Hubbry Logo
Great EjectionGreat EjectionMain
Open search
Great Ejection
Community hub
Great Ejection
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Great Ejection
Great Ejection
Great Ejection
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Title page of a collection of Farewell Sermons preached by ministers ejected from their parishes in 1662

The Great Ejection followed the Act of Uniformity 1662 in England. Several thousand Puritan ministers were forced out of their positions in the Church of England following the Restoration of Charles II. It was a consequence (not necessarily an intended one) of the Savoy Conference of 1661.[1]

History

[edit]

The Act of Uniformity prescribed that any minister who refused to conform to the 1662 Book of Common Prayer by St Bartholomew's Day (24 August) 1662 should be ejected from the Church of England. This date became known as "Black Bartholomew's Day" among Dissenters, a reference to the fact that it occurred on the same day as the 1572 St Bartholomew's Day massacre of French Protestants. Oliver Heywood estimated the number of ministers ejected at 2,500.[2] This included James Ashurst, Richard Baxter, Edmund Calamy the Elder, Simeon Ashe, Thomas Case, John Flavel, William Jenkyn, Joseph Caryl, Benjamin Needler, Thomas Brooks, Thomas Manton, William Sclater, Thomas Doolittle, and Thomas Watson. Biographical details of ejected ministers were later collected by the historian Edmund Calamy, grandson of Calamy the elder.

Although there had already been ministers outside the established church, the Great Ejection created an abiding concept of Nonconformity. Strict religious tests of the Clarendon Code and other Penal Laws left a substantial section of English society excluded from public affairs and university degrees for a century and a half.

Historiography

[edit]
The Memorial Hall on Albert Square, Manchester, built to commemorate the bicentennial of the Great Ejection, at the suggestion of John Relly Beard[3]

The bicentennial in 1862 led to a sharp debate, with the Nonconformist agenda being questioned, and the account in Calamy being reviewed.[4]

Iain Murray argues that the issue was deeper than "phrases in the Book of Common Prayer and forms of church order," but regarded the "nature of true Christianity".[5]

The Memorial Hall on Albert Square, Manchester and the Congregational Memorial Hall in Farringdon Street, London, were built to commemorate the bicentennial of the Great Ejection.

Legacy

[edit]

The Bishop of Liverpool, J. C. Ryle (1816–1900), referred to the Ejection as an "injury to the cause of true religion in England which will probably never be repaired".[6]

A Service of Reconciliation was held at Westminster Abbey on 7 February 2012 to mark the 350th anniversary of the Great Ejection. Rowan Williams, then Archbishop of Canterbury, preached at the service which was attended by clergy and laity of the Church of England and the United Reformed Church.[7]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Great Ejection

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Great Ejection was the mass dismissal of approximately 2,000 Puritan ministers from the on St. Bartholomew's Day, 24 August 1662, after they refused to subscribe to the , which enforced liturgical and doctrinal uniformity through mandatory use of the revised . This event followed the Restoration of Charles II in 1660, when the , dominated by Anglican royalists, sought to reimpose episcopal governance and suppress the presbyterian and independent structures that had proliferated under the and . The Act required clergy to declare the Prayer Book contained nothing contrary to Holy Scripture, reject the , and confirm episcopal ordination, leading to the ejection of about one-fifth of England's parochial clergy, many of whom had pastoral charges and livings valued in the hundreds of pounds annually. Prior to the deadline, ejected ministers often preached farewell sermons emphasizing and to reformed principles, later compiled in collections that preserved Puritan amid ensuing hardships. The ejection formalized the divide between the established church and nonconformists, precipitating the Clarendon Code—a series of laws from to that banned nonconformist , excluded dissenters from public office, and authorized their , reflecting the government's aim to consolidate monarchical and Anglican authority after two decades of and republican experiment. While estimates of ejected ministers vary between 1,800 and 2,500, the event's long-term impact included the emergence of dissenting academies, the growth of particular Baptist and Independent congregations, and a of principled nonconformity that influenced later religious toleration under the Act of Toleration 1689.

