge~s

strongly affected by these--a~~ by other attacks, such as

r=-- .
that by his admirer, De Quincey-1strongly enough to explain

why Coleridge kept private his opinion of Swedenborg,

hing anything strongly in Swedenborg,l s favor,

{9..r--.!JLJ~ubl1

)
Coleridge would have been taking _~I~es__ !.ga}ns_~_~n to ~

~hom he owed much and whose op nlons fie respectea hIghly.SO

) Coleridge's private marginal commentary on Swedenborg

( i. the work of a man who thoroughly agree~ with the systea

-he is studying. This apparent agreement Is documented

C ol.erid e's corrup,£.ndence with James}OllDnan a~ C. A. Tulk.,
~

- - -
---
He commented to Olllman that Swedenborg's description of the
intluenceot spirits on the natural body coincided completely
~
with his own experlence.~ In 1820, he told Talk:

I 1 find very few & even those but doubtful In3t",nccs of

tenets, in WhIch I am conscious ~r-any-substanlial
diffcr~nce of onlnion vit~ the enlighten~d att~hor; but
m~!l~l> in which J·'!..~ly co!n0..dlng with his state;;'\ents of
.the I".:hrl$t1an truths fifs interpretation Of. the5cr~p­
J tur~l D~ctrlne • • • (~e_8gree~ YI~~ S~~denb~r9'~ ~ng
atta'-~;.cj .l.0. t~_r:~ he rejected n 0 ner autllura.)52
 208

The bulk of his notations are attempts to work out

!~~!her roblems that SwedenEorg was dealing with. For
instance, he struggled with the problem of the communication
of s iritual and material substances, in a way essentially
parallel to Swedenborg. 53 Particularly in the philosophic
works he attempted to clarify Swedenborg1s reasoning
through the use of symbolic logic, but arrived at parallel
conclusl~.54 Most of his disputes were with Swedenborgian
terminology, and ~e explicitly ~istlnguished this rrom
a~reement on ideas. 55 -Swedenborg1s meaning Is the truth,
and the duty of his followers Is • - to extract a com­
pendlum of his many works--perhaps fifty pages In which
what Swedenborg clarifies he does not make obscure agaln. 56
Sometimes, he felt more agreement than he understood Intel­
lectually.

What Swedenborg Included in his -reigning .love- or

ruling passion, I do not distinctly unde~stand. But
this I feel with tremendous depth• • • • /7

and he proceeded to restate Swedenborgls idea quite agree­

ably. ~~a~!d the-lerminological difficulties on various
.....£!us.!s, chief among which was Swedenborg l s Rationalism.
-~~-

-The greatest sacrifice which the genius of Swedenborg made

• to the fashion and spirit of his age,- he said, was

the description of his mystical experiences in terms or

rationalistic natural philOlophy.56

------
 209

He had one major area of distress concerning

Swedenborg.

One of my scruples respecting the reality of Swedenborgls

experiences (N.b. not respecting hIs veracity, which God
forbldl) Is grounded on this: th~the notions and doc­
trines, which he at~rlbutes to others, seem always like
the opinions which one Man forms of another Man's Belief
whom he supposes to differ from himself, and not like
what the man's own statement of his own conceptions
would be. 59

He used Swedenborg1s description of angels and trlnltarlan

polemlcs.as examples of this point which he

• • • least llke[d] In Swedenborg, and which (I reluc­

tantly confess) seems to me t9 detract considerably
f om the character of his mlnd-as well as from the
theologlc~l value and philosophical merit of his
wrl t Ings. oQ

This dem~rrer, which seems to have been original with

Colerldge, is particularly significant In view of the

-"'-------- ­
extent and frequency of passages of the kind he objected to.
- -..
The fact that Colerldge was the first to notice the problem
can be explained by the consid~ratlon that such a point would
not occur to radical dissenters from Swedenborg1s views on
the one hand, nor to disciples on the other. This explanation,
however, only emphasizes the observation that Colerldgels
reading of Swedenborg ~s at once [rriendlY and critlcal and
1
marked by a notable sensitivity of perception. It was this
attitude of Colerldge1s which led hlm~ell out the most

-
objective and carefully detailed criterion tor evaluation of
Swedenborglan Ideas that had yet been developed. Befor.
 210

anyone of Swedenborg's positions could be accepted or

-- --
rejected, he maintained, it should be judged on six points:

-
(1) internal coherence of terms, (2) consistency with the
.
total system, (3) fu.nda.mental rationality Oogical relation
of antecedents to consequents), (4) compatibility with known
facts, ($) moral ~ustification for acceptance or rejection
of the idea, and (6) compatibility with the teachings or
scriPture.61~He developed this criterion in relation to
what he considered the "great difficulty" with Swedenborg's
system, ili., the realit _ ~spi_r1tual things vls-Il-vla the
reality of material things, and the relationship between
t~wo k~~ds or reality.62 Struggling with this problem
1
consistently and earnestly, his summary Judgment was ravor- /
able to Swedenborg's position.
Of particular interest was Coleridge's comment on

the question or Swedenborg's sanity--again, an original and

distinctive position.

I have used the word "sanity" in reference to £manuel

Swedenborg [and his claim to revelation], nonvidi­
0hs~ but the very contrary. for I should pity Chi man
w 0 having read any portion of his writings ~ho [sic]
could entertain the least suspicion of his v~racity,
~TUl ofher.Ls§~~ith hl.! own heart. He must there­
'fore have been wit~ a Seer or a Dreamer. ~-1h!s
~at, he is iA-eJtber case a profound Metaphysician:
a f8ct~nrcn cannot but give an almost unexampled lnter­
est of curios, l'o-t'Fie phenomenon. Of (he Sights mani­
rested to Sweenborg in consequence ot his attainment
of a central consciousne3s, common to-tfie-woYla-in space
and to that ot whic space is not predicable, it would
be_p-remature to form any opinion at present; but to the
mora, psychological arid religious Insight into the lavl
 211

of sensual and supersensual Natures. of which the Sight.

in question are symbolic. I owe and offer assent and
admlratlon. 6 3 ----­

--
The question Of~ty)was not to be avoided. any more than

---
were Colerldge's other doubts about Swedenborg's motives
and terminology; but he wished to emphasize. for the event
that -these notes should fall under other eyes "than my own.­
that he was ~onvI~ced of the truth and value of Swedenborg's
me~nlng.64
It seems safe to assert that. among the figures sur­
veyed In this study. Coleridge was either the most perceptlvelyl
critical among the Swedenborgians. or the most accepting ot
~

Swedenborg among the non-Swedenborglans--or. more likely. he

was both.

Summary of the English Developments

The main stream of the transmission of the Swedenborglan

tradition in England--having become i~lved with sectarian-

-
Ism as a consequence of the In tltutlonal implications ot
-- "------­
the Revolt against Delsm--was developed Into a comparatively

( univocal orthodoxy with an extensively elaborated theological

position. Attacks on the position were directed more ag~~st

the separatism than against/Swedenborgian ideas £!! sejand

.. _.-.
and to Reason.
- -
m~!! tnan
--­
were answered on a theological basis. appealing to Scripture
~ Swedenborg as an authority.
Outside this posJtion. and largely-!!~~lev~nt to It,
the early poets of British Romantici~m also took n~tic. ot
 212

Swedenborg. Blake and Colerldge. In different ways. and

probably for different reasons. accepted his idea ot empiri­
cal revelation. and some ot the theology derived trom it.
~ ~-
L ~uthe -, rejected I t. and so did (De QulnceYi-who. though no

b~t the
-
poet, vas Involved with the romantic literary tradition;
ba~es
-
of the rejections were not explicated as
1/\
)

clearly as Blake's and Colerldge's reasons tor acceptance.

 213

NOTES _ CHAPTER ~

lSee Aurora, 1 (1799-1800), pp. 241, 276, 350-351.

lrhe Rev. Manoah Sibley, Dr. James Hodson, and
either the Rev. Joseph Proud (so Hindmarsh, Rise and Progress,
Ope cit., p. 180) or Mr. Arbouin (so old but undated note in
the New Church Theological School's copy of Aurora).
3See Aurora, 1, p. 236.
4see Au rora, X, p. 337.
5llll.!!., p. 336.
GThe work has not been preserved in New Church col_
lections in this country; a fOPY is in the British MUseum.
7See Aurora, I, P. 3~9.
8Quoted from Aurora, I, Pp. 344-34$.
9See Aurora, I, pp. 342-348, 349-3$0.
10See Clowes, Letter to Hindmarsh, 29 Sept. 1799,

in Intellectual Repository, XV (1832), p. 124.

110. G. Goyder, A Concise History of the New Jerusalem

Church (London: 1827).
12 1n 1788, Robert Hindmarsh, a layman, had been chosen
by lot to lead the first New Church ordination service __or_
daining his father, James; in 1818, the church decided that
the falling of the lot had amounted to Robert's being "virtu­
ally ordained by the Divine auspices of Heaven," and entered
his name as the first New Church minister. See Minutes of
the Eleventh General Confer.ence oJ theml.nist.e!'.s-;:-zeaa:ers;'
and deleg,ates fr(~p, the soc!etl'3s of Th::! ~iel-l ~;ILIl~:..Q..2JJlnifled
b the Naw je,olsalen: in the revelation held at DerbY~ from
Tu.e.sday the 11th, to I'ld::!.' the 1 th of Au uo;t 181 (London:
1818), p. 19. ­
l3See above, pp. 146 ft.
l4Mlnutes of the T'te Ifth Gen'!ral Conference of the
f:1.!.nJ sta 1''' Le adc. ";-;anctU'1 . _._~ ~.Q.t.:'U ~ ~;;~:r!'~~ _$2.c le ties
oL:~h~ e."l <-' ur<..h,s ion ~ loco ..; ...':'::~ >~'>: "Jerus.i:..-!..9.]!l. in the
~evelHti,·n: nel:' L'c·.... ·,~ .. n".'? ttl:;l lOth to Thut:,sday
Held at
t'i\l ~,2tr,- of Au ust f8""1 \London:-lbnj-;-p:-~'----
 214.

15 See below, PP. 223.224..

16 John Clowes, A Dlalogue Between a Ch~rchman and a
Methodist on the Writin sand inions of Baron Swedenbor
(London~ I 0
17 Ibid ., P. 1.
18See above, p. 171.
19Hindmarsh, Rise and Progress, OPe cit., JP. 3S-39.
20Beaumont (cited in text, P. 196), PP. IV-v.
21Beaumont (cited in text, p. 197), p. 6.
22
.!!U.2.., Pp. 8.9.
23Samuel Noble, An App~~l In Behalf of the Views ot
the Eternal World and State, and the Doctrines of Fai~~ and
Life Held b the _bod of Christians who believe that a New
Church Is Si nified in the evelation Cha. I b The .v
Jerusalem: Including Answers to Objections, articularly
those of the Rev. d. Beaumont, in his Work entitled tiThe Anti.
Swedenborg." Addressed to the Reflecting of All Denominations.
(London: 1826). .
~. N. MOrris, Flaxman, Blake, Coleridge and ~er
Men of G~n!us Influenced by Swedenborg {London: 19151.
25. G. Davies, The Theology of Wil1iam Blake } I
(Oxford: 1948), pp. 32-33.
26Minute book of the New Church at Great East-Cheap,
London, reprinted in Minutes of the First Seven Sessions ot
the General Conference of the NeH Church Siqnffied b&the Nw
Jerusalem in the Revelation, logether With Those 91 her
Contemnorary Assemblies of a ~imilar Character. Reprinted
from the GTiginal Edition~ (London: 188», p. xx.
21Wi1liam Slake, Marginal Notes to Swedenborg's
Divine Love and Wisdom, r~printed in Edwin J. Elli5, The
~eal BlaketA Portrait Biography (New York: 1901), (pp. 109.
115), p. 1 $. .
28navie5, ~. cit., p. viii.
29Quoted in ~., p. 36.
30J~cques Roos, ~SEI~cts-b.itt~r~lres du ~~sticlsm.
Philo~_()'p'l',-t'J·.lEj_e.Lh!..Inf1~-,!.'l£~~ de 30e),fiH:i et de Swed<!llbot'g au
 215

d~but du Romantisme: William Blake. Novalis,Ballanche

(Strasbourg: 1951), PP. 22, 58. i

3lDavies, ope cit., p. 31.

~
32prof. Helen C. White, The Mysticism of William
(Madison, Wisc.: 1927), p. 141.
)l
33Blake, Notes to Divine Love and Wisdom, Ope cit.,
n. 220.
34 Ibid ., note to 1.
35 Ibid ., note to 7.
36~., note to 294.

37E• g., ibid., notes to 2, 181, 182, 237.

38william Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.
Illuminated and printed by the author between 1825-1821.
Original in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. This copy
made from a facsimile (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, Ltd.,
1927), P. 3. Written in 1790, etched in 1791.
39Blake, Marriage of Heaven and Hell, Ope cit., pp.
21_22.
4 0 p • Berger, William Blake MYsticisme et Pof~le
(Paris: 1907), p. 237.
4l~., pp. 100-101.
JI!
~

4 Rob SO.utbe 1, Letters from England: by Don

Manuel Alvarez Espriella. Translated from the Spanish,
reprint of the first edition of 1807, ed. Jack Simmons
(London: 1951), p. 380.
43 See
. above, pp. 8 3-85.

44Southey, Letters from England, gp. cit., pp. 382­

383.
45Thomas De Quincey, "Rant's Abstract of Swedenbor_
gianism," from London MagaZine, May 1824, reprinted in 11!!. (
Collected tf/r ttlngs, of Thomas De Quincey, ed. David Masson, 11
14 vols. (London: lBS/7), vol. XIV, pp. 61_68. .
46Thomas De Quincey, "A Manchester Swedenborgian and
a Liverpool Literary Coter ie," from I.~.U~_Magazine, Feb.
1837, reprinted in 90llected W~itings, Ope cit., vol. 11
(PP. 113-137), P. 113.
 216

47Leonard Martin(Edmiston C01erid e's Commentary onJ-,1

r
Swedenborg (University of~issou i: 1954 Microfilm, Ann
Arbor, Mich. 1954, Pub. No. 9157]). '
l
4 8 See Edmiston, ibid., pp. 202-203. The chirographic
evidence is uncertain, bur-rdmiston Judges the style and con­
clusions to be consistent with Co1eridge's other notes.
49 IbLd ., pp. 109-140; Hindmarsh's group is mentioned
above, pp.-r3b-138.
50Edmiston, op. cit., P. 196.
51Co1eridge, printed i~~~mJ~to~_ op. cit., Pp. 195­
196.
52Ibid., pp. 291-292.
53--_.,
Ibid P. 259.

54 Ibid • , e.g. , PP. 209-210.

551W ., e. g., PP. 247-248.

56.!!W!.., P. 249.

57 Ibid ., P. 260.
I
, 5 81!W!., p. 262.

59 Ibid ., pp. 245-246.

I
60 Ibid ., p. 276.

1 Ibi~.,
­ p. 253)

62 Loc • cit.

63 Ibid ., pp. 267-268.

64 Ibid ., P. 248.

 217

CHAPTER S

DEVELOPMENTS IN FRANCE

Like Chapter Three, this chapter breaks the apparent

pattern of this study, and suggests another reminder ot the
plan ot the work. Each chapter in Part I dealt with one or
three major issues of the Revolt against Deism that involved
Swedenborg's idea of empirical revelation. The observable
geographical continuity may be significant, but was incidental
to the plan. Likewise, each chapter in Part 11 describes
developments in any or all of those issues that occurred In
England, France or Germany. Chapter Four is not intended a.
a "continuation" of Chapter Two, nor is Chapter Six a "con­
tinuation" of Chapter One and the last part or Three; and the
fact that Chapter Five has no counterpart in Part I .is again
coincidental in the organi~ation of the material. None ot
the three basic issues were discussed as original issues In
France, and the developments discussed in this chapter stem
from issues which were originated in Germany and England. One
fact that may be related to this, is that the strongest figure.
in French SwedenborgianJ~m appear toward the end or the period
being studied.
 218

Certain other comparisons between France and the

other two countries should also be noted. As in Germany,
Intellectuals among the nobility lent significant support
to the development of a Swedenborglan tradition, without
adding directly to its literature: l the prominent diplomat
..-­
and minister, Baron de Brehull) and th~1s de ThoM.,
Also as in Germany, distinguished Intellectual figures took
significant Interest In Swedenborg's thought: the royal
librarian at Versailles, M. Moe~· and the celebrated pastor­
educator, As In England, the idea or
empirical revelation became Involved with InstitutlonallsmJ
and philosophical aspects of Swedenborg" thought were
treated by one of the most significant literary figures or
the early 19th Century: Honor4 de Bal~a~. Again, as In
England, significant literary and institutional developments
resulted from t~eevangeHst1c activities of one milJ1; like

-
~tephen Penny~2 Captain Jean Jacques~ernard wrote lJttle,
and was not a member of the organized New Church, but was
directly responsible for introducing Swedenborg to those who
did.
The differences vls-l-vls Germany and England are also
worth noting. The leading thin~s who were affected by
Swedenborg d~p~lish their comments on his thought,)
and so there were no controversies at the beginning or the
tradition that could be compared to those initiated by Kant
 219

-
and/Oetinge. The institutional developments involved the
interaction of movements which were far less compatible than
the Reform and Separatist movements that caused controversy
in the founding of the English New Church; FreemasonrYJ!nd
s~itualism led to schisms that almost completely demolished
the first attempt to develop a Swedenborgian ecclesiastical
,
tradition. Unlike the situation in either Germany or. England,
two o~ the earliest and most influential French Swedenborgians
were e~ate for most of their period of irifluence: Antoine
Josepb pern:;Vin Germany, and Benedlct Chastan~ in England.
French speaking developments in the transmission or
Swedenborgian ideas followed a ~umber of more or less Inde­
pendent lines, which can be considered--without too much
overlapping--in five separate categories: developments among

--
expatriates, developments among intellectuals, personal revolts
that left literary or institutional remains. the ecclesiastical
movement which became the French New Church. and the ·independent
literary contribution of Honor' de aalzac. 4

The Expatriate.

Two of the earliest members of the group which became

the New Church in England were Frenchmen inclined toward
religious revolt. One H~nri(Servant~, had c~to England with
-"
his parents when they had fled France to escape the cons.­
quences of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. S Henrl
 220

himself was dissatisfied with all of the systems of religious

thought which were known to him, until, by accident, he ca-e
across the English translation of the second volume of the
Arcana--the one which had been made at Swedenborg's request-­
and soon thereafter threw himself wholeheartedly into the
organization and development of the separatist Swedenborglan
movement. Servant~ was an active and sometimes controversial
figure In the growth of the New Church, but confined his work
almost entirely to his, adopted country, England; yet he can­
not be omitted from a history of French Swedenborglanlsm.
because he was at least partly responsible for English sup­
port of the French Swedenborgian movement. It was one or
his closest associates I~ London--John Augustus T~--who

financed the printing of the first extensive translations or

Swedenborg Into French. 6
A Frenchman of more directly bl-natlonal Interests
was Benedict ~~astanii? He too was among the earliest and
most active promoters of sectarian Swedenborgianlsm..!.n Eng­
l~d, but he also edited the French publication or two or

analytigue et raisonn~
---
Swedenborg's works, published (In London, 1786) Tableau
de la Doctrine C~lest2 de l'Eglise de

( la Nouvelle J~r~lsalem, and edited a short lived Journal.

Journal Novl-J~ru5al~mite. He had been associated with the
Swedenborglan Masonic mo~ment, but later repudiated It.
After the revolution, he returned to France as a kind or
 221

New Church missionary, but an initial success among -.

number of scholars and literati" apparently was short lived. 7
Antoine Joseph 'Pernet~ may have figured prominently
in an earlier association of Swedenborgian thought with Free­
masonry,8 but at the time of his first participation in the
spread of Swedenborg's ideas, he was in Berlin, serving as
librarian to Frederick the Second. Pernety had been.
Benedictine abbot, and had participated i~ an abortive move­
ment for the liberalization of his order. Failure of his
reforms made necessary his leaving his order and his country.
Asylum and the distinguished post in Prussia was offered not
as much because of his own reputation, as because Frederick
mistook his name for that of his uncle; but the appointment
was allowed to stand in spite of the mistake, and Frederick
later gave hi. a pastorate in Thuringia as well. 9 It vas
from Berlin that he publl shed his translatl on of Swedenborg's
( Heaven and Hell, with the extended preface of his own, a
work which achieved wide circulation in France and all
\
Europe.lO
Pernety was a man in search o~horitative ce~tain­

~ and he had not found it in the philosophical and religious

thought of his skeptical ag8.

Le dout~ & l'opinion, enfants de l'ignorace, ont 'tabli

leur emp"re dans le Honde; les hornmes 9ui se sont rait
une r~putatlon de Scavants, sOQ precl1ement ceux qui
l~s premiers ont courb~ leur lete sous le Joug, & l.ur
example y a conduit ce grand nombre de per$onnes olsiv••
 222

qui ne pensent q~~ .~~PI~~les ~~~es; • • • les

tenebres s'epaississent au po nt qU'en ne voyant plul
les obJets 1 son revell, on s'lmaglne ne les avolr vus
qu 'en songe, & au doute de leur existence on substitute
l' IncredullU.ll
---'

Swedenborg's revelatory claim presented no problem

to him at all; In fact, the absolute self-assurance with
which the claim was asserted and systemized, with Its confi-
dent reference to divine authority, appealed to him Im-
mensely.

Swedenl>org est venu, comme 11 le dlt,par ordre, du

Clel, pour pller les ombres de la nult, dlsslpper lea
tene~res qui couvrent la surface de la Terre, faire
renaltre le Jour & repandre la luml~re de la v6rlt'
chez toutes les Nations. 11 marcha dans les voyes de
la veritable sagesse: 11 a parle, 11 a dlt vral,
pulsque Oleu le dowa de sa science, & que la volx de
l'Eternel descendlt dans son coeur. 12

He seemed to realize, however, that the certainty which

recommended Swedenborg to him might raise doubts In others,
so he Included a sweeping character reference as a guarantee
that Swedenborg was no charlatan.

