ThefameofLessingissteadilygrowing。Yearbyyearheisvaluedmorehighly，andvaluedbyagreaternumberofpeople。Andheisdestined，likehismasterandforerunnerSpinoza，toreceiveayetlargershareofmen’sreverenceandgratitudewhenthephilosophicspiritwhichhelivedtoillustrateshallhavebecomeinsomemeasurethegeneralpossessionofthecivilizedpartofmankind。Inhisownday，Lessing，thoughwidelyknownandgreatlyadmired，waslittleunderstoodorappreciated。Hewasknowntobealearnedantiquarian，aterriblecontroversialist，andanincomparablewriter。HewasregardedasabrilliantornamenttoGermany；andapaltryDukeofBrunswickthoughtafewhundredthalerswellspentinsecuringthegloryofhavingsuchamantoresideathisprovincialcourt。ButthemajorityofLessing’scontemporariesunderstoodhimaslittleperhapsasdidtheDukeofBrunswick。Ifanythingwereneededtoprovethis，itwouldhetheuproarwhichwasmadeoverthepublicationofthe“WolfenbuttelFragments，“andthecuriousexegesiswhichwasappliedtothepoemof“Nathan“onitsfirstappearance。Inordertounderstandthetruecharacterofthisgreatpoem，andofLessing’sreligiousopinionsasembodiedinit，itwillbenecessaryfirsttoconsiderthememorabletheologicalcontroversywhichprecededit。
DuringLessing’sresidenceatHamburg，hehadcomeintopossessionofamostimportantmanuscript，writtenbyHermannSamuelReimarus，aprofessorofOrientallanguages，andbearingthetitleofan“ApologyfortheRationalWorshippersofGod。“
Struckwiththerigorouslogicdisplayedinitsarguments，andwiththequietdignityofitsstyle，whileyetunabletoacceptitsmostgeneralconclusions，Lessingresolvedtopublishthemanuscript，accompanyingitwithhisowncommentsandstrictures。
Accordinglyin1774，availinghimselfofthefreedomfromcensorshipenjoyedbypublicationsdrawnfrommanuscriptsdepositedintheDucalLibraryatWolfenbuttel，ofwhichhewaslibrarian，Lessingpublishedthefirstportionofthiswork，underthetitleof“FragmentsdrawnfromthePapersofanAnonymousWriter。“ThisfirstFragment，onthe“TolerationofDeists，“awakenedbutlittleopposition；fortheeighteenthcentury，thoughintolerantenough，didnotparadeitsbigotry，butrathersawfittodisclaimit。Ahundredyearsbefore，Rutherford，inhis“FreeDisputation，“haddeclared“tolerationofallereligionstobeenotfarreremovedfromblasphemie。“
Intolerancewasthenathingtobeproudof，butinLessing’stimesomeprogresshadbeenachieved，andmenbegantothinkitagoodthingtoseemtolerant。ThesucceedingFragmentsweretotestthisliberalityandrevealtheflimsinessofthestuffofwhichitwasmade。Whentheunknowndisputantbegantodeclare“theimpossibilityofarevelationuponwhichallmencanrestasolidfaith，“andwhenhebegantocriticizetheevidencesofChrist’sresurrection，suchastormburstoutinthetheologicalworldofGermanyashadnotbeenwitnessedsincethetimeofLuther。TherecentColensocontroversyinEnglandwasbutagentlebreezecomparedtoit。Pressandpulpitswarmedwith“refutations，“inwhichweaknessofargumentandscantinessoferuditionwerecompensatedbystrengthofacrimonyandunscrupulousnessofslander。Pamphletsandsermons，saysM。
Fontanes，“weremultiplied，todenouncetheimpiousblasphemer，who，destitutealikeofshameandofcourage，hadshelteredhimselfbehindapaltryfiction，inordertoletlooseuponsocietyanevilspiritofunbelief。“ButLessing’sartificehadbeenintendedtoscreenthememoryofReimarus，ratherthanhisownreputation。Hewasnotthemantoquailbeforeanyamountofhumanopposition；anditwaswhenthetempestofinvectivewasjustatitsheightthathepublishedthelastandboldestFragmentofall，——on“theDesignsofJesusandhisDisciples。“
ThepublicationoftheseFragmentsledtoamightycontroversy。
Themosteminent，bothforuncompromisingzealandforworldlyposition，ofthosewhohadattackedLessing，wasMelchiorGoetze，“pastorprimarius“attheHamburgCathedral。ThoughhisnameisnowrememberedonlybecauseofhisconnectionwithLessing，Goetzewasnotdestituteoflearningandability。Hewasacollectorofrarebooks，anamateurinnumismatics，andanantiquarianofthenarrow-mindedsort。LessinghadknownhimwhileatHamburg，andhadvisitedhimsoconstantlyastodrawforthfromhisfriendsmaliciousinsinuationsastotheexcellenceofthepastor’swhitewine。DoubtlessLessing，asawiseman，wasnotinsensibletotheattractionsofgoodMoselle；
