This is an interesting little piece that I have read before
and read again now through a more critical eye.
First, it doesn’t really give freedom of religion, does
it? Rather it gives freedom of the
pulpit and would seem to be a precursor to congregational polity in that it
gives each congregation the right to hire or fire their minister.
The preacher can’t be harmed or imprisoned due to his
teaching, this certainly created more diversity in application of religion and
must have led to more free-thinking.
I’m not sure here from reading this if it is more
specifically linked to Unitarianism, as is often the claim or just to
congregational polity.
This must have been a moving piece and it must have been
radically different for it to have been preserved this long. The questions imply that the act
was largely ignored, but they do not indicate whether that was because the
Edict was too different or too similar to what was present at the time to
impede its longevity.
No comments:
Post a Comment