a mostly german debate on conversion and salvation should all be discontinued.752 Sturm and Goeze each published another pamphlet each in which they mostly discussed the attacks the other had subjected them to.753 Others also commented on their writing in anonymous pamphlets. In Revision der Streitfrage des Herrn Hauptpastor Sturm mit dem Herrn Hauptpastor Goeze in Hamburg oder Prüfung und Entscheidung der Frage Ist die Gewohnheit Missethäter durch Prediger zur Vollziehung ihrer Todesstrafe begleiten zu lassen, nützlich oder schädlichby Wilhelm Schiffer the fundamental thesis was that everything had to be done to facilitate the conversion of the criminal.754 Despite this it was unnecessary for a priest to follow the condemned to the site of execution. For the converted this was not of great importance, while it for the not converted might really be beneficial, but such a possibility was not enough for the priest having to attend. Any probability that the criminal would be converted if his time of mercy was not shortened by violent death would not liberate him from the penalty of death.755 Another pamphleteer, the lawyer and later professor of law, Ludwig Albrecht Gottfried Schrader, inAuch etwas über die Gewohnheit Missethäter durch Prediger zur Hinrichtung begleiten zu lassen thought that instead of the necessity of the presence of the priest the question that should be debated was the usefulness of the presence. He also thought a comparison should be made if the usefulness of the presence of the priest was greater than the damage it caused.756 The lawyer Hans Karl von Ecker und Eckhoffen in his bookFreymüthige Meynungen über die Schrift: Ueber die Gewohnheit, Missethäter durch Prediger zur Hinrichtung begleiten zu lassen, which in essence was an extended comment on the first book by Sturm, was particularly critical of the Catholic church and especially the Absolution given by a priest to the delinquent.757 The delinquent however had the legal right to demand the pre752 Goeze 1784a p 18. 753 Sturm 1784b and Goeze 1784b. 754 Schiffer 1785 p 4. The author is identified by Martschukat 2000a p 329. 754 Schiffer 1785 p 10 sqq. 756 Schrader 1784 p 11 sq, 19 sq. 757 Ecker und Eckhoffen 1784 p 18, 21, 31sq, 36 sqq. 207
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=