Background and Context

Puritan Movement in the Pre-Civil War Church

Puritanism emerged within the during the reign of (1558–1603) as a reformist movement among Protestant and who sought to eliminate perceived remnants of Roman Catholicism, advocating for a stricter adherence to scriptural standards in worship and governance. These reformers, often labeled "" as a term of derision, criticized elements such as prescribed clerical vestments, the in , and the use of the ring in marriage ceremonies, viewing them as superstitious holdovers incompatible with Reformed theology. The Vestiarian Controversy of 1566 exemplified early tensions, when Archbishop enforced the 1559 Book of Common Prayer's directives on attire; on 26 March 1566, over 100 London ministers were summoned to , with 37 refusing compliance, leading to suspensions and highlighting resistance to episcopal mandates on non-essential practices. Influential figures like William Perkins (1558–1602), a Cambridge-educated theologian and vicar of Great St. Andrew's, Cambridge, shaped Puritan thought through systematic treatises on , preaching, and , emphasizing personal and experimental divinity derived from Scripture. Perkins's works, including A Golden Chain (1591) and numerous catechisms, disseminated Puritan ideals via print, fostering a network of like-minded ministers who prioritized moral discipline and over ceremonial uniformity. This intellectual framework gained traction in urban centers and universities, where established voluntary associations and prophesyings—informal studies and preaching exercises—to cultivate doctrinal purity amid official constraints. Tensions with episcopal authority intensified under James I (1603–1625), as evidenced by the Millenary Petition of April 1603, signed by approximately 1,000 ministers and presented en route to , requesting reforms such as the removal of "popish" ceremonies, subscription to the only where not contrary to Scripture, and curbs on episcopal pluralism. Though James convened the Hampton Court Conference (1604) in response, conceding only the commissioning of the Authorized Version of the Bible, the petition underscored growing Presbyterian sympathies, inspired by the Genevan model of elder-led governance, which challenged the hierarchical structure of the English church. Advocates like Thomas Cartwright had earlier promoted in the 1570s Admonition Controversy, arguing for classis systems over bishops, though such views remained underground to avoid persecution. Parallel to these efforts, developed alternative preaching platforms through endowed lectureships, particularly in market towns and , where lay patrons funded non-parish preachers to deliver doctrinal sermons bypassing potentially unconformable rectors. By the early , these combination lectures—weekly gatherings of multiple ministers—proliferated, with around 150 such positions established in by Puritan sympathizers and parliamentary support, serving as hubs for evangelical outreach and critiques of ceremonialism without direct confrontation of parish structures. This infrastructure sustained Puritan influence amid royal and archiepiscopal suppression, such as the 1583–1585 crackdown on prophesyings, laying groundwork for broader nonconformist networks.

Disruptions of the Civil War and Interregnum

During the English Civil War, Puritan-dominated Parliament initiated sweeping ecclesiastical reforms that dismantled the established Church of England's hierarchical structure. Following the outbreak of hostilities in 1642, parliamentary forces, influenced by Presbyterian and Independent Puritans, targeted episcopacy as a pillar of royalist authority. The Solemn League and Covenant, signed on September 25, 1643, between English Parliamentarians and Scottish Covenanters, pledged mutual support for reforming the Church of England along Presbyterian lines, preserving the Church of Scotland's governance, worship, and discipline while extending similar changes to England and Ireland. This alliance facilitated the convening of the Westminster Assembly in 1643, which drafted proposals to replace episcopal oversight with presbyterian assemblies. Key legislative actions abolished episcopacy and imposed liturgical uniformity under Puritan preferences. In 1645, Parliament adopted the Directory for the Public Worship of God, drafted by the , which supplanted the and prohibited prescribed liturgical forms in favor of extemporaneous prayers and simplified services aligned with Reformed theology. The following year, the Ordinance for the Abolition of Bishops (passed October 1646) dissolved the episcopal order, ending their legislative role in the and jurisdiction over ecclesiastical courts, thereby severing the Church's ties to monarchical prerogative. These measures reflected Puritan convictions that episcopacy fostered popery and tyranny, privileging scriptural discipline over hierarchical tradition. Under the (1649–1653) and (1653–1659), disruptions intensified through the sequestration of Anglican clergy. The Committee for Plundered Ministers, established in 1643 and expanded post-1649, ejected thousands of royalist and episcopalian ministers from their benefices for alleged scandal, delinquency, or refusal to conform to Puritan ordinances, replacing them with Presbyterian or Independent preachers. The on January 30, 1649, symbolized the regime's rejection of divine-right monarchy intertwined with , exacerbating grievances among displaced clergy and laity who viewed these purges as coercive assaults on and tradition. Such enforced bred widespread resentment, as Puritan moral campaigns—targeting observance, , and perceived —further alienated conformist parishioners accustomed to episcopal governance.

Restoration of Monarchy and Church Settlement Attempts

Following the restoration of Charles II to the throne on May 29, 1660, initial efforts to stabilize the emphasized reimposing episcopal structure amid widespread apprehension that residual republican factions and nonconformist elements from the could precipitate renewed anarchy. Returning Anglican clergy, often termed "Cromwellian exiles," rapidly reclaimed sees and parishes, prioritizing hierarchical order to counter the perceived chaos of presbyterian and independent experiments under the . This urgency stemmed from observations that the decade of and protectorate had eroded social cohesion, with dissenters viewed as potential vectors for subversion against both crown and established church. Charles II's , issued April 4, 1660, from exile in the , sought to ease tensions by pledging a general , equitable resolution of sequestered lands, arrears payments, and notably, "liberty to tender consciences" through potential parliamentary indulgence, aiming to broaden support for his return without immediate coercion. Yet this conciliatory stance clashed with the Convention Parliament's provisional acceptance and the subsequent of 1661, whose Anglican majority—traumatized by puritan-led upheavals—insisted on rigorous conformity to avert any tolerance that might embolden presbyterian networks linked to earlier regicidal sentiments. In pursuit of reconciliation, the Savoy Conference assembled on April 15, 1661, at the in , comprising twelve bishops under Gilbert Sheldon and twelve presbyterian ministers, including as chief spokesman, tasked with examining liturgical exceptions and church governance per royal directives. Presbyterians proposed excising ceremonies like the and bowing, which they deemed superstitious remnants of Roman influence, alongside a shift from episcopal oversight to congregational or presbyterian discipline; bishops, however, rebuffed these as unnecessary innovations, upholding the 1559 as essential to doctrinal unity and . Baxter's submitted reformed , emphasizing scriptural simplicity, was largely disregarded, with sessions devolving into acrimonious debates over —episcopacy versus presbytery—and ritual minutiae, revealing Presbyterians' aversion to coerced uniformity as stifling conscience while Anglicans saw flexibility as a gateway to . The conference disbanded by late July 1661 without consensus, its twelve formal meetings and appended exchanges exposing irreconcilable commitments: nonconformists prioritized doctrinal purity over hierarchical pomp, whereas restoration authorities, haunted by Fifth Monarchist uprisings and vennerite disturbances in 1661, deemed unyielding Anglican restoration vital to preempting dissent-fueled rebellion. This impasse, rooted in causal fears that partial indulgence would fracture ecclesiastical loyalty and invite republican recidivism, foreclosed moderate paths and entrenched demands for absolute subscription.

