82 Kant: A Biographyadhere to doctrines of the true faith.^98 Starting from Wolff and Leibniz,
he advocated a point of view that can only be called Spinozistic, thus chal¬
lenging not only the Pietists, but also the orthodox. The theologians had
major problems with its open Spinozism, but even greater ones with Fis¬
cher's specific views on the holy trinity, the denial of the doctrine that
Christ was both all human and all divine, and his denial of other theolog¬
ical dogmas. After a pastor preached openly against Fischer and his book
on New Year's Day, the book became something of a best-seller. Fischer
himself was excluded from the Eucharist. He was not allowed to remain
the godparent of his grandchild, and he was advised to go to the Reformed
church from then on."
The book was, of course, forbidden — but only after it had created a great
sensation. Curiously, it was the orthodox faction (and not the Pietists) who
moved against Fischer. Receiving in this case no opposition and even quiet
support from the Pietists, they succeeded in having the book banned, but
they did not succeed in harming Fischer beyond that. Frederick William
I, the great benefactor and protector of the Pietists, who had also at times
listened to the orthodox in religious matters, was no longer there; and
Frederick II not only advocated religious tolerance but also was an atheist.
In his youth he had praised to Voltaire Christian Wolff's Reasonable Ideas
of God, the World, the Soul of Man, and of All Things in General "as the key
to every mystery in the universe," only to be rebuffed by Voltaire. Frede¬
rick II had long outgrown such speculations, being much more skeptical
and cynical than any of the Wolffians could ever be, with a preference for
all things French in intellectual matters. He had little use for religious
squabbles in general and for those in Königsberg in particular.^100
If the Pietists and the orthodox needed any sign that the situation had
changed again, Frederick II's inaction was that sign. Defamation on purely
religious grounds would no longer succeed. As long as someone was obe¬
dient and a good citizen, the king would not interfere. On the other hand,
the events of 1744 show again and only too well that religious controversy,
persecution, and censorship continued to play a role in Königsberg, and
that the dispute between the orthodox, the Pietists, and those advocating
modern philosophy continued. These disputes were always simmering
below the surface, and it did not take much for them to erupt in heated
public debate. We may assume that Kant took an active interest in the
controversy over Fischer's book, which was very close to his own concerns.
Kant might have disagreed with Fischer's claim that his book was the proper
antidote to "atheists, naturalists, Epicureans, Stoics, and many other Free-