WOELLNER, viil'ner, JOHANN CHRISTOPH:
Prussian minister of public worship; b. at Doberitz
(9 m. w. of Berlin) May 19, 1732; d. on his estate
near Beskow (41 m. s.e. of Berlin) Sept. 10, 1800.
He received his preliminary education at
Spandau and studied theology at Halle; was tutor in a private family, 1753-55; pastor at Gross-Behnitz,
1755-59; turned next to agriculture in the same
place; in 1766 his marriage met with opposition and
caused the anger of the king and the prevention of
advancement under that reign, though he became
canon at Halberstadt, 1768; he engaged in the study
of political economy, became interested in freemasonry, and finally in the Rosicrucians (q.v.),
entering their order and promoting heartily their
cause. In this connection he founded a lodge, a
member of which the crown prince, Frederick William, became, thus coming under the influence of
the founder, an event which led up to the affairs for
which Wöllner is remembered. To the prince
Wöllner delivered a series of lectures dealing with
Wolff the science of government, presenting to him subse
quently the manuscripts of the lectures, including
one which outlined the edict to be mentioned here
after. Its significance lay in its
suggestions of measures to be taken toward the suppression of the
Aufklarimg (see
Enlightenment)
and of the accom panying rationalism. Thus Wöllner 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 Wöllner
gain a title, when he became chief of the board of
public works; two years later he became privy coun
cilor 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 author
ship of which Wöllner 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 confes
sions the Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic,
but affirms the continuance of that customary toler
ance 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 Bo
hemian 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 doc
trinal tone of their statements is denounced [aim
ing 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 Chris
tian ieligion; the clergy and the teaching force are,
therefore, forbidden to diffuse these errors; the con
science 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 depart
ments 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 injunc
tion 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. Wöllner 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 Chris
tiance of Samuel Friedrich Nathanael Mortis (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
Wöllner to revive them brought about his retirement in disfavor and without a pension.
(C. Mirbt.)
Bibliography:
Articles in ZHT as follows: 1859, i. 3 sqq.,
1862, iii. 412 sqq.; in Zeitschrift für preusaische Geschichte
und Landeskunde, ii
(1865), 577-604, 746-774, iii. (1866),
65-95. Also M.
Philippson, Geschichte des preussischen
Staatswesens, 2 vols., Leipsic, 188082; C. Mirbt, in Christlache Welt, 1888, pp. 269 sqq.; C. Varrentrapp, Johannes
Schulze, und das hshere preusstache Unterrichtawesen in
seiner Zeit, pp. 226-232, Leipsic, 1889; K. Rieker, Die
rechtliche Stellung der evangelischen Kirche Deutschlands,
pp. 311 sqq., ib. 1893; E. FSrster,. Die Entstehung der
Preuasischen Landeskarche unter . . . Friedrich W4lhdma
111., i. 38 sqq., 95 sqq., Tübingen, 1905; ADB, sliv. 148-158.