The Ejection Event

The Act of Uniformity 1662

The (14 Cha. 2 c. 4), formally titled "An Act for the Uniformity of Publique Prayers and Administration of Sacraments & other Rites & Ceremonies; and for establishing the Form of making, ordaining, and consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the ," was passed by in May 1662. It mandated the exclusive use of a revised (BCP) in all public worship, sacraments, and rites within the , with the text annexed to the Act incorporating minor alterations approved by the Convocations of and following discussions at the Savoy Conference. These revisions preserved the structure and content largely akin to the Elizabethan BCP of 1559, while addressing a limited number of Puritan proposals, such as clarifications in rubrics and phrasing, though the bulk of Presbyterian exceptions from the Savoy deliberations were rejected. Central to the Act's requirements was Section II, which compelled every minister, , , and officeholder to declare "unfaigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Booke intituled The Booke of Comon Prayer" before their congregation on or before the Feast of St. Bartholomew (24 August 1662). Section IX further stipulated episcopal ordination as a prerequisite for holding any , barring those not previously ordained by a in the from eligibility unless they complied by the same deadline; this effectively invalidated Presbyterian or Independent ordinations conducted during the . Noncompliance triggered immediate deprivation of all ecclesiastical promotions, , or dignities under Sections III and IV, with no provision for compensation or appeal, rendering the ejected ministers liable to vacate their positions without financial redress. Additional penalties reinforced enforcement: laypersons or ministers officiating without the prescribed BCP faced fines of £5 for initial offenses, escalating to , while unauthorized administration of sacraments by the unordained incurred a £100 fine and one-year disqualification from ecclesiastical roles (Sections V, VII, X). The Act thus established a rigid framework for liturgical and ministerial conformity, directly precipitating the mechanism for ejection by tying continued incumbency to explicit subscription and episcopal validation by the specified date.

Process and Scale of the Ejection

The mandated that all ministers, including those previously intruded during the , publicly declare "unfeigned assent and consent" to everything contained in the 1662 , either verbally in their before parishioners or in writing to their . This requirement, combined with prior mandates for episcopal ordination and subscription to the , had to be fulfilled by St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1662, under penalty of immediate deprivation of benefice, loss of ecclesiastical office, and prohibition from preaching or teaching. Refusal triggered swift ejection, often without appeal, leading to abrupt vacancies in pulpits and parsonages that conforming clergy were appointed to fill, sometimes within days. Many nonconforming ministers utilized the period leading up to the deadline to deliver farewell sermons, with a notable concentration on the Sunday prior, August 17, 1662, allowing them to address congregations one final time before vacating their positions. These procedures were enforced through diocesan visitations and episcopal oversight, though implementation varied slightly by locality due to administrative differences and local clerical composition. The scale of the ejection was substantial, with contemporary and subsequent estimates placing the number of deprived ministers at approximately 1,760 to 2,000, representing about 20% of the roughly 9,000 beneficed across . This figure includes those ejected precisely on August 24 as well as some deprived earlier in 1662 for related nonconformities, though it excludes lay offices like schoolmasters affected by parallel clauses. Rates were disproportionately high in Puritan-leaning regions such as and , where presbyterian and independent sympathies had persisted strongly, compared to more compliant rural dioceses. Diocesan variations reflected pre-existing clerical divides: for example, the diocese encompassing exhibited pockets of organized resistance among Puritan-ordained fellows and ministers, contributing to higher refusal rates there, whereas many southern and western dioceses saw broader due to less entrenched . Overall, the process created over 2,000 vacant livings in a compressed timeframe, straining episcopal resources for replacements and underscoring the Act's intent for rapid uniformity.