Tous ceux qui ont connu Swedenborg A Stockholm, t

Londres, A Amsterdam & dans les autres lieux de
l'Europe o~ 11 a ete, rendent temolgnage en faveur
de la candeur de son ame, de la drolture de son coeur,
de la superlorite de son genie, & de la regularlt'
de ses moeurs • .3

Several commentators noted that .his translation was so

untrustworthy as to border on a paraphrase (one critic went
so far as to call It the "abomination of desolatlon"j4and
 223

that his preface was strongly biased toward his own

splrituallstlc Interests. In any event, publication of
good or bad translations of Swedenborg did not help·hls
position In Kant's Prussia, and Pernety soon returned
to France. He soon became prominent in the Soclet6 de.
IlluminEs d'Avlgnon, the largest and best known of several
secret societies which combined the thought of Swedenborg
and Saint-Martin with spirltualistic practices and the
secret branch of Freemasonry. The Avignon group developed
a-rite of Swedenborg" and tried to persuade Hlndmarsh'.
Lo~~ group t~ Join them in this variety of Swedenborgianl.m.
(
Similar societies were organized at Rouen and Strasbourg,
but after Pernety's death the movement lost most of It.
momentum, and had virtually disappeared by the end of the
century. Pernety's preface to Heaven and Hell, and hi.
association of Swedenborgianlsm with secret theosophlc
societies, ~roved damaging to the reputatl~n of Swedenborglan
thought In through the influence of L'Abb~ Augustln
) Jacobin-
This five volume work, which sold out two printing.
in France and translation in England, linked secret
theosophic societies with the origins of the French Revolu­
tion, and placed some of the blame for such societies on
~

Ideas Ilk hose of Swedenborg's. Barruel s~lzed uE?n

Pernety's version of Swedenborglanism t~di~t the

 224

original system, and carried his charQes against Swedenborg

to an insupportable extent. Under the paragraph heading

[
"Illumin~s de la Th~osophie Macon Swedenborgistes.":

Tous nos Illumin~s, Th~osophes du jour, en Angleterre,

en France, en Su~de, en Allemagne, ont tir~6leurs
principes de Baron Emmanuel de Swedenborg. l

In the context of his argument, this amounts to accusing

Swedenborg of having provided the theoretical basis of the
movements which led to the Revolutionl Neither Swedenbor_
gians nor revolutionists have seconded this nomination to
distinction either before or since. ~
In England,r-
published a cogent reply to Barruel's anti_Swedenborgian
charges, but the reply did not achieve as wide_spr_ad a
I\ circulation as the original, and the damage to the re~ta_

- ----
tion of Swedenborgianism went virtually unchecked in France.
- ..... , is included under the heading
'Aillant de la Touch,
~ --------­
of expatriates, although nothing is learned of him from
Swedenborgian or French histories, including his Whereabouts
when he wrote and translated his Swedenborgian volume.
Wherever he was, he could not __or dared not--publish it in
France, however, so it was published in Stockholm, and sold
there and in Strasbourg. His work, Abr~g~ de ouvrages dIEm.
SW~denbor9' contenant la doctrine de. la Notlvelle J~rusalem­

c~leste, pr~c~d~ d'un d!3cours o~ J.'~n examine la vie de

l' autellr, 1eJep.rp. ~!'teJ~ (r.rtts, et l"!'r rapport au t.emps
pr'sent,11 consisted of a compendium of extracts from
 22$

Swedenborgts various writings, topically arranged into.

semi-systematic presentation of the system. It has been
translated into Swedish, German, Dutch and English, and
exerted wide influence throughout Europe, though it w••
frequently and loudly discredited by New Church writers .s
an untrustworthy translatl on. Of partlcular interest was
the reason tor his attraction to, and acceptance of, Sweden­
borgts revelatory claim. His basic concern stemmed from
the evils ot the times: moral corruption, scientific
materialism, abu~ of and--worst of all--var; and,
~bility,

at the root of all disregard of divine revelation. le Given

this situation, and the nature of Swedenborgts character and
teachings, he felt that "ce ntest pas a croire SW~denborg
{ { qutil y a de folie, ctest a ne le croire pas.- 19 It vas
the nature of the system that validated the revelatory claim,
and not vice-versal

Qutest-ce que dit cet homme, qUi se quallfie dtenvoy'

de Dleu1 sa doctrine est-elle mystique, oislve, con­
templative? non; ctest la charlt~ active, la morale
de ItEvanglle; n1ayant pour base et pour object que
Dleu fait homme, que le Seigneur cr~ateur et rfdemp­
e teur, SW~denborg pr ache aax hommes ltamour de Diea et
du prochaln. 20

Unlike Pernety or Oegger---and like Le Boys de Quay and N~

Church orthodOXy2Y-DI~lant de'

-­ la T~che pointed out that
Swedenborg was not an advocate of spiritualism, because ot
the danger of communication with evil spir1t.s--agalnst which
 226

there is no means of discrimination or protection, except

under special dispensation from the Lord, as was granted to
sweden~org.22

The Intellectuals

Probably the earliest and most prestigious among the

intellectuals who encouraged the growth of a Swedenborgian
tradition in France, without making significant direct
contributions to it on their own, was Louis Charles Auguste
le Tonnelier Baron de Breteuil
..--r .
Best-known as the royalist.
chief minister who succeeded Jacques Necker on July 11.
1789~~etting off the uprisings that led to the t~ ot the
Bastille/areteuil is significant in church history, too,
as the friend of reform who helped promulgate the 1786
Edict of Revocation. On ambassadorial assignments t.o
Stockholm and the Hague, he developed a triendship wlt.h
Swedenborg; they dined together on occasion, the Baron spoke
well of Swedenborg in a wide and influential circle; Breteuil's
friendshIp with both Swedenborg and{CardInal de Rohan appears
-------/
r-to be the explanation of the fact that Swedenborg seAt. twenty, -­
L~ ~ ,pocalypse ~evealed to the Cardinal~~6. ..J
The Mar uis de Thom6, who later became involved with
Pernety's Avignon group, was propagatIng Swedenborgian ideas
in Paris as early as 1773. 23 He sharply criticized Pernety's
tr~ns1atl on (',. H~RV~"_.-'°·11
---_. --' 24
"!on"; and ~ublish8d an article
 227

In the Journal Encyclop~dlque for 1785, knowledgably defend- 'I

Ing Swedenborg's place In the history of sclence. 25
I'. .
Jean Plerr . Moi~, librarian at Versailles until his
) I
death In 1807, began In 1786 to make a translation of the
whole corpus of Swedenborg's theological writings.
under the Restoration, with the financial assistance of John
Published I
Augustus \ ulk,26 these translatlon5 were the best produced
.........
In France until that tlme,27 and they attracted a wide
readership, until they were replaced by the more faithful

---
translations of Le Bo s de Guays In the 1830's and '40's.28
The consequences of these activities are not to be
documented, or precisely known. Whatever advantage accrued
to the reputation of Swedenborglan thought was evidenced In
Institutional developments·that resulted directly from the
work of other men.
Although It was connected with no other developments
In France--except two French translations of SWedenborg
which were published out of the country--the Interest of
Jea Fr~d~rlc / berllr~ sho\lld be Included In this description
of reaction among the Intellectuals. A Lutheran pastor at
Ban-de-la-Roche, and particularly famous for his contribu­
tions to Protestant parochial education, Oberlln was In­
fluenced b¥ Swedenborg, and made a limited contrlbuHon to
the development ~f a Swedenborglan tradition. He was
acquainted with D'AIll&nt de la Touche's ~r'~ and Pernety"
 228

Les merveilles du ciel et de l'enfer, and wrote commentarle.

on both--but these appear to exist only in manuscript. 29
He also talked freely of his esteem for Swedenborg, when
the subject was appropriate In conve~sation. C!~
(later a Swedenborglan minister in England) had Swedenborg
warmly recommended to him by Obe;lin;3 0 and a biographer,
~
~ was able to learn that:

Oberlin had much originality in his conceptions, but

his most singular fancies bore the impression ot a
soul full of beauty; he attached to colors a s~bol1­
( cal sense. His ardent imagination, nourisned by •
mysUca1 works of Swedenborg, loved to penetrate the
veil of the tomb, to interrogate that mysterious
world, which awaits our soul when it is disengaged
from terrestrial bonds.3 1

Though he was disturbed by Swedenborg's interpretation. of

Scripture, his acceptance of Swedenborg's description ot the
spiritual world indicates that he had no doubts about the
possibility or the fact of his claimed empirical revelation.

Personal Revolts

While stationed on duty in Bordeaux in 1820, ~

young
French army officer, a member of the Legion of Honor,3 2
with a background in the popular deism common to well­
educated young men of the day, encountered the writings of
Swedenborg and soon was completely converted to their point
of view. Inclined neither to literary ~ct!!!ty, nor In­
volvem¥.nt with secret sects,C}ean i;cqU!~ Bv.rnard became th.
 229

flrst--and one of the most highly effectlve--of the French

evangelists for the Swedenborglan point of view. He soon
had a group of fellow officers gathered Into a kind or
evangelistic cell group.33 In Paris. he worked with M.
~t. a celebrated attorney of the royal court. who was
holding regular meetings of Swedenborglans In his home.~

Madame -----...
He converted the young widow of a superior officer. a
- Salnt-~ou~. who was especially Interested In
spiritual healing; she established a "New Church temple-
In Nantes as a kind of headquarters for her spiritual heal­
Ing activities which had attracted attention all over
-:-:---------­
France and even In ~ng!and.35 Bernard and Gobert together
played the decisive role In the conversion to Swedenborglanlsm
of the prestigious Abbe oeg~e • first vicar of Notre Dame,
Bernard and Madame Saint-Amour converted a young writer or
outstanding ability and the beginnings of an excellent
reputation E~uard Rich~ • then principal ed~f Lyc~e

Armorlcaln. Bernard died of tuberculosis at the age or

38--desplte the best efforts of Madame Salnt-Amour--1eavlng
only ~gar l1terary remains. His forte seems to have been
---- -
lecturing and personal persuasion. Oegger and Richer mad.
the first major contributions to the deveiopment or

-
Swedenborg's idea of empirical revelation In the context
--
of the French Revolt against Deism.
It Is difficult to int~rrre~th~though~of_Gu~llaum.

---
Qegger. or to assess his influence', it Is not clear whet.her
 230

he is central or peripheral to this chapter. It is clear

that he was an important figure in the French Revolt against
Deism. It is less clear whether Swedenborg was a signi icant
influence on his thought, or merely a confirmatory parallel
to an independent development.
During the 1820's, a time when a skeptical humanism
rese~bling Deism was the current orthodoxy among educated
clergYmen (not all of whom, of course, called themselves
Deists),36C§eg~er was elevated to his distinguished post ot
First-Vicar of Notre Dame, and entrusted with oversight ot
such heterodox activities as the 1820 experiments with
hypnosIs at the Hotel-Dieu. 37 . He became extremely concerned
~

about the "d~sordres religieux" which he saw as p~evalent

and dangerous, and--one midnight, alone in his cathedral-­

he reached a personal religious crisis. After a long and
increasingly troubled meditation, he became so worked up
that he shouted aloud toward the altar. "S'll est vral," he
exclaimed, not sure whether he wanted It to be true or not,
"qulil se trouve ici quelques-uns de ces anges ou esprit.
qui peuvent influencer les destinees humaines, et qui ne
font pas tout ce qui est in eux pour mettre fin 1 no.
1
Id~sordres religieux, --"
Je les rends respo~sable devant
llEtp-~nal."38 After this crisis, his dreams soon convinced
him that there were such angels or splrits,·and he resigned
fJ his post to be free to serve as their instrument for the
vraimen~ cathollque. n39
-
establishment of an "£g11se '
 231

Associating himself with a series of spiritualistic groups

he began his new calling with the pUblication of his Manuel
de Religion et de morale, ou livre de pri~res
universel
pour les Chr~tiens ~cliares de toutes les communions. 40 In
this major work.C472 pages), he advocated a spiritual and
pious personal religion, and inveighed equally against At~sm

~~ Del~m, indifference in matters of religion, and incre­

dulity•• His arguments against Deism were unemotional, in
the spirit of the Enlightenment, but his intent and hi.
basic appeal had a mystical, more than a rational ground.
Shortly after publishing his Manuel, he became acquainted
with Gobert and Bernard. He was impressed, but not convinced,
by their arguments in favor of Swedenborg,4 1 until he
studied Swedenborg's doctrine of correspondences. 42 Thi.
concept, he felt, was the direct answer to his midnight
[ prayer in the cathedral~3and from this time on-~ith some

I~ interruptions and variatIons--he considered himself a

y\ member "1 la Nouvelle £glise du Seigneur,"44"and ·CholSI

pour proclamer d'finitlment sur la terre l'existence de

cette Nouvelle J~rusalem terrestre" which had been proclaimed
by swedenbo~g.45 His next work, Rapport! Inattendus entre
le monde mat~riel et le monde ou ma Transition! la Nouvelle
£glise, et les circonstances surnaturell~s qui ont accom­
pagnl cette d~ma~ch~.46 was Intended to be this ultimate
proclamation, and Indeed It was received as such by some
swedenborglans--nctably Hofaker, at TUblngen, as will be
 232

discussed in Chapter Six. However, he did not get the sup­

port he wanted from Swedenborgians in France; nor in -
England, where he turned next; and soon he returned to
Catholicism. Popular opposition among the clergy made this
return untenable, so he was forced to take tutoring posi­
tions in Germany and Switzerland. Soon, he was trying
again to establish a universal Christian church, but with­
out success. Finally, having "regained his humility," and
- - --
renouncing half of what he had written (without being pre­
cise as to which halfl),41 he aligned himself with the
Swedenborgian movement in France, founding and leading a
group in Versailles until his death.
There can be no doubt that~ge~accePted the face
value of Swedenborg's claim: he believed that empirical
revelation was possible, because he had experienced some­
thing which he considered closely akin to it before he had
heard ,of Swedenborg; and his whole-hearted acceptance .ot
the idea of spiritual- natural correspondence implied an
acceptance of Swedenborg's claim as genuine (he would not
have known that Swedenborg had developed the whole Idea on
a speculative basis, before having any revelatory experiences).
Although he gave the impression, in Rapports inattendu, that
his departure from his vicarate and his acceptance ot
------
Swedenborgian teachings were a single Intellectual (or,
rather, spIritual) event, this omits reference to a talr
amount of "shopping around" during the intervening year•• ~8
 233

That what he was doing was in revolt against Deism, was

emphasized by the quotation he used as a motto on the title
page of Rapports inattendu:

"pour l'homme, 11 n'y a point d'autre Dieu que J6sus­

Christ, ou Dieu enxrjPtort avec Ilhommei le Dieu du
deism n'est qu1un n rouvable."
Paroles remarquables d'un
d~iste converti l la Nouvelle
Egl1 se.

Whether the "converted' Deist". was Oegger, or a friend ot

his, the. sympathy ~s parallel to Swedenborg, and there were
other parallels as well. When he was accused by a New
Church Journal of being outside the pale ot orthodox
swedenborgianiSm,49 he replied to the editor "que Je pense
absolument comme vous."5 0 Though too creative to Join or
follow a movement, and too mercurial to exert a lasting
influence, Oegger was one whose personal revolt against
Deism was strongly influenced by Swedenborgi by the time
he got past revolting, and settled in a new position, It
was as leader of a small but institutionalized Swedenborgian
group--a long step, in several ways, from Premier-Vicaire
de Notre Dame de Paris.
The story 0 Edo~rd Rich~differs radically from
Oegger'si the two me~ had almost nothing in common except
their interest in Swedenborg. Oegger was raised in a
religious family--his brother was a cur~, and his sister
was a nun--and his semi-Deism was a sophistication of •
childhood faith. Richer, adopted by the National Conven­
tion after his father was killed repelling the German ,
invasion when Edouard was a year old, was raised in an
atmosphere of religionless Deism, and educated at st. Cyr.
and L'Ecole polytechnisue. A member of the Soci't4
acad'mique de Nantes, and the Societf linn'enne de Paris.
Richer was becoming known for his brochures and scientific
articles. APpoi~ as the chief editor of Lycee Armoricain.
he contributed a large number of his own articles, and was
highly respected in Nantes for his literary style •. Having
come so far, by his early thirties, he would have been
looking forward to a bright future--if he had been able to
look forward to any; delicate in health since childhood. he
realized by 'now that he had tuberculosis.
This gave him something in common with Bernard. who
had the same disease, in a more advanced stage; and with
Madame Sai~~our, whose celebrated spiritual cures did
indeed provide temporary relief. even from tuberculosis.
The two Swedenborgians, especially Bernard, worked hard to
conv~rt the young writer. Conversion from his scientifically
and literarily respectable Deism did not come easily. but It
was complete. Since, at the time of his conversion. burglars
in his home burJ)e.d...J!lJ!!l.~,.!lcri _ts representing ~etaphysic.l

and sc!entific r~ar~hes over the e~st twelve ye~ra. he

abandoned his former interests, and devoted the remaining
years of his life to expounding and defending the Swedenborglan
 235

system of religious thought. Before his death in 1834,

he produced eight large v~!~mes, under the general title,
La Nouvelle J~rusalem. In a clear, measured style that
betrayed n~ne of his urgency or failing ability (he did
not live to see them in print), he presented a forcetully
convincing description and Justificatlon of ~~ anti-deist
wa~f-!!te that the New Jerusalem signified for him. ~

Nouvelle J~rusalem usually is classed among the best Sweden­

borgian writing to come out of france, and Chevrier says ot
one volume, les invocations Religieuses, the "l'on peut
sans exag~ration ranger parmi les meillers ouvrages Ode pi6t'
qui aient paru dans notre si~cle.·51
The last volume of La Nouvelle J~rusalem contains
Dissertations Critiques, and M~langes, the former being a
collection of thirteen essays~ome three hundred pages,
primarily devoted to an examination and defense ot Sweden­
borg's claim to empirical revelation, and its consequences.
Although it appears near the end of the period covered in
this inquiry, and exerted relatively little influence out­
side the organized New Church in france,$2 Richer's Disserta­
tions Critigues requires some attention here, as the most
thorough and c~gen~ defenlle
-- ----
of tbls particular idea--eon­
sidered in relative isolation from the content or systematic
application of the revelation--to have appeared in print.
Richer's approach to the subject was based on a
serious consIderation of the objections to Swedenborg's
 236

ideas, insofar as these objections were related to the pro­

blem of the mystical basis of the system.

Avant d'ouvrir de livre, beaucoup de gens seront

prevenus contre lui, dans l'idee que la doctrine, qui
y est exposee, n'est autre chose que ce qu'ils desig­
nen~ 'par le mot vague et assez mal defini d'llluminis­
ID!! .,;>3

He took the objections seriously, and not as straw-men. He

tr~ed to get at the ~~o~ of the problem, discussing the bad
reputation of illuminism in France, the sy'c~£!og!sal

obstacles to acceptance of any idea entailing the change ot

religious ideas; then, one after the other, he dealt with
objections involved with the fundamental role of Sweden~or9'.

spiritual experiences in his system, the epistemological

weaknesses of empirical revelation (and the arguments trom
ridicule which play on such weakness), and the scriptural
i~plications of swedenborg's applications of his revelatory
experiences. With considerable insight into~h~ has!s ot Il
m~ch anti-Swedenborgian arguments, he dealt, too, with I
objections drawn from the personal character of Sweden­
borgians, and of Swedenborg himselt.
With regard to the mystical basis of swedenborg's
ideas, he distingui~hed the systematic content of the
rationally-constructed system from the revelatory claims
per se, and particularly from the accounts of spiritual
experience.
 237

11 Y a deux personnes dans Swedenborg: le philosophe

et le voyant. Nous acquIescons sans difficult' aux
raIsonnements du premier; les pr~tentIons due second
nous r~volt8nt. Tout ce qU'il d~montre pas les
lumieres de sa raIson, nous semble incontestable; tout
ce quIll annonce en quallt~ de temoin oculaIre ne
trouve chez nous aucune cr~ance: ses assertions alors,
celles qui sont le plus souvent reproduites ou accom­
pagnees des protestations les moIns equIvoques semblent
faites pour trolbler le lecteur le miex dIspos~ a
garder son5~erieux, et pour d~router llhomme le plus
Impartial. 4 .'

As he develops the argument, however, the strangeness

of Swedenborg's spIritual world descrIptIons is turned Into
an argument in favor of belIef: If the accounts conformed
to the ordInary sensIble world, what need would there have
been for revelation to provide them, or why should they be
accepted as descriptions ot a different dimension ot
reallty,55 In fact, he turned the unbelleveableness ot
Swedenborgls accounts into the obverse of the argument that
English Swedenborgians had answered so often--the argument
that Swedenborg was not credible because he performed no
miracles to attest his veracity; the incredible experiences
themselves were the miracle. ~ Eo(,,~ /f,(/f.c. __
Likewise~turne~the similarity of Swedenborg's
experiences to dreams and hallucinations--the resemblance
that Kant had used as such a devastating weapon--into an
argument for the possibility of Swedenborgian ontology.

"Qui salt, dIt !'lscal, si cette partIe de la v'ie od

nous vei110ns :l pI",; de rhllt~ que celle od nous
dormon$l~ Nos songes ~ont des exc~lons de la partie
immateri~lle de nous-mem~a; et 51 nous ne pouvons
porter le compas dans lea espaces que nous parcourons
 2)8

alors, et introduire la m~thode dans les jugements

que nous portons dans un mode de perception qui nou.
est familier et qui revient tous les jours, comment
pourrons-nous esp~rer nous d~montrer clairement les
sensations ds'gn autre dans un ~tat qui lui ~tait
particuller?

Again and again, he turned arguments against the

credibility of Swedenborg's claims into arguments tor the
possibility of their factuality, without explicitly claiming
more than mere possibility. But after going through an
eXhaustive series of such arguments, he com~red Swedenborg"
revelatory experiences with all other claims to revelation~

and thus to all systems ot religious thought.

Toutes les th~ories religieuses, traitant des relation.

de l'homme avec l'ordre invisible, ontA~t' originalrement
fondees par des extatiques; que les apotres de tous le.
cultes ont tous parle par symboles par figures; que
le monde de perception recontre aUjourd'hui plus rarement
chez certaines personnes, parait avoir 't~ gen'ral 1
une epoque reculee; enfin, que l'homme parlait autretoi.
la langue des extatlques, ~ en juger par les mots de
cette langue qyl sont restes comme emblemes dans toute.
les rellgions •.?7

Having ~ sound a basis as any other religious system~

Swedenborg's was equally credible; there being nothing

heretical in his character, there was no reason tor a priori
judgment of heresy regarding his teachings; and these--as he
summarized them in the last two chapters--were so tar trom
being heretical that they constituted the summary and pinnacle
ot all religious and scientitic truth.
In its structure and detailed development, It was a
cogent argument, roundly applauded by the already-convinced
 239

Swedenborgians who read it. As a polemic, however, it was

severely restricted by its circulation.
These subJects---Bernard, Qegger, Richer, and others
like them (Tollenaire in Nantes, 9roussais and Harte in
Paris) were influenced by Swedenborg in their personal re­
volts against Deism; and--through their leadership or
literary abilities---involved others with them. Most or
them involved an expectation of institutional permanency,
but none achieved it. That goal was achieved, rinally,
by J. F. E. Le Boys de Guays; between Le Boys de Guays'
institutional revolt, "and those that were primarily only
personal, no difference seems as likely to have been decisive
as the changes wrought by time In the total French situation.

The Ecclesiastical Movement

Though Swedenborglan thought already was involved with

instltutlonalism In France before the beginning or the
nineteenth century--through Pernety, Thom~, and the other
splrltualistic Masons--development of a Swedenborglan
eccleslastlcism was later and more difficult. There were
several groups, at different times and places, that gathered
briefly around an enthusiastic Swedenborgian; the group or
army officers that followed Captain Bernard, the one in M.
Gobert's home in Paris, Mdm. Saint-AMOur's fttemple ft at Nante.,
were representatlve of a dozen or more such ~roups that
att~acted from a dozen to a hundred ~r more adherents ror
 240

varying periods. However, these were scarcely institutional

or ecclesiastical. The Nantes group probably was the only
one to have an official meeting place; nQne were formally
organized; none appear to have instituted worship in competi­
tion with the Catholic mass; they were too loosely organized
to require formal membership, so no issue of separation trom
Catholicism was entailed by even the most whole-hearted
participation in them. They were theosophical societies,
rather than churches.
deviant
~uch
-

The Catholic Church in France was

ideas and associations than
--.- -"- .--.....----.

was the Protestant Church in Germany; but the church and the
~--
government--even after the Revolution, although to a lesser
degree than under the monarchy--were less tolerant ot
ecclesiastical se aration than were the church or the govern­
ment in England.
In the little town of Leves, near Char~s, in 1830,

the[~~ L~dr~adoPted· Swedenborgian theology in his personal

)
conviction, and tried to establish a New Church among hi.

parishioners. S8 His first step was to resign his cure, and

establish a French Catholic Church. This half-way step ot
non-Protestant dissension from Roman authority appears to
have been parallel to a scattered quasi-movement tha~~as

tolerate _h~ ~he ~~ench hierarchy. Within a couple of year.,

however, he printed a translated and adapted version of the
liturgy used by the New Church in England, and in,tituted it
in place of the mass in his church. This was too much ot a
 departure from orthodoxy, however, and soldiers were sent to
L~ to arrest-him, but the soldiers refused to act in th~

face of large-scale popular defense of Ledru. A larger force

of soldiers demoralized the defense, but a trial result~d in JJ
his being freed and allowed to continue his work. Ledru's
New Church was conspicuously successful on its local scale.

