Hamburg religion lapel
The Hamburg Religious Reversal , also known as the Hamburg Religious Oath , was a sworn declaration of commitment that the Lutheran Ministry of Spirituality , representing the pastorate of the Free City of Hamburg , decided on March 14, 1690. It should become mandatory for all pastors of the Hamburg Church . The background was the militant defensive stance of Lutheran orthodoxy against Pietism . The reverse sparked a national theological controversy. It was rejected by the city council in exercising the sovereign church regiment and did not gain legal validity.
Emergence
In the Hamburg pastorate, the representatives of Lutheran orthodoxy formed the vast majority. They rejected pietism because, in their opinion, it would dissolve the teaching and worship of the church through house assemblies and the enthusiastic private piety that flourished there . After various disputes, some of which were publicly fought, Samuel Schultze (1635–1699), from 1683 chief pastor at St. Petri and from 1688 senior at the Ministry of Spirituality, decided to root out the evil. At its meeting on March 14, 1690, he submitted a draft text to the ministry, the author of which was probably Johann Friedrich Mayer , chief pastor at St. Jacobi . The formula was negotiated and eventually signed by 24 of the 27 members of the ministry. Only Johann Heinrich Horb , chief pastor to St. Nikolai , Abraham Hinckelmann , chief pastor to St. Katharinen , and Johann Winckler , chief pastor to St. Michaelis , refused to sign; The latter had initially signed with reservations, but withdrew his signature a few days later.
The reverse marks the currents to be rejected only with catchphrases: "Antiscripturarii", despisers of the Holy Scriptures, who place the inner light of the Holy Spirit over the written word of the Bible, innovators, who oppose the traditional "church ceremonies", and above all Chiliasts of all kinds, about which controversy arose just then. The only name that is mentioned is Jakob Böhme .
text
- "After that, unfortunately! Gods one and the other Navator sneaked into our community / new fanatical opinions disseminated, and therefore our ministry, both of which are out there / is slandered / moreover, would easily get to the point / that we hold ourselves suspicious of one another for the sake of doctrine; As if we hereby confess unanimously / by our own handwritten signature / that we are not alone / by virtue of our Eydes / because of the sacred scriptures we hold to our libris symbolicis / and in no way depart from it / nor in any way adhere to it re-teach / but also discard the pseudophilosophos, antiscripturarios, laxiores theologos, and other fanaticos, namely Jacob Böhmen, also discarded Chiliasmum tam subtiliorem quam crassiorem / do not recognize their followers for any brothers / they do not excuse / neither themselves / nor through others to give a boost / yes, rather, these errors at the given opportunity / openly contradict / and want to warn others about them. So that we also get rid of all foreign suspicions / is our constant opinion / all churches = ceremonies / as we inherit them from our godly ancestors / and keep bithero going / faithfully plant away / and on the other hand all innovation / she has names like her want / whether they immediately gain the reputation of the improvement of Christianity / as long as our church is not induced otherwise / to prevent and thus to promote and maintain the churches = peace. We promise this / as surely as GOD should help us / in the last death = hour. "
controversy
The Ministry of Spiritual Affairs asked the theological faculties of Kiel , Wittenberg , Greifswald and Leipzig for expert opinions to substantiate the reverse . Except for Leipzig, everyone supported the text. But the City Council of Hamburg rejected the lapel on May 9, 1690, refused to put it into effect and also forbade the printing of the reports. The opponents of the lapel in the Ministry of Spirituality asked the theologians Bartholomäus Meyer , Nikolaus Alard and Johann Fischer as well as the lawyers Samuel Stryk and - presumably - Ahasverus Fritsch , but above all from the leading head of German Pietism Philipp Jacob Spener . He had good relations with Hamburg and was informed about the process from the start. He wrote his report under the title Required Theologisches Bedencken, on the New Religious Oath published by some of the E. Hamburgisches Ministerii , dated August 18, 1690 and printed shortly afterwards without his knowledge. In it he denies the right of a particular church and the competence of the Spiritual Ministry for a doctrinal regulation of this scope. In the following journalistic dispute, which lasted until 1696, Johann Friedrich Mayer was the spokesman for the Orthodox side. He wrote the compulsory protection letter / Wherein Against the harsh and unfounded accusations of Mr. D. Philipp Speners / & c. & C. Your lapel and religion = Eyfer defends the Ministry in Hamburg . Spener formulated his position in the controversy in principle in the book Die Freyheit Der Faithigen / On the Reputation of People In Faith = Matters / In a thorough answer to the so-called Compulsory Protection = Schrifft / Which in the name of the Evangelical Hamburg Ministerii by Mr. D. Johann Friederich Meyern / was completed .
literature
- Wilhelm Hoßbach : Philipp Jakob Spener and his time . 2nd edition, Berlin 1853, first part, pp. 244-257
- Heike Krauter-Dierolf: The eschatology of Philipp Jakob Speners. The dispute with Lutheran orthodoxy about the "hope of better times" . Tübingen 2006. Therein: Chapter 4. Spener "Required Bedencken" to Hamburg lapel (1690) and the adjoining dispute with Johann Friedrich Mayer in the years 1691-1696 , pp 85-120 ( Teildigitalisat )
Individual evidence
- ↑ Hoßbach, p. 245
- ↑ Misprint for Novator - "Neuerer", cf. P. 6
- ^ Opinions scattered
- ↑ Confession Papers
- ↑ Chiliasmus in mild and radical forms
- ↑ Text after Vier Theologische Responsa, on some of the Hamburg Ministerii questions . 1690, p. 3 , p. 4 , p. 5 .
- ↑ digitized version
- ↑ Frankfurt 1691, digitized version