Profiles of Ejected Ministers

Richard Baxter (1615–1691), a prominent nonconformist minister who had served as vicar of Kidderminster from 1641 and played a key role in Savoy Assembly discussions during the Interregnum, declined to subscribe to the Act of Uniformity on August 24, 1662, primarily due to conscientious scruples over imposed ceremonies and the unaltered Book of Common Prayer, which he viewed as conflicting with scriptural simplicity in worship. Baxter's prior experience included chaplaincy in the Parliamentary army during the Civil Wars and advocacy for a moderated presbyterianism that allowed some episcopal oversight, reflecting his moderate reformist stance amid broader Puritan diversity. Thomas Brooks (c. 1608–1680), an Independent-leaning preacher who held the rectory of St. Margaret's, New Fish Street, , from around 1653, was ejected on St. Bartholomew's Day, 1662, for refusing unfeigned assent to the restored , aligning with his presbyterian sympathies and opposition to prelatic uniformity. Brooks, who had ministered in during the era, exemplified the blend of theological independence and practical pastoral commitment among the ejected, many of whom had filled vacancies created by sequestration of clergy in the 1640s and 1650s. The ejected included a spectrum of Puritans—Presbyterians favoring structured assemblies, Independents emphasizing congregational autonomy, and moderates like pursuing ecclesiastical comprehension— with numerous having held university fellowships or lectureships prior to the Restoration, such as those at and disrupted by earlier purges and now facing renewed exclusion. This diversity underscored the Act's broad impact, displacing roughly 2,000 ministers nationwide, or about one-fifth of England's parochial , from urban pulpits to rural benefices alike.

Rationales and Conflicts

Anglican Arguments for Uniformity

Anglican leaders contended that ecclesiastical uniformity was indispensable for safeguarding civil stability in the wake of the schisms and upheavals that precipitated the and , viewing division within the church as a direct precursor to societal anarchy. The proliferation of sects under the , including Presbyterians, Independents, and radical groups, had fragmented national allegiance and undermined monarchical authority, prompting episcopal advocates to prioritize a unified and governance as a bulwark against recurrent instability. This rationale framed the Act of Uniformity not as punitive innovation but as a restoration of pre-war ecclesiastical order, with concessions already extended via the revisions to the , which nonconformists nonetheless rejected. Drawing from scriptural mandates, Anglicans invoked passages such as 1 Corinthians 1:10, which exhorts believers to "speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you," interpreting this as a divine imperative for liturgical and doctrinal cohesion to edify the church body. Patristic authorities, including of Antioch's epistles affirming episcopal oversight as , bolstered claims against Puritan alterations to worship forms, positioning the 1662 as faithful to primitive practice rather than mere "innovations." Richard Hooker's Of the Laws of provided a foundational defense, arguing that uniformity in ceremonies and polity fosters communal harmony and prevents the chaos of private judgment, a echoed in Restoration defenses as essential to the church's role in sustaining the realm's moral fabric. Practically, uniformity aimed to avert doctrinal erosion and the subversion of state authority historically associated with nonconformist networks, which had aligned with parliamentary forces and republican experiments from onward. By mandating assent to the and episcopal ordination, the measure sought to consolidate orthodox teaching against emerging heterodoxies, ensuring parish pulpits propagated teachings aligned with the rather than fostering separatist enclaves prone to political dissent. Episcopal figures like Gilbert Sheldon emphasized this as a safeguard for the church's integrity, warning that tolerating deviations would perpetuate the very fractures that had invited foreign influences and domestic strife.

Puritan Theological and Practical Objections

Puritans objected to the Act of Uniformity primarily on grounds that its mandated ceremonies, such as the use of the and prescribed liturgical elements in the , lacked explicit scriptural warrant and retained elements reminiscent of Roman Catholic practices, which they deemed "popish" and conducive to superstition. They argued that these rituals distracted from pure worship and implied a sacerdotal priesthood incompatible with the Reformed emphasis on the . Furthermore, the requirement for unreserved assent to the entire conflicted with their commitment to Scripture as the sole rule of faith and practice, as certain phrases and forms appeared to endorse doctrines like or mechanical recitation over Spirit-led prayer. In terms of ecclesiastical polity, many Puritans favored presbyterian governance, viewing it as more biblically derived from New Testament models of elder rule in local congregations and synods, in contrast to the hierarchical episcopacy enforced through the Act's stipulation of episcopal ordination and oversight. They contended that bishops as a distinct order represented an unbiblical innovation, akin to pre-Reformation abuses, and advocated for a system allowing classical presbyteries to handle discipline and doctrine without monarchical clerical authority. This preference stemmed from convictions that presbyterianism better preserved doctrinal purity and congregational accountability, as evidenced in their earlier pushes during the Westminster Assembly for replacing diocesan bishops with presbyterian structures. Prominent nonconformists like Richard Baxter emphasized appeals to conscience, arguing for a broad "catholic" unity grounded in essential doctrines rather than ceremonial uniformity, which he saw as coercive and divisive. Baxter, who had previously accommodated some Anglican forms during the Interregnum, refused full subscription in 1662, insisting that compelled conformity violated personal integrity before God and hindered true edification of the church. This stance reflected a practical objection: while many ejected ministers had conformed to earlier versions of the Prayer Book under necessity, the Act's rigid demands—requiring episcopal re-ordination for some and absolute assent for all—crossed a threshold, compelling separation despite prior willingness to labor within the established church. Approximately 2,000 ministers, many with decades of service, chose ejection over compromise, prioritizing scriptural fidelity over institutional retention.