( but having been formed on an ecclesiastical basis which

required priestly leadership, it dissolved after his death
when no successor could be found. This experience lent sup­
port to the wide-spread feeling among French Swedenborgians.
that a French New Church could succeed--if it could succeed
at all, and some were thoroughly convinced that it could-­
---
only by sudden and nation-wide growth to the level of a major
institution. 59 Since leadership and financial support for
such an effort did not materialize, the theory was never put
to a test; its negative side was fairly well borne out, how­
ever, because local movements never did spread by gradual
extension into national developments.
The most successful attempt at an ecclesiastical
Swedenborgian movement was the work of Jacques Francoi,
Etienne Le Boys de Guays, at st. Amand. A rising political
official in St. Amand (civil court Judge in 1827, Under­
Prefect of St. Amand in 1836), Le Boys de Guays was intro­
duced to Swedenborg with the recommendation that the system
offered a theoretIcal explanation of the hypnotic phenomena
that were of interest to him. Apparently it did that and
more: after discovering Swedenborg In 1834, he established
a church for public worship in his home In 1837, founded a
periodlcal--Nouvelle J~rusalemt revue rellgleus et sclen­
tlflgue--and began In 1843 the translation project which
eventually Included the whole corpus of Swedenborg's theologi­
cal wrl tlngs.
The establishment of legally-authorized public wor­
ship In a New Church was something of a triumph for Le Boys
de Guays. Oegger had sought such permission in vain, and
oth~r Swedenborglan leaders, especially In Paris, either had
failed to get It or had not tried because of the obvious
Impossibility. Perhaps Le Boys de Guay's political connec­
tions were more useful to him in this effort than cegger"
ecclesiastical contacts had been. In any event, with
official recognition for his church, and a platform for hi.
views--In his Journal--he emerged toward the close of the
period under examination here as the founder, leader, and
arbiter of orthodoxy for French Swedenborg·lanlsm. Vi th
Germany's Tafel, he considered Oegger dangerously heterodox.
Leaders of the English and American New Church, visiting or
corresponding with France, found in him the kindred spirit
of their own separatlsteccleslastlclsm. His views and
Influence are of greatest significance In a stUdy that goes
beyond the chronological limits of the present one. His main
relevance here Is that he serves to mark precisely the end
of French Swedenborglanl8m 88 a scattered and ~phemeral
 >, .

curiosity among French intellectuals and non-conformists,

and the beginning of a Swedenborgian ecclesiasticism in
France that compared directly with the New Church movement
in England. From this viewpoint--and, significantly, from
the viewpoint of J. F. 1. Tafel, his counterpart in German
New Churoh ecclesiasticism--C'A1l1ant de la Touche, Pernety,
Bernard and Oegger all were heterodox in variously danger­
ous degrees. He considered Moet's translations so unfaithful
that he went to the "work and expense of replacing them
entirely. Of the swedenborgian activities and productions
before 1837, only Richer's literary tour de force was
accepted as part of the New Church tradition that was solIdI­
fied by Le Boys de Guays. Whatever significance the earlier
developments may have had in personal sear~hes for anti-deist
positions in religious thought, none can be said to have
made a lasting or wide-spread contribution to the Revolt
against Deism in France--with the exception of one almost
completely unconnected example: two novels by Honor' de
Bal%ac.

For all practical purposes, Balzac made the only

literary contribution to the development of a Swedenborgian
tradition in France during the period under examination.
Richer, for all his lit~rary promise, was more New Church
~c=lst than literateur. Victor Hugo made half-a-dozen
references to Swedenborg, but most of them are en passant,
providing little indication as to his attitude toward
Swedenborg--and likewise exerting no particular influence
with regard to his ideas; the only sizeable reference was
written well after our period. 60 But if Balzac was alone
in his field, he was not ipconspicuous in it. Louis Lambert
included two extended commentaries on Swedenborg, and as a
whole was ~s well as, and at least as much as, it is a veiled
autobiography) a hypothetical answer to the question: ~at

if a man--well educated and capable, but accustomed to Ices

vives r~actions de llame dont llextase est 4 la fois et le
moyen et le r~sultatI61_-were to take Swedenborg seriously?"
Less ambiguously, S~raphtta--which has pages and pages ot
explicit com'llentary--LLa hy~othetlcal ans~r to the ques~ons

~hat if ~edenborg were right, and he was taken literally1­

On this reading, which will be defended presently, Balzac has
two novels dedicated to commentary on Swedenborg; this is
the l~..r..Qe~t corpus. of its ktnd ill.. non-New Churc1:l li terature.
That Balzac intended Louis Lambert and ~phtta to
be commentaries on Swedenborg (as well as to be novels,· and
whatever else they might be), is suggested by the "Preface­
to Livre My~tique, the 1835 volume which included both of
them in addition to Les Proscrits. Sounding somewhat remi­
niscent of Pernety,62 he approached his subject from the need
for religious certainty, which he found only in mysticis••
 Le doute travaille en ce moment "la France. Aprts
avoir perdu le gouvernement politique du monde, le
catholicisme en perd le Qouvernement moral • • • • Les
froides n~gations du protestantisme, croyance de
cOffres_forts, dogme ~conomique excellent pour les
disciples de Bareine,--reTlgTons pos~e, examin~e, sans
po~sie possible parce qu'elle est sans myst~r~s, tri.
ompha sous les armes le l'evanglle.
Le l::fysUc!sme est t:!r6cis6ment-!.!-,~rJJ3_tllnlsme
dans son principe pur • • • • Comme reliQion, le Mysticis.
m proctde en iroite ligne du Christ par St. Jean • • • •
Puis, au XVIII si~cle, il a__eu da~~_~~org un
~van~!21_s...!:e et_~_~phhe-don~I_a figu~e s'-4!tve aunl
(( C?~!-a.:!.'!-Qeut...=.!LV,e_que celTes ete -:S-Cl~Jll~~ae-
" Py~ha ore e de Mofse • • • • -'-all.'l.eur de STrapll'fta 11
accorde ~weden org une sup~riorit~ sans contestation
possible sur Jacob Boehm, aux oeuvr~s duquel 11 avoue
n'avoir rien pu comprendre encore. oJ

Having placed Swedenborg ~is Yaqnt&d_historical position,

and decrying French literature's avoidance of the m stlcls.
he ePitomized,~described his efforts in writing these
novels. '" '"
~G ~ ~

Si vous pouvez imaginer des milliers de propositions

naissant dans Swedenborg les unes des autre. comme
des flots; si vous pouvez vous figurer les langues
sans fin que pr~sentent tous ces auteurs; si vous
voulez comparer l_~~pt:U,__essay'ant_de fdr.e_rentrer
dans les bornes de la logigue cett,e mer de IDJ:A.US
furieuses, ! l'oeil essayant de percevoir une lumitre
dans les t~n~bres, vou~.pr~cierez lea travaux de
l'auteur, la peine qi'11 .a prise"pou'r' donne.i__un.J<.Q..!:ps
a cette doctrine et la mettre ! la portl~e
l'~tourderfe francaise, qui veut deviner ce qU'ell&4ne J
sait pas et savoir ce qu'elle ne peut pas·deviner. '

Having gone to all this labor, he published the novels, he

said, with the hope that

• • • les gens du monde, affriol~s par la forme,

comprenderont l'avenir q~~ montre la main de Sweden.
borg lev~e vers le ciel.O~
Clearly# the subject he was presenting In Louis Lambert and
S~raphfta was mysticism In general# swedenborglan mysticism
In particular. His own words# still from the "Preface#"
describe the two novels In terms not unlike the two questions
proposed above.

Louis Lambert est le Mystlclsme prls sur le falt# le

Voyant marchant <l sa vlslon# conduit au cid -l~a les
falts# par ses Idees# par son temp~rament; l' est
) 1 'nlstolre des Voyants; Seraphfta est -'le mystlclsme.
tenu our vral personnlfl~# montre dans toute ses

cons quences. 66

If# In the novels# Lambert In his Swedenborglan seershlp

looks like a seml-eatatonlc Idlot# and Seraphfta appears as
an ambisexual deml-theophany# this does not belle the
promise of the preface; these are appearances to worldly
eyes# which he hopes will make the effort to comprehend the
mystical beauty he attempts to portray.
Taklng# then# the thread of Louis Lambert that
describes the personification of the way to the mystic sight;
and Seraphfta as the personification of the life the mystiC
sees; what does Balzac have to say about mysticism In general#
and Swedenborg the mystic In particular?
Larnbert# who started reading the Bible when he was
flve# and had worked through the mystics up to Swedenborg
while still a chlld# developed through his life until he
could see whole worlds that he could not share# and could
understand everything but could communicate nothing. This
Is Balzac's view of the result of mystic dedlcatlon# but not
 247

of the content of mystic perception. In the middle years or

his life, whil~ he was still in contact with rational men,
Lambert expounded twice on his interpretation of Swedenborg.
The first such paragraph-essay concerns Swedenborg's concept
of man, as a spirit clothed with a body. Balzac wanted this
exposition to be taken seriousl"y; he preceded it with an
introductory paragraph almost as long as the exposition It­
self, Including a suggestion that even "dans ses ralson­
nements les plus faux,"67 there was a power of perception
that had the ring of truth. The doctrine, as presented,
contains a hint of gnostic dualism that is not easily found
in Swedenborg--"l'ame l'emporte sur la mati~re et tache de
s'en s~parer"68_-but It clearly presents the Swedenborglan
concept of the Interaction of spirit and matter, and the
ontological priority of spirit. It also describes well how
Swedenborg saw men distinguished by the quality or their
spirit into societies of kindred souls--a distinction which
becomes apparent only in heaven.

En apparence confondues ici-b~s, les cr~atures y sont,

suivant la perfection de leur etre int~rieur, parta­
g~es en sph~res distinctes dont les moeurs ,t la
language sont etrangers les uns ~ux autres. o9

Balzac tried hard to put the idea across as a valid

theory. Not only did he preface it with the suggestion that
it might well be true even if lllogic~l; his final summary
presented the idea in its least, and most universally palat­
able rorm.
 La doctrine de Swedenborg serait donc Itouvrage dtun
esprit lucide qui aurait enregistr~ les innombrables
ph~nom~nes par lesguels les anges se r4v~lent au
milieu des hommes.70

Then, lest the passage be passed over as an excursus, he

spends the next two paragraphs commenting on it, and includes
the statement: "Quant A Lambert, il expliquait tout par son
syst~me sur les anges."71
At this stage, or at this level, Balzac saw Sweden­
borg's concept of life's spiritual dimensions as Swedenborg
seemed to see it: spirit was prior to matter, but the two
were so interdependent that spiritual experience was relevant
and significant in material experience. One could explain
"everything" in the material world by a "theory of angels"-­
a theory based on spiritual experience. This element in
mysticism--its practical relevance to material 1ife--is
predicable not only of the mystie seer, but of the mystic
life that he see. S4raphfta could ski where no one else
could, because she understood the material snow well enough
to know where the concealed crevasses were.

Une intelligence miraculeuse pr4sidait a leur course,

ou, pour mieux dire, ~ leur vol. Quand une crevasse
couverte de neige se rencontrait, seraphftUs saisis­
sait Minna et s'elancait par un mouvement rapide sans
peser plus qu'un oiseau sur la fragile couche qui
couvrait un ablme. Souvent, en poussant sa compagne,
il faisait une leg~re deviation pour 4viter un pr~ci­
pice, un arbre, un quartier de roche qutil semblait
voir sous la neige, comme certains marins habitu4s l
l'Ocean en devinent les ecueils A la couleur au remous,
au gisement des eaux.72
Similarly, S~raphrta was able to show Bec~r that all natural
scientific knowledge, all logic based on sense experience,
ends In doubt, whlie mystical knowledge--the Ilght--is certain
and completei73 and lambert returned to the mystical Sweden­
borg--hls first, Intuitive dholce--after comparing his system
with all occldental systems of knowledge.'74.
This statement of ~ambert's reasons for returning to
Swedenborg Is the second explicit comment ot any length which
occurs In the book. Its point Is slaple.

Evldemm~nt, SWedenborg r~sume toutes les religions,

ou plutot la seule religion de I'Humanlte,SI les culte.
ont eu des formes Inflnles, nl leur sens ni l~~r
construction metaphyslque n'ont Jamals varif. f >

If Balzac meant by this that Swedenborg was a syncretiat,

he could be challenged (and he has been, by several New Church
writers) on the ground that Swedenborg explicitly disclaimed
any syncretlstlc methodology.76 However, Balzac does not
claim that Swedenborg borrowed from all rellglons,--whlch
would be Inconsistent with his ~pprobatlon of mystlclsm--but
that he comprehended and surpassed them all, by the same kind
of direct apprehension that he attributed to Sfraphlta.
Consistent with his "Preface," he was describing Swedenborg
as the surr~ary and summit of religious thought.
So tar, Palzac's attitude toward Swedenborg Is unam­
biguous and favorable. If, In ~;_l~.ll, he expounded
only Swedenborg's th~ory of angels, and his position at the
Slllll1l1lt of th'! world's religions, in s~raphlta he was more
 2$0

explicit. In the third chapter, he put a biography and

doctrinal summary in the mouth of Becker, the Deist, and
suspended the pastor's disbelief long enough to eulogize
Swedenborg and SWedenborgianism, with numerous specific
references to Swedenborg's works. Between the voices ot
Lambert and Becker, Balzac made it quite clear that as a
system of thought, SWedenborg's theology had no weaknesses
and no equals; further, he maintained that it provided the
best available guide to the practical life--so long as, by
implication, it was used Judiciously.
Beyond a certain point, however, the application ot
Swedenborgian mysticism to life had ambiguous consequences
in Balzac's eyes. Carried to its conclusion, he seemJ to
have thought, the logic of mysticism would lead to a reJec­
tion of the world: mystical vision, into a non-communicable
ecstasy giving the appearance of madness; mystical eXistence,
into a radical incompatibility with the world, resulting In
voluntary death.
The first situation was dramatized by Louis Lambert,
toward the end of his life. With all his learning and his
searching, with all the quick vividness of his mind, he came
at last to a semi-catalepsy, apparently Jost in the ineffable
beauty of a.vision that he could not transmit except In
platitudes--"Les anges sont blancsl"77_-or in turgid and
disconnected paraphrases of Swedenborgian and cabalistic
 251

notions, so worded as to leave a doubt whether they are

profundities or caricatures.
The second was personnified by S~raph{ta, who loved
everyone so much she could not love any ~, who understood
so ~uch she could not be understood, who had known such
ecstasy that she died of a broken heart.
Both Lambert and S~raph{ta achieved t~eir goals, died
"happy," and brought happiness to those closest to the~

(Lambert to Mme. Villenoix, S~raph{ta to Wilfrid and Minna),

While confounding the sympathetic but worldly observer
(Lambert's narrator, and the deistic pa~tor, Becker). To
this extent, they fulfill the implied suggestion of the
"Preface" that the mystic way is the best way.
But, the fultillment entails the fearful price or
total estrangement from the material world--madness in the
case of the seer, eventual assumption in the case of the
embodied mystical life. Clearly, the conclusions of ~

Lambert and S~raph{ta bear a forceful commentary on mysti­

cism, as a vision and as a life. But what is the comment7
Is it a praise of mysticism, and a condemnation of the world
that forces it into isolation? Is it a condemnation of
mystical extremism, which takes man out of tragic darkness,
into ecstatic light, with the second state being little
better than the fIrst? Or is it a comment on the ambiguity
of mysticism, a reminder that its rewards entail penaltie.7
Or is it a teasing question, thrown at the reader7 Except
 252

for an ambiguous suggestion that he was praising mysticism

and condemning the world,18 Balzac did not say. But whatever
he was saying about mysticism, he was saying it about
Swedenborg, too.
In all this, there can be no doubt that the claim to
empirical revelation was accepted, both as general possibility
and as particular fact. But by accepting the claim with the
estrangement Balzac thought it entailed, he obviously
changed its significance. By associating insanity with
empirical revelation--but as an effect, rather than a cause-­
he completed the development of the alternatives suggested
by Kant. Wesley and Herder followed Kant in interpreting
Swedenborg's claim as the result of a pathological condition,
and Balzac-~hether intentionally or not--followed the other
option, that insanity would be the natural consequence ot
"einer eingebildeten Geistergemeinschaft."19 New Churchmen
did not like Balzac's treatment of SWedenborg, and often
called it a caricature. 80 It may have been; but if it waa,
it was a good enough caricature to contain a pointed commen­
tary; and the question he raised about the consequences ot
taking Swedenborg's idea with radical seriousness, does not
appear to have been seriously addressed on its own terms.
No one has tried to find out how many of Balzac's fellow­

--
romanticists were
-
a~ong
- ------
the large number of purchasers ot
,--­
early French translations of Swedenborg, and after reading
a little, stashed them in an attic with a vague uneasiness-­
an unformed question that Balzac faced, and asked.
 253

Conclusion

It is difficult to generalize about the French develop­

ments in the Swedenborgian tradition. Most of them were
clearly anti-Deist. but they were as out of step with Posl­
~m (the prevailing French anti-Deist movemen~
------
as they
were with French Catholicism. Thus isolated from main cur­
~

rents of French religious thought. and including only one

major figure (Balzac). and only one who developed solid
---------
institutional backing (Le Bo s de Quays), and with these two
leaders leading in disparate directions; French Swedenborglan­
ism before 1840 was a series of isolated and non-cum latlve
develo ments. rather than a unitary tradition. If there was
a French Swedenborgian tradition in the period, it must be
characterized as a tradition of individualism.
 NarES - CHAPTER S.

ISuCh as the Barons von Bernardin, Leiningen and

Weltheim and the Landqraf von Hesse~armstadt.

2See above, pp. 114-116.

3E.q., Breteuil and Oberlin.
4rhere may have been a siQnificant Swedenborgian
influence on the development of one aspect of Freemasonry in
France, but it is too obscure to be traced in detail here.
Since the Avignon Society, like Masonry in general, was
secret, no documentation of its activities seems to be avail_
able, and the historical sources are too indeterminate to be
useful. Almost all relevant information is attributed to
hearsay, so decisions between conflicting reports are impos_
sible. The sources listed below indicate that Swedenborg
himself was, and was not, a Mason; that he did and did not
found a peculiar masonic rite; that Pernety founded, or
Joined, the Avignon Society in 1760 or 1785, that Pernety, or
Chastanier, or Thom~ founded the society on Swedenborglan
principles mixed with those of Saint_Martin, or introduced
such a mixture into the society; that Pernety, Chastanier,
or Thome wrote the masonic Rite of Swedenborg; that Pernety
and Chastanier left Avignon to carry the rite into Freemasonry
in other countries, and that they learned of Swedenborg while
expatriate, and brought the ideas back to Avignon. Clearly, )
something to do with Swedenborg happened at Avignon, but what
it was cannot be determined; in any event, the tradition
appears to have died with Pernety.
Waite, Arthur Edward. A New Enc*clopaedia of Freemasonr~,

vols. I & 11. London: Will lam lder and Son, Paternoster
Row, 1921.
Gould's HIstorY-oof Freemasonry Through the World, vol. IV,
revised by Dudl~y White. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1936•
.~V1aU.e..,._AYguste. Llls sources occultes de Romanttsme Illumin_
Isme--theo50nhle (1)70-l8~O) Tome premier:_ Le preromantlsme,
tome s",cond: La 9:zn ration de l'empire. Paris: Librairie
ancienne hono.~ champion, 1928.
Chevrier, Edmund. HIstoire 50mmaire de I'LNouveHe tgttse
chr~tlenne fond~e Stlr le5 doctrines de SW~d\1noo q ear un ami
de la N6uvelle Eglise. Paris: Librairie, 5, rue Th4nard,
1879.
Tafel, Rudolph L. Documents Concerning the Life and Character
of Emanuel Swedenbor • collected translated
London: Swedenborg Society, British

5 [Period icall. Intellectual Repository, vol. 3 (1817),

6See below, p. 227.

7Tarel, Documents, OPt cit., vol. 11, p. 1179.
6See note 4 above (on Freemasonry).
9Nouvelle Biografhie G4n~rale, ed. Hoerer~ 46 vols.
(Paris: firmin Didot Fr res, Fils et Cie, 1857_1~66, vol. 39,
col. 620.
I°Antoine Joseph Pernety.
de l'enfer, et des Emanuel
sea
oreilles, vols. •
11l.!W!., PP. 3-4.

12

~., p. 13.

13Loc • clt.
l~rquls de Thom'.
15Abb~ AU9uatin de Barruel. M~moires pour servir a
l'histoire du Jacobinisme, nouvelle et derni~re ~dition
.s. 1797.) (Hambourg:
 2>Viatte, L~s Sources Occulte, pp. 8" 89.
24see above, P. 222, and Tafel, Documents, ope eit.,
vol. I, PP. 637, 638.
2'Chevrier, Histoire Summaire, Ope eit., p. 83.
26See above, P. 220.
27Nouvelle Biographie ~n~rale, vol. 35, col. 743.
28Chevrier, Histoire Summaire, 02. cit., pp. 85-86.
29~ey are quoted by Parlsot.
r~ .
~Intellectual Repository, 1840, Pp. 151~162.
3lQuoted In New Jerusalem Magazine, vol. 13 (1840),
PP. 267-268.
32Ibid., vol. 31 (1859), PP. 460-466.
'3 i~dmarsh, Rise and Progress, <po cit., P. 387.
341ntellectual_ Repository, 1819, p. 328.
35Article in New Jerusalem Magazine, vol. 2, pp. 346­
351 0828-1829).
3 6cf • Hindmarsh, Rise and Progress, op. eit., p. 183.
37August Viatte, Victor Hugo et les illumin&s de son
(M ntr~al: Les ~ditions de l l arbre, 1942), p. 41.
38 b~ J. G. E. Otegger;-Rapports inattendu~ entre le
monde mat r TI e -le me (le 011 Ma "tra:":5ition a la Nouvelle
r 1i5e et ies circonstances surnaturell~5 ui cnt acconla n'
cette d marche Paris: Heideloff and Campe, 1,3 , p. 3.
------~~ ~uoted by Viatte, Victor Hugo, P. 43.
~ ~~tegger, Manuel (full title given in text) (Paris:
Baudouin. Fr~res, Editeurs, 1827).
410legger, Rapports, op. elt., P. 6.
4 2See above, PP. 82-83.
430tegger, Rapport~, 22. cit., P. 11.
44~uoted by Viatte, Victor Hugo, Opt cit., P. 43.
 257

45Quoted in ~., p. 45.

