While librarian of Wolfenblittel, Lessing discovered there a IMS. co])y of the long-forgotten work of Berengar Ol. V.) of Tours against l-,anfranc ((j. v. \ which proved t hat some of the views of the Lutheran Church concern- ing the doctrine of the Eucharist had already been ad- vanced by one of the most eminent teachers of the 11th centurj-. Here was an evident service to theologj', and for it he was commended bj' the theological world. Not so, however, when, with the same intent to serve, he sent forth a work which for years had been waiting for a printer and an e(Utor. It is true the work was of de- cided infidel tendency, but Lessing never could hesitate on that account to give to the world what had been in- tended fur its perusal and judgment, and he therefore sent forth "the Wolfenbiittel Fragments,'' as they are termed, in his Beilriiye zur Gesch. der Liferatur (1774- 1778), which treat, 1, of the tolerance of tlie Deists; 2, of the accusations brought against human reason in the pulpit; 3, of the imiK)Ssibility of a revelation \vhich all men could believe in in the same manner; 4, of the pas- sage of the Israelites through'the lied Sea? 5, of the O. Test, not having been written with the intention of re- vealing a religion ; G, of the history of the resurrection. The last essay, especially, called forth a storm of oppo-
sition, but this did not prevent Lessing's publishing in 1778 a final essay on the object of Jesus and of the apos- tles. With the views of these fragments, however, Lessing by no means himself coincided. See AVolfen- BUTTEL Fkagmknts. They were intended simply to induce deeper researches on the part of theologians, and to establish a more stringent system of criticism. He desired to raise from a deep lethargj-, and to purify from all imcritical elements, the orthodox whom he had so valiantly defended against neology, and proved that this was his intention by the manner in which he opposed the attempt of the nationalists to substitute the intui- tions of reason for the dictates of the heart and for the promptings of faith. " What else," he asks, " is this modern theologj'^ when compared with orthodoxy than filthy water with clear water? With orthodoxy we had, thanks to God, pretty much settled ; between it and philosophy a barrier had been erected, behind which each of these could walk in its own waj' without mo- lesting the other. But what is it that they are now doing? They pull down this barrier, and, under the pretext of making us rational Christians, they make us most irrational j)hilosophe7-s. In this ^^•e agree that our old religious sj-stem is false, but I should not like to say with you [he is writing to his brother] that it is a patch- work got up by jugglers and scmiphilosophcrs. I do not knovi' of anything m the world in which human inge- nuity has more shown and exercised itself than in it. A patchwork by jugglers and scmiphilofophcrs is that re- ligious sj-stem which they would put in the place of the old one, and, in doing so, would pretend to more rational philosophy than the old one claims." When assailed by Gcitzc (q. V.) as attacking the faith of the Church by his publication of the Fragments, he replied that, even if the Fragmcntists were right, Christianity was not there- by endangered. Lessing rejected the letter, but reserved the spirit of the Scriptures. With him the letter is not the spirit, and the Bible is not religion. "Consequent- ly, objections against the letter, as well as against the Bible, are not precisely objections against the spirit and religion. For the Bible evidently contains more than belongs to religion, and it is a mere supposition that, in this additional matter which it contains, it must be equally infallible. Moreover, religion existed before there was a Bible. Christianity existed before evan- gelists and apostles had written. However much, there- fore, may depend upon those Scriptures, it is not possi- ble that the whole truth of the Christian religion should depend upon them. Since there existed a period in which it was so far spread, in which it had already taken hold of so many souls, and in which, neverthe- less, not one letter was written of that which has come down to us, it must be possible aleo that everything which evangelists and prophets have written might be lost again, and yet the religion taught by them stand. The Christian religion is not true because the evange- lists and apostles taught it, but they taught it because it is true. It is from their internal truth that all writ- ten documents cannot give it internal truth when it has none" (Lessing's Werlce, ed. by Lachmann, x, 10, as cited by Kahnis, Hist, of German Protestantism, p. 152, 153). Lessing also distinguished between the Christian relig- ion an<l the religion of Christ; "the latter, being a life immediately implanted and maintained in our heart, manifests itself in love, and crai neither stand nor fall with the [facts of the] Gospel. The truths of religion have nothing to do with the facts of historj'" (Hurst, Rationalism, p. 154). "Althougli I may not have the least objection to the facts of the Gospel, this is not of the slighest consequence for my religious convictions. Although, historically, I may have nothing to object to Christ's having even risen from the dead, must I for that reason accept it as true that this very risen Christ was the Son of God?" Scripture stands in the same relation to the Church as the plan of a large building to the building itself. It woidd be ridiculous if, at a con- flagration, people were first of all to save the jilan ; but