Political Dimensions and State Interests

The , convened in May 1661 and dominated by royalist members returned in the wake of the Restoration, pursued the Act of Uniformity as a mechanism to eradicate lingering Puritan sympathies that had fueled and . These parliamentarians, many of whom had suffered sequestration or exile under the , prioritized ecclesiastical conformity to dismantle the networks of presbyterian and independent clergy who had accommodated or supported the republican experiment, thereby mitigating risks of renewed factionalism or foreign-influenced unrest. The Act's passage on May 19, 1662, by a narrow margin of 186 to 180 votes, underscored the legislative intent to restore hierarchical order as a bulwark against the decentralized religious practices that had eroded monarchical authority. Central to the Act's political framework were mandates reinforcing oaths of and supremacy, alongside abjuration of the —a 1643 pact binding to Scottish and viewed post-Restoration as a of anti-Stuart . Ministers refusing these declarations were deemed unfit for public trust, as nonconformity signaled potential disloyalty akin to the covenanting rebellions that had nearly toppled the . This vetting process, extending beyond to explicit loyalty tests, aimed to purge the church of elements amenable to parliamentary supremacy or covenantal , securing the Stuart regime by aligning clerical office with unswerving royalism. Charles II's inclinations toward broader indulgence clashed with these imperatives; his Declaration of Breda in April 1660 had pledged safeguards for "tender consciences" to facilitate his return, reflecting a strategic openness to nonconformists as counterweights to Anglican rigidity. Yet, confronting a parliament insistent on uniformity to avert schism-induced instability, the king assented to the Act, subordinating personal pragmatism—including covert Catholic sympathies—to the exigencies of throne preservation. This tension highlighted how state interests trumped monarchical idealism, with the ejection serving as a foundational consolidation of power amid fears that Puritan remnants could coalesce into threats against the restored order.

Immediate Consequences

Enforcement Mechanisms and Persecutions

The enforcement of religious uniformity following the Great Ejection relied on the Conventicle Act 1664, which outlawed nonconformist assemblies of more than five persons (excluding immediate family members) not conforming to Anglican worship, imposing a £5 fine or three months' imprisonment for first-time participants and £10 or six months for repeat offenses, with hosts facing £20–£40 fines and potential transportation upon third conviction. Local justices of the peace were empowered to convene juries, seize goods for unpaid fines, and commit offenders to jail, targeting both ministers and lay attendees to suppress unauthorized preaching and gatherings. Complementing this, the Five Mile Act 1665 barred ejected ministers from residing, teaching, or preaching within five miles of their former parishes or any incorporated town unless they subscribed to an oath forswearing efforts to alter the church's government, with violations incurring a £40 fine and indefinite imprisonment until payment, alongside forfeiture of clerical privileges. These penalties, administered through quarterly sessions and by magistrates, resulted in extensive prosecutions, with nearly 500 nonconformists released from prison following the 1672 Declaration of Indulgence, indicating hundreds had been detained under the acts in preceding years. Implementation depended on the discretion of local authorities, whose zeal varied regionally; urban areas saw stricter application due to denser populations and political oversight, while some rural magistrates enforced fines and restrictions more leniently, allowing limited nonconformist activity to persist. Ejected ministers like Henry Newcome of endured repeated arrests, fines, and brief incarcerations for violating these edicts, exemplifying the personal toll of non-compliance amid such localized enforcement.

Adaptations by Nonconformists

Following their ejection on St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1662, many ministers organized conventicles—small, clandestine assemblies for worship and preaching held in private homes, barns, or other discreet locations to evade enforcement of the Act of Uniformity. These gatherings relied heavily on lay supporters who provided venues and protection, such as Alexander Cray, a clothier in Horningsham, , who hosted conventicles in his barn attended by large crowds and addressed by eight ejected ministers as recorded in the 1669 Episcopal Returns. In Shuttington, , ejected preachers from neighboring counties utilized the vacant for such meetings due to the absence of a conforming . Richard Baxter, ejected from his vicarage in , returned to the vicinity after recovering from illness and sustained an informal ministry by preaching to gathered lay groups and focusing on private instruction amid ongoing restrictions. Diaries of figures like Philip Henry document similar patterns of discreet household preaching supported by local sympathizers, though these efforts exposed participants to fines and imprisonment under the Conventicle Act of 1664. In 1672, Charles II's Declaration of Indulgence, promulgated on March 15, suspended penal statutes against Protestant nonconformists, enabling some ejected ministers to apply for licenses permitting licensed preaching and assembly. Approximately 1,400 such licenses were issued to nonconformist preachers by late 1672, offering temporary relief from prosecution. However, parliamentary opposition led to the declaration's revocation via the Test Act of 1673, with remaining licenses recalled in 1675, reinstating legal pressures. The Act of Uniformity offered no financial compensation or pensions to the roughly 2,000 ejected ministers, many of whom lost benefices yielding annual incomes of £50–£200, precipitating widespread poverty. Contemporary accounts, including Roger Lowe's diary entries from 1663, record ministers and families resorting to charity, manual labor, or relocation for subsistence, with some facing demands to repay parish tithes despite their deprivation.