46 Loc. cit.

410leggerls letter to Tafel quoted in the New Jerusalem

Magazine, vol. Xl (1831), pp. 19-20.

48Viatte,' Victor Hugo, ope cit., P. 43.
49E'.g., Nouve lIe J~rusa1em, vnI (1841), p. 280.
50Ibid., IX (1841), p. 109.
~-:-
hevrier, Histoire, Ope cit., P. 90.
52Richer does seem to have influenced Hofaker In
Germany (see below, pp. 281-288). '
53Edouard Richer, ~lan~ (full title given In text)
(Pars: Treuttel et Wurt; et Janet et Cotelle, 1835), pp. 4-5.
i 54 I '
~., P. 22 •.

55~., pp. 28-29.

56 Ib_ld ., P. 60.

51 1b1d ., p. 225.

~~rier, Histoire, Ope cit.; Pp. 102_1~1 Intellec_

tual ~itorY, vol. V (1838), Pp. 322_326.
9mil~ Broussais , "Letter" trans. in Intellectual ~
Repository (1834), pp. Ib4-166.
, '\

60 ee references in Vlatte, Vtctor Hugo, Ope clt.

~onor~ de Balzac, Louis Lambert. "Oeuv~es compl.tes,"

lI~dlt1on nouvelle ~tablie par La Societe des ttudes Balzaci_
ennes," (Paris: Club de Ilhonnete homme, 1961), vol. 20, p.
511.
62 See above, p. 221.
;:-...
63 'alzac, "Preface" du Livre M~tiqu~, reprinted In
1t00uvres compUtes" (pp. 607-613), pp. 609-610.
64..J2.l..!!., p • 6 11 •

65~., p. 612.
J
 2,8

66~., pp. 611-612.

67Ba1zac, Louis Lambert, Ope cit •• P. ,33.

68 Ibid •• P. ,34.
69 Ibid ., P. ,34.
70 Ibid ., P. '34.
71~., P. ,3,.
7~onor~ de Balzac, S~raphita, "Oeuvres completes,"
"~dition nouvel1e ~tablie par la Soci~te des Etudes Ba1zacl_
ennes," (Paris: Club de l'honnete homme, 1961), vol. 21, p~
,8.
73 Ibid ., PP. 114-132.

74Ba1zac, Louis Lambert, Ope cit., P. ,69.

7'Loc. _cit.

76Emanue1 Swedenborg, "Letter to Beyer," Feb. 1767,

Posthumous Theological Works, Standard Edition, ope ~it.,

vol. 1I. P. $69.
77Ba1zac, Louis Lambert, ope cit •• p. ,93.
78Ba1zac, "Preface," Ope cit., passim.
79Kant , Traume, OPt cit., p. 348, 11 9-12.
80See , e.g., "Notions of 'Swedenborgianism' in France,"
Intellectual Repository (1839), p. 99; Theodore Francis
Wright, Ba!zac and Swedenborg (Boston: Otis C1app, 1896).
 CHAPTER 6

GERMAN DEVELOPMENTS

In Germany, development of Swedenborglan traditions

In reaction to (or In place of) Deism were Influenced by the
original German reactions to Swedenborg to a more significant
extent than was the case In England or France. As such tra­
ditions developed In literature, philosophy, and eccleslas­
tlclsm, the domlnant--If not the determlnatlve--Influence
was the negative one of Immanuel Kant. The Immense pres­
tige of his name, and the devastating effectiveness of his
argument from ridicule In the TrNume, combined to turn his
personal rejection of the Idea of empirical revelation Into
a virtual prohibition against serious consideration of
Swedenborg, or of overt Swedenborglan Ideas. Even those to
whom Oetlnger--and, to a lesser extent, Herder--transmltted
a more favorable attitude toward Swedenborg, had either to
use his Ideas covertly, or else answer the judgment of Kant.

Romantic Literature

There I s evidence that German romantic 11 terature

has notable examples of the former course: Benz has traced
the lines of transmission, and found indirect evidence of
influence, In a general way for the main streams of the

259
 260

German romantic and idealist traditions; Friedemann Horn

has done the same in convincing detail for Schelling. In
spite of these indications--which testify to the repressive
effect of Kant's influence--German romantic literature lies
largely outside the present examination of reactions to
Swedenborg that we~e both explicit and extensive enough to
permit objective evaluation, unless its limitations are
bent a little to include the borderline case of Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe as a kind of paradigm of the movement.
Goethe's direct references to Swedenborg are scattered
and ~ passant, and most of the indirect references are also
too brief to permit conclusive interpretation. However, there
are interesting suggestions in some of his direct references,
and there is respectable scholarly support for the theory
that one significant passage in Faust (concerning the -geheim­
nissvolle Such," and the visit of Earth Spirit) is a specific,
if covert reference to Swedenborg. l Though this is not much
material, and some of it is at least theoretically question­
able, Goethe expressed more in passing references than less
imaginative writers do In paragraphs, and any comment of
Goethe's is significant to a study of German Romantici~.

Max Morris shows on good evidence that Goethe en­

countered Swedenborg's works at the home of FrI. von Kletten­
berg by 1771, and Waldo Peeble~ demonstrates a strong circum­
stantial presumption that he discussed Swedenborg w~th
Herder. 2 From his correspondence, we learn that in 1776 Goethe
 261

purchased Oetinger1s Swedenborgs und Andere,3 in addition to

whatever of Swedenborg1s works he read at Frl'. von Kletten­
berg's. It is apparent from half a dozen passages, in which
he invoked the name of Swedenborg to clarify references to
spirits or spiritual experiences, that he took seriously
Swedenborg1s descriptions and narrative accounts of the
spiritual world. 4 Whether he also took them literally is
less clear, but somehow--with Goethe--it seems less important.
What was important about Goethe'~ attitude toward !wedenborg
is suggested by a sentence from a 1781 letter to Lavater; a
frequently-quoted passage that stands among the most provoca­
tive comments in literature on the significance of empirical
revelation.

Ich ben geneigter als Jemand noch eine Welt ausser

der SIchtbaren zu glauben und ich habe Dichtungs­
und Lebenskraft genug, sogar mein eIgenes beschrlnk­
tes Selbst zu einem Schwedenborgischen Geisteruniver­
sum erweitet zu ftthlen.5

The question of literal-or-symbolic interpretation of the

·Schwedenborgischen GeIsteruniversum" is helped but not
decIded by his references to seeing through another's ~yes,

"nach Art Schwedenborgischen Geister,"6 and "wie e~~als die

Geister durch Schwedenborgs ~gane die Welt kenne lernten.· 7
These could be interpreted as merely figurative references,
but the impression is strong that through the eyes of imagi­
ative friends, and especially through the eyes of children,8
Goethe did actually feel his personal limitations expanded
 262

In a way that he could not descrIbe except through compad-·

son to Swedenborg's psychIc experIences. CertaInly the accounts
of such experIences had meanIng for hIm; he commended them
to Lavater,9 and he spoke of them In favorable contrast to
the experIence of ftder Weltbttrger. ftlO HIs references to the
presence of spIrIts around places, and wIth people,ll may
be understood In relatIon to hIs Interest In Swedenborg's
numerous accounts of such sItuatIons.
A sIgnIfIcant and extended use of thIs SwederiborgIan
concept of the reality and presence of spIritual beIngs
occurs In the NIght Scene, Part I, of~. AssumIng, wIth
the editors of the Weimar edition of Goethe, the correctness
of the line of Interpretation pIoneered by ErIc Schmidt and
Max MorrIs (and not tryIng to repeat or defend the line-by­
lIne delIneatIon here),12 the maIn poInts of Goethe's com­
mentary on Swedenborg may be summarIzed as follows.
Swedenborg's Arcana Coelestla (ftgehelmnlssvolle Huch ft taken

as a pun on ftArcana ft ) Is ftGelelt genug ft for an expansIon or

conscIousness to such full partIcIpation in the Swedenborglan
Gelsterunlversum that conversatIon wIth spIrIts becomes
possIble.

Dann geht die Seelenkraft dIr aur,

Wie spricht ein Gelst zum andern Gelst. 13

ImmersIon In thIs work, and the consequent spIritual com­

munIon, leads to a seemingly superhuman IllumInation:
 263

Bin ich ein Gott? Mir wird so lichtl l4

The enlightenment provided by the experience is self-authen­

ticating.

Jetzt erst erkenn' ich was der WeIse spricht:

"Die Geisterwelt ist nicht verschlossen:
"DeIn Sinn ist zu, deIn He~z isttodtl
"Auf, bade, Schuler, unverdrossen
"Die irdtsche Brust in Morgenrothl- 15

The apparent inaccessibility of the spIritual world, caused

by a deadenIng of the spiritual senses--which, in turn. Is
caused by'a hardening of the heart against spiritual per­
ceptions--is a familIar SwedenborgIan conceptioni l6 so. too.
is the comparIson of spIritual awakenIng to the light ot
dawn. 17
But there Is more to the Swedenborgian GeIsteruniver­
sum than intellectual illumination, and Faust cannot stop at
that point. Through lines of communication suggested by
Swedenborg, he induces the manIfestation of a Geist. who
confirms the real presence of the spiritual world. but-­
true to Swedenborgts descrIption of a spirit who would per­
form such a function--cannot stay because of incompatl­
bility. As he says to Faust.

Du gleichstadem Geist den du begreifft.

Nicht mlrl l

Faust's communication wIth the realm of 3piritual reality

must be through his kindred spirit, Mephistopheles.
 264

Assuming, still, that this monologue does, indeed,

refer to the Swedenborgian conceptions that appear appro­
priate, the suggestion is that Goethe not only took seriously
Swedenborg's. descriptions of the spiritual world and its
relation to human life on the physical plane, but took them
at very close to the face value of Swedenborg's intent. The
spiritual world is real, spirits are present and influential
in human life, and Swedenborg's works are a medium of super­
natural enlightenment to the mind that is open to them.
This is, admittedly, a speculation based on evidence
that cannot be conclusive, and is offered as no more than a
hypothesis; but it is, at least, not inconsistent with
Goethe's direct (if ambiguous) comments on Swedenborg, and
is drawn from apparently valid indirect comments. That
Goethe should have taken such a position toward empirical
revelation does not appear radically inconsistent on his part;
remembering, of course, that any interest Goethe may have
had in Swedenborgian ontology and epistemology was part or
his universal interest in intellectual history, and stopped
well short of sharing Swedenborg's specifically religious
concerns. If Goethe had held such a view of Swedenborg, it
is reasonable to assume that he would have masked his reference
to this extent, so that Kant's ridicule of Swedenborg would
not reflect on Faust as well. In this, he would be repre­
sentative of Germanic romantic literature as a Whole, in
which traces of Swedenborgian ideas, if actually genuine,
 265

are always covert. For thIs reason, SwedenborgIan Influence

in this fIeld Is an IntrIguIng speculatIon; but though
varIous Instances have varying degrees of probability, there
Is lIttle that can be determined decIsively_

Romantic PhIlosophy

In hIs letter to Lavater, cIted above Goethe

described his own capability of transcending the limitations
of Individuality, of expanding his "self" through the power
of hIs poetIc ImaginatIon and vItalIty. That he Invoked
l
the name of Swedenborg to clarify his defInition of thIs
goal, may have been a compliment of a high order; for the
l possIbIlIty of such t~anscendence was central to the romantIc
revolt against lReason--which Included, either explicItly or
','
implicitly, the rejection of Deism.
" Whether or not thIs was
Goethe's poInt in Faust's monologue, it was the specIfIc
point of Interest In Swedenborg expressed by two romantIc
philosophers, Jung-Stll1lng and Krause.
---,
Johann He inrlch Jung/(pen-name:
---
He Inrich ~tll11ng),
Is best known as a poet and writer; but hIs explicIt dIs­
.-

cussion of Swedenborg occurred In a philosophIcal work,

Theorie dp.r GeIs~erkunde (1808).19 Jung-SlIlling had almost

-----
nothIng to say about the cont~nt of swedenborg's~~system,
but expressed considerable interest In the sIngle idea that
- It was in his discussion
I have called empirtca1 revelatio~
of the structure and potentIalitIes of hurran nature, that
 266

Jung-Stilling introduced the subject of Swedenborg and his

mystical claims. The context was a description of the
conditions which he considered to be conducive tO~JLssociat~on
or omm~nJc~tio~ wi~h spirits; His explanation was psycho­
logical, in the broadest sense of that term, but it was con­
siderably more primitive than Herder's. Presupposing ethereal
and heavy parts of the body, it described a tendency to splrlt­
seeing as the result, either of relative separation between
the parts, or of hyper-activity of the ethereal part. With
a rather sophisticated attitude, he pointed out that though
such situations might well be pathological, no blame should
be attached, for "diess h~ngt aber nicht vom WIllen des
Menschen, sondern von der innern Organisation des K8rpers
a b • "20
Swedenborg being the most noteworthy example ot the
development of such tendencies, and also being a highly
controversial figure, he saw a duty to present the '"reine
Wahrelt" concerning hlm. 2l In fulfillment of this duty, he
offered a short (one page) biography, a repetition ot Kant's
"Three Anecdotes," and added a fourth anecdote, preViously
unpUblished. This piece of evidence, of similar import to
the story of The Queen's Secret, concerned an Elberteld mer~

chant whom Jung-Stilling knew personally, so that "Ich kann

die Wahrhc!t dess~lben mit der hochsten Gewissheit verbttrgen.· 22
On the basis of these proofs, and of a theoretical explanation

drawn from "der thierische Magnetismus und mannigflltige

 267

Erfahrungen an Kranken,a 2 3 He was able to state the ft pure

truth ft about Swedenborg univocally and categorically.

Dass Swedenborg einen vielJghrigen und hgufigen Urngang

mit den Bewohnecn der Geisterwelt gehabt habe, das ist
seinem Zweifel mehr unterworfen und e!ne ausgemachte
Sache. Dass ihn aber auch hin und weider seine Imagi­
nation geHiuscht, und dass ihn auch zu Zeltten gewisse
Geister unrecht berichtet haben, dass ist eben so
gewiss. Seine Schriften enthalten ungemein viel Sch8­
nes, Lehrreiches und Glaubwurdiges, aber auch mitunter
hie und da so unbegreiflich lappische und widersinnige.
Sachen, dass ein geUbter Geist der PrUfung daz~4erfor­
dert wird, wenn man sie mit Rutzen lesen will.

This mixture of truth and error in Swedenborg called

for a further explanation, Which he offered with equal ease
and certainty. The possibility and actuality of Swedenborg's
spiritual experiences being Irrefragable, Jung-Stllllng
accounted for the errors and foolishness on the basis of
what he considered Swedenborg's erroneous belief that his
experiences constituted a divine revelation. 25
In his Taschenbuch, he was even more explicit.

Diese EntzUckung war und ist immer nichts anders als

magnetischer Somnambulismus, also kein Wunder, sondern
eine natUrliche Folge einer gewissen Disposition der
Nerven und der darinnen wlrkepden Lebensgelster oder
des atherischen Lebenstoffs. 20

This was clearly distinct from the KantIan Inter­

pretation of Swedenborg--seeIng and hearing what was not
there; Jung-Stilling regarded the psychIc experiences as
real enough~. but he thought that only a dIsordered mind
WOllld perceIve them or--having perceived them--belleve that
 268

they were divine revelation. From this perspective, he was

able to accept the "empirical" part of Swedenborg's claim,
while rejecting the "revelation," and thus make free choices
between the "Sch8nes, Lehrreiches und GlaubwUrdiges" ideas
on the one hand, and the "unbegreiflich IKppische und
widersinnige" ideas on the other. Although his route to
this conclusion was quite original, the conclusion Itselr
was not basically inconsistent with that of Herder or or

----
Goethe--the two who presumably Introduced him to Swedenborg­
lan thought In the 1770's.
...
By contrast to Jung-Stllllng, Karl Christian Frled­
rich ause/concerned himself almost entirely with the con­
tent of Swedenborg's theological writings, trying hard to
avoid the epistemological Issue. Krause was acquainted with
Swedenborg for thlrt~yea~s, spoke of him In his lectures
at Gottingen and--shortly before his death--translated
a selection of abstracts from Swedenborg's theological
works, adding a foreward and a calechetlcal summary of the
system.
Frledemann Horn, who discovered the documentary
evidence that the selection of abstracts, Der gelstlge
Inhalt der Lehre Emanuel Swedenborgs, was written by Krause
(and not by J. M. Vorherr),27 has pointed out areas or con­
siderable dependence on Swedenborgian thoughtj28 but these
are based on indirect evidence, and are only noted here.
Also, the mass of Krause's comments on Swedenborg concern
 269

its theological and philosophical adequacy, and he avoided

--- ~ -
almost entirely any direct consideration of the Idea of
empirical revelation, Which Kant had ridiculed so sharply.
The relevance of Kantls negative Judgment is made clear by
the fact that Krause mentioned Kant, each time he mentioned
the mystical origins of Swedenborgls thought.
In his lectures on the Lebenlehre, he made a distinc­
tion between Swedenborgls "wissenschaftlichen Ahnungen- arid
"Selbstt~uschung durch Phantasiebilder,- and insisted that
In the former case, no one could rightly make the negative
Judgment th;t Kant, in the Traume, made against Swedenborg fl
( as a whole. 9 He did not attempt to answer Kant, either )
(
there, Or in Der Lehre Swe4enborgs; but in the later work,
he differed with Kantmore sharply.

Es 1st hier nicht der art, hierGber ein Mehreres and

tieferes auszusprechen, sowie es auch den Zweck
verliegender Schrlft nicht berUhrt was man von Sweden­
borgls merkwUrdigem inneren Zustande denke, welchen
ubrigens der Berfasser des worliegenden Auszugs grGnd­
lich zu verstehen und zu wUrdigeu slch bewusst ist.
Die WUrde eines ehrlichen, wahrheitliebenden, frommge­
sinnten Mannes 1st Swedenborg, so viel der Berfasser
weiss, von kelnem, selbst achtbaren Manne, abgespro­
chen worden. Wenn aber Kant (man s. Traume eines
Geistersehers, erl~utert durch Traume der Mataphyslk
1766) Swedenborg den Erzphantasten unter alIen Phan­
tasten nannte, so geschah dies aus e1ser, des grossen
Denkers nicht wUrdlgen, Ueberel1ung. J

This time, his whole sUbject was the theological

works of Swedenborg, so he could make no distinction between
scientific and mystical systems. He still gave no sanction
 270

to Swedenborg1s claim--either explicitly or. implicity; he

chose to postpone discussion of Swedenborg1s psychological
state, rather than try to answer Kant. However, he had
already established that Swedenborg's thought could not be
disqualified because of its mystico-religious grounds,
without at the same time disqualifying "alle Tiefdenker des
Mittelalters, und alle neuere Philosophen" on the same grounds;3 l
and he insisted here that no respectable man could malign
Swedenborg's honorable character: on these grounds, he felt

( _ that Kant had been unwarrantably rash. Beyond. this, he

avoided the subject.
Although Krause appreciated much of Swedenborg's
system, and may well have built significant parts of his
own upon it, it should be noted that he did not take up the
Swedenborgian cause in opposition to the Kantian JUdgment.
He did not contravene Kant's arguments, nor did he sayany­
thing overt about the epistemological basis of Swedenborg1s
system that would have subjected him to Kant1s anti-Sweden­
borgian ridicule. Also, he took pains to point out that he
was no "Mitglied oder Anhanger der von Swedenborg gestiften
neuen Kirche," and that he was r.ot defending the truth of
everything Swedenborg wrote;32 then, apparently considering
these disclaimers to be insufficient protection against the
sting of Kant's derision he published the MJrk anonymously.33

C A philosopher, at least, could not be ~ro-Swedenborg,

out assuming the Inconceivab!e posture :r ~ei~G-~~~t.
with-I)'
)
 271

ThIs sItuatIon becomes even more clear In what follows', as

we see that even Germany's most dedIcated SwedenborgIan,
J. F. I. Tafel, dId not try to refute Kant, but rather

{ attempted to show that Kant's fInal JUdgment was favorable

to Swedenborg.
Johann FrIedrIch lmmanuel Tafel Is a fIgure or
enormous and man~faceted Importance In thIs hIstory or
the transmIssIon of Swedenborg's thought, and the develop­
ment of SwedenborgIan ecclesIastIcIsm. LIke Clowes, HInd­
marsh, and le Boys de Guays, he made contrIbutIons to New
Church hIstory that extend beyond the lImIts of relevance
to the present study; and as wIth le Boys de Quays, hIs
actIvItIes and hIs Influence spanned the 1840 termInu••
But If a comprehensIve study of hIs lIfe and works Is In­
approprIate here (and has, In any case, already been done),34
stIll he presents us wIth extensIve and sIgnIfIcant develop­
ments of all. three of the basIc Issues concernIng Sweden­
borg's Idea of empIrIcal revelatIon--the phIlosophIcal,
ecclesIastIcal and the psychol~gIcal Issues--dIscussed In
Part I. Because of hIs sIgnIfIcance, and hIs posItIon at
the conclusIon of thIs study, it may be permIssible In hIs
case to cIte some of hIs material publIshed after 1840,
where necessary to complete the survey of the basIc themes
of this InvestIgatIon. This relaxation of the rules or the
enquiry is further JustIfied by the assumption that his
books of the '40's and '50's, which are available, ~ummarlze
 272

arguments used in his controversial articles of the '20's

and 130 l s,35 which are not. Before considering separately
his contributions to the development of each of the three
issues, something must be said to identify his relationship
to Swedenborg, the Revolt against Deism, and the intellectual
and ecclesiastical context in which he worked.
Tafel was born in 1796 (he died in 1863)~ the son~

grandson and son-in~law of Lutheran ministers. With this

background, and the influence of a pious cousin with WhOM
he lived during his teen-age years~ while studying in
Stuttgart; it is not surprising that he was .alert to religi­
ous concerns, and that he enrolled in 1817 for the theologi­
cal course at TUbingen. Already, at age eleven~ he had
encountered the ideas of Swedenborg in Jung-Stflling's
works, and was intrigued--but by no means' convfnced--by
them. As he recalled it later,3 6 he appears to have accepted
Swedenborg on Jung-Stilling's terms: the idea of mystic
experience presented no problems, but on the other hand~ it
/" ""
presented no guarantee 0 veridity. At age 17~ at the home
of a friend, G. F. Hoffacker, he read some of Swedenborg's
own works. He liked some views--Svedenborg's doctrine or
the Trinity, first and most heartily--but reJected"others
that did not conform to his own ideas at the time. With
longer ~cquaintance, he gradually came to accept more parts
of the system, one after the other, tlntll--in the Tttblngen
library--he found Volume I of Arcane Ceelestla.
 273

After having read several chapters, I was convinced

that in this very instance there was a miracle • • • a
miracle involved in the doctrine itself~ and conse­
( quently imparting immediate certainty.3, ,

This view of miraculous testimony to Swedenborg's authority

appears to have been original. Richer (probably independ­
ently) adopted a similar view a decade or so later, but the
prevailing English view had been a consistent denial ot the
appropriateness of miracles in support of Swedenborgfs
claims. In this case, the concept appears to have arisen
not from a systematic consideration of theological propriety.
but as a spontaneous expression of total conviction, not
unmixed with a kind of mystical experience. Twice. during
religious meditations pursued while walking out-ot-doors"
he had the sensation that wall around me seemed as it it
were glorified, and I was as if heaven were opened to me.· 38
Also.

