Pilgrims & Baptists: The Little Known Connection

[John81]

Pilgrims & Baptists: the little known connection

by David Roach, posted Wednesday, November 26, 2014 (8 hours ago)

 

NASHVILLE (BP) -- If not for a Baptist church split, the Pilgrims might never have come to America.

 

Sort of.

 

John Smyth, who often is credited with being the first Baptist, pastored a church where many of the Christians who later came to be known as Pilgrims were members. But when Smyth began to argue with the future Pilgrims over church government, they formed another church under the leadership of John ROBinson. In 1620, a portion of ROBinson's congregation sailed to Plymouth, Mass., aboard the Mayflower.

 

Following the split, Smyth became convinced that the Bible teaches believer's baptism and launched the Baptist movement.

 

"Most people don't realize how closely the Pilgrims and the first Baptists were related. John Smyth and [Plymouth Colony governor] William Bradford knew each other, and in fact Smyth pastored the church where many of the Pilgrims were members before they left England for Holland and then sailed to America," Jason Duesing, provost at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press in written comments. "The world of English Separatism was very intertwined. Those that became Baptists were a formative part of the story that led to the first Thanksgiving."

 

Smyth and the Pilgrims both emerged from a movement in England known as Separatism.

 

In the late 1500s and early 1600s, the Church of England, which was controlled by the British monarch, was Protestant in its doctrine but largely followed Catholic worship practice. A group of Christians known as Puritans OBjected to Catholic rituals and thought worship should only include elements taught in the Bible. Many Puritans tried to reform the Church of England without leaving its membership, but some radical Puritans separated from the state church altogether and formed what historians call Separatist congregations.

 

Being a Separatist could be trying. Many were imprisoned and some were even executed for their beliefs.

 

A forthcoming Baptist history textbook from B&H Academic titled "The Baptist Story" explains, "In an effort to curb the growth of Separatists, a law was passed in April 1593 requiring everyone over the age of 16 to attend the church of their local parish, which comprised all who lived within a certain geographic boundary."

 

Failure to OBey the law "for an entire month meant imprisonment," B&H authors Anthony Chute, Nathan Finn and Michael Haykin wrote. "If, three months following an individual's release from prison, he or she still refused to conform, the person was to be given a choice of exile or death. In other words, the established church and the state were hoping to be rid of the Separatist prOBlem by sending those who were recalcitrant into exile."

 

Faced with the choice of exile or death, most Separatists opted for exile, including about 40 who ended up in Amsterdam with their pastor, Francis Johnson.

 

In 1608 a second Separatist church traveled to Amsterdam pastored by Smyth. At first the two congregations fellowshipped with each other. Their pastors had known each other since Johnson served as one of Smyth's tutors at the University of Cambridge, according to The Baptist Story.

But conflict emerged when Smyth took issue with the Johnson congregation's distinction between pastors, teachers and ruling elders among its leadership. Smyth believed Scripture combined the three positions into one office, the pastor/elder, and he said every church should have multiple elders or pastors. This and other differences led to a break of fellowship between the two churches.

 

The doctrinal conflict also contributed to a split in the church led by Smyth -- though historians disagree about whether the church split occurred in England or the Netherlands.

 

John ROBinson led a faction of about 100 members from the Smyth church who eventually relocated to the city of Leiden and became known as Pilgrims, famously moving to America and landing on Plymouth Rock in 1620. Smyth soon came to believe that only followers of Jesus should be baptized and administered baptism to himself and his congregation by pouring. Later Thomas Helwys assumed leadership of the congregation, which some regard as the first English Baptist church, when Smyth sought to join a Mennonite church in the Netherlands.

 

Years later, when Bradford recounted the Pilgrims' journey to America as well as their celebration of the first Thanksgiving in 1621, he noted their interaction with the Baptists.

 

Among the members of an early Separatist church, Bradford wrote in "Of Plymouth Plantation," was "Mr. John Smyth, a man of able gifts and a good preacher, who afterwards was chosen their pastor. But these afterwards falling into some errors in the Low Countries" -- a reference to the congregation's adoption of Baptist views in the Netherlands -- "there (for the most part) buried themselves and their names."

 

Despite the Pilgrims' unfavorable view of Baptists, Duesing said they should be remembered with thankfulness this Thanksgiving.

 

"This congregation of 'pilgrims' had already endured the arduous journey of leaving England due to ... persecution from the established church, yet, a section of them desired still to travel further," Duesing said. "Life in Holland was difficult for English expatriates, and for some a prosperous future both for the church and in terms of economic and social survival, seemed dim. The Mayflower group determined to leave ... for New England, then, in part to continue to have the freedom to establish their church separate from the state, but also to do so in an environment that gave more potential for long-term survival. The idea of America seemed worth another arduous and costly journey for these reasons."

