Both religions, different flavours of Christianity, developed about the same time, from groups that were dissatisfied with the religious mainstream (Anglicism) available to them in England. The Quakers arose later than the Pilgrims, though, (about 1655) which was an immense advantage in that Britian had already suffered a civil war over religion; whereas the Pilgrims departed England in 1620 -- just as that civil war was brewing and reached its height.
The Quakers: believe strongly in the value of one's direct relationship with God. There is a heavy emphasis on mysticism in this faith, but achieved through group rather than individual worship and action. Quakers very much embrace the outside world and want to improve it. Quakers eschew doctrines, creeds, theological statements