WHY DID THE SEPARATISTS LEAVE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

WHEN REFORMING THE CHURCH NO LONGER SEEMED ENOUGH

The Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England.

Many believed they could do that while remaining within it.

But some reached a different conclusion.

They believed the problem was not simply a few ceremonies, a prayer book, or the clothing worn by ministers.

The problem was deeper.

It was the very idea of a national church in which religious membership and worship were governed under the Crown.

These Christians became known as:

SEPARATISTS.

They wanted congregations formed by people who personally committed themselves to following Christ, rather than congregations defined by where people happened to live.

Their decision raises questions that still matter:

WHAT MAKES A GROUP OF PEOPLE A CHURCH?

WHO HAS AUTHORITY OVER ITS WORSHIP AND LEADERSHIP?

And:

WHEN CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WITH AN ESTABLISHED CHURCH, MUST THEY LEAVE IT?

1. WHAT MADE THE SEPARATISTS DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PURITANS?

Many Puritans believed the Church of England needed further reform.

They wanted to change it from within.

The Separatists reached a different conclusion.

They believed that remaining within the established church meant continuing to accept a form of church membership and government they could not justify from Scripture.

They therefore organized congregations apart from the Church of England.

That was not merely a matter of choosing another congregation down the street.

Unauthorized religious meetings could bring fines, imprisonment, or other penalties.

Their central question was no longer:

“HOW CAN WE IMPROVE THE NATIONAL CHURCH?”

It had become:

“CAN WE FORM A CONGREGATION OF CHRIST’S PEOPLE WITHOUT WAITING FOR PERMISSION FROM THE KING OR THE BISHOPS?”

That question changed the direction of the English Reformation.

2. WHO WAS ROBERT BROWNE?

Robert Browne was an early advocate of separation from the established church.

In the early 1580s, he argued that Christians should not have to wait for civil authorities before carrying out what they believed Scripture required of the church.

He also argued for congregations formed by believers who willingly joined themselves together and accepted responsibility for their common life.

Browne himself later returned to the Church of England.

Other Separatists continued developing ideas similar to those he had defended.

That reminds us of something important.

The Separatist movement was not the creation of one man.

And Separatists did not always agree with one another.

Now consider the question beneath Browne’s argument.

If Christians believe Christ has instructed them to assemble, worship, and care for one another, must they first obtain permission from an earthly ruler?

Peter and the other apostles said:

“We ought to obey God rather than men.” — Acts 5:29, KJV

But read that statement in its setting.

The apostles had been ordered to stop teaching in Jesus’ name.

They were not claiming that every disagreement with civil government justified disobedience.

The real question is:

IS THE GOVERNMENT PREVENTING CHRISTIANS FROM DOING WHAT CHRIST REQUIRES?

3. WHAT IS A CHURCH?

The Separatists challenged an assumption built into the national church.

A person might belong to an English parish simply because that was where he lived.

His religious life was tied to the church established in his country.

The Separatists argued that a congregation should instead be formed by people who committed themselves to Christ and to one another.

This became known as a:

GATHERED CHURCH.

They believed a congregation did not become a church merely because the government recognized it or because a bishop assigned a minister to it.

Now open the New Testament.

After Peter preached on Pentecost:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” — Acts 2:41, KJV

Those people then:

“continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.” — Acts 2:42, KJV

Paul addressed:

“the church of God which is at Corinth.” — 1 Corinthians 1:2, KJV

He also greeted:

“the church that is in their house.” — Romans 16:5, KJV

These passages show Christians gathered in particular places.

They do not describe church membership as something created by citizenship in a nation.

THE CHURCH BELONGS TO CHRIST.

That does not mean every question about how congregations should be organized has already been answered.

It does mean we must distinguish belonging to Christ from belonging to a country’s established religious institution.

4. DID THEY NEED A CHURCH BUILDING?

One of the best-known Separatist congregations met in the home of William Brewster at Scrooby in Nottinghamshire.

