Journal index

1791. évi küküllővári zsinaton határozatban tiltották meg Endemann Sámuel németországi egyetemi tanár tankönyveinek erdélyi használatát. Az ügynek semmiféle előzménye nem volt, a két hazai érintett tanár, Zilahi Sebes János és Bodola János pedig meglepődve vette tudomásul a zsinat határozatát. Mindketten hosszú levelet írtak a maguk mentségére, amelyben elutasították az eretnekség vádját, és procedurális hibák elkövetésével vádolták a zsinatot. Egyetértettek abban is, hogy Endemann Sámuel a református ortodoxia kiemelkedő teológusa volt, akinek igazhitűségét sem Németországban, sem máshol nem kérdőjelezték meg, viszont elismerték, hogy teológiai rendszerében olyan kérdésekkel is foglalkozott, illetve olyan válaszokat adott, amelyek eltértek a hagyományos református hitvallási iratoktól.

The History of the Endeman-story. Comparing the dispute which took place at the end of the eighteenth century with earlier cases of doctrinal discipline it becomes evident that whilst both Nádudvari and Huszti admitted to their guilt, and the accusers also proved all the accusations, in this dispute neither the defendants did confess their guilt, nor the accusers were able to prove their observations beyond any reasonable doubt as they did before in the two former trials. The fact that the two accused teachers, Bodola and Zilahi repeatedly refer to the unfounded and superficial character of the allegations in their apologetic letters shows the existence of personal dissension. Further, the error in the dating of the synod's indictment (containing the wrong year) speaks for itself. The Supreme Consistorium also referred to the the synod's allegations as 'prejudice' and 'wrong opinion'. Further, one should not forget that after the closure of the trial the two teachers continued their work undisturbed, moreover, they were looking forward to a bright career. Nonetheless, had they been proven guilty of heresy (heterodoxy), this would undoubtedly have meant the end of their teaching as well as ecclesiastical activities. According to the presently available evidence including the still extant material of the trial we can assert beyond reasonable doubt that in the Endemann case some personal antipathies and not the rejection of the ecclesiastically accepted confessions stood at the basis of the dispute.