Talk:Toleration Act 1688

message: Can this article be moved back to Act of Toleration 1689 as with all other UK Acts of Parliament the title should omit the comma?--Johnbull (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be moved to Act of Toleration 1688 to be in line with correct naming conventions for Acts of Parliament of this period (year cited being year of start of term, not the year Act was introduced. 136.8.152.13 (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I have requested a move to Toleration Act 1688 at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. DuncanHill (talk) 11:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should be retitled as Act of Toleration 1689. Yes, the convention is to name acts by the year of the start of the parliamentary session, and not by the year in which the act was passed. But in this case, the act was passed in a parliament that began in 1689. There was no parliamentary session in 1688. The parliament of 1689 began on 22 January 1689, according to Basil Duke Henning, ed., The House of Commons, 1660–1690, 3 vols. (London, 1983), vol. 1, p. 86. Arundel22 (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Article move

message: The sentence "The Act granted freedom of worship to Nonconformists who had taken the oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and formally rejected transubstantiation, i.e. Protestants who dissented from the Church of England such as Baptists and Congregationalists but not to Catholics or Quakers." puzzles me.  A reliable text tells me that it was illegal to build Quaker meetinghouses until the Act of Toleration of 1688 (!).  A quick reading of the section of the act titled "Quakers" seems to give them a way out of taking an oath, a simple declaration.  So, are Quakers really covered, or are they lumped in with Catholics?  Smallbones (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I don't know the answer, but the paragraph in the article is unsourced. If you have a reliable source that disagrees with our unsourced text then we will go with your source. Road Wizard (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My source is reliable for topics indicated by the title "Silent Witness: Quaker Meetinghouses in the Delaware Valley, 1695 to present" but it would be a stretch to say it's reliable on English law.  I'll just ask for a  in the article.  Smallbones (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quakers 

message: "Historians, (like Kenneth Pearl)..." then refers to an exam pony, "Cracking the AP History Exam." This is hardly a reliable historical publication. "Eaten by mice at night," indeed...173.14.170.177 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation credibility? 

message: Would these protections have applied to Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox or Church of the East adherents? Were there any in England at the time?
The tricky question with these groups is that the EO and the OO never accepted Rome's dogmatic and scholastic definitions of transubstantiation, but they do accept a version of the concept itself (metousiosis). As far as the Assyrians go, their Eucharistic theology is hard to pin down. Significantly, they don't use the words of institution. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 06:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The title and article seem to be contradictory. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the title was wrong--it happened in 1689 and I fixed it  Rjensen (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it wasn't wrong. Until April 1793 Acts took the year of the beginning of the session in which they were passed, as they came into force on the first day of that session. See Acts of Parliament (Commencement) Act 1793 for more details. DuncanHill (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've noted above, in this case, the act was passed in a parliament that began in 1689. There was no parliamentary session in 1688. The parliament of 1689 began on 22 January 1689, according to Basil Duke Henning, ed., The House of Commons, 1660–1690, 3 vols. (London, 1983), vol. 1, p. 86. The title should be changed to 1689. Arundel22 (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  1688 or 1689?