 

As Bradford wrote, the Pilgrims also hoped to be a part of "propagating and advancing the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ in those remote parts of the world."

 

In another connection to Baptists, many of the Pilgrims' descendants -- the New England Congregationalists -- became Baptists during the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 40s.

 

All Christians, including Baptists, should study the Pilgrims, Duesing said, because they were "a heroic group who sought a better life for their children and grandchildren centered around a church faithful to the New Testament and positioned for seeking the advance of the Gospel."

 

http://www.bpnews.net/43822/pilgrims-and-baptists-the-little-known-connection

[DaveW]

Beware the sly attempt to of this article to make Baptists into protestants.

[Jordan Kurecki]

John Smyth did not start the Baptist Church movement.

 

There were Baptists before John Smyth.

 

To name some movements that were Baptist in doctrine and practice:

 

the Waldensians, the Lollards (Tyndale was very Baptist in doctrine), the Paulicians, the Albigenses, The Novations. 

 

as someone has already said, wherever you got that, it is OBvious they think Baptists are Protestants.. Baptists did not come out of the Anglican Church! 

[John81]

Beware the sly attempt to of this article to make Baptists into protestants.

This article only covers one small aspect of Baptists, not the entire history, and there are some Baptists which are/were Protestants. That doesn't change the rest of the history of Baptists before or after.

[John81]

John Smyth did not start the Baptist Church movement.

 

There were Baptists before John Smyth.

 

To name some movements that were Baptist in doctrine and practice:

 

the Waldensians, the Lollards (Tyndale was very Baptist in doctrine), the Paulicians, the Albigenses, The Novations. 

 

as someone has already said, wherever you got that, it is OBvious they think Baptists are Protestants.. Baptists did not come out of the Anglican Church! 

If you check those groups closer you will find that while they did hold to Bible basics in some areas, as better Baptists do, they also held to practices our Baptist churches reject and which we find unbiblical.

 

Those who hold to Scripture are holding to Bible doctrine, not Baptist doctrine. A good Baptist church will hold to sound Bible doctrine. There could be no truly good Baptist (or any other) doctrine except it be Bible doctrine.

[DaveW]

The warning was appropriate and correct.

[John81]

The warning was appropriate and correct.

Perhaps, if someone can't tell the article is dealing with only a very limited aspect of Baptists as it pertains to the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving Day.

 

Otherwise, it's clear the article isn't presenting the entire Baptist history or trying to paint this tiny bit of history as a central point of Baptist history.

 

We should be cautious in all we read.

[Jordan Kurecki]

If you check those groups closer you will find that while they did hold to Bible basics in some areas, as better Baptists do, they also held to practices our Baptist churches reject and which we find unbiblical.

 

Those who hold to Scripture are holding to Bible doctrine, not Baptist doctrine. A good Baptist church will hold to sound Bible doctrine. There could be no truly good Baptist (or any other) doctrine except it be Bible doctrine.

there are Baptists today who hold to unbiblical views, a lot of times the argument is given that the groups we claim as our forrunners held to heresy etc.. but often they are cherry picking the oddballs from some of these movements... Rick Warren I believe came from the Southern Baptists.... someone 1,000 years in the future could try to use him to discredit whatever groups exists who can trace their roots to the Southern Baptists.

[John81]

there are Baptists today who hold to unbiblical views, a lot of times the argument is given that the groups we claim as our forrunners held to heresy etc.. but often they are cherry picking the oddballs from some of these movements... Rick Warren I believe came from the Southern Baptists.... someone 1,000 years in the future could try to use him to discredit whatever groups exists who can trace their roots to the Southern Baptists.

That's basically the point. There are many threads or branches to the Baptist tree, both then and now. One could point to the bad and say all were like that, or one could point to a good one and claim all were like that. The most common thing I hear when I say I'm Baptist is the one I'm speaking to saying something about Southern Baptists. To them, the first thing that comes to mind when they hear Baptist is Southern Baptist. While that could be viewed as a prOBlem, I view it as an opportunity to put forth Scripture in explaining what kind of Baptist I actually am.

 

When reading about Baptists we always have to see just what the author is referring to specifically.

[Covenanter]

You Americans are very insular. The Anabaptists had a special mention in the CofE 39 articles:

XXXVIII. OF CHRISTIAN MEN'S GOODS, WHICH ARE NOT COMMON

 

THE Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

From the time of Justinian (6th C) rebaptism was a capital offence. 

[Jordan Kurecki]

You Americans are very insular. The Anabaptists had a special mention in the CofE 39 articles:

From the time of Justinian (6th C) rebaptism was a capital offence. 

I fail to see the point of this post.

 

What does what your saying have to do with the topic we are discussing? 

[John81]

Actually the point of the post was simply to note this bit of trivia where the Pilgrim and Baptist lines had a connection. Most folks don't know much history so I found the story interesting. I had previously read of these matters but until seeing this article had forgotten about it.

 

This is just a trivial, tiny subset on the edge of the overall Baptist history and really shouldn't be a point of contention or argument.

[HappyChristian]

Interestingly, and to head another direction in the relationship between Pilgrims and Baptists...

 

Pilgrims did not have the same mind set that Puritans did, as far as remaining part of the Anglican church. And Puritans were not at all in favor of any "free-thinker" (like Baptists) and would jail them or worse (OBadiah Holmes was beaten for daring to preach the gospel in Puritan territory).  Pilgrims here in America were not too friendly to Baptists, either.  They did not jail them, but they did not want them in their group.  Neither did either group like the Quakers.  Of course, Quakers were not biblical, but Puritans and Pilgrims were not really in favor of religious freedom. We can thank the hated Baptists for our freedoms - both politically and religiously (personal and political liberties are all rooted in true religious liberty).

[Covenanter]

You Americans are very insular. The Anabaptists had a special mention in the CofE 39 articles:

"THE Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability."

From the time of Justinian (6th C) rebaptism was a capital offence. 

The big prOBlem with baptists down the ages is their perceived rejection of authority, particularly of the state church. Particularly because they REbaptised those baptised (usually in infancy) by the state church. So ANAbaptists. 

 

Church & state were so linked as the joint religious & secular authorities that to be a baptist was automatically to be an insurgent. Thus the German Peasants' Revolt was brutally crushed. The aftermath of the  Munster Rebellion that followed 10 years later saw the formation of Anabaptist sects including the Mennonites.

 

A fascinating book on the subject is The Reformers and Their Stepchildren

 

One reviewer writes:

 

 

This is must reading for anyone fed up with political Christianity. Verduin unmasks many of the myths about the Reformation which the mainstream Protestant churches fail to teach.
"Stepchildren" is a term Verduin uses to designate the more radical front of the Reformation which was later scorned and persecuted by the officially sanctioned Protestant churches. Verduin avoids the term "Anabaptist" because this underground dissent of Christendom went all the way back to the days of Constantine and had no official founder or name. Known throughout the centuries as Donatists, Waldenses, Cathars, or Anabaptists,the "stepchildren" had the greatest influence in securing the religious liberties we enjoy today.
Verduin spares no criticism of the Reformers, ie Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, who merely replaced Roman Catholic theocracy with one of their own. Originally allied with the "stepchildren", the Reformers became their bitterest enemies when they allied themselves with the governing authorities and used civil and military force to coerce believers.
It was the "stepchildren", many of whom emigrated to the American colonies, and not the Reformers, who had the greatest influence upon religious freedom and separation of church and state which was later incorporated into the First Ammendment of our Constitution. The First Ammendment, once and for all, ended the notion that America would ever become a "Sacral" or theocratic society tied together by one religion.

[Genevanpreacher]

Interestingly, and to head another direction in the relationship between Pilgrims and Baptists...

 

Pilgrims did not have the same mind set that Puritans did, as far as remaining part of the Anglican church. And Puritans were not at all in favor of any "free-thinker" (like Baptists) and would jail them or worse (OBadiah Holmes was beaten for daring to preach the gospel in Puritan territory).  Pilgrims here in America were not too friendly to Baptists, either.  They did not jail them, but they did not want them in their group.  Neither did either group like the Quakers.  Of course, Quakers were not biblical, but Puritans and Pilgrims were not really in favor of religious freedom. We can thank the hated Baptists for our freedoms - both politically and religiously (personal and political liberties are all rooted in true religious liberty).

 

We do have to keep in mind, even though some may think all Puritans were the same, they weren't.

Just like Baptists, they had 'sects' that were biblical, and some led by men's 'doctrine'.

Now speaking of the Pilgrims* of the 'Mayflower' beginnings, they were of the 'freedom' mindset. It all depends on the particular 'author'

that you have read, and whether they agree with certain teachings in the Bible.

They slanted 'christian' history back then, also.

 

*Edited for wrong 'group' name.