butthatwhichhechieflylikedinthistheologianwashislogicalandrigorouslyconsistentturnofmind。“Healways，“saysM。Fontanes，“cherishedaholyhorrorofloose，inconsequentthinkers；andthemanofthepast，theinexorableguardianoftradition，appearedtohimfarmoreworthyofrespectthantheheterodoxinnovatorwhostopsinmid-course，andisfaithfulneithertoreasonnortofaith。“
ButwhenLessingpublishedtheseunhallowedFragments，thehourofconflicthadsounded，andGoetzecasthimselfintothearenawithaboldnessandimpetuositywhichLessing，inhisartisticcapacity，couldnotfailtoadmire。Hesparednopossiblemeansofreducinghisenemytosubmission。Hearousedagainsthimalltheconstitutedauthorities，theconsistories，andeventheAulicCounciloftheEmpire，andheevensucceededindrawingalongwithhimthechiefofcontemporaryrationalists，Semler，whosofarforgothimselfastodeclarethatLessing，forwhathehaddone，deservedtobesenttothemadhouse。ButwithallGoetze’sorthodoxvalour，hewasnomatchfortheantagonistwhomhehadexcitedtoactivity。Thegreatcriticrepliedwithpamphletafterpamphlet，invincibleinlogicanderudition，sparklingwithwit，andirritatingintheiruttercoolness。SuchpamphletshadnotbeenseensincePascalpublishedthe“ProvincialLetters。“Goetzefoundthathehadtakenuparmsagainstamasterintheartsofcontroversy，andbeforelonghebecamewellawarethathewasworsted。HavingbroughtthecasebeforetheAulicCouncil，whichconsistedingreatpartofCatholics，thestoutpastor，forgettingthatjudgmenthadnotyetbeenrendered，allowedhimselftoproclaimthatallwhodonotrecognizetheBibleastheonlysourceofChristianityarenotfittobecalledChristiansatall。Lessingwasnotslowtoprofitbythisunluckydeclaration。Questioned，withallmannerofferociousvituperation，byGoetze，astowhatsortofChristianitymighthaveexistedpriortoandindependentlyoftheNewTestamentcanon，Lessingimperturbablyanswered:“BytheChristianreligionImeanalltheconfessionsoffaithcontainedinthecollectionofcreedsofthefirstfourcenturiesoftheChristianChurch，including，ifyouwishit，theso-calledcreedoftheapostles，aswellasthecreedofAthanasius。ThecontentoftheseconfessionsiscalledbytheearlierFatherstheregulafidei，orruleoffaith。ThisruleoffaithisnotdrawnfromthewritingsoftheNewTestament。ItexistedbeforeanyofthebooksintheNewTestamentwerewritten。ItsufficednotonlyforthefirstChristiansoftheageoftheapostles，butfortheirdescendantsduringfourcenturies。Anditis，therefore，theveritablefoundationuponwhichtheChurchofChristisbuilt；afoundationnotbaseduponScripture。“Thus，byamaster-stroke，LessingsecuredtheadherenceoftheCatholicsconstitutingamajorityoftheAulicCounciloftheEmpire。LikePaulbeforehim，hedividedtheSanhedrim。SothatGoetze，foiledinhisattemptsatusingviolence，anddisconcertedbythepatristiclearningofonewhomhehadtakentobeamereconnoisseurinartandwriterofplaysforthetheatre，concludedthatdiscretionwasthesurestkindofvalour，anddesistedfromfurtherattacks。
Lessing’striumphcameopportunely；foralreadytheministryofBrunswickhadnotonlyconfiscatedtheFragments，buthadprohibitedhimfrompublishinganythingmoreonthesubjectwithoutfirstobtainingexpressauthoritytodoso。HislastrepliestoGoetzewerepublishedatHamburg；andasheheldhimselfinreadinesstodepartfromWolfenbuttel，hewrotetoseveralfriendsthathehadconceivedthedesignofadrama，withwhichhewouldtearthetheologiansinpiecesmorethanwithadozenFragments。“Iwilltryandsee，“saidhe，“iftheywillletmepreachinpeacefrommyoldpulpit，thetheatre。“Inthiswayoriginated“NathantheWise。“ButitinnowayansweredtotheexpectationseitherofLessing’sfriendsorofhisenemies。BoththeoneandtheotherexpectedtoseethecontroversywithGoetzecarriedon，developed，andgeneralizedinthepoem。Theylookedforasatiricalcomedy，inwhichorthodoxyshouldbeheldupforscathingridicule，oratleastforadirefultragedy，themoralofwhich，likethatofthegreatpoemofLucretius，shouldbe“Tantumreligiopotuitsuaderemalorum。“
