a mostly german debate on conversion and salvation ical theological traditions, or in the Anglican tradition, which in many cases and in many groups was very close to continental Reformed theology. Another possible source, however, for the view that conversion was not primarily a result of the mercy of God and therefore could scarcely be expected to occur immediately was the Socinianistic theology, in which conversion and the moral reformation of the individual was the work of human nature and free will, and Christ was not a saviour.708 The ideas of Steinbart were, at least partly, shared by others as inIst es rathsam besondere Prediger zu berufen welche gerichtlich Gefangene die wahrheiten der Religion vorgetragen müssen? by Johann Georg Friedrich Franz, later a physician and professor of medicine, who generally supported Steinbart and praised his work, although he argued that priests should be sent to the accused already before the trials, thus insuring a greater number of confessions and also providing a shorter time both for the trial and for the preparation for execution.709 In 1769 alsoAuf die Frage: Ist es rathsam Missethäter durch Geistliche zum Tode vorbereiten und zur Hinrichtung begleiten zu lassen? by the lawyer and writer Theodor Gottlieb von Hippel was published.710 It was written as a direct answer to the book by Steinbart rejecting his proposals of denying both the preparation by and the presence of the clergy to the condemned, starting subtly but eventually growing increasingly candid. Hippel thinks that Steinbart had in his view and arguments wrongly associated preparation and following the delinquent with published accounts, letting the rare instance of exploitation cloud his judgement of fundamentally good actions.711 Hippel poses questions such as if a delinquent approaches the scaffold and when seeing it freezes in terror at his imminent death, unable to go further, what is there to do with no priest 708 Walch 1736 p 547 sq. 709 Franz 1769 p 10 sq, 16 sqq, 25 sqq. 710 Hippel 1769. The identification of Hippel as the author of the anonymously published text is established e g by Borowski 1797 p 21. The book is very rare and already in 1911 the only known example was and still is in the library of the Kammergericht in Berlin, Schneider 1911p197. 711 Hippel 1769 p 25, see also Steinbart 1769 p 26. The subtlety of Hippel is also shown by authors understanding him as concurring with Steinbart, Sturm, and Jaspis, see e g Borowski 1797 p 21, Knauth 1825a p 36 and Preuß 1833 p 241. 199
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=