Problems with Religion and Politics 381by the faculty, and it was successful; after the rioting, students smashed
the windows of the hotel where the members of the commission were stay¬
ing; and after having received death threats, the commission quietly left
town.^202 The religious politics of Frederick William II was hardly a roar¬
ing success.
Kant, on the other hand, still had some writings on religious matters
ready in his desk. He had written a manuscript entitled "The Dispute of
the Faculties," but he could not publish it - at least not at this time. He
had written this essay probably between June and November of 1794 at the
invitation of Carl Friedrich Stäudlin, who had asked him whether he would
be willing to contribute to a new journal on religious studies.^203 In Decem¬
ber 1794, he wrote to Stäudlin that he had "already for some time" finished
a treatise entitled "The Dispute of the Faculties."^204 He also claimed in
this letter that he had written the "Dispute" for publication in Stäudlin's
journal, but that he now felt he could not publish it because of his prob¬
lems with the Prussian censors. Kant had at this time written the essay on
"The Dispute between the Philosophical and Theological Faculties," which
became the first part of The Dispute of the Faculties.^205
The subject matter of this essay is highly relevant to Kant's response to
the rejection of the essay "Of the Struggle of the Good Principle with the
Evil Principle for Sovereignty over Man." It not only provided justification
for his actions, but also went further in arguing that a philosopher should
not be required to submit his work to a theological faculty in the first place.
Kant was willing to play by the rules, but the rules were wrong. Granted,
theologians
have the duty incumbent on them and consequently the title, to uphold biblical faith;
but this does not impair the freedom of the philosophers to subject it always to the
critique of reason. And should a dictatorship be granted to the higher faculty for a
short time (by religious edict), this freedom can best be secured by the solemn formula:
Provident consuks, ne quid republica detrimenti capiat (Let the counsels see to it that no
harm befalls the public).^206
The philosophical faculty should be free of "the government's commands
with regard to its teachings."^207 Kant was ready to grant that the higher
faculties were, in fact, subject to the government's commands, because it had
a legitimate interest in them. But if the higher faculties were given author¬
ity over philosophy, then philosophy would no longer be free. Therefore, it
was wrong to set up theology, one of the higher faculties, over philosophy.^208
Therefore the religious edict was wrong.