Anglican Church. With the harsher policies she passed, which required people to only believe in the Anglican Church, and required uniformity among all churches, moreradical Protestants, along with Catholics, suffered from persecution. One such catholic, aJesuit missionary, was tortured on the rack in 1581 and subsequently died, while in 1587a Puritan was executed for speaking about his religion in parliament (204). These twoacts seem harsh, as both of these people essentially still believed in Christianity, but if one looks at the possible outcomes of either of these paths, it is plain to see whyElizabeth wanted to scare the followers of these radicals as much as possible. First of all,either way would have led to change, and therefore a lack of stability. Second, and mostimportant of all, the people of England would become split amongst themselves, and civilwar would most likely occur. Elizabeth chose the quick decisive action of striking fear into anyone else who might think they can change the country. Louis proves to be morelion-like, though, through his revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Louis had already begunforced conversion of French Huguenots to Catholicism, but this revocation truly made itlegal under the state. With this revocation all Huguenots were forced to convert or beexiled and all Huguenot churches were destroyed (541). It is unclear to an outsider whyLouis would revoke such an old Edict—the Edict of Nantes had been put into act byLouis’ grandfather Henry IV. Under closer examination, a country with multiplereligions would not accomplish Louis’ goal of “one king, one law, one faith” (541). Also,this would conflict with Machiavelli’s theories, as tolerance would make Louis appear weak, and also the unification of religion would get rid of any tendencies for fighting between either of the religions. Aside from all this, the move was a popular one amongaristocrats of the time and helped Louis gain favor among his people.