Several times It was granted to me, upon reflecting

on the Word and explaInIng the New Testament to chil­
dren, plainly to perceIve the spIritual sense in Its
glory, and to experIence wIthIn my own heart Its
power and h8ppin~ss.39

He connected these experiences wIth the new religious

perspectIve he had gaIned from readIng Swedenborg, and trom
thIs time on, accepted literally the claIm to empirical
revelation, and adopted the Swedenborgian system--as a
Whole, and In all Its partIculars--as consIstent with, and
sanctIoned by, hIs own reason and the Holy Scriptures.
 274

He did not interpret the Rmiracle" and the experiences of

glory as testifying directly to the truth of Swedenborg1s
teachings, but rather as authenticating that interpretation
of Scripture which supported and sanctioned those teachings.
He did not, indeed, point out this distinction very precisely
in his recollection of his "conversion" (though it is im­
plicit there, and nowhere controverted), but it became a
presupposition of his thinking, and was central to his later
discussions of the epistemological impl1catl-ons of empirical
revelation.
The total conviction with which he accepted Sweden­
borgian theology soon brought him into conflict with the
guardians of Lutheran orthodoxy. As he neared completion
of his studies, he was sought after both as a potential
parish minister and university faculty member, but was bar­
red from entering either field because of his refusal to
Rgive an unconditional Obligation upon the symbolical books."40
The details of his struggle with the· ecclesiastical and govern­
mental authorities relate primarily to his concept of New
Church ecclesiastic ism; it is sufficient to note here that
after three and a half years of inducements, persuasions and
threats by the church and the state, and stubbornly persistent
demands by Tafel, he finally got his way. Under conditions
which he himself did not fully understand--and which he could
only describe as "unexpected" ~nd "most gracious,·4 1 he received
the permanent appointment 8S librarian to the University ot
 275

TObingen, with free license to pUblish and to preach

Swedenborg and Swedenborgianism to his heart's content. In
1848, after publication of two works of historical theology,
he was appointed Professor of Theology at TObingen--in addi­
tion to his post as librarian--with no restriction on this
license.
Concurrent with his duties at the university, he
translated and published more than a dozen of Swedenborg1s
theological works, reprinted inexpensive Latin editions of
eight theological and four scientipc works which had become
scarce, edited and pUblished nine volumes of Swedenborg1s
scientific and theological manuscripts, wrote six volumes of
pro-Swedenborgian apologetics, collected five volumes of
documents relating to New Church history, published a spora­
dic periodical, Magazin fUr die Neue Kirche, produced four
scholarly works of historical theology, and worked in THbin­
gen and elsewhere for the establishment of a New Church
organization. New Church writers frequently use the word
"indefatigable" in connection with him.
Though he began ·preaching openly every Sunday the
heavenly doctrines to an assembly of receivers from TObingen
and the neighboring villages· in the early 1830's, and con­
tinued for the rest of his life in steady efforts to found
New Church congregations and a New Church organization for
the German-speaking world (he died while on a Journey for
this purpose), there is no indication that he used hi.
 276

unIversIty posItIon to proselytIze students. The only candI­

date for the New Church mInIstry who Is known to have studIed
wIth hIm, was an AmerIcan SwedenborgIan, Frank Sewall, who
had seen Tafel's name (as edItor) In hIs father's Latin
edItIons of Swedenborg; and who went to TUbIngen,

• • • not, Indeed, [because of] the unIversIty itself,

nor Its ancient repute, but the fact that her~, as
one of Its professors and offIcers, resIded Dr.
Immanuel Tafel, the one Newchurchmen [sIcJ~known to
me by name and reputatIon In all Germany~~

He dId, however, use hIs posItIon as a platform from whIch

to engage In apologetIcs debatIng in prInt wIth a number of ­
leadIng academIc fIgures. It would appear that thIs activity
was orIgInally defensIve on hIs part. The fIrst move vas
made durIng Tafel's student days by Professor Steudel, In­
cumbent of the chaIr In phIlosophy that Tafel later occu­
pIed. Steudel attacked Tafel and Swedenborg In an extra
to the SuabIan Mercury for Feb. 12, 1822,43 and when other
attacks followed, Tafel replIed In the same Journal on
March 19--begInnIng a runnIng debate between Tarel, on one
side, and major voIces of German AcademIa on the other, that
contInued In Journals and books for the rest of Tafel's life.
Also, we fInd from Tafel's correspondence, and the recollec­
tIons of Frank Sewall, IndIcatIons that the debate ~as pur­
sued on a private stage as well, at the same level of com­
petence. In dIscussIons wIth hIs colleague, F. C. Baun,
Tafel was ahle to fInd one SwedenborgIan Idea the D~Ist could
 277

accept--the concept of the maxlmus homo, that had so delighted

Oetlnger and (In one way or another) so· Impressed Kant. 44
In a visit to Tafel's study In 18)1 by the great Schleler­
macher (Tafel was properly Impressedl), Swedenborg was the
main topic of conversation.

He frankly told me, that although he had not endeavored

to prevent the editions of Swedenborg's works from
making their way among the public, yet he could have
wished that they had never been undertaken, because
he thought that there was quite ferment enough amongst
the public already.~s

Whatever the extent of Schlelermacherls knowledge of the

Swedenborglan system, .he seemed less disturbed about its
heresy than about the public unrest. Tafel felt that his
tone and attitude were "evident signs that the asperity of
the times against the propagation of genuine truth is wearing
away.-46
A detailed description and analysis of Tafells public
and private debate concerning Swedenborg will not be attempted
here, except where Tafel's side of the argument Is part of
his contribution to the issues under Investigation. The debate
has been described to this extent, for the purpose of estab­
lishing the context In which Tafel developed his position.
His was the first Instance In which Swedenborg's system
as a whole was explicated by a scholar of sufficient stature
that his exposition represented B response to direct challenges
from the scholarly world. Oetlnger, for instance, defended
 278

only parts of Swedenborg1s thought; the apologetlcs of

English New Churchmen went unanswered for the most part, so
their historical adequacy vls-~-vls the opposition is Im­
ponderable. Having been forged in a continued dialogue on
a respectable scholarly level, Tafel1s positions on the
philosophical, ecclesiastical and psychological is~ues

acquire a special significance.

Philosophy

The philosophical Issues concerning Swedenborg's

Idea, as raised by Rant and ~tlnger, can be summarized under
three heads. There was the ontological question of the real-
Ity of spiritual objects, of which the supposed psychic per­
ceptions might have objective knowledge. Then, there were
two basic epistemological questions: the possibility of such
perceptions, and criteria for distinctions and certainty.
~ spoke to all three of these Issues.
The ontological Issue was not a problem for him. It
had not been for ~ng-Stll~lrig, through whose writings he
had first encountered Swedenborg; and, with the scientific
backing of the same arguments Jung-Stllllng had used (pri­
marily, evidence from hypnosls),47 he did not find it neces­
sary to defend Swedenbcrg on this point, except against Deists
and neo-Deists. 48 In 1852, he did so in reply to the lr~rie£
of trauss, r0erbac~ and ~ 49 The posi tlon in the l!.!.­
~' from Tafel1s citations, appears to have been the
 279

materialistic solution to the problem of space and spiritual

substance, as posed by Kant in the Tr~ume,50 with additional
parallel arguments concerning time. Tafel's answer was to
cite Puysegur and Cahagnet for evidence from hypnosis. and
then to offer Swedenborg's ontological presuppositions in
place of Rant's.

Dass Jeder in seinem materiellen Korper auch einen .

nicht materiellen oder geistigen Leib hat • • • • eine
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Menge constatirter [sicJ Tatsachen.5l

So ist denn nicht nur die MOglichkeit Jenes in den
Himmel versesstseins erwiesen, sondern es erschelnt
auch als glaublich und vernunftig, wenn Swedenborg
sagt, die Geister and Engel seien nicht nur organisirt.
und haben viel sch~rfere Sinne als wir. sondern be­
finden sich auch--zwar nicht im Raum und der Zeit,
wohl aber--in der Erscheinung ober Scheinbarkeit
(apparentia) des Raumes und der Zeit.S2

This approach to the ontological issue includes the

first epistemological issue, since the interpretation or the
hypnosis data took it in the first Instance as evidence or
the possibility of psychic communication. and evidence or
psychic reality as a necessa~y consequence.
He was not personally troubled about the question or
certainty. either: but he seemed to have no primary grounds
for this except his own experience--which had been essenti­
ally non-rational 53 _-so he said little about it. In place or
direct certainty regarding Swedenborg's empirical revelation,
Tafel used two other grounds for authority in his disputes
with Swedenborg's opponents. One was empirical: Tarel was
 280

the most "indefatigable- of collectors of testimony from

Swedenborg1s personal acquaintances and contemporaries,
which he published with the obvious purpose of sUbstantiating
Swedenborg1s claims. 54 The other was an apparently traditional
appeal to biblical authority, but in the crucible of conten­
tion, it turned into a highly complex and original develop­
ment in Swedenborgian thought.
In his initial acceptance of the Swedenborgian system
in toto,55 he had 'understood Swedenborg1s spiritual experiences
to certify his d~stinctive system of biblical interpretation.
which in turn authenticated the system--rather than seeing
the revelatory experiences as directly' sanctioning the
system. This distinction, apparently original with him,
had important advantages for use in controversy. Since it
had the effect of taking Swedenborg1s claim out or the
category of ·special revelation,- it allowed him-to use the
whole arsenal of arguments for biblical authority in his
defense or revelation per se (contra Deism), while at the
same time it narrowed and simplified the ground of his argu­
ments against Lutheran and Catholic orthodoxy. 56 Guided by
his original inclination, and by the utiUty of his position
in controversy. he took great pains to establish a clear
distinction between Immediate and mediate revelation, plac­
ing Swedenborg1s In the latter classification. 57 In support
of this categorization, he cites Swedenborg1s refer~nces to
receiving revelation ·while reading the Word,_58 but he also
 281

ran the risk of coming into conflict with Swedenborg's own

statement that he had been granted -immediate revelation.· 59
It might be possible that Tafel was not aware of this ~laim

of Swedenborg's, since his own edition of Heaven and Hell

was not published until two years after his use of the dis­
tinction in "Friedens-Theologie,- but it is unlikely: he
had access to Latin, English and German translations of the
work, and his colleague and publisher, b. __~~r, had pub­
lished his own trarslation in l830~ The clear implication
is that Tafel knew· of Swedenborg's claim, but considered
the immediate revelation to consist solely of guides t~

biblical interpretation (and confirmation of such inter­

pretations), with all elements of the system being revealed
medlately through the Bible.
Once having established this distinction, Tafel was
In a better position than Oetlnger had been, to use Oetlnger's
criterion of conformity to biblical doctrine as the dlscrlmen
for Judging and authenticating Swedenborg's system. In his
, 7
situation, however,--namely, post-Kantlan Germany, in which
/ Krause did not dare sign his name to a pro-Swedenborglan pub­
( ~on--thls ground of defense for Swedenborglan eplstemo­
logy was useless, unless It could be backed u with an answer
to Kant. The answer he gave Is listed In Allgemeine Oeutsche
-'--­
810gnphle as ene of hIs major contributions to ~ry

or~s,. and It has earned him a place In Kant studies as

- '-­

late as 1947 (Benz's Swedenborg In Oeutschland)--even though

Its most significant point Is Indisputably wrong.
--- -~-
 282

The answer was not an attempt at refutation. but

a re-interpretation, with an attempted documentation. Admit-
ting the necessary interpretation that Kant's Trlume. if
slightly ambiguous, was predominantly and disastrously nega-
tive; he tried to show that it did not represent Rant's
final Judgment, and that Rant finally came around to an
unequivocal approbation· of Swedenborg's claims and their
epistemological implications. The documentary basis of his
attempt was Kant's Brief an FrI. von Knobloch, published by
Borowski in his Darstellung des Lebens und Characters Immanuel
Rant (1804). Tafel claimed that Borowski had altered the date
of the letter, and based his charge on the difficulty that
if Kant had written the letter in 1758 (per Borowski). the
events described in the Three Anecdotes (which occupy the
bulk of the letter) did not occur until after Rant had des-
cribed Swedenborg's part in them. 60 Having freed the letter
from Borowski's date, Tafel set out to establish a new one.
Since no direct documentation of the true date was
possible. he marshalled an array of arguments--many of which
Benz still regards as ·h~chst aUff~lig·61_-iDtending to
establish the date as 1768. or at least later than the Trlume
in 1766. 62 His key point turned or. an identification of the
Englishman referred to in the Brief 63 with a Mr. Green referred
to in the Borowski-Jachmann biography,64 and an ingenious.
but ult~Mately speculative dating of Green's communication
with Rant. Though indecisive, the argument ~ave Tafel'.
 283

theory a slight presumptive edge over earlier dates until

after Tafel's death, when Kuno Fischer brought up the fatal
argument that FrI. von Knoblo€ h
.~-'
became Frau von Klingsport
in 1763. 65 This date having been unknown to--or unnoticed
by--Tafel, he was convinced that he had proven the Brief
to have been posterior to the Traume, thus de~onstrating

Kant's final approbation of Swedenborg. In order to reconcile

this conclusion with the decidely un-Swedenbor~~an tone ot
the Kritik der reinen Vernunft, and other works of Kant's
·critical period,· Tafel took the reference to ridicule in
Kant's letter to Moses Mendelsohn66 as decisive evidence
( that Rant had a private opinion of Swedenborg--which vas
favorable--as well as a derisively unfavorable public
opinion. 67
In spite of Its final inadequacy, the argument fs
significant in two respects. The effort spent upon it
reflects Tafel's apparent conviction that the most potent
arguments he could devIse In defense of Swedenborg's ontology
and epistemology, would be insufficient to secure serious
consideration of Swedenborg b~post-Kantian philosoPhers!
(unle" the lnfluenc. of K'nt', T~O~ld be ;:untered
In some way. Secondly, It indicates hIs tacIt admIssion that
the negative JUdgment of the Traume could not be controverted
on its own grounds; the only hope was to demonstrate that
Kant had changed his mInd at a later date, thus invoking in
S...... denborg's support the sl'Ime massIve Kafltll'ln influence that
 284

had been working against him so effectively in Germany and

elsewhere.

Ecclesiology

Tafel's development of ecclesiological issues is

more difficult to analyze precisely. Philosophy was his best
mode of expression, and from 1829 at least, there were no ~.

hindrances to his publishing (thanks largely to financial

support from organizations and individuals of the New Church

in England and the United States). Sectarianism on the other

hand, was prohibited by law; and although German Swedenbor­

gians came to look toward him as their head, it is not clear

that personal evangelizing was his forte. Within the limits

of activity open to him, and in view of his long-range influ­
ence, however, he must be ranked with England's Hindmarsh,
, and France's ~BOYS de G~ay-s\ as one of the founding fathers
of sectarian Swedenborgianism.
His ecclesiastical attitude first began to develop
in his controversies wIth state, church and university authori­
ties, concerning his Swedenborgian writing and publishing
work. His university advisor, a Mr. de SUskind, advised him
to sign the form of allegiance to the symbolical books while
continuing In his Swedenborgianism, since he was ·only a

Sabelllan, and that there were several Sabellians among the

L8
clergy,n O but Tarel refus~d to si n. When the permanent
appoil1t~ent as university librarian was offered with the
 285

condition that he stop poblishing Swedenborg, his friend

Hoffacker urged him to take the post, and let the poblishing
be done under Hoffacker's name; again he refused, although
in this case he eventually got the post without the condition--
whereas clerical status never was opened to him. This insist-\
ence upon freedom in form as well as in fact is one ingredi-
--~
ent of the sectarian attitude; it was the essential point of )
difference between Hindmarsh and Clowes, for instance.
Another ingredient of the sectarian attitude, a
tendency to den~ freedom within the movement for deviation
.
from a new orthodoxy--which has been noted in England's
Aurora, and the work of le Boys de Guays--also can be observed
in Tafel. The chief illustrations are his relations with
~av Wern; and Ludwig Hofaker. Werner had been a fellow-
student at Tubingen, who also refused to sign his unconditioned
allegiance to the symbolical books. It is not clear whether
his refusal was based on an acceptance of the Swedenborgian
position at th?t time, or on a general dissatisfaction with
Lutheran orthodoxy which led him to accept Swedenborg later.
In any event, he became a professed Swedenborgian, and one
of Tafel's closest friends. He worked on the pattern ot
circuit-riding preachers in England, making weekly visits to
at least four towns (as of 1841) on a route between Mergen-
theim in Franconia to St. Gall in Switzerland. 69 Though he
has been praised for his eloquence,7 0 he was not the intel-
lectual that Tafel w~s. and doe5 not seem to have publlsh'd
 286

his Swedenborgian views. On the other hand, he had a much

deeper social concern, and the services he conducted at the
stations on his circuit began with prayers, following which
his congregation dispersed into the town to do charitab~
work, reassembling later for religious instruction. This
activity finally centered in a settled location, developing
into the Reutlingen orphanage which still bears his name.
Within his institution, he continued to preach overt Sweden­
borgian views until his death. In 1863, the Rev. J. Bayley
minister in the English New Church, and ~or Tafel's,

was "delighted" with Werner's preaChing;(~~~_~:.~857,

found it so unorthodox that it took him ixteen page
point out the errors. 7l In his student, Frank
--------...-----
Sewall, how pained and troubled he was at Werner's "misuse
or misapplication" of Swedenborg'.s thought.
The case Of~i9 HOfake!)ran a somewhat similar
course. During the 1830's Hofaker was translating and pub­
lishing Swedenborg on his own, and publishing most of Tafel's
Swedenborgian productions. An American visitor in 1831 saw
Tafel and Hofaker 72 as co-leaders of a growing Swedenborgian
, \
movement in Swabia. Hofake"s translation of Swedenborg
was not faithful eno to suit Tafel, however (Hofaker's
1830 edition o!~et und Malle wa ~~ in'
1857), and~~Rs were a source of great alarm,
as "not at all written in the spirit of the New Church.,,73
Like ~gger's works, which he also translated and published,
 287

they appeared to Tafel (and the mInIsters of the EnglIsh New

Church) to be testImonIals to. and manuals for. spIrItualIstIc
practIces. "Proofs could not be gIven by Swedenborg.· he
saId. 74 touchIng a sensItIve poInt of opposItIon wIth Tafel
and the EnglIsh SwedenborgIans alIke; he found such proofs
In the evIdence of medIums--"Frommen." he called them__ 75 who
had appeared at Intervals sInce the twelfth century. In the

and a female medIum In VIenna. In 1834. --­

contemporary testImony of Oegger's spIrItualIstIc experIences.
ofaker started a
magazIne. DIe FrUhe. and he contInued to publIsh books untIl
he dIed In l846--always proclaImIng the ·Neue KIrche.· but
always In terms that Tafel consIdered completely repugnant
(
to that Ideal.
',-

Hofaker was stIll advertIsing hIs books and Tafel's

together In 1837. but Tafel was denouncIng him pUblIcly In
the name of New Church orthodoxy.

The brethren In England and myself have not been wanting

In exhortIng hIm to desIst; but as thIs dId not produce
any effect. they have desIred me to make It pUblIcly
known that all the members of the New Chvrch dIsapprove
of such wrItIngs as Oegger and Hofaker.7b

Tafel's references to "members of the New Church· here and

elsewhere. often Included hImself and others In Germany~ but,
except for a brIef perIod of toleratIon In 1848. there was
no organIzatIon In Germany for anyone to be members of. ex­
cept the spIrItual communIty of those who accepted Swedenborg's
teachIngs.
,
Werner. ,Hofaker) and Qegger. could ca 11 themselves
'
 288

members of this New Church with as much certainty as Tafel

could say they were not; but Tafel never recognized this.
He saw Swedenborglanism as absolutely clear-cut and univocal,
and considered devIants as clearly ·out- of the New Church
as If he had excommunicated them. In 1848, when a short-lived
experIment in relIgIous toleratIon made possIble the calling
of a General-Versa~~ulung der Neuen KIrche In Deutschland,
~was elected President, and asked to fill the role of
offIcIal publIc spokesman. 77 The next year, the ban was

II1 restored, a. nd by 1858, ~was~etfully un<:!·r~~hat

\ ~C?rga!1t~t!J!.~ would_ e"er ~Ist In GerJ!!llny; 7
but for forty years-~before and after hIs election--he ful­
the role of leader and spokesman. He was, In effect, /
\
~Illed

the "hls.hop" of a New Church that was not an eccleslastlclSJft; -­

and it was goverm~nt restrictions, and not his choice, that
kept his bIshoprIc· In the Intellectual realm without a visible
and organIzed manifestation. Tafel was ~lIdly wIth HIndmarsh
on the side of sectarIan SwedenborgianIsm. Whether he would
have been so, If--In l82l--he had been free to be a Sweden­
borgian Lutheran minister, and work as Clowes was free to work,
Is moot. DoctrInal latItude was not granted hIm, and he did
not grant It.
For what It tells dIrectly about Werner and Hofaker,
and what It tells indIrectly about Tarel, It Is useful to
conclude the discussIon of hIs development of the ecclesIastl­
cal issues, wIth a lengthy quotatIon from one of his letters
 289

to an English New Church Journal, The New Jerusalem Ma9a~

~ in 1857.

