Problems with Religion and Politics 365ologians did not think they would get any trouble from the Berlin officials
if they censored it themselves, he finally submitted it there. The faculty of
theology declared the book to be philosophical in nature, and therefore the
faculty of philosophy could decide whether it should be published. Kant
did not ask the philosophical faculty at the University of Königsberg. Kraus
was the dean during 1792-93, and it may have been that Kant did not want
to implicate Kraus. In any case, he sent the manuscript to Jena, where it was
approved for publication. The book appeared in time for the beginning of
the 1794 Easter Book Fair in Leipzig.
Part of the book, namely the chapter on the struggle between the good
and evil principles, had already been banned by the Berlin censors. Ac¬
cordingly, its publication could only be construed as a slap in the face of
Wöllner and his censors. They could not possibly let this pass. Kant had
to be reprimanded. This must also have been clear to Kant. It almost ap¬
pears as if he was trying to force their hand, that he was picking a fight
with the censors.
This was dangerous, as the example of Zopf-Schulz, the preacher of
atheism, had showed to everyone. Schulz had already experienced diffi¬
culties. Because of his Moral Doctrine of All Mankind and his open en¬
dorsement of determinism, he had been accused as an infidel, unfit to be
a preacher. Minister von Zedlitz had successfully defended him by draw¬
ing a distinction between Schulz, the preacher (and thus official of the
state) and Schulz, the public author. The two functions were quite dis¬
tinct - one being private, the other public. Accordingly, his public writings
could not be used to impeach his qualifications as a preacher. Yet in 1791 he
was accused again. The court asked the Oberkonsistorium whether Schulz
deviated from the basic principles of the Christian religion or from those
of the Lutheran Church. The answer came back in two parts: (1) Schulz
did deviate from Lutheran principle, but (2) he did not necessarily de¬
viate from those of religion in general. The tribunal concluded that he
should be allowed to preach because he was religious. The king was furi¬
ous, and he had Schulz removed from office in 1793 on the basis of his
deviance from the Lutheran principles. He also punished the members
of the Oberkonsistorium as well as the Probst Teller, whom he thought had
misled the members of the committee: no salary for three months. The
price for perceived heresy was not as great as it had been under Frederick
William I, but, given the lack of principles of Frederick William II, no one
could be sure how high it might be. Those who had tried to back Schulz
lost three months' salary. Schulz himself was left without any support —