HadLessingproducedsuchapoem，hewoulddoubtlesshavegratifiedhisfree-thinkingfriendsandwreakeddueliteraryvengeanceuponhistheologicalpersecutors。Hewould，perhaps，havegivenarticulateexpressiontotheradicalismofhisowntime，and，likeVoltaire，mighthaveconstitutedhimselftheleaderoftheage，theincarnationofitsmostconspicuoustendencies。ButLessingdidnothingofthekind；andtheexpectationsformedofhimbyfriendsandenemiesalikeshowhowlittlehewasunderstoodbyeither。“NathantheWise“was，asweshallsee，intheeighteenthcenturyanentirelynewphenomenon；
anditsauthorwasthepioneerofaquitenewreligiousphilosophy。
Reimarus，theableauthoroftheFragments，inhisattackupontheevidencesofrevealedreligion，hadtakenthesamegroundasVoltaireandtheoldEnglishdeists。Andwhenwehavesaidthis，wehavesufficientlydefinedhisposition，forthetenetsofthedeistsareatthepresentdayprettywellknown，andare，moreover，ofverylittlevitalimportance，havinglongsincebeensupplantedbyamorejustandcomprehensivephilosophy。Reimarusacceptedneithermiraclesnorrevelation；butinaccordancewiththerudimentarystateofcriticisminhistime，headmittedthehistoricalcharacteroftheearliestChristianrecords，andwasthusdriventotheconclusionthatthosewritingsmusthavebeenfraudulentlycomposed。Howsuchasetofimpostorsastheapostlesmustonthishypothesishavebeen，shouldhavesucceededininspiringlargenumbersoftheircontemporarieswithhigherandgranderreligiousnotionsthanhadeverbeforebeenconceived；howtheyshouldhavelaidthefoundationsofatheologicalsystemdestinedtoholdtogetherthemostenlightenedandprogressiveportionofhumansocietyforseventeenoreighteencenturies，——doesnotseemtohaveenteredhismind。
Againstsuchattacksasthis，orthodoxywascomparativelysafe；
forwhateverdoubtmightbethrownuponsomeofitsleadingdogmas，thesystemasawholewasmoreconsistentandrationalthananyofthetheorieswhichwereendeavouringtosupplantit。
Andthefactthatnearlyallthegreatthinkersoftheeighteenthcenturyadoptedthisdeistichypothesis，shows，morethananythingelse，thecrudenessoftheirpsychologicalknowledge，andtheirutterlackofwhatiscalled“thehistoricalsense。“
LessingatoncesawtheweakpointinReimarus’sargument，buthismethodofdisposingofitdifferedsignallyfromthatadoptedbyhisorthodoxcontemporaries。ThemoreadvancedGermantheologiansofthatday，whileacceptingtheNewTestamentrecordsasliterallyhistorical，weredisposedtorationalizetheaccountsofmiraclescontainedinthem，insuchawayastogetridofanypresumedinfractionsofthelawsofnature。Thismethodofexegesis，whichreacheditsperfectioninPaulus，istoowellknowntoneeddescribing。Itsunsatisfactorycharacterwasclearlyshown，thirtyyearsago，byStrauss，anditisnowgenerallyabandoned，thoughsometracesofitmaystillbeseenintherecentworksofRenan。Lessingsteadilyavoidedthismethodofinterpretation。HehadstudiedSpinozatosomepurpose，andtheoutlinesofBiblicalcriticismlaiddownbythatremarkablethinkerLessingdevelopedintoasystemwonderfullylikethatnowadoptedbytheTubingenschool。ThecardinalresultswhichBaurhasreachedwithinthepastgenerationwerenearlyallhintedatbyLessing，inhiscommentariesontheFragments。Thedistinctionbetweenthefirstthree，orsynopticgospels，andthefourth，thelaterageofthefourth，andthemethodofcompositionofthefirstthree，fromearlierdocumentsandfromoraltradition，areallclearlylaiddownbyhim。Thedistinctpointsofviewfromwhichthefouraccountswerecomposed，arealsoindicated，——theJudaizingdispositionof“Matthew，“thePaulinesympathiesof“Luke，“thecompromisingorPetrinetendenciesof“Mark，“andtheadvancedHelleniccharacterof“John。“ThosebestacquaintedwiththeresultsofmoderncriticisminGermanywillperhapsbemostsurprisedatfindingsuchspeculationsinabookwrittenmanyyearsbeforeeitherStraussorBaurwereborn。
Butsuchresults，asmighthavebeenexpected，didnotsatisfythepastorGoetzeorthepublicwhichsympathizedwithhim。ThevaliantpastorunhesitatinglydeclaredthathereadtheobjectionswhichLessingopposedtotheFragmentistwithmorehorroranddisgustthantheFragmentsthemselves；andintheteethoftheprintedcommentshedeclaredthattheeditorwascraftilyupholdinghisauthorinhisdeisticalassaultuponChristiantheology。Theaccusationwasunjust，becauseuntrue。