One

his

who

 290

ood, and that the Word is the fountain and

~f~o~u~n~d~a~~o~n~o~· the Church; but only the understood Word;
and that we have it only as far as we understand it, and
that we cannot understand it without the doctrine which
is one, assure as faith is one.79

Psychology

Tafel's contribution to the psychological issue

implicit in Swedenborg's claim to empirical revelation is
not to be found in his reply to Herder. 80 He felt that
Herder had completely missed the point, because of his lack
of knowledge concerning Swedenborg, and attempted to reduce
his Dpsychologische Erkl~rung der Swedenborg'schen Geschichte­
to nothing.more subtle or psychological than the Mathesius
story which was circulated by Wesley.81 Referring to Herder's
conclusion that Swedenborg's case was pathological, he said:

Eine Krankheit also, aber welche denn? Die Krankheiten,

in welchen blosse Phantasien mit der Wirklichkeit ver­
wechfelt werden, sind das Deliriumundder Wahnsinn.~2

Finding the implication in Herder that Swedenborg was delirious

and insane, he rebutted:

Allein die Geschichte weiss von diesem Wahnsinn bei

Swedenborg nichts; alle, die ihn naber kannten, bezeu­
gen vielmehr das gerade Gegentheil. tl 3
This led him back t~ the same character references that the
Englishmen had used in reply to Wesley, and to a final pro­
nouncement on Herder's theory.
 291

Wenn, was uns Herder hier giebt, wirklich Psychologie

und Physiologie ist, so ist die Psychologie und Physi­
ologie das erbarmlichste Gefasel von der Welt. Denn
die naturlichen Erklarungen, durch welche sie das
uebernaturliche entfernen will, sind vollig unnatUr­
lich und absurd, und8~tatt der Beweise giebt sie
blosse MachtsprUchel 4

Tafel's own alternative to such a naturalistic ex­

planation of the supernatural may be found in his concept or
revelation. There he quotes Swedenborg to the effect that
angels--men without the impedimenta of physical perception
and sensation--"hatten Herrn bestandig ein Gefuhl, das
so beschaffen war, dass sie sogleich wahrnahmen ob etwas
wahr und gut sei. n85 Though men no longer know what it Is,
"das GefUhl ist etwas anderes als das Denken; es 1st eine
gewisse Innere Stimme, eine durch den Einfluss vom Herrn
gegebene Anschauung, ob etwas wahr sei oder nicht. n86 The
capacity for this non-rational feeling is a basic component
r of the normal man's psychological make-up, and provides the
channel for mediate revelation from God while a man is read­
ing Scripture, unless man chooses to reject the revelation
l by blocking out the feeling. 7 Swedenborg's revelation
---- ------
can be described as[~~ns1tizing of this~lln aQaci tY-J
to the level enjoyed by the angels--a situation uni ue~n

d~ree but si":.!lar_in kind, vis-~-vis the psychological

potential of all men--so that the revelation mediated through
the Word to him was miraculousl erfect. 88 In the discus­
sion of revelation, this leads to principles of biblical in­
terpretation, but it should be noted that the ground has
been laId for an "explanatIon" of Swedenborg's claIm to
empIrIcal revelatIon, In terms of unIversally-applIcable
psychology of relIgIon. SpIrItual realItIes are communIcated
through feelIngs to the ratIonal mInd (as physIcal realItIes'
are communIcated through senses);89 so Swedenborg provIdes
an example--not of delIrIous, or pathologIcally dIsordered,
ratIonaIIty--of the fullest potentIal of man's feelIng
faculty.
It Is true that thIs psychological explana~Ion takes
no direct account of Swedenborg's experIences of talkIng
wIth angels, the problem that Herder was specIfIcally con­
cerned wIth. But Tafel cared lIttle about these, seemIng to
regard them as non-ratIonal, numInous experIences that served
heurIstIc and/or confIrmatory functIons In Swedenborgls
InterpretatIon of ScrIpture.' ThIs can be regarded solely
as an Interpretive Judgment on the relative signIfIcance
of d'lfferent statements In Swedenborg; as such, It would
have to be Judged decIdedly unorthodox among the vIews of
the "members o~ the New Church" In Tafel1s tIme. On the other
hand, It could be regarded as a logIcal extension of the psych­
ological theory Just stated: Swe~enborg's feelIng ca~ty

~Ing been "opened" to such an extent that its communications

to the mind Weie as clear and dIstinct as sense perceptions,
he could "feel" himself among the angels at the same tIme
that he could "see" himself among men.
 293

Though thIs vIew was never developed Into an explIcIt

psychology theory, It appeared repeatedly as a presupposItIon
of Tafel's thought, and must be consIdered as part ot the
background ~f hIs flat rejectIon of Herder's hypothesIs.
Tafel's emphasIs on "GefUhl," and hIs choIce of that word
to translate Swedenborg's r.PerceptIo,_90 strongly suggests
what cannot be demonstrated: the Influence of SchleIermacher
(whose Reden was part of the culture by thIs tIme) on Tatel's
InterpretatIon ot Swedenborg. It can only be regretted that
when Swedenborg's Idea of empIrical revelatIon, and Schleler­
macher's view of man-under-God, and Herder's psychologIcal
questIon, all met In J. F. I. Tafel, he dId not make the out­
come of this collIsIon explIcIt. The supple but rIgorous
mInd that trIed to cIrcumvent Kant could have done something
Interesting with thIs. As It stands, Tafel gave what has
become the orthodox answer of sectarIan SwedenborgIanIsm to
all InquIrIes Into the psychologIcal implIcatIons of Sweden­
borg's claim. As formulated by Hartley, Cloves, Noble, Tatel
and others, that reply has been, In effect, that anyone who
does not see that Swedenborg's empIrical revelatIon was abso- \
l~tel.y unique butLIe!fectly norman sIrnply.J!.lll not_or can­ I

not--at an rate, doe~ not -understand 5 ~ enborg. The ques­

tIon that Swedenborg provoked so poIntedly for Herder was
dealt wIth In other connectIons, because sectarIan Swedenborg­
Ians dId not take Herder serIously, and most other post­
KantIans did not take Swedenborg seriously.
 294

Summary

The development of a Swedenborgian tradition as part

of the Revolt against Deism in Germany, was dominated by

two figures--Immanuel~, and Johann Friedrich Immanuel

~elr-opposing ~ach other quite precisely on the issue of

Swedenborg's claim to empirical revelation. If the struggle
appears to have been a mismatch, the outcome seems to support
the appearance. In direct debate, the live Tafel could find
no ground of argument with which to rebut the dead Rant. In
total influence, Rant continued to suppress overt and serious
consideration of Swedenborg, despite Tafel's most ingenious
~--
and indefatigable efforts.
But if we change the frame of reference, and look
analytically at the development of the tradition without
trying to pick a winner between Rant and Tafel, the same
data take on a slightly different configuration. By setting

up an argument that'relied more on ridicule than on stated 1

assumptions, Rant did indeed make his position invulnerable;
but in doing so he sidetracked discussion of Swedenborg's
claim, rather' than demolishing it. If en, ;o~and~os'
are right in their interpretations of their research, Sweden­

- -
borgian influence permeated German
- -.:----­
but if they did so, it was in the form of covert assumptions
.',

no~_b_ ec.!-!.-o d~t analysis or debate. A precisely com­

plementary effect was achieved by Tatel, in his detense of
 295

his own orthodoxy against Swedenborgians and non-Swedenborg­

ians alike. There must have been others like K~se, who
was almost willing to challenge Kant's Judgment of Sweden­
borg, but did not want on that account to be identified with
Tafel's movement. Thus the stream of Swedenborgian influ­
ence in Germany was forced into a treacherous passage be­
tween a Kantian Scylla and Tatells Charybdis, and if any
followed the main stream, they did so in secret.
As a result of this situati~n, the most significant
consequences of Swedenborgls idea for the development of
German thought can be detected only in veJ~ed hints Of the
Romantics, and broad general parallels of the Idealists.
]f
C
~Simllar1ties i~n o'rg~n~H~Or Sw~nbor~d
~lel~im~cher--the really exciting,issues--can only raisel
unanswerable questions.

'.
 296

NarES - CHAPTER 6

1See below, PP. 263-264.

~ax Morris, "Swedenborg im Faust," EU~horion, VI
(1899) (PP. 49l-5l0)~ p. 506; Waldo Peebles,Swedenborg"
influence on Goethe, New Church Review, XXIV (1917) (pp.
507-535), pp. 514 and 519. (Peebles' article, a reprint ot
the 1917 Sohier Prize essay at Harvard. is a longer version
of his "Swedenborg's Influence In Goethe's Faust," The
Germanic Review, VII (1933), pp. 147-156; see pp. 141=146.
3johBnn Wolfgang von Goethe, Brief und Steinaur, In
Goethe's Werke, 134 vols. (1887_1912), (Weimar: Hermann
Bohlau, 1887-1912), Part IV, vol. 3, p. 115.
4Goethe, ~, OPe cit., IV, vol. 3, PP. 121, 169;
vol. 7, p. 105; vol. 19, p. 235; vol. 24, P. 226; vol. 36,
p. 223.
5Goethe, Brief an J. K. Lavater, In~, Ope clt.,
Part IV, vol. 5, P. 214.
6Goethe, Brief an Katharina Elizabeth Goethe, In Werke,
cit., IV, vol. 7, p. 105; see also Brief an Charlotte-YOn
Ope
~ In ~, Ope cit., IV, vol. 5, P. 198.

7Goethe, Brief an E. t. d'Alton, in~, OPt clt.,

Part IV, vol. 38, p. 223.
6See Goethe, Brief ~~ frau Rath, quoted by Peeble.,
Ope cit., P. 521.
9Goethe, ~, OPt cit., Part 11, vol. 4, p. 162.
10~., Part I, vol. 35, p. 230.
ll Br1 p.fe an ~~rder (1771), ~ (1774), Stolbe£g
(1775), and passage f~om Werther, quoted by Peeb1es, OPt cl~.,
pp. 520-522.
llrhis identification of the references was originally
suggested by Schrarer and Loeper (as cited by Emanuel F.
Goerwitt, "Swedenhorg in Goethe's Faust," New Church Review,
IX (1902), (PP. 522-5~.4), Pp. 524-~and developed ill detail
by Max MorriS, ~. cit., Pp. 491_510. The Thesis has the
concurrence of E"rfC"""SChmidt (hiS "Commentary" to Goethe'.
Faust in u.fl'.I?T,·i.inllc:her Gestalt, fl. 39, is cited by WaIdo
ffi-.oTeS-;GE,cTt.), and Charles R. Nugent (see excerpts trom
 297

his doctoral dissertation on Swedenborg and Qoethe, published

In New-Church Review, VII (1900), pp. 541-547; and from the
Swedenhorglan scholars, Qoerwitz and Peebles.
13Qoethels"Faust, in Werke, OPt cit., Part I, vol. 14,
p. 29, 11 424-42~ -­
14 Ibid ., P. 30, II 439.
15 Ib1d ., p. 30, .u 442-446.
16Swedenborg, A.C. 69.
17~., 27 6o.
16Qoethe, ~, Ope cIt., p. 33, !! 512-513.
19Johann Heinrich JunQ, genannt Stilling, S'ammtliche
Werke, Qechster Band, enthalt: Theobald ober die Schwarmer,_
Theorie der Qeisterkunde (Stuttgart: J. Scheible l s Bucb­
handlung, 1841).
20Jung_Stilling, Geisterkunde, in Werke, vol. 6 (pp.
439-822), Disc. Sw., pp. 511-520), p. 51-1.-­
21~., P. 512.
22 Ibid ., P. 515.
231bid., P. 515.
24 Ibid ., P. 516.
25 .
Loc. cit.
26 Jung-Stilling, ~ , Opt cit., Vol. 12, PP. 776 -779.
27[Karl Christian Friedrich Krause]. ~eistige
lnhalt der Lehre Emanuel Swedenborg~. Aus dessen Schriften.
Mit_einer k~J <>JJ.schen Uebersicht und vollst'andigem Sach_
regi~t?r. Her usocgohBn van Dr. J. M. Borh~rr. (First Edi­
tion [~runchei1: lS32]), (Lorch [Wurrttemberg]: Renatus_
Verlag, 1937);
Friedemann Horn, Schel1in undSwp.rle~h0rQ: E'~ Beitrag zur
Proble$!1es(;htc.t:~-S.~.~ u€<utschlll l(ieaUsr:lus undwzur Gesc~
~.;;.;:;.;:;.;-;,;,;----- ~ -- _.
"Swcdei"lDOroS . ,1 ue\:~,"cFiTt'nd nebc'. ».in·'·',. Anll~ng
- uber ­K. C, fo'.
~~.~_LE-nd S~"'.~.~l]b~9 sr:-"'ll! ~.'·\Z~!!.H.~_!} zu R. Schne iders
Eorschung.'n (~w~denborg_Ver1aQ: :Zurich, 1954), PP. 128-131.
28Horn, .~od__~it., Pp. 127-126.
 298

29Krause, Lebenslehre, Gottinger Vorlesun~en, quoted by

Horn, op. cit., p. 128.
30Krause, Geistige Lehre Swedenborgs, op. cit., p. 10.
31lli.&., P. 9.
32Ibid., pp. 10-11.
3~orn, op. cit., pp. 128-131.
34rheodor MUllensiefen, Leben und Wirken von Dr. Johann
Fr. Immanuel Tafel, Zweite verbesserte Auflage, (Basel:
terd. Riehm, 1868).
3$See below, pp. 276 tt.
3brafel, Letter to Roche, "Pamphlets," PP. 6-7.
37 Ibid ., PP. 7-8.
36 J • Bayley, New Church Worthies (London: James Spiers,
1884), p. 226.
39Tafel, Letter to Roche, Ope cit., p.8.
40Ibid., p. 9.
41~., pp. 13-14.
""- .
42Frank Se~ll, "Personal Reminiscences of Dr. J. F.
Immanuel Tarel." (Printed article source unknown) from the
Archives of the New Church Theological School, p. 1$8.
43rafel, ~etter to Roche, OPt cit., p. 10.
44Sewell, ~!rsonal Reminiscences, ~!!., P. 20$.
45Tarel, Letter, Minutes of the 24th General Conference,
etc. (1631), p. 59.
46Ibid., PP. 59-60.
47See above, pp. 266-267.
~
48 See above, p. 3/.

49 J. F. 1. T:;f~ 1 ~ §'..J'3"lenb~~_ ~_{ll_.L Q~9.nll, Pt. IV r

"Fr i'?dl' ns_The 0 10.,1 ~, ,I \T1llJinH€n: Ver l-l~;;-'. ;-.:.-".,1 t ion"'~ J,
PP •. 79 ff.
 299

50Kant, Traume , 0E' clt., P. 320 ft.

5lTaf~1, "Frledens_Theologle," Ope clt., Pp. 81_82.

52Ibld., PP. 84-8.5.

53See above, p. 273.

54rafel, Urkunden, op, elt" 4 vv,

55See above,pp. 273.274,

5 6See , e,g., his arguments In "Friedens-Theologle,"

ope elt" PP. 78, 90-91. .

57LoC • clt., "and "Apologetic," Magazln fUr die Neue
KI rche, 1, 1 (1824), pp, 13-34. .
58Tatel,· "Frledens_Theologle," op, clt., pp, 68-72.
59E.g'., Heaven and Hell, I.
60Tafel, Documents, op, clt., 11, PP. 616_620.

6l Benz , Swedenborg In Deutschland, OPt clt., p, 249,

62rafel, Urkunden, OPt clt., IV, PP. 237-247.

63Kant , Brief an Frl, von Knobloch, op, clt., p, 4.5,

64clted In Tafel, Documents, Ope clt., 11, p. 621.

65Flscher, OPt clt., Ill, p, 239.

66See above, p. 55 (n. 98).

67Tatel, Urkunden, OPt clt., IV, pp. 255-256.

68Tafel, Letter, In Intellectual Repository (1825),

p. 694.
69Hofaker, Letter, In Intellectual Repository (1841),
pp, 39-40.
~I.
70 Bayley, OPt clt., p, ~3,

7 l New Jerusalem Mag~zlne, XXIX (1857), p. 594.

72General Convention Journal (1833), p. 21, "Reprints,"
p. 27. ~fnfs 1dentif1<;;ation of Lud·... ln, Hof3ker Is not antlrely
clear. Ther~ was a George Frledrlch Hoffacker, at Whose home
 300

Tafel first read Swedenborg, and who volunteered to "front"

for him during his disputes of the 1820's. Variations in
name-spellings, and the popularity of three given names in
Germany at this time, raise the possibility that one or two
fls, and ck or k might be variants in the spelling of one
~orge FrIedrich Ludwig H••• ; but I have not been able to be
sure. The source cited here refers to "Hofacker" __a compro_
mise spelling, with no first namel
73rafel, Letter to Kramph, New Jerusalem Magazine, 11
(1837), p. 18.
740uoted by Tafel, loc. cit.
75LudWi9 Hofaker, Die Fruhe (Stuttgart: J. Rommels_
bacher, 18~), P. xiii.
76Tafel, Letter to Kramph, Ope cit., p. 18.
77Intellectual Reposito~ (1848), PP. 442-448.
78New Jerusalem Magazine, XXXI. (1858), p. 283.
79 Ibid ., XXIX (1857),' p. -354..
80See above, P. 179.
81 See above, pp. 168-169; Tafel, Urkunden, Ope cit.,
IV, p. 151.
82rafel, Documents, Ope cit. (Life and character ot
Swedenborg), P.· 148. •
83 Ibid ., p. 149.
84 Ibid ., p. 155.
85Magazin fur die Neue Kirche, 1, 1 (1824), P. 15.
86.!!?!!!.., p. 15.
87 Ibid ., P. 23.
88 Ibid ., P. 29.
89.Ibid ., P. 25.
90 Ibid ., P. 14.
 C01CLUSION

The foregoing study of the interaction between

Emanuel Swedenborgts idea of empirical revelation, and the
Revolt against Deism, suggests~a number of conclusions which
can be considered under three headings:' conclusions about
-
(~he idea~ conclusions about(the movement, and general conclu­
-
sions that refer to· both.

Swedenborgts Idea: "Empirical Revelation-

First to be noted is that no ~udgment can be . .de

on historical grounds a!--~o the truth-value of Swedenborg'.
claim to empirical revelation, or to any part ·of U:{( I.e.;
that the experience vas revelatory, that the perception
(which vas thought to be revelation) vas empirical, or that
there vas any experle~c:! or perception at ~ll~') Because. the
nature of the claim preclude obJective) demonstration or
refutation jhistorical inves~ig~tion could offer at best no

----
Judgment more decisive than a consensus, .and i t is plaln
- ..

tJ}!.t_none exlsted.1I A ma ority in favor of Svedenbo:.~s _cla.-!.-JI

might indeed be obtained by counting all vriters in the sec­
tarian tradition as individual opinions, but (this is unallov­
-
able)on two ~ounts. In the first place, the early develop­
ment and enforcement of an orthodoxy in that tradition

.301
 302

inhibited variation, and although the exte t of this_varJa­

tion cannot be determined with precision, its presence was
obvious in each of the last three chapters. Secondly,
counting New Churchmen--whether this category is made to
include publls d~rit~s,
- -
stated members, or all 'adherents
and sympathizers--could be Justified only if the count were
compared to the number of persons in a comparable category
who rejected Swedenborg1s claim; this latter number is also
indeterminable, but the numerical inferiority of the N~

Church among Christian denominations and sects suggests

J
strongly that the comparison would not be favorable. In
any case, simple popularity is a poor standard for Judg­
ment of truth value. A consensus of interpretive positions
that were thoughtfully developed on explicit bases would
be more significant, but the fact is not only that no such
agreement existed; the position~1 described in this study
divide the question in so many ways, and cover so many points
1 on the spectrum between co reJec­
\ \ ~ of Swedenborgls claim, that the evidence clearly affords
a void conclusion.
A summary of the main positions on this spectrum,
even if incomplete, may be useful in sustaining this conclu­
sion, and in refuting any claim that one particular Inter­
pretation of S~e~~orglsJLdea mjght be historically defInI­

-
tive. English New Church orthodoxy, as voiced by The Aurora,
a ccepted Swedenborg's claim to revelation; but by denying
...---­
 303

( that Swedenborg was the author of his theological works

( (clalmln Instead that he was an amanuensls), It effectively

i , 3~

and
the empirical aspect of his ~a.
~StillinglaccePted Swedenborg's
1 r:
t Oetin9~_ Slake
data as empirical,

(
but questioned or denied its revelatory character. ~~lla~ I
- - - - - - --- -:- ¥->..... l/!/rJ
an Krause implied acceptance of some part of Swedenborg'. ~

claim a. true--since they accepted the validity and signi­

ficance of his data--but they did so on the basis ot an

a posteriori comparison of his system with their own view ot

(11\t~e Christian tradition, rather than on an a prior; a~

tance of his claim. (ierderlaccepted Swedenborg's testimony

that he had had psychic experience, and acknowledged that

such experience might be revelatory; but questioned Sweden­

bor 's JUdgment and interpretation of that experience, thus

(
denying any--:uthOrity ;, hi~ "revelatiOn-.· []"~did not
care whether Swedenborg had any sueh experiences as he
reported, because--real or imaginary--their description
and interpretation were lunatic ravings. LpeQuinee~lreJeeted
both the claim to psychic experience, on the grounds that
the whole business was too foolish to merit serious consid­
eration, and [fi:~]decided that both claims were part.. ot
a conscious and deliberate ~. ~findlng no basis tor (
either aspect of the claim that permitted either demonstra­
~ -~
t!on or refutation, dismissed the Whole idea as outside the
'T
bound~!~i~c~tnty,-:And irrelevant - ;-)
to rational
thought.
=-­
 304

This variety of opinions is taken as presumptive

evidence that Ju~ent of Swedenborg's claim must involve
other than historical grounds. Its acceptance or rejection

--
presupposes prior decisions regarding the ontological status

----logical status of psychic

- .

--
----
of spiritual (vis-i-vis material) teality, and the epistemo­
(vis-i-vis physical) perceptions.
~~

I[SiDce such decisions are outside the province of this study,

S~denborg's claim is regarded in the end as it has been

~
~ghout: as a historical fact--since he did make the
claim--to be observed wi~out prejudice as an idea which
exerted cert!in infl~es, and which was influenced (in ~~
formulation, interpretation and transmission) in its inter- ~
f action with the Revolt against Dei~.

A second conclusion, related to the first, concerns

the principal criterion offered by Swedenborg as a basis for
_~gment of his claim to empirical revelation, and of the
system which was derived from it, namely, the criterion of
~L consistency with biblical teachi~g~ This criterion was
explicit and central, both in affirmative reactions, such as
those ofc§erJ(Ha!"tleYJand(Tate.!; and negative reactions,
such as those of{ErnestiTWesle ~ andt"P;i';;tleYI Also, the
criterion was ignored, both in the negative reaction of
[Kan~~nd the affirmative one ofLGoeth~~ This situation
suggests the conclu$ion that conformity to biblical doctrine
did not provide an adequate criterion for judgment of
SW~denborg's Idea, except In C8S~S Where p~io~_~e£!!~?~~had
 30$

made the Bible a satisfactory c£!terlon of ~ythlng, and

further presuppositions had led to compatible exegetical
pr~nclplu.