Long-Term Impacts

Formation and Growth of Dissenting Traditions

The Great Ejection of 1662 compelled approximately 2,000 Puritan ministers to leave the , providing the foundational cadre for organized Nonconformist denominations that emphasized reformed theology and alternative church polities. These ejected clergy, primarily adhering to Presbyterian or Independent convictions, began forming separate congregations despite legal prohibitions, laying the groundwork for Presbyterians—who favored governance through regional presbyteries and synods—Congregationalists (or Independents), who prioritized autonomous local church authority, and Particular Baptists, who insisted on by immersion and covenantal church membership. These groups diverged from , whose rejection of ordained ministry, sacraments, and outward rituals marked them as a more radical originating in the 1650s under , outside the Puritan mainstream affected by the ejection. Initial organization occurred covertly through conventicles and licensed preaching in homes or barns, with key figures like establishing Presbyterian networks in areas such as and , while Congregationalists drew from New Model Army chaplains' Independent traditions. , emerging from both General (Arminian) and Particular (Calvinist) streams, solidified their distinct identity through associations like the 1689 Orthodox Confession, which articulated doctrines of and confessional subscription. The persistence of these traditions amid fines and imprisonment fostered a resilient dissenting culture, evidenced by the survival of ministerial libraries and mutual support funds among the ejected. The Act of Toleration in marked a pivotal alleviation of pressures, exempting Protestant Dissenters who swore oaths of allegiance and supremacy from penalties for worship, provided meeting houses were registered and doors kept open during services to prevent Catholic or subversive gatherings. This legislation enabled the public establishment of chapels, with over 1,000 nonconformist meeting places registered by the early 1690s, facilitating denominational consolidation and lay involvement in governance. By 1700, Dissenters had grown to constitute roughly 5 percent of England's population, concentrated in urban centers like and manufacturing regions, reflecting both natural increase and appeal among artisans and traders seeking doctrinal purity over episcopal hierarchy.

Effects on English Society and Global Protestantism

The Great Ejection eroded the Church of England's monopoly on English religious life by displacing approximately 1,800 to 2,000 ministers—about 20% of the —who refused episcopal and subscription to the revised , thereby birthing a permanent nonconformist presence outside . This mass deprivation, enforced on St. Bartholomew's Day 1662, alienated a significant portion of the Puritan-influenced and , sowing seeds for societal tensions over enforced uniformity amid the Parliament's repressive measures like the Conventicles Act of 1664. The resulting dissenting networks, though persecuted, challenged Anglican hegemony and propelled arguments for pragmatic coexistence, as evidenced by Charles II's brief Declaration of Indulgence in 1672, which licensed 1,610 ministers before its . These fractures accelerated toleration debates, culminating in the Act of Toleration 1689, which exempted Trinitarian Protestant dissenters from penal laws if they swore allegiance and rejected , marking a causal shift from coerced to qualified pluralism after the Glorious Revolution's reconfiguration of state-church relations. By institutionalizing separation, the ejection's legacy undermined absolutist religious policy, fostering a dual ecclesiastical landscape where nonconformists, numbering tens of thousands by the late 17th century, exerted cultural and moral influence disproportionate to their size, including through private academies that preserved advanced learning amid and Cambridge's Anglican restrictions. In global Protestantism, the ejection's export of dissenting ideas reinforced nonconformist models in colonial outposts, though direct migration was limited to around 15 ministers to America. Ejected figures like Urian Oakes, deprived from , , emigrated to and presided over from 1675 to 1681, embedding Puritan emphases on and ministerial education in institutions amid Anglican encroachments via the Dominion of . This transmission sustained congregational autonomy against episcopal oversight, shaping colonial Protestantism's resistance to uniformity and informing later ecclesiastical structures. Long-term, the ejection's dissenting traditions injected vitality into by prioritizing experiential and biblical exposition over liturgical formalism, tracing a causal thread to the 18th-century evangelical revivals. Nonconformist assemblies, sustained by ejected ministers like whose works circulated widely, preserved Puritan amid the between 1662 and the 1730s , countering Anglican latitudinarianism and fueling transatlantic movements through figures influenced by this heritage. This resilience contrasted with establishment stagnation, enabling dissenters' disproportionate role in revivals that emphasized conversion and missions, from Whitefield's itinerancy to global Protestant expansion.

