https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2023/the-background-to-the-great-ejection/
For years I simply accepted the narrative surrounding the 1662 Great Ejection. For those unfamiliar with this event, this was after the English Civil War and the reign of the Puritan Parliament. Its failures resulted in the Cromwell dictatorship which effectively ended with his death in 1658.
His son Richard attempted to fill his shoes but failed and by 1660, the Stuarts were restored to the throne with the ascension of Charles II - son of Charles I who was executed by the Puritans in 1649.
Charles II worked to undo the effects of Puritan rule and the Restoration period is often paired with discussions of Merrie Olde England. For most of the nation it was a happy time in which old customs were restored and religious severity and fanaticism (as they saw it) were set aside.
Charles also went after the regicides, those that had been involved in his father's execution. And in 1662, he instituted changes to the liturgy and doctrine of the Church of England and demanded conformity on the part of its ministers - of which the Puritans were a part. It must be remembered that (technically Low-church Anglicans) the Puritans were attempting to 'purify' the Church of England. They had no problem with a state church, they merely wanted to control it. They were not Separatists as were the Mayflower Pilgrims and others who wanted nothing to do with the Anglican Church.
The majority of Puritan ministers refused to conform to the new order and in refusing to submit to the 1662 Act of Uniformity were ejected from the Church and essentially banned from the proximity of their congregations. This is often presented as a kind of persecution episode as many of these erstwhile state-salaried men were soon penniless. It must be remembered that they were effectively state employees living at taxpayer expense. The system to which they were committed was rotten to begin with and if they had been more principled they would have rejected it from the beginning. The Separatists understood this even though many would lated abandon their principles in the New World.
There were aspects of genuine persecution to be found within the context of the Clarendon Code - of which the 1662 Act was a part. Conventicles were banned basically making non-conformist worship illegal - a return to the policies of Elizabethan and Jacobean England, the oppressive system the Pilgrim Fathers had fled to Holland in order to escape. Freedom of worship would only be fully implemented with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the Bill of Rights the following year.
With regard to the ejected Puritan ministers of 1662, I find myself struggling to feel sorry for them. And I think it's a testimony to the superficial nature of their movement that this Ejection would within a generation lead to their movement's near collapse. Puritanism was all but dead by the end of the 17th century. The episode certainly marked the end of Political Puritanism and the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (while granting toleration) also put an exclamation point on the verdict rendered by English society. Granted freedom of worship, non-conformists (non-members of the Church of England) were excluded from first-class citizenship until the nineteenth century. The doors of the Establishment were closed to them.
Though the oaths involved under the post-1688 order (and 1689 Act of Toleration) were highly problematic, this was in fact a more Biblically-rooted scenario and as second-class citizens within the realm they flourished (spiritually) over time, and yet not within the context of British politics or Establishment influence. Their gradual re-integration into mainstream society in the 19th century was (in this author's opinion) a sad development and led to the compromises that would eventually result in their sharp decline in the 20th century through today.
There's nothing to lament when it comes to The Great Ejection. It was merely a false form of Christianity deciding to clean house and these compromised men were swept up in it. It was (dare I say) the best thing for them.
As far as their project and English society, what is there to say? It was a failure as we should expect. It was not a Biblically-minded aspiration or model. Certainly they thought so, but they were wrong and lost their way as we see so clearly with the New Model Army, the regicide and Cromwell's regime. A False Christian society provides no comfort but to the delusional.
It blew up in their faces and the end result was far worse and we see this again and again in not just the history of England but in the whole story of Christendom.
Murray's article (linked above) is rotten to the core and based on a series of false assumptions. The New Testament nowhere promises the 'right' of the Church to be exempt from oppression and far less the notion that it's permissible (let alone a duty) to take up the sword in order to secure this supposed 'right'. Murray speaks of preserving Protestantism from error and tyranny, the very things represented by the likes of the Puritans, Cromwell, and certainly political Presbyterianism north of the border.
Owen and Goodwin may have supported Cromwell, but it is folly to speak of 'spiritual gains' in the context of Parliament schemes and the mass murder that is war. This is not to defend or exonerate Charles I who it is safe to say was an enemy of Christ, but the conduct of the Puritan party during this period cannot be justified and reconciled with the New Testament. Cromwell's campaign in Ireland was one of atrocity and lives in the Irish mind to this very day.
One is repulsed by the scheming and back-handed dealings of the Puritans but especially the Presbyterians of Scotland. It's hardly a surprise that their schemes all came back to bite them as it is said.
The subsequent tale of machinations, double-dealing, and naivety are of historical interest but from a Christian standpoint rather tiresome and of little value.
Did Charles II placate these people in order to secure his return to the throne? Of course he did and what would you expect from a Stuart? The idea that the Church was somehow woven in with the aspirations and authority of the monarch should lead all Christians to recoil. There was no way to make this right and Christian participation in the state can only be described as compromise.
We are not moved by Ussher's attempts at reconciliation and a national church. The very notions are ridiculous. There is no basis for a national church. Christian unity is not forged by state decree. Man-made laws and polities cannot replace the work of the Holy Spirit nor be argued to be of assistance when He has not called for them.
The Puritans played politics and lost. They thought the Kingdom of God a worldly thing, won with sword and coin.
The Anglican victory and settlement was a feather in Satan's cap to be sure, but a Puritan victory was nothing to celebrate either. And as far as their defeat? They brought it on themselves and the subsequent twenty-five years were ones of great sorrow and hardship. And like the Continent, Britain would enter the 18th century exhausted and wary of anything that might lead to another such conflict. Latitudinarianism would be in vogue and with it a spirit of malaise and spiritual nominalism.
While modern America is a very different place and direct analogies are few there are some striking similarities and just as the Puritans thought victory was within their grasp, only to see it slip away - so it is with American Evangelicals and their sundry political schemes and compromises. Instead of transforming the world, they instead transform the Church and make it indistinguishable from the world. Puritanism failed in both England and North America and yet clearly the lessons have not been learned.