Thirdly, a set of related conclusions can be drawn

from the data and Interpretations of this Investigation,

regarding the Involvement of Swedenborg's Idea with eccles­

lastlcal sectarianism. That this Involvement vas not Inher­
ently or logl~ally_necessary, Is strongly suggested by the
factthat churchmen like' Hartley,YClowe;-rand ~ellamy, and
r--- ,- ­
writers and philosophers such a~1 Blake &~J~rld~~ ~!!!£,
~ethet lJu~:StW1n9]and nuse:;) were able to accept manY
or all of the Implications of the Idea without becoming
Invol~d In ecclesiastical separatism. The possibility that
sectarianism became a necessary adjunct to acceptance ot
Swedenborg's Idea under certain conditions, as a result ot
Influences exerted on the Swedenborglan tradition by currents
of the Revolt against Deism, will be considered later, under
the heading of Interaction. In any event, the Idea did
become Involved wlthi~he separated ecclesiastical Institution] \
called{"the New Ch~,) In such a way thatfNew Church ortho-
doxy became the dominant Swedenborglan tradition, and the
JI
Institution became the main line of transmission of Sveden­

perpetuating In at least three ",ays. -

borg's thought./IOnce established, this dominance was selt­
A tendency on the part

of sectarian writers to adopt any parail~l thought as lupport

for th~!r Institutional position, appears to have had an

 .306

al ienating influence on some- of the Romantics. such as

li\l~ ~;;id;~and ;;:use. who di; n~t want to ~come
involved with the separated sect--either in activity or
by reputation. T;he most extreme of these reactions was that
(OfC~-;. his criticism of Swedenborg's ecclesiasticism may
easily be interpreted as an indication that his original.
affirmative reaction to Swedenborg (which was accompanied by
association with the Hew Church) was followed _first by a
-negative reaction against ~e Hew Church as a~ institut!onl
and then--partly as a result--by his negative judgment
on Swedenborg. A second kind of dominance arose from the
efforts of New Church pol~ic~ts. who considered that their
defense of the institution required an attack on all Inter-
pretations of Swedenborg's Idea that did not conform to the
(irthodox ~ Church p~slt~n~ In cases like the attacks on
Wesley and Prlestley. this attitude was plainly justifiable
from the institutional viewpoint. In the case of HJndmarsh'.
reply to Clowes' anti-separatism. or The Aurora's "ruling·
on the subject of Swedenborg'. role In the writing of hi.
theological works. or the attacks on Werner and Hofaker by
Tafel. there was an apparent suppression of alternative
(r views~ favor_ of--a-n a~b~t~r~~etermined orthodoxy. The
third kind of domination was more covert and indirect. but
is Illustrated with some clarity_In the case of Herder's
introduction of the psychology of religion Into discussion
of SW~d~nborg's idea. Coming.s it did. shortly atter the
 307

appearance of Schleiermacher's Reden Uber die Religion,

Herder's essay was a contribution to what became a lively
discussion, and eventuated in the new discipline of the
psychology of religion~ As Herder perceived, the clai~

implied by Swedenborg's idea provided a radical case study

for this discussion, but it vas not picked up in this con­
nection for over a century. Why? Partly because, .f~er

Rant, anyone who was not firmly committed to Svedenborgian

/
( thought ~~luctJn~_to use his name in any serious dis­
cussion; and partly, too, because sectarian Swedenborgians-­
n~ably J. F. I. Tafel--bent every effort toward suppression
of the issue. Tafel attacked Herder, not on the psychologl­
r
cal issue.that was central to Herder's article, but on the
grounds that Herder had not read enough of Svedenborg'.
~

v works to be a qualified interpreter. Whether true or not,

this point had no relevance to the basic question that Herder
had raised. Tafel apparently felt justified in attacking
Herder's essay, because of the challenge to Swedenborg'.
theological authority which it contained. However, the
change of ground for interpretation of Swedenborg, suggested
/ by Herder, could have been used as a defense against the far
Lmore disast··ous attack of Rant's; and the psychological
understanding necessary for such a defense vas clearly
implicit in Talel's thought, so circumv~ntion of the psy~o-

logIcsl issce vas not a necessity. - ----

The tact that Tafel did
svoid the issue, and no one els-. of scholarly standing in
 308

post-Kantian Germany was likely to take it up if he did not.

stands as the most plausible explanation of the strange
lapse between He~ay and the twentieth century
(
investigations of Eduard~nn. Karl~ and others. 2
To the extent that it serves as such an explanation. Tafe1's
attitude also stands as an example of sectarian suppression
of ·unorthodox· interpretations of Swedenborg's idea.
A fourth conclusion regarding .Swedenborg's id~a ot
empirical revelation has already been suggested in this
l~st example: it did provide a fundamentally significant
case study for the psychology of religion. when considered
in the terms of Herder's essay. To be consistent with the
first conclusion mentioned above. namely that no one inter­
pretation of Swedenborg's idea can be considered histor!~~lly
-------
definitive. it should be pointed out that this conclusion
does not imply a reduction of Swedenborg's idea to nothing
but a psychological phenomenon. It was a psychological
phenomenon. though. and it was explicitly introduced into
one of the significant developments of the Revolt against
Deism. If this much is obvious from the discussion in
Chapter Thr~e. a fifth and a sixth conclusion should be
equally obvious. Swedenborg's idea involved important implI­
cations for the philosophical. and for the ecclesiastical
aspects of the Revolt. as discussed in Chapters One and TWo.
To summarize the conclusions Which apply to Sweden­
borg's idea of empirical revelation. considered per se:
 rL.---'
309

though the truth-value of the idea is not historically

determinable, and its inherent criterion for evaluation vas
not applicable apart from prior considerations vhich vould
also affect a decision regarding its truth value; it did
bear implications vhich vere taken up in three areas of
discussion vhich vere central to the Revolt against Deism.
or these three issues, the psychological one vas dropped,
(' the philosophical one remained mo~~vert~here a~ if it
\ -- -­
I continued in the Romantic and~ealist traditions, and the
ecclesI;Stical one resulted in the dominant line of trans­
mission of Svedenborgian thought. Furthermore, the dominat­
ing tendencies of the ecclesiastic~l tradition of sectarian
Svedenborgianism contributed to the eclipse ot traditions

---
vhich vere initiated by discussions ot the philosophical and
psycholo~ical issue••

The Revolt Against Deism

Just as no conclusions vere offered about Svedenborg

or his system, except in connection vith one idea, this study
is essentially limited to those aspects of the Revolt against
Deism vhich interacted vith that idea. No JUdgment is attemp­
ted regardIng the significance of these aspects vis-i-vi.
any others. Hovever, no suC::h JUdgment Is implied by calling
these aspects central to the Revolt (others may have been
equally significant), and there is good reason tor consider­
ing them so,, !For one thing, many of the !1gures involved are so
 310

prominent in intellectual history as to constitute prima tacie

evidence tor the central importance ot any discussion in which
t~ey particiPated.! for another, the origins and nature ot the
Revolt, as described in the Introduction, otter grounds tor
considering these aspects as logically crucial in its develop­
ment (even it that description vas incomplete). Seen as the
religious ~ught~t --l20s.ophical rationalism,'
~"""".lJ<-=:=---

its immediate religious r~ots in the ~turil Theology ot

~oyle~ Newton and Ray; and philosoPhical roots in the Ratlon­
.--­
allsm ot Descartes, ~ and Woltt. With this ancestry,

-----
Deism became the point ot
Intellectual develop~whose
intersecti~n ot two lines ot
goals were fundamentally
incompatible. One line, tocussed on man--stimulated by the
spectacular advances in science--had adopted Rationalism
to see human reason as equal with (and soon superior to)
revelation as a source and guarantor or knowledge; but
pursuing its own internal development, it moved beyond
Rationalism to Empir'iclsm, making sense data the primary com­
ponents of knowledge; trom there to the Critical Philosophy's
dualism, which radically disenfranchised all non-sensible

----
data; and trom there to Positivism and materialistic Human­

-
ism. The second line, tocussed on God--challenged by the same
advancements in the natural sciences--had adopted Natural
Theology in an attempt to use science in its own detens.;
finding itselt in danger ot subjugation by its detender, It
sought ~n ontology and epistemology expansive enough to
 )11

preserve its older spiritual reality and knowledge as well

as the new but undeniable scientitic reality and knowledge.
Lead by this search to philosophical Romanticism, and then
to Idealism, it kept some ot each as it, too, developed in
two directions--the mystically-oriented (TheosOPhical ]Move­
~, and the (!he ism !Which became the religious thought-sys­
tem ot the major ecclesIastical establishments.
rQ!ism'l again, was the Joint product ot these two lines
ot development, when they intersected at the point ot
~lism in the tirst, and Natural Theology in the secona. -
~n­

The
Revolt against ~ism, when it came, cannot properly be said
to have sprung trom the Pietism on the Right, or the human­
istic Skepticlsm on the Lett, or the supernaturali~.tic

Scholasticism on the Far .R.ight--though these had opposed

Deism all along, and did provide both positive and negative
stimuli to various aspects ot the Revolt. The Revolt proper
started within Deism itselt, in reactions within each_ot_the
two main streams, brought about by a growing awareness ot
(
the in~patibility ot their new bedtellows; and as it devel­
oped the participants in each ot these two lines searched
tor new alternatives that would carry them closer to their
original (though undefined) goals than Deism had done. Thus,
l~e
----
Deism itself, the Revolt against Deism was a
movement only during the
---
~ingle

same period ot intersection that

produced Deism. To speak ot -the" Revolt against ~Ism-­

as this paper does, tollowing what appear. to be general

 )12

hlstorlographlcal practlce--Is either to refer to two lln!s

of development diverging from a single point of reaction
(which Is the Intent of this study), or to betray a prejudice

--------
In favor of one branch (which I have earnestly tried to avoid).
This schematlzed description of the Revolt against
Deism, summarizing some of the findings Incidental to Inveatl­
gat Ion of the specific subjects of this dissertation,
Is presented here at greater length than In the Introduction
because a~ore genera l_~Iew o_~~:Ile Revolt is neede~ as a
context for conclusions about It, than for examination of
particular events within It. I observed above that a des­
cription of the Revolt Indlcates--on logical grounds-­
the centrality of the three Issues on Which the Revolt
-- - - ~ - --
Interacted with Swedenborg1s Idea of~mplrlcal re~elatlon:~
namely, 1) the philosophical question of what reality there
Is to ~~ow, and by what means knOWledge of It can be acquired
and validated; 2) the ecclesiastical question of what to ~

with neWly perceived knowledge (or older knowledge neWly

recognized as valid), that Is, whether to reform the church
or separate from It; and 3) the ps~h~og!.£!.~ question of
what new knowledge reveals about the knOWing capacity of man,\
and how new understanding of the knOWing process clarifies
the problem of knowledge. In the context of the description
Just given, this centrality ~ecomes clear. At the beginning /
of a Revo It, both 11 nes of deve 1 opment I nvo 1~ ~rch
for ontological and eplst~mQloglcal pre8~pposltlons more
 313

satisfactory (in different vays) than those of Del~m.

Swedenborg's idea was one of many ideas which were examined

In these two searches. Particularly through ~tlnger, It
made a contribution to the second stream, the search for
. ­
a more Inclusive and more ho~lstlc ontolog~ a~ ~plstemology.

Parallels and/or c~t, as well as overt, Influences of

this contribution are found......- In Romanticism
~
--~. ---
r-­
and -­
Ideallsm-~

and, more diluted, In

time, Swedenborg's Idea
'Theosoph~ and
-
provoked a
-
Theism. At the same
reaction, particularly
through Rant, that furthered the philosophical search In the
opposite direction. By epitomizing the problems of epistem­
ological ~ertalnty (since Rant's best efforts could neither
confirm nor deny the truth of Swedenborg1s claim), It provi­
ded the negative stimulus for the establishment of boundar­
Ies which would confine knOWledge within the limits ot
certainty. Delineation of those boundaries In the Critical
Philosophy xcluded r~velatlon and psychic perception trom
philosophy, and opened the door to modern Humanism and
Positivism.
For those who had adopted a post-deist ontology and
epistemology, the problem of a new relation to the estab­
lished churches arose; for those churches were either delstlc
or (worse yet) pre-delst In principle or practice or both.
- ---- ,
For those tending away trom religious concerns, the choice
was between condemning the Church or Ignoring It; but this
was not the ecclesiastical Issue raised In connection With
 314

Swedenborg's idea.
-
For those tending toward more inclusive
principles of religious knowledge--the Moravians were aft
early example,·· and the Methodists a later one--the option va.·
reform or separation.
e
Most clearly in the case of Methodi ••,
reform was attempted, but separation resulted. The Issue
was raised sharply by those in England who had already adopted
a ~~list-tending alternative to Rationalism, and on that
account accepted the philosophical implications of Sveden-
borg's claim without question. The Issue was more precl ••
than wfth~odl~m~ It can be argued that Vesley -fell-
into s'paratism, propelled by the momentum of his unsystea-
-- ----
atized reform when it tripped over the rigid conservatisa
of the Establishment. The Swedenborgians, on the other hand,
~no momentum. Thj recc:!ved, in a piece, a fully_ d~!.oped

~ystem of !!ligious th~ught, founded on anti-d~ist assump-

tions that made it incompatible with the theology of the
Establishment; they felt compelled to do something.with It,
and this required, first of all, a fully consciou!. C!ecis i Oft
i
to reform or to separate. The first thought ~s to~

The second--probably under direct influence from the Method-

Ists' experience, transmitted by James Hindmarsh--vas ~

~ Separation won the day. The reason why separation

proved to be so much morc auspicious a move for the Methodists
than for the S~edenbcrgians, Is not the issue here. The point
is tr~t in what amount~d to a paradigm case or the ecclesias-
t1eal !5sue )osed by an Intellectual revolt in religion,
 )IS

~m vas reJected, and se~rJ~on chosen, and reasons tor

the cho ice were made exp li cl t in publ~shed controversy between
churchmen who agreed in every respect except this issue.
It has been pointed out above, that separation does not
appear to have been necessitated by Swedenborg1s idea consid­
ered in itself, because the anti-separatists could cite.
Swedenborg as well as the separatists. Likewise, there
appears to have been nothing in the logic of the Revolt
against Deism that inherently favored separation over retora.
{(Nevertheless, separation vas the conscious choice in thi.
case; and the ~story of revolutions in religious thought
( throughout Western history includes m~r!-!e~ords ot separa­
"'-- tion than of reform/hhe Council at Jerusalem [Acts is], and
the Reformation, for two examples). If there is an explanation
for this tendency--and its actualization in the case ot sect­
arian Swedenborgianism--it would appear to lie, as mentioned
above, in the interaction between ~he iJeal and the.movement,
------
since it is not apparent ·in e!the:- one .:onsldered in Itselt.
We will return to this question under the next heading.
For those participants in the Revolt who had adopted
a post-deist philosophy. and settled the subsequent ecclesi­
astical issue for themselves. further questions arose. The
question prompted by Swedenborg1s idea of empirical revela­
tion, was the psychological issue. already defined.) It was
only those ~hose personal revolt again~t Deism tended in the
more inclusive, holhtlc direction ~"hat were incllnei to take
 316

Swedenborg seriously enough to react to him at all by this

stage of the Revolt; the other branch had diverged too far

- -
to be interested in his specifically religious, church­
----
cen_~e~ system. One was JOhn~i} another was Herder.
Wesley's treatment of the psychological issue was somewhat
simplicistic, but interesting because of its use of unstated
behaviorist assumptions that were characteristic (though no
more explicit) of his own contribution to the Revolt.
was much more subtle, and more provocative--particularly .0,
because it brought together two independent contribution. to
the Revolt against Deism, Swedenborg's idea of empirical
revelation, and~hlelermacher's idea that religious feeling
[ and intuition J"r::e ....£~ t~o~ic formu~ons, and provide
a ground of religious understanding independent of dogmatic
differences. From the perspective afforded by this COmbina­
tion of ideas, Herder was able to interpret Swedenborg's claim
with such originality that he simultaneously reconciled Kant'.
and Oetinger's opposing interpretations, and suggested a
wholly new approach in the Revolt's s~chJfor_~e~ gr~~s

-
of religious knOWledge and certainty. Admittedly, this
Herder's idea, not Swedenborg's; but it was the radical nature
~.

of Swedenborg's claim, and the explicit ontological, epistemo­

logical .nd psychological theories inherent in it, that made
SweJenborg's idea the basis for Herder's breakthrough. In
th1!l sense,~der'~ nEmanuel Swedenborg" vas a Joint contri­
bution to th~ Revolt against Deism, by Herder and Swedenborg.
 317

The fact this breakthrough occurred at the end of Herder's

life, and was left without a champion, has alre$dy been des­
cribed as a consequence of the Interaction of different lines
of transmission Of Swedenborg's Idea. Since It was Shleler­
~ s contribution to the Revolt, combined with the stage
of the Revol t which ~e-;j had reached, Which resul ted In
this use of Swedenborg's Idea; and the manner of trans­
mission of Swedenborg's Idea which helped to block develop­
ment of Herder's contribution; this situation may be viewed
as one Instance of the Interaction between the Idea and the
movement.

General Conclusion.

Another area of Interaction resulted In a circumstance

that was noted at length In the beginning of Chapter Two,
and has been mentioned elsewhere. In Germany of the 1760'.
and '70's, all discussion of Swedenborg's Idea was focussed
/~ .
on Its( phllsophlcal Impllcations. In England of the 1770's
and '80's, philosophical assumptions were made In passing,
" - ~
and the live Issue In connection with Swedenborg's Idea was
the ecclesiastical problem. The two men who raised the
psychological Issue in 1783 and 1803 both had considered and
settled the philosophical and ecclesiastical Issues Involved
with the Revolt against Deism some years before. Was this
geographical and tidiness accidental, or was It the conse­
quence of some Influence broad enough.to have affected the
 )18

very dIverse IndIvIduals Involved? A varIety of explanatIons

were suggested In Chapter Two: natIonal characterIstIcs,
producIng tendencIes toW>rd actIon or analysIs, toward organI~­

atIon or dIscussIon, toward unItary acceptance or the making

of critical dlstlnctfons, all appeared equally plausible
as explanations of the data In the first two chapters. Re­
suits of the whole study, however, are more decisive. Natlon­
al characteristics 'seem to have little or nothIng to do with
the case. The phlloso hlcal I!s~d first In every
caseuln. connection with Swedenborg In Germany; In__connectlon :11
-£. wlthC!erwej1, ~w ndt~-:..n England before Swedenborg N
~Into the picture; similarly ~co~ctlon wlth~a!

--
In France. Also In every case, those who dealt originally
with the philosophical Issues Ignored ecclesiastical ones.
It was those who had Inherited fully developed ~delst

(or post-deist) phIlosophIcal positions that became concerned

with the ecclesIastIcal questIon, and In all three national
tradltIons- English, German and French -this further step
occurred, wIth about the same tIme span Intervening. (There
was, In fact, another step, concern with theological Issues,
that occurred In all cases between the philosophical and the
ecclesIastical; sometimes those who worked out the phlloso~h­

Ical problem made the transItIon to the .... (as

th~ologlcal

wIth Oetlnger), and sometimes those who developed ecclesiast­

Ical concerns b~an wIth a theologIcal Interest (as wIth
~ - ­
- Hartley~(C'low~s"
_ .~
and·--H1ndmarsh); the theological Issue was not
--l._
 treated in this paper, because it arose in connection with
other aspects of Swedenborg's system than his idea of empir­
ical revelation.)
On the basis of these observations, it appears con­
clusive that the geographical and chronological unity or
discussions or individual issues, and the sequence in which
they were discussed, was stro~gly influenced--probably
determined--by the inherent logic of lhe progression or the
movement, and by the particular stage in the developmen~

of theirQ~~~~}_:~volts that the individuals were in ~en

-
they encountered Swedenborg.
.
So the nature of t~e intel­
lectual movement certainly affected SW~~~b~~g!-s !~ea. It I.
reasonable to extrapolate from this evidence drawn rrom
Swedenborg 1 s commentators, the hypothesis that the same
forces affected him in the formulation or his idea. He \
(~Joinedft the Revolt against Deism with a need for an antl- I
~;ist philosophy: having sought i;~~~~~~YSloI09y
and psychology, he found it in his psy~~~c experiences; then
convince~ the validity and adequacy of ~~~~logy and
epistemolo _ he proceded to the the~~ic~tage. True
to the pattern, he never felt any pe.sonal urgency about
--- - - - - -
ecclesiastical questions (which may explain his ambiguity
-
~
lconCerning the new church he prophesied--w~!..ther_1t signl- \,

- -
)fied a new or a re-newed institution), and he died an un­
reservedly conI~ssing
-
Lutheran. To this hypothesis about
the Revolt's influence on 5wedenborg's formulation or his
 .320

Idea, can be added the direct evidence Just cited of the

Revolt's Influence on later development and transmission of

the Idea.

One final conclusion can be dealt with more briefly,

because most of the data has been cited above, under the

headings of Swedenborg's Idea, and The Revolt against Deism.

In both these sections, the option for seetarlanlsm was

noted, with Its concommltant attributes of rlg~d o~doxy

1~I~t~~p~etatlons~ and polemical attitudes toward parallel

as well as conflicting traditions. In both contexts, It

was noted that the dev~ent of sectarianism, occurring

three times out of three opportunities In this study (even

when, as In~many, It was prohibited by law from assuming

(
visible institutional form), and In notable parallels as well,

seems to call for an explanation which was not afforded

either by the nature of the Idea or the nature of the move­

ment.

The Impact of an Idea upon a movement (either poten­

tial, or In progress) I~lates a reaction \l[J:lJ_~h_~rodJ1 ea an. 1\
--
Issue which results In a new position of some kind. If rellg­
louI values and convictions are Involved, as with the Revolt
against Deism, the new position progresses from analysis of
?hllosophlcal presuppositions, to theological doctrlne~ based
on those presupp~sltlons, and then comes face-to-face with
its decision on the ecclesiastical hsue. Apl}llrcilLly, the
option Is between reform and separation, and the decision
 ~l

between these alternatives is made on the basis of supposed

imperatives inherent in the new theological position. But
the new position is inevitably weak, vis-i-vis the establish­
ment it faces--weak in numbers, weak in ecclesiastical
and governmental connections. Unless the i~t~ll_e_ctual re­ 1
~ rVOlltitiiS alccompalntieid or immedtiabtielliYt preiCtededtbiY sfoCial afnd/or .
-~ LPO
-
ca, revo u on ~ s
is pale indeed.
i ~ y, s op on or re orlll
In England, France and Germany, the estab­
lished churches were so~idl establishe~n_they~r$ 1­
len~ed by the new po~tion of Swedenbo~~ianism; England and
Germany were reasonably stable, and the Catholic Church was
.the most stable and well-entrenched element in France of the

-
1790's. If in addition, as was the case with the Revolt
against Deism, the intellectual movement is·wide-spread
and pluralistic, the new posi~ion has to contend not only
with the Estab!i~hment, but with !he proliferation of new
p~siti~ns;!lit must distinguish and defend itself from· all
of_~hem.~ Under these conditions--which are inherent in the 11
circumstance of an intellectual revolt--the apparent option
m~ w~ll be in fact a shamt Early arrivals to the cclesias­
)
~E.sue. delighted with the .Iewness ot the position,
and relatively free from persecution lsince they pose no
11 ,
great threat to the Establishment or to competing new posi­ I~ I

tIons at fIrst). are more likely to see the optIon as vIable,

.,ld to expect theological criteria to.be de~1s1ve. Thla
descrIbes Hartley and Clowes, and--at tIrst. Robert Hlnd~arsh.
 322

But the exigency of the situation--or, in advance of a crisis,

a practical voice of experience, like James Hindmarsh, fresh
from Wesley' sinner councils __makes the reali.ty plain. The
)I option is not reform or separ~ion, but separation or retreat
from theological conviction to philosophical satisfaction.
In cases of fresh conversion of religious attitudes, goals
and values, that la~option is ~9 option at all. In the
in!~action of ideas and movements of religious thought,
the impact of an Idea produces consequences in the movement
~
Which, r~roact1ng~n the idea, force it )n~either sec-~ I

t~ anism or oblivlon.~
.,,'
 323

NarES _ CCNCLUSICN

17-18, 19, and 21.

Paranoia," Zentral­

3Above , p. 312; and Chapter 3.

 BIBLIOORAPHY

Balzac, Honore de. Oeuvres Comp1~tes. Vols. XX-XXI.

tdition nouvelle etablle par La Societe des Etudes
Ba1zaciennes. Paris: Club de llhonnete homme, 1961.
Barruel, Abbe Augustin de. Memoires pour servir a l'histolre
du Jacobinisme. 5 vols. Hambourg: P. Fauche, 1803.
Bayley,

Beilby, A. E. Rev. Thomas Hartley, A.M. London: Ne~ Church

Press, 1931.

~~B~e.nz, Ernst. "Swedenborg als geistiger Wegbahner des

deutschen Idealismus und der deutschen Ro~antlk,"
Deutsche Viertel Jahrschaft fur Literatur~issenschaft
und Gefstes9sschichte. XIX (1940, 1-)2.
• SW~denbora in Deutschland: F. C. Oetingers und
--------~l~~nanu~Kants Auseinandersetzun mlt der Person und
eh.!e.:.r;~3nu,,- "'JeJenborgs. ran urt: Vlttorlo
RTOstermann, 1948.
• "Swedenborg und Lavater. Uber die rellg18sen
---~u(ldlagen der Physiognomik," :!eitschrift flIr

Kircheng~s~hichte, LVII (l938);-T52~16.