Its members gathered for worship and teaching outside the authorized parish system.

John Robinson became one of its leaders.

The place where they met did not determine whether they were a church.

That brings us back to passages we have already studied.

Prisca and Aquila had a church meeting in their house.

Read Romans 16:3–5.

Paul also greeted:

“Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.” — Colossians 4:15, KJV

A congregation did not need a cathedral.

It did not need a national charter.

It did not need an elaborate building before Christians could assemble as a church.

But be careful with the conclusion.

The New Testament examples of house churches do not establish that a church building is forbidden.

They establish something much simpler:

A SPECIAL BUILDING IS NOT WHAT MAKES A GROUP OF CHRISTIANS A CHURCH.

The building may be useful.

It may be convenient.

It may help the church accomplish its work.

But it is still a building.

The church is the people.

5. WHO HAD AUTHORITY TO CHOOSE THEIR LEADERS?

Separatists challenged the established system in which bishops and other authorities played major roles in appointing and governing ministers.

They favored congregations that took responsibility for recognizing their own leaders and ordering their common life according to Scripture.

Their approaches differed, but the idea of a gathered congregation helped shape later Congregationalist church government.

Now read Acts 14:23.

Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the churches they had established.

Read Titus 1:5.

Paul instructed Titus to appoint elders in every city.

Then read Acts 20:17–28.

The elders of the church at Ephesus are called overseers and instructed to shepherd God’s flock.

These passages establish that congregations had recognized leaders.

Those leaders were accountable to Christ.

But the passages also raise questions.

Does the New Testament prescribe one permanent procedure by which every congregation must recognize its elders?

What authority did apostles and their appointed coworkers exercise in establishing churches?

Can a later church leader claim the same authority merely because he occupies an office with an ancient name?

And does a congregational vote automatically reproduce the New Testament pattern?

We should not assume the answer.

EXAMINE WHAT THE TEXT ACTUALLY SAYS.

6. WHAT DID THEY MEAN BY A CHURCH COVENANT?

Some Separatist congregations entered into a covenant.

This was a shared commitment to follow Christ together and carry out their responsibilities as a church.

The Scrooby congregation formed itself as a separate church through such a commitment.

The New Testament certainly teaches that Christians have responsibilities toward one another.

Jesus said:

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another.” — John 13:34, KJV

Hebrews tells Christians:

“And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together.” — Hebrews 10:24–25, KJV

Paul wrote:

“Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” — Galatians 6:2, KJV

But does the New Testament require every congregation to adopt a formal written covenant?

That is a different question.

Does a written covenant merely help members express responsibilities they already have in Christ?

Or can it become a second standard of membership, adding requirements beyond the gospel?

That depends partly upon what the covenant says and how it is used.

A WRITTEN PROMISE DOES NOT CREATE CHRIST’S AUTHORITY.

It must remain subject to His teaching.

7. WHY DID SOME SEPARATISTS LEAVE ENGLAND?

Leaving the established church was one thing.

Living openly as a separate congregation was another.

Under Elizabeth I and James I, unauthorized worship could bring punishment.

Some Separatists met secretly.

Others were imprisoned.

The Scrooby congregation eventually left England for the Dutch Republic, where it could worship with greater freedom.

Members reached Amsterdam in 1608 and moved to Leiden in 1609.

They did not leave England because they had stopped caring about the church.

They left because they believed they could not worship according to their convictions while remaining under England’s religious laws.

But their move raises another question:

IF CHRISTIANS MUST OBEY GOVERNING AUTHORITIES, WHEN MAY THEY REFUSE A GOVERNMENT’S RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS?

8. MUST CHRISTIANS OBEY THE GOVERNMENT IN EVERYTHING?

Paul instructed Christians to be subject to governing authorities.

Read Romans 13:1–7.

Peter likewise told believers to submit to civil authorities and:

“Honour the king.” — 1 Peter 2:17, KJV

Those instructions mattered to Christians living under Roman rule.