Historiographical Perspectives

Early Nonconformist Accounts

Immediately following the Great Ejection on August 24, 1662 (St. Bartholomew's Day), many ejected ministers delivered farewell sermons to their congregations, articulating their refusal to conform as a matter of bound by divine duty rather than personal ambition. These sermons, compiled and published shortly thereafter, emphasized the primacy of scriptural fidelity over ceremonial uniformity imposed by the , portraying the ministers' departure as a painful yet principled separation ordained by providence. In these addresses, figures such as and Thomas Brooks framed their ejection not as defeat but as testimony to God's sovereignty amid affliction, urging flocks to persevere in godliness despite the loss of pastoral guidance. , for instance, highlighted the transformative impact of nonconformist preaching in parishes like , attributing communal moral improvement to conscience-driven ministry rather than state-enforced rites, while entrusting future trials to divine oversight. Such narratives depicted the ministers as humble servants compelled by "tender consciences" to reject practices like prescribed kneeling at communion or the in , viewing as sin against God. Edmund Calamy's An Abridgement of Mr. Baxter's History of His Life and Times (1702) systematized these early testimonies into a comprehensive , cataloging over 2,000 ejected ministers, lecturers, and fellows with biographical sketches to prevent their "memory... [from dying], injurious to posterity." Calamy enumerated their sufferings—imprisonment, fines, , and familial destitution—while extolling their "pious, learned, sincere" characters as evidence of honorable in a "good cause." He stressed their collective refusal stemmed from prioritizing soul-saving truth over temporal security, often quoting ejectees who declared willingness to "loose all than sin" against conscience. These accounts collectively invoked as the framing lens, interpreting persecutions like the Five Mile Act () and subsequent imprisonments as tests refining the faithful, akin to biblical martyrdoms, rather than mere political reversals. By compiling empirical lists of ejectees across counties—such as dozens in , , and —Calamy and his sources preserved a nonconformist that venerated the ejected as orthodox witnesses to reformed principles, sustaining communal resolve through shared narratives of godly endurance.

Anglican Defenses and Modern Revisions

Contemporary Anglican apologists, such as those defending the , portrayed the ejection as a restoration of liturgical and doctrinal unity essential for ecclesiastical stability following the religious upheavals of the . Bishop Robert Sanderson, who had himself been deprived of his living in 1648 under Puritan rule, contributed to the Savoy Conference's revisions while advocating ceremonies grounded in to preserve church order without reliance on scriptural novelty. Sanderson's casuistical approach emphasized conformity as a prudential means to avert and civil , prioritizing societal cohesion over permissive diversity in worship practices. Twentieth- and twenty-first-century scholarship from Anglican-leaning historians has reframed the Great Ejection as a necessary measure for institutional stabilization, highlighting the prior intolerance of Puritan regimes that deprived thousands of between 1643 and 1660 for nonconformity to parliamentary ordinances. During the 1640s and , committees under the and sequestered benefices and ejected ministers deemed "scandalous" or episcopally oriented, affecting an estimated 8,000 to 10,000 positions amid broader purges that silenced traditionalist . This reciprocal action underscored the ejection's role in reasserting episcopal authority and the after a decade of imposed Presbyterian and Independent structures. Post-2000 regional studies have challenged nonconformist-centric narratives of precipitous decline, revealing sustained but localized of ejected ministers' influence rather than wholesale . Analyses of parochial indicate that while many ejectees withdrew from public ministry due to age, death, or enforcement— with some estimates showing over half inactive or deceased within years— nonconformity's growth was uneven, concentrated in urban and western counties rather than a national surge. Such reassessments, drawing on visitation returns and data, portray the event less as unmitigated tragedy and more as a pivot defining Anglican identity through exclusion of irreconcilable elements.

