THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
ee
the science of government, presenting to him subsequently the manuscripts of the lectures, including one which outlined the edict to be mentioned hereafter. Its significance lay in its suggestions of measures to be taken toward the suppression of the Aufklaérung (see ENLIGHTENMENT) and of the accompanying rationalism. Thus WOllner gained a quite complete ascendancy over the mind and actions of the crown prince, the results of which appeared after the latter came to the throne as Frederick William II. in 1757. Not till 1786, however, did W6llner gain a title, when he became chief of the board of public works; two years later he became privy councilor and was put in charge of the department of public worship. Meanwhile there had been issued in 1786 a royal edict regarding the “constitutional status of religion in the German states,” the authorship of which Wé6llner later acknowledged. The edict begins with the king’s declaration of the duty of the ruler to maintain the Christian religion in Prussian territories; establishes as the chief confessions the Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic, but affirms the continuance of that customary tolerance according to which no constraint of conscience shall be permitted, this, however, on the condition that the citizen keep his views to himself without attempting to propagate them or to shake the faith of others; Moravians, Mennonites, and the Bohemian Brethren are ‘‘publicly tolerated,’ as are the Jews; but conventicles prejudicial to the nation and State are forbidden, also proselyting; the Lutheran and Reformed Churches are to retain their liturgies intact, though verbal changes are permitted; the ‘unbridled liberty” assumed by some of the Protestant clergy in respect to the doctrinal tone of their statements is denounced [aiming at the Enlightenment], and the duty of the Christian ruler is asserted to be that of maintaining the high dignity and original purity of the Christian religion; the clergy and the teaching force are, therefore, forbidden to diffuse these errors; the conscience of these men are, indeed, not to be bound, but they must cease from teaching things contrary to religion on pain of dismissal with the possibility of further punishment; the chiefs of the departments of instruction and worship are to see that the incumbents of the teaching and the spiritual offices be men whose convictions accord with the tenor of the edict.
The promulgation of the edict, though it was not without precedent, both because of the suddenness after half a century of silence, and because the ecclesiastical and teaching authorities had not been consulted, caused great astonishment. The injunction against free discussion of one’s opinions was regarded as usurpation. A storm of protest was evoked and a large literature, mostly denunciatory of the edict; it was regarded as particularly strange that Johann Salomo Semler (q.v.) of Halle sided with the pronunciamento. The members of the supreme council at Berlin protested against the edict, but in vain. Administrative measures for the enforcement of the policy thus declared were taken, and legal action was instituted against some of the more radical criticisms of the edict. Wéollner sought the introduction of a new catechism, attempted to
have a new text-book on dogmatics prepared at Halle to be used in all the Prussian universities, and established a central committee on the examination of candidates for the ministry, while, later, subordinate committees for the provinces were appointed. Minute directions were issued with regard to details, which the ministry, were expected to follow. The success of these measures was, however, small. The University of Halle finally declined to furnish the desired text-book, and the Epitome religionis Christiane of Samuel Friedrich Nathanael Morus (q.v.), of Leipsic, was chosen as basis for lectures in dogmatics. Repressive action was taken in some quarters, as against August Hermann Niemeyer (q.v.) of Halle. Attempts which were almost resultless were made to “reform” the faculty at Halle, while the attempted dogmatic reform was just as futile. On the accession of Frederick William III. (1797) the measures went out of force, and the attempt of Willner to revive them brought about his retirement in disfavor and without a pension. (C. Mrrst.)
BrsuiocrapHy: Articles in ZHT as follows: 1859, i. 3 sqa., 1862, iii. 412 sqq.; in Zeitschrift fiir preussische Geschichte und Landeskunde, ii (1865), 577-604, 746-774, iii. (1866), 65-95. Also M. Philippson, Geschichte des preussischen Staatswesens, 2 vols., Leipsic, 1880-82; C. Mirbt, in Christliche Welt, 1888, pp. 269 saqq.; C. Varrentrapp, Johannes Schulze, und das héhere preussische Unterrichtswesen in seiner Zeit, pp. 226-232, Leipsic, 1889; K. Rieker, Die rechtliche Stellung der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands, pp. 311 sqq., ib. 1893; E. Férster, Die Entstehung der preussischen Landeskirche unter . . . Friedrich Wilhelms III., i. 38 sqq., 95 sqq., Tiibingen,.1905; ADB, xliv. 148- 158.
WOLFENBUETTEL FRAGMENTS: The name given to a German deistic work published but not written by Lessing (q.v.) in the last quarter of the eighteenth century. As early as 1771, and against the advice of Nicolai and Mendelssohn, Lessing sought a publisher for the work; but the royal censor, though not openly opposing, refused to authorize the publication, and Lessing gave up the project for the time being. In connection with his duties as librarian at Wolfenbiittel he proposed to issue a series of contributions on history and literature drawn from the treasures of the library, and for this he was relieved of liability to hindrance from the censor. In the third of this series he published (1774) the first of these fragments as Von Duldung der Deisten: Fragment eines Ungenannten, for which adroit preparation had been made in the preceding number. The fourth issue (1777) was devoted to more from the “unknown,” together with comments of Lessing upon the contents of the rest. There were here five fragments which dealt with assaults of the pulpit upon reason, the impossibility of a revelation which could be satisfactorily relied upon by all men, the passage of the Red Sea by the Israelites, that the purpose of the New-Testament writings was not the revelation of a new religion, and on the history of the resurrection. While the first publication had aroused little interest, these five fragments aroused great feeling. In 1778 a further issue discussed the purpose of Jesus and the disciples. Hereupon Lessing was forbidden to publish anything more upon religious matters without official sanction, though he refused to obey. Other editions