To what extent was religious persecution an effective tool for enforcing conformity to the Long
Parliament’s regime and the Soviet State?
Religious persecution was an ineffective tool for enforcing conformity to the Long
Parliament’s regime and to the Soviet state. Legislative, local, propaganda-led and iconoclastic
persecution featured in both regimes. Each had various successes, failures and motivations. In
England, legislative persecution and financial persecution was reactionary to events and driven by
financial needs to fund the war. The Soviet state’s legislative persecution was reactionary too but
had the extra layer of attempting to dismantle the old regime. Conversely, the need to weaken the
church as an institution fuelled the Bolshevik financial persecution of the church. Both the Long
Parliament’s Westminster Assembly of Divines and the Bolshevik Party could not decide on the
approach they should take to religion. For England, this led to the proliferation of religious plurality.
For the Soviet state, this allowed the church to survive the change of government to the Bolsheviks.
Propaganda in England set alight fears about popish plots, sects incurring God’s wrath and revolts
from the lower sort. The Bolsheviks used propaganda as part of a sustained assault on the church,
for example when criticising it for failing to help during famine. Both the Long Parliament and Soviet
state used iconoclasm. In England, this was local, and state led. In the Soviet state this was primarily
state led. Overwhelmingly, persecution by those hoping to build better societies failed to overcome
believers’ tenacity.
Religious persecution through government committees, legislation and sentences proved
ineffective for enforcing long term conformity. In England, persecution largely amounted to
hinderance but had little long-term impact on conformity for the Long Parliament. Religious
opponents included both the believers and members of the Church authority. Financial persecution
included sequestering of Royalist Roman Catholic gentry’s lands. Parliament used the rents from
those lands to fund their war effort. This form of persecution separated Roman Catholic royalist
gentry from their property, and they had to suffer large fines to get their lands back. Parliament
abolished bishops as a step towards ending the Laudian Church. Usually, parliament retired or
imprisoned the bishops who angered them and refused to support Parliament’s new regime.
Government-directed violence against religious opponents in this period remained low. However,
Archbishop Laud, the figurehead of Charles I’s Church and the bishop of Canterbury, was executed
on Tower Hill in 1945 as a traitor. Furthermore, in 1942, courts hung, drew and quartered only a
handful of Catholic priests. This was largely a reaction to fear from the rebellion in Ireland.
Magistrates imprisoned Quakers for their insolence, which often agitated questions of social
hierarchy. Examples include refusing to take their hats off in court and calling magistrates ‘thou’,
which justices found intolerable. Quakers refused to show deference to their social betters by
performing long standing acts of subordination or grovelling. Parliament famously convicted Quaker
leader, James Nayler for blasphemy. Nayler died after his release from prison. However,
imprisonment emboldened the Quakers further. So, legal violence was limited mainly against
religious leaders and was highly reactionary. Parliament directed financial persecution against
religious opponents to aid their war effort and to dismantle the remnants of the old regime.
Stigma from the old Catholic church was strong. Parliament set up the Committee for
Plundered Ministers on 31st September 1942. It removed those clergy denounced for being Catholic
tainted, popishly affected or preaching against parliament. The committee replaced these ministers
with dispossessed parliamentarian ministers who had fled royalist areas. Source 1 discussed how
parliament replaced scandalous ministers with puritan ministers. The source promoted the
replacement minister Zackary Tutsham as a ‘godly, learned, and orthodox Divine’. 1 Parliament here
1
Source 1, pp.231.
Parliament’s regime and the Soviet State?
Religious persecution was an ineffective tool for enforcing conformity to the Long
Parliament’s regime and to the Soviet state. Legislative, local, propaganda-led and iconoclastic
persecution featured in both regimes. Each had various successes, failures and motivations. In
England, legislative persecution and financial persecution was reactionary to events and driven by
financial needs to fund the war. The Soviet state’s legislative persecution was reactionary too but
had the extra layer of attempting to dismantle the old regime. Conversely, the need to weaken the
church as an institution fuelled the Bolshevik financial persecution of the church. Both the Long
Parliament’s Westminster Assembly of Divines and the Bolshevik Party could not decide on the
approach they should take to religion. For England, this led to the proliferation of religious plurality.
For the Soviet state, this allowed the church to survive the change of government to the Bolsheviks.
Propaganda in England set alight fears about popish plots, sects incurring God’s wrath and revolts
from the lower sort. The Bolsheviks used propaganda as part of a sustained assault on the church,
for example when criticising it for failing to help during famine. Both the Long Parliament and Soviet
state used iconoclasm. In England, this was local, and state led. In the Soviet state this was primarily
state led. Overwhelmingly, persecution by those hoping to build better societies failed to overcome
believers’ tenacity.
Religious persecution through government committees, legislation and sentences proved
ineffective for enforcing long term conformity. In England, persecution largely amounted to
hinderance but had little long-term impact on conformity for the Long Parliament. Religious
opponents included both the believers and members of the Church authority. Financial persecution
included sequestering of Royalist Roman Catholic gentry’s lands. Parliament used the rents from
those lands to fund their war effort. This form of persecution separated Roman Catholic royalist
gentry from their property, and they had to suffer large fines to get their lands back. Parliament
abolished bishops as a step towards ending the Laudian Church. Usually, parliament retired or
imprisoned the bishops who angered them and refused to support Parliament’s new regime.
Government-directed violence against religious opponents in this period remained low. However,
Archbishop Laud, the figurehead of Charles I’s Church and the bishop of Canterbury, was executed
on Tower Hill in 1945 as a traitor. Furthermore, in 1942, courts hung, drew and quartered only a
handful of Catholic priests. This was largely a reaction to fear from the rebellion in Ireland.
Magistrates imprisoned Quakers for their insolence, which often agitated questions of social
hierarchy. Examples include refusing to take their hats off in court and calling magistrates ‘thou’,
which justices found intolerable. Quakers refused to show deference to their social betters by
performing long standing acts of subordination or grovelling. Parliament famously convicted Quaker
leader, James Nayler for blasphemy. Nayler died after his release from prison. However,
imprisonment emboldened the Quakers further. So, legal violence was limited mainly against
religious leaders and was highly reactionary. Parliament directed financial persecution against
religious opponents to aid their war effort and to dismantle the remnants of the old regime.
Stigma from the old Catholic church was strong. Parliament set up the Committee for
Plundered Ministers on 31st September 1942. It removed those clergy denounced for being Catholic
tainted, popishly affected or preaching against parliament. The committee replaced these ministers
with dispossessed parliamentarian ministers who had fled royalist areas. Source 1 discussed how
parliament replaced scandalous ministers with puritan ministers. The source promoted the
replacement minister Zackary Tutsham as a ‘godly, learned, and orthodox Divine’. 1 Parliament here
1
Source 1, pp.231.