References

  1. https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2023/the-background-to-the-great-ejection/
  2. https://equip.sbts.edu/publications/journals/journal-of-theology/patiently-to-suffer-for-christs-sake-hercules-collins-as-an-exemplar-of-baptists-during-the-great-persecution-1660-1688/
  3. http://theologian.org.uk/gatissnet/TheTragedyof1662.html
  4. https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&context=pro_rege
  5. https://jamesdicksonbooks.com/blog/remembering-the-great-ejection-of-1662/
  6. https://www.academia.edu/24346080/The_Great_Ejection_An_Appreciation_of_the_Ejected_350_Years_Later
  7. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/the-english-reformation-c1527-1590/vestments-dispute/
  8. https://digitalpuritan.net/william-perkins/
  9. https://www.tutor2u.net/history/reference/puritans
  10. https://history.hanover.edu/texts/engref/er88.html
  11. https://research-portal.uea.ac.uk/en/publications/presbyterians-in-elizabethan-and-early-stuart-england
  12. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/1/44
  13. https://www.fpchurch.org.uk/about-us/important-documents/the-solemn-league-and-covenant-1643/
  14. https://earlofmanchesters.co.uk/the-treaty-against-a-king-the-1643-solemn-league-and-covenant/
  15. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/england.htm
  16. https://academic.oup.com/book/27700/chapter/197857310
  17. https://historyofparliament.com/2022/05/19/church-of-england-seventeenth-century/
  18. https://www.baptists.net/history/2024/07/the-great-ejection-1643-1660/
  19. https://read.uolpress.co.uk/read/church-and-people-in-interregnum-britain/section/d4017397-25d4-4b08-ad0d-789ef0fd7a5b
  20. https://uolpress.co.uk/book/church-and-people-in-interregnum-britain/
  21. https://read.uolpress.co.uk/read/church-and-people-in-interregnum-britain/section/8b9bfa3b-5faf-4b67-82ce-b8ca603e509f
  22. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/restoration-church-1660
  23. https://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-251/lecture-22
  24. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/students/videos/spotlight-on/spotlight-on-charles-ii/
  25. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/B02052.0001.001/1:1.1?rgn=div2%3Bview=fulltext
  26. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/parliament/1660
  27. http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/everyman_history/Chapt10.htm
  28. https://www.christianitytoday.com/1961/07/savoy-1661-failure-of-conference/
  29. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/14/4/enacted
  30. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/religion/collections/common-prayer/act-of-uniformity-1662/
  31. https://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/intro/uniformity_1662.html
  32. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/church-englands-great-ejection
  33. https://thisday.pcahistory.org/2019/08/august-24-5/
  34. https://www.evangelical-times.org/the-great-ejection-there-was-no-sunday-like-it/
  35. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0268117X.2023.2266302
  36. http://thirdmill.org/articles/lyn_friesen/CH.Friesen.Baxter.1.html
  37. https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2005/the-zeal-of-richard-baxter/
  38. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/meetthepuritans/thomasbrooks.html
  39. https://www.chapellibrary.org/author/brooksthomas
  40. https://leegatiss.wordpress.com/2012/08/24/the-great-ejection-of-the-puritans/
  41. https://northamanglican.com/foundations-of-unity-and-accord-in-praise-of-saint-bartholomews-day-1662/
  42. https://anglicanhistory.org/england/afsmethurst/canons1950.html
  43. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A44334.0001.001/1:18?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
  44. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/national-covenant-and-the-solemn-league-and-covenant-16601696/act-of-uniformity-and-the-great-ejection/53D564A744EF64DB8C07D7099A0C5A1C
  45. https://adfontesjournal.com/member-exclusive/the-reception-history-of-the-thirty-nine-articles-in-the-church-of-england-1571-1662/
  46. https://www.theologian.org.uk/gatissnet/TheTragedyof1662.html
  47. https://purelypresbyterian.com/2022/02/11/reasons-against-the-book-of-common-prayer/
  48. https://johnbunyansociety.org/2021/07/15/the-very-picture-of-non-conformity/
  49. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/does-god-hear-scripted-prayers
  50. https://www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/14018/
  51. https://kenbaker.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/non-conformity-and-the-puritan-spirit/
  52. https://stanford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.11126/stanford/9780804759878.001.0001/upso-9780804759878-chapter-3
  53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqsdq6g
  54. https://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/apc-history/church-history-books/history-of-the-pcusa/the-puritans/
  55. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A26924.0001.001?view=toc
  56. https://brill.com/view/journals/chrc/102/1/article-p23_2.xml?language=en
  57. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1660-1690/parliament/1661
  58. https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/oaths-loyalty-crown-church-of-england/
  59. https://www.familysearch.org/en/wiki/England_Nonconformist_History_Late_Seventeenth_Century_-_International_Institute
  60. https://www.britainexpress.com/History/stuart/clarendon-code.htm
  61. https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/C/conventicle-act.html
  62. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Cha2/16/4/section/VI/enacted
  63. https://www.britannica.com/event/Clarendon-Code
  64. https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=weil_ura
  65. https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-favorites/henry-newcome-1627-1695/
  66. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/myparish/posts/ejected/
  67. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/meetthepuritans/richardbaxter.html
  68. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-church-history/article/protestant-dissent-and-the-law-enforcement-and-persecution-166272/EE440B7E04B1559E4C5A0E42108D23EA
  69. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Declaration-of-Indulgence
  70. https://historyofparliament.com/2022/03/10/declaration-of-indulgence/
  71. https://edintone.com/chapels_ministers/directoriesand_lists/declaration-of-indulgence-1672/
  72. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0268117X.2023.2266304
  73. https://library.christianheritagelondon.org/nonconformists
  74. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sed/religionandliterature/dissenting-academies/historical-information/protestant-dissent/
  75. https://www.evangelical-times.org/the-great-ejection-nonconformists-and-1662/
  76. https://oldmeetinghousechurch.org.uk/history-of-congregationalism
  77. https://www.qmul.ac.uk/sed/religionandliterature/dissenting-academies/historical-information/legislation/
  78. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1qv1zv
  79. https://www.brin.ac.uk/eighteenth-century-religious-statistics/
  80. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/29240/1/Larsen.pdf
  81. https://cris.winchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/350417/235Johnson_TheLivesofEjectedHampshireMinisters..._Item_235_original_deposit.pdf
  82. http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1573/1/1573.pdf
  83. https://cf.sbts.edu/equip/uploads/2025/06/SBJT-28.3-Puritan-Vision-of-Revival-Yuille.pdf
  84. https://archive.org/details/cu31924029358789
  85. https://banneroftruth.org/us/store/church-ministry/sermons-of-the-great-ejection/
  86. http://quintapress.webmate.me/PDF_Books/Calamy_1702_Text.pdf
  87. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/studies-in-church-history/article/to-let-the-memory-of-these-men-dye-is-injurious-to-posterity1-edmund-calamys-account-of-the-ejected-ministers/5036E28C7B816D4165B5B9D294983896
  88. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:18c8815b-4e57-45f5-b2c1-e31314a09d4f/files/m4b37bc6f23faf31a959387d6c769a22c
  89. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/luckock_h/studies.ix.html
  90. https://read.uolpress.co.uk/read/church-and-people-in-interregnum-britain/section/f9d5bc9f-7665-49d5-bad3-fee8eef85426
  91. https://www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526167989/9781526167989.00006.xml
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.