LBerger~ Pierre. William Blake: Mysticisme et Po~sie.

. Paris: Societe fran~aise d l imprlmerle et de libralrlt,
1907.
Blake, William. The Marria e of Heaven and Hell. Illuminated
and printed by the author between-- -1827. Original
in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. This copy made
from a facsimile. London: J. M. Dent & Sons Limited,
1927.
Cassirer, Ernst. Das Erkenntniss roblem in

und Wissenschaft der euren e t.

Berlin: Verlag von Bruno casslrer,

~vrier Edmund.
\ hretienne Histoire Sommaire de la Nouvel1e £911se
fondee sur les doctrInes de Swedenborg .
~ar Un And de la Nouvelle Egllse. Paris: L1bulrle,
( f , rue thenard, 1879.

Clark, R. T., Jr. Herder, His Life and Thought. Berkeley:

University of California Press, 1955.

Compton, Theodore (ed.) The Life and Letters of the Rev.

John Clowes. London: $peirs, 1874.
Cragg, Qerald R. Reason Rnd Authority in the Eiehteenth
Century. C3mbrldge:-un1verslty Press, 1 64.
• The Church and the Age of Reason: 1648-1789.
----~Nr-ew York: Atheneum, 1961.
Cuno, Johann Christian. Memoirs on Swedenbor~. Editor,
Scheler. Translator~~ Bernlnger. bryn Athyn, Pa:
Academy Book Room, 1947.
 326

DIAIllant de la Touche. Abrege de ouvrages d' Em. Swedenb2,!:.!z,

contenant la doctrIne de la Nouvelle Jerusalem­
celeste, precede ~UD discours ou lion examIne la vie
de l' auteur, le enre de ses ecrlts, et leur rl! ort
all temps present. toe 0 m trasbourg: reu tel,
1788.--
CDavie; J. G. The Theolol~ of Will iam Blake. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 48 •.
Donne, John. "The Anatomy of the World," Works in Six

Volumes. V~. Edited by Henry Alford. London:

John W. Par er, 1839.

Dorner,

Ehmann, K. c. E. (ed.) Friedrich Christoph Oetingers Leben

und Briefe, als urkundlicher Commentar zu dessen

Schrlften. Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf, 18$9.

Edwin J. The Real Blake, A Portrait BiO~raphY,

New York: McClure, PhIIIIps, and Co., 1 01.
Ernesti, Johann August. uArcana Coelestia.· (Review) in
Neue Theologische Bibl1othek, Vol. I, (Leipzig, 1760),
515-$27 •. _
• "Doctrina novae Hierosolyma de Domino, et de
--------~S-criptura Sacra, it. Doctrina Vitae pro Nova Hieroso­

lyma ex Praeceptio Decalogi, & de Fide it. Continu­

atis de ultimo Judicio & de Mundo Spirituali."

(Review) Neue Theologische Bibl1othek, IV, (1763) 8,

725-733.

• "Einleitung in die Religion und Theologie, von

--------~R~. Clemm," Neue Theologische Bibliothek, Vol. VIII,

(Leipzig, 1767). .

• Institutio InterEretatis Novi Testamenti.

--------'(TleipzIg: R. M. G. Weldmannl et Relchum, 1765) Trans­

lated into English by Terrot, Vols. 1 & 4 of "The

Practical Cabinet," Edinburg: T. Cl ark, 1832.

• "Theologia ex Idea vitae deducta • • • Auctore

----~--TF~I. Frid. Christ. Oelinger • • • Francof. et Lipziae,
1765." (Review) Neue Theologische Bibl1othek, Vol. VI
(1765) 7, 617-643.
 327

Fischer, Kuno. Geschichte der neueren Philosophie. 4 vols.

Heidelberg: FrIedrIch Bassermann, 1865-69. Vol. Ill.

Galllei, Galileo. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World J)

Systems. Translated by StIllman Drake. Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1953.
I~ Etienne, and Langan, Thomas. Mo~ Philoso1~' ) \
~ pescartes to Kant. New York: Random House, 9 3.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Goethes Werke. 134 vols.

---- Weimar: Hermann Bohlau, 1887-1912.

Greene, Theodore M. "The Historical Context and ReligiOUS )"

_SJ..gnificance of Kant's Religion," forematter-rn--­

I. Kant, Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone.
Translated by t. M. Greene & R. H. Hudson. New York:
Harper & Brothers (Torchbook), 1960.
Hagenbach, Karl Rudolph. German Rati~nallsm, In Its rise,
ro ress and decline, in relation to the theolo lans,
se 0 ars, poets, ph osoEhers, and the peop e: a
contribution to the church history of the eighteenth
and nIneteenth centurIes. Translated by Gage and
Stuckenberg. EdInburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1865.
Hartley, Thomas. Letter to Clowes. "10 the Reader,- In
E. Swedenborg, True ChrIstian Religion. (London 1781)
4th Edition. London: C. w.
Leadbeater, 1796.
• Letter to Swedenborg, 2 Aug. 1769. in R. L.

--------~I~afel. Documents ConcernIng Swedenborg. Vol. 1.

• "Mistakes concerning Religion, etc." In Sermons

------;;:o';:;:n Various Subjects. 2nd ed. London: R. Manby, 1755.
"Preface," to E. Swedenborg, Heaven and Hell.
(London: Theosophical Society, 1778), 2nd ed.,
London: R. Hindmarsh, 1784.
"Preface," to Treatls~ on the Nature of Influx:
or, of the Intercourse between the Soul a~d the BodY,etc.
1st AmerIcan edItIon from the 3rd En~llsh ~JTtron.
Boston: Thomas & Andrews, 1794.
• "A Short Defense of the Mystical Writers, etc.­
--~----'i-n Paradise Restored, etc. London: M. Richardson,

1764·

 328

Haym, R. Herder, nach seinem Leben und seinen Werken.

2 vols. Berlin: R. Gaertuer, 1880-8$.
Hazard,

Edited by Bernhard Suphan.

Henrici, Carl Friedrich.

12
 329

Hindmaf'sh, Robert. The Ri se and Progress of the New Jerusalem

Church. London: Hodson & Son, 1861.

Hitschmann, Eduard. "Swedenbor~ls Paranoia,ft Zentralblatt

fur Psychoanalyse, III (1912), 32.

Hoppe, Hans. "Die Kosmogonie Emanuel Swedenborgs und

Kantsche und LaPlacesche Theorie," Archiv fOr
Geschichte der Philosophie XXV (19121), I, 53-68.
Horn, Friedemann. jSclre-l·1-rn~t:fncr-swe~:Ein Beitra
zur Problemqesc chte des deutschen dea smus und
zur Geschichte Swedenbor~n Deutschland; nebst
einem Arihanq uber R. ~~ra~~ und sowie Ergttnzungen
zu R. Schneiders Forschungen, Marburg Doctoral Diss.
Zurich: Swedenborg-Verlag, 1954.
~ )_Human~ C. La Nouvelle Jerusalem d1apres Les Enseignements
dlEmmanuel Swedenborg. Paris: Pantheon, 18B9.
Jaspers, Karl. Strindberg und van Gogh; Versuch einer
~athograpJdschen Analyse unter vergleichender
;crdnziehun~ von $\ledenborg und H3'1derlf~remen:
r: Storm, I 49.
Jung, (genannt Stilling) Johann Heinrich. Sammtllche Verke.
Vol. VI. Stuttgart: J. Scheible's Buchhandlung, 1841.
Kant, Immanuel. Kantls qesammelte Schriften. K8niglich
Preussiscnen-Akactemle der YIssenschaften edition,
Vols. I, 11, X. Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1902-22.
 330

Kronenberg, Moritz. Rant: Sein Leben, und Seine Lehre.

MUnchen: C. H. Beck, 1897.
Lavater, Johann Kaspar. Fragen und Briefe weiser und~uter
Menschen. Translated excerpt pubIlshed by OUiiiiar
Tobisch in "Lavater and Swedenborg," New Church
Review, XL (1933) (pp. 210-233), 216-218.
______~~. Letters to Swedenborg (1768). Translated In
Tafel, Documents.
Law, ot

Lechler, Gotthard Victor. Geschichte des Enalischen ·Delsmus.

Stuttgart/Tubingen: J. G. Cotta, 18 1.
Lewls, John. Announcement of "Arcana Coelesti~· Vol. 2.
(1850) In Tafel, Documents. Vol. 2.
Manuel,
)1
r-~a sson,

~ullensiefen, !heodor. Leben und Wlrken von Dr. Joh. Fr.

Immanuel Tafel. Basel: Ferd. Rlehm, 1868.
[Minutes.] Minutes of the TWelfth General Conference of the
Ministers, Leaders, and RepresentatIves From the
socIeties of The N."w Ch'lr_ch s..!.~nIfied by the New
Jerusa:em, In the RevelatIon: . eld At Derb , from
Tuesday the 10th to Thursday the th of August,
1819. London: Goyder, 1819.
[Minutes.] Minutes of the Eleventh General Conference ot
the ~fnI~ters, L~8ders, and De18vates from the
Societies of The jqew Church SIgn fled by the New
derusalem In the Rcwelation: Held ilt ITerbr' from
Tue sday the 11 th, to Fr i day, the 14th of ugus t., 1818.
IOIrKron: Goyder, 1818.
[Ml~~tes.] Journal of Proceerllngs of the Fifteenth General
~onven'\()n-or-R,-ceIvBr: of the Ooct~s of the New
l~~~~G0...'- [':::;'--:.!fiIt,i-j-Sta tes. __ ~l-,~}d rn£i13-~r
Rr>sL,,, on Thursd:~y;--Frlday, "!Id .)oturday, June,
'7, 8, 1833. .
 331

Minutes of the Twenty-fourth General Conference

McGiffert, Arthur Cushrnan. Protestant Thourht before Kant.

New York: Charles ScrIbner's Sons, 929.
Noack,

Noble, Samuel.

Nouvelle Biographie Generale. Edited by Hoefer. 46 vols. ",)

Parts: FirmIn Dldot Freres, Fils et Cie, 1857-1866.
Odhner, Carlo Th. Robert Hindmarsh. Philadelphia: Academy
Book Room, 1895.

>(

Qetinger, Friedrich Christoph. Corresoondence with Swedenborg.

Translated In Tafel, Documents (See Below).
__________ • rragen und Antworten zur Prufung der Schweden­
borgischen ['zhren. (l"lurrhardt: 17671 Printed In Ben~,
"Swedenbcrg In Deutschland," (see above) 291-)08.
• Fr!edrich Christo~h Qetingers Leben und Brlete,
-----ars ur1<undllch~l' l:<)f:'Ji... ntar -zu .j;,.~·;~nSCEr1lten.
!dTted by-~e.-r;--rnmann. lS'eeehiiiann.}
 ))2

Oetinger, Friedrich Christoph. F. C. Oetin~ers sammtllche

Schriften. Part 11, vols. I & 2. dited by R. c.
t. Ehmann. Stuttgart: J. F. SteInkopf, 1833-1858.
err, John. En~lish Deism: Its Roots and its Fruits.
Grand apIds: Erdmans, 1934.
Penny, Stephen. Letter to John L ewis.
Documents Vol. 11 (See below).
-- .
PrInted in Tafel,

[Periodical.] Magazin fUr die Neue Kirche. I. Band ltes

Heft. Edited by J. F.!. Tafe1. TUbIngen: l8~
[
---- .] New Church Life (Bryn Athyn, Pa •..) XV (1895).
[ . .] New Church Magazine (London) X (1891).
[ .] The Aurora; or, The Dawn of Genuine Truth, Vol. I
(May l799-AprI1 1800) London: 1799.
.] The Intellectual Repository and New'Jerusalem

-------r.MagazIne. London~

.] The New Church Review. Boston: Massachusetts

-------nNew-Church UnIon.

________.] The New Jerusalem Magazine. Boston: Otls Clapp.

Pernety, Antoine Joseph. Les Merveilles du ciel et de llenfer,
------ et des terres planetaTrs et astrales. Par Emanue~ de

Swedenborg, d1apres le temoirnage de ses yeux et de

ses oreilIes. 2 vols. Berlin: G. J. DecKer, 1782.

~embers of the New

Baron Swedenbor •

Progoff, Ira. Depth Psychology and Modern Man. New York:

The Jufian Press, Inc., 1959.
Proud, Joseph. A Candid and Impartial Replv to the Rev. Dr.
Priestle~Letters, Addre~~~~ D~' Hi,~n to the fVlembers
of the l'cew~erlJsalem, in \':ilichlri-;;-a,;~ctions Are
f'e l2:...!..l.:~lS idcred, andthe Docl'.r i'ne-s--Cunta Ined In
the TheoloJLlca.L 1<£dtJ.!1J:fs of the -Ho·n. Emanuel S",edenborg,
Vin<rrcated !'rom 1'<eason and Scripture. BIrmIngham:
J. Be1cher, 1791.
Richer, Edouard, La Nouvelle J6ruQalem, di~sertations,
- cl'itku~s, melanges. t'arE:-'I'riiitt"eT it--Vurt.; et
Janel et COlelle, 1835.
 333

Roby,

Roos, Jacques. Aspects Litteraires du M sticisme Philoso hi ue

et 1 1 influence de Boehme et de wedenborg au debut u
Romantlsme: WIllIam Blake, NovaIls Ballanche. Strasbourg:

~ ---
P. H. HeItz, 1951.
, Saintes, Amand. A Critical History of Rationalism in Germany,
from its orIgIn to the Present Time. Translated from
~ ,the Second EditIon of the French original. London:
Simpkin, Marshall and Co. 18~9.
The Battl~ for the Mind. London: Heinemann,

Sewall,

•
"Personal Reminiscences of Dr. J. F. Immanuel
--------~T~afel." (Printed article, source unknown) from the

Archives of the New Church Theological School.

Schlieper, Hans. Emanuel Swedenborgs system der Naturphilo­

sophie, besonders In seIner BezeIfiung zu GOethe­

Herderschen Anschauugen. Inaugural dissertation.

Berlin: Gilstave Schade (Otto Franke) 1901.

Sigstedt, Cyriel Odhner. The Swedenborg

Bookman Associates, 1952. .

~pic. -'
New York:

Sinderen, Adrian Van, L. H. D. Blake: The Mystic Genius.

Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse UniversIty Press, 19~9 • )

.anchester.
Sou they, Robert. Letters from England: by Don Manuel Alvarez

Espriella. Tran01ated from the ~panlsh. (Rep~lnt of

tne fIrst edItion of 1807) ~dited by Jack Simmons.

London: Cresset Press, 1951.

Ste~hen and Lee, editors. Dlction~ry of National B'oBr3PhY~

44 vols. London: SmIth, Elde, & Co~Jrr>:r9 3.

 334

Swedenborg, Emanuel. (Unless otherwise noted, all works are

(available in a number of English
(translatiohs, including those of the
(Swedenborg Foundation, New York; most
(quotations are drawn from these editions.
(Also, unless otherwise noted, all
(references are to paragraph numbers,
(rather than to pages, the former being
(uniform in all editions and transla­
(tions. )
• Adversaria. (Written 1745-46, published post­
--------rh-umously by J. F. I. Tafel, TUbingen: Verlagsexpedi-
tion, 1842-47, six volumes.) References are also
!(
given for the English translation, which has incom­
patible paragraph numbers: The Word Explained,
10 vols. Bryn Athyn, Pa.: The ACademy of the Ntw
Church, 1948-51.
• A20calypsis Explicata. (The Apocalypse Explained
---------a-ccordlng to Its spirItual sense, wherein are revealed
the mysteries there foretold.) 4 vols. (Written in
1745-59, published posthumously by Robert Hindmarsh.)
London: Robert Hindmarsh, 1785-89.
. .• Apocalyp~is Revelata. (The Apocalypse Revealed,
-----~ereIn are~Isclosed the mysteries there foretold,
which have hitherto remained concealed.) Amsterdam:
publisher unknown, 1766.
• Arcana Coelestia, etc. (The Heavenly Mysteries,
--------w~hich are In the Sacred Scripture or the Word of the
Lord, disclosed.) 8 vols. London: John Lewls,
.1749-$6.

• De Commercio Animae et Corporis, etc. (The

--------'I~ntercourse between the Soul and the Body, which
is supposed to take place either ~y physical influx,
or by spiritual influx, or by pre-established har­
mony.) London: 1769.
• De Divino Amore et de Divina Sapientia. (Angelic
---~Tsdom concerning the dIvIne love and the divine wis- .
dom.) New York: American Swedenborg Printing and
Publishing Society, 1890.
 335

• De Tellurlbus In Mondo nostro Solarl, etc.

--------~(=Earths In the Universe; or, Earths In our Solar
System which are called planets, and the earths
In the starry heavens; their Inhabitants, and
also the spirits and angels there; from things
heard and seen.) London: 1758.
• De Ultimo Judicio, etc. (The Last JUdgment
~-------a-nd the DestructIon of Babylon, showing that what
was foretold In the Book of Revelation has been
fulfilled In the present day; from things heard
and seen.) London: 1758.
Dlvlna Provldentla. (Angelic ~Isdom concerning
the DIvIne Providence.) Amsterdam: 1764.

________~. Journal of Dreams. Translated from the Swedish ~

by Rev. C. th. Odhner. Bryn Athyn, Pa.: The Academy
Book Room, 1918.
• Oeconomla Regnl Anlmalls. (The usual English
--------Tt7Itle~onomyof the AnImal Kingdom" is mislead­
Ing; "Function (or !tructure) of the Domain or the
Soul" is more descriptive of the work.) English
trans. London: Newbery, 1845-6.
• Prlnclpla Rerum Naturallum, etc. (The First
--------~P~rlncIples of~tural thIngs, being newatte.mpts
toward a phllosophlcal explanation of the ele­
mentary world.) "Part I" of Q2era PhlloHokh!Ca
et Mlneralla, 3 ,01s. Dresderi/LeIpzig: e e ,
1734. Eng. trans. 2 vols. London:~. Newbery,
1845-6. .
• Prodromu~ Philosophise ratloclnatls de Infinite
-------::-e·t causarlnall Creat}oni~. degtl€ m·?cnitiTsmo opera­
AnIm'le etcorporis. rrOn the Infinffi n or, "P"re­
TTrnJ-nary attempt at "a philosophical argument on the
Infinite, and on the final cause of Cre~tlon; and
on th2 mechanism of the operation of the Soul and
BOdy.) Dresden/Leipzig: Hekel, 1734.
• ~num AnlmaJe, etc. (The Animal Kingdom
(I.e., t:,,:: ~OUfTSlloma fil) considered anatomically,
physlcJily and philosophically.) 1743-44. Several
volumes of this work were projected, but it was
 336

dropped at the beginning of Swedenborg1s psychic

experiences. Of the volumes edited and published
posthumously, two are cited in this work: De Anima,
(q. v.) and Part I (On the viscera of the abdomen;

J
which also includes a "Prologue" to the whole work.)
Eng. trans., London: W. Newbery, 1843.
• The Spiritual Diary of Emanuel Swedenborg:
Being the Record During Twenty Years of His Super­
natural Exherlence. 5 vols. Eng. trans. by Prof.
George Bus • London: James Speirs, 188)-1902.
• Vera Christiana Re1i~io. (True Christian
--------~R~eligIon.) Amsterdam: 1771.

• Letter to Hartley, 1796. Originally published

--------~b~y Rev.T. Rartley, as Responsum ad Epistolam ab
amico ad me scriptam. (London: 1769.] In Taid,
Documents. (See below.)

Tafe1, Johann Friedrich Immanue1. A Letter to the Rev.

Manning B. Roche, of the New Jerusalem Church.
PhIladelPhia: Thomas A. Maanlng, 1830.

• Swedenborq und seine Gegner, oder Be1euchtung

--------~d~~r Lehren,und Berlchte Swedenborgis gegentber den
Entstellungen und AngrIffen s~Jner ~Gnhl-~~glelch
eln BejtTa~zur Dogmatlk und J08m~ngesc c te.
Drltter he I-Stuttgart: bei Ebner und Seubert,
1844. Vierter Theil- (Friedens-Theologie) TUbingen:
"Verlag-Expedition," 18$2.
• & Hoffacker, GeorgFriecrich. Subscrilltions und
- - - - -...P~ranumerations - Anzeige der theologliahen1Yedte des
Emanue 1 von-~~;;e<rerlborg. l-le rkll ngen: ~r;--

Tafe 1,
 337

Tlndal, Matthew. Christianity as Old as the Creation: or,

the Gos el, a Re ublicatIon the RelIgIon ofor
Nature. Vol. no second volume pubnshed).
London: (unknown) 1730.
Tobisch, Othmar. "Lavater and Swedenborg," New Church Review.
(Boston) XL (1933) 210-33.

Vaihinger, Hans. Kommentar zu Kants Kritlk der Reinen

stic.
J{
Vernunft. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Ver-Iag von w. Spemann,
1881-92.
r Viatte,

Viatte, Au uste. Victor Hugo et les illumines de son temps.

'ontreal: les Editions de I'arbre, 1942.
Waite, Arthur Edward. A New Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry.

2 vols. London: Wllllam RIder and Son, ~21.t

Walker, Williston. A History of the Christian Church.

Revised by Rlchardson, Pauch & Handy. New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1959.

Walton,.Christ. Notes and Materials for an Adeq~ate

Biorraph of the Celebrated Divine and Theoso~er,

t
wII iam aw. London: Tileosophlan Ll5rary, 18 •

Wesley, John. Works. London: Wesleyan Conference Office,

1872. 'il0'I"'S':" II I , I V, XII I •

Westfall, Richard S. Science and Reliolon in Seventeenth

Century F.ngland. New Haven: Y~le unlversity Press,

1'958. - .­
White, Helen C. The M~sticism of William Blake. Madison,
J
Wise.: Unlvers ty of Wl-;,:onsIn ;;t.li'UI'e5-inl~nguage j
and literature, 1927.

\
I
 338

WrIght, Dudley, EdItor. Gould's HIst~~f rreemasonrr

Throughout the World. 6 vo1s~~w York: Char es
ScrIbnerls Sons, 1936.
WrIght, Theodore FrancIs. ArtIcles In New Church Review.
(Boston) VII (1900)- 428-32; VIII (1901) 85-101.
v

 ~ . . . . .-. .-. . . . -- J.' J___

(I (' ~ -1+)<;))
_

~
~ ~ (;-~ '0.0.....
j CcIv­
_ (l r-e-' - c>( "...... ~
cf..< ~) f· ."fl; ~~ J.>..
J~
, I f'\ /...J
~ ".. t:;:, <- v , J,j...:j <- '--t7"->

~~ ~ ~~L : ~ c,..'v J!. ~ "r­

: u.1JJc /-'0 ~ ...

~
..Y

I / jJ J /re./~' %
~t V'-o 4. ,11.

J.-IL'~ ~"";
~ ; J /11
...

o
~~~'/
t-'
J-;-;::" - /1,9' I ~ ~I...~ ~ ~-c;~

L-~ 4'- ~(' ~J

~~ - ~ -­ '.J2 r· h '
s-----, -6.. /U J ::>
 This is an authorized facsimile and was produced
by microfilm-xerography in 1974 by Xerox Universi"
Microfi lms, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.

~kv- Z. it - l-,.. (

If, - I ~
1