But the apostles also refused an order to stop speaking about Jesus.

Read Acts 4:18–20 and Acts 5:27–29.

When persecution arose in Jerusalem, believers scattered.

But they did not stop proclaiming the gospel.

“Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.” — Acts 8:4, KJV

The New Testament does not teach that Christians must disobey every law they dislike.

Nor does it teach that a ruler may require Christians to abandon their obedience to Christ.

The Separatists believed the English religious laws placed them in that conflict.

We can understand their decision without assuming that every detail of their church practice was therefore correct.

SUFFERING FOR A CONVICTION SHOWS THAT A PERSON TAKES IT SERIOUSLY.

IT DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, PROVE THAT THE CONVICTION IS BIBLICAL.

9. WHAT HAPPENED IN LEIDEN?

The Separatists found greater religious freedom in Leiden.

But life was difficult.

Many worked long hours to support their families.

They were living in another country, dealing with another language and culture, while trying to preserve their congregation and family life.

John Robinson served as pastor.

The congregation commonly met in his home rather than owning a church building of its own.

Their circumstances remind us of something important.

A congregation can continue without the kind of building, financial support, or public recognition it may once have considered normal.

But the New Testament does not require Christians to seek hardship as proof that their congregation is genuine.

The question remains whether they continue in Christ’s teaching and care for one another.

10. WHY DID SOME OF THEM SAIL TO AMERICA?

In 1620, part of Robinson’s congregation sailed on the Mayflower and established Plymouth Colony in New England.

Robinson remained in Leiden with those who did not make the voyage.

William Brewster went with the settlers and served as an elder and religious leader.

Their move was influenced by several concerns.

Life in Holland was difficult.

They were concerned about preserving their religious community and the identity of their families.

They hoped to establish a community elsewhere in which they could live according to their convictions.

But we should not tell the story as though they sailed to an empty land.

THE LAND WAS ALREADY INHABITED.

Indigenous peoples had lived there for generations.

The settlers at Plymouth would enter into relationships and agreements with the Wampanoag, and the history that followed would become much larger and more complicated than the story of one congregation seeking religious freedom.

We should also distinguish these Separatists from every English colonist who later came to New England.

And we should not confuse Plymouth with the much larger Puritan migration that established Massachusetts Bay Colony beginning in 1630.

The groups had related religious backgrounds.

THEY WERE NOT THE SAME GROUP.

11. DID THE PILGRIMS BELIEVE THEY HAD FINALLY UNDERSTOOD EVERYTHING?

Here is one of the most useful moments in this history.

Before the voyage, John Robinson urged the departing members of his congregation to remain willing to learn more from Scripture.

Edward Winslow later recorded Robinson’s counsel.

According to that account, Robinson warned Christians against stopping with what Luther or Calvin had understood.

He believed more truth could yet be learned from God’s Word.

But he did not tell them to accept every new idea merely because it was new.

New teaching still had to be examined by Scripture.

He also encouraged them to seek unity rather than separation wherever they could do so without violating their convictions.

Notice both parts.

BE WILLING TO RECONSIDER WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT.

But also:

DO NOT TREAT SEPARATION AS SOMETHING DESIRABLE IN ITSELF.

That is a difficult balance.

It is possible to remain in a church simply because we are unwilling to question its practices.

It is also possible to leave a church because we are unwilling to work patiently through disagreement.

Neither response should be automatic.

12. WHEN DOES A DISAGREEMENT REQUIRE SEPARATION?

Paul urged Christians:

“Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” — Ephesians 4:3, KJV

He also instructed Christians in Rome to receive one another despite disagreements over food and the observance of particular days.

Read Romans 14:1–15:7.

Those disagreements did not require Christians to form separate congregations.

But Paul warned the Galatians about:

“another gospel.” — Galatians 1:6, KJV

He said:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” — Galatians 1:8, KJV

And he instructed the Corinthians to address serious, unrepentant sin within their congregation.

Read 1 Corinthians 5:1–13.

The New Testament does not treat every disagreement as equally serious.

That means we need to ask:

Is this a difference over something Scripture permits?

Is someone imposing a human rule as though it were God’s command?

Is a congregation refusing to obey a clear teaching of Christ?

Is the disagreement being handled with patience, truth, and love?

And have we listened carefully enough to understand what the other person actually believes?

Those questions are not answered merely by calling ourselves Separatists, Puritans, or members of any other movement.

13. DID SEPARATION END THEIR DISAGREEMENTS?

No.

English Separatists did not form one lasting, united movement.

They disagreed about church leadership.

They disagreed about worship.

They disagreed about baptism.

They disagreed about relationships with other congregations.

Some of those disagreements developed while they were living in the Netherlands.

The Scrooby group moved from Amsterdam to Leiden partly amid differences involving other English Separatists there.

That is an important lesson.

LEAVING AN INSTITUTION DOES NOT REMOVE THE NEED TO INTERPRET SCRIPTURE.

And organizing an independent congregation does not guarantee that its members will agree.

A congregation can be free from outside control and still make mistakes.

It can reject an inherited tradition and then create a new tradition of its own.

INDEPENDENCE IS A FORM OF ORGANIZATION.

IT IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF BIBLICAL ACCURACY.

14. WERE THE SEPARATISTS ALREADY BAPTISTS?

No.

Not all of them.

John Robinson’s Leiden congregation retained infant baptism.

But another English Separatist congregation in Amsterdam, associated with John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, began reconsidering it.

Around 1609, Smyth and those associated with him adopted baptism for professing believers.

That development became an important beginning of the English Baptist movement.

The distinction matters.

Separatists could agree that a church should be a gathered community of committed believers while disagreeing about baptism.

Some continued to believe the children of believers belonged to the covenant community and should be baptized.

Others asked:

IF THE CHURCH IS A GATHERED COMMUNITY OF BELIEVERS, WHY ARE PEOPLE BAPTIZED BEFORE THEY CAN PROFESS FAITH?

The question of church membership had led them back to the question of baptism.

And that question would produce another division.

15. WHAT DID THE SEPARATISTS GET US TO ASK?

Their history has brought several questions into focus.

Can Christians form a congregation without permission from a bishop or ruler?

Does a church require a special building?

Is membership in Christ’s church determined by national citizenship?

What authority does a congregation have to recognize leaders and order its worship?

When should Christians remain together despite disagreement?

And when does faithfulness to Christ require them to refuse a religious demand?

We have examined New Testament passages relevant to each question.

But we must be careful not to turn the Separatists into our final authority.

They were Christians trying to follow Scripture in difficult circumstances.

Their decisions deserve careful historical study.

Their conclusions, like ours, must still be tested.

TEXT B4 TRADITION MEANS THE SEPARATISTS’ TRADITIONS TOO.

Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.

16. THE NEXT QUESTION: WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED?

John Smyth and Thomas Helwys had accepted the Separatist idea of a gathered congregation.

Then they asked a further question:

IF THE CONGREGATION IS TO CONSIST OF PEOPLE WHO PERSONALLY BELIEVE IN CHRIST, WHY ARE INFANTS BAPTIZED BEFORE THEY CAN PROFESS THAT FAITH?

Other Christians answered that question by appealing to God’s covenant with believers and their children.

Smyth and Helwys reached a different conclusion.

Their disagreement would help produce English Baptist congregations.

But the question goes deeper than the name Baptist.

What does baptism mean?

Who should receive it?

What did the apostles teach people before baptizing them?

What part does faith play?

And does the New Testament ever describe an infant being baptized?

Those questions take us to our next study:

WHY DID THE FIRST ENGLISH BAPTISTS REJECT INFANT BAPTISM?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHY DID THE FIRST ENGLISH BAPTISTS REJECT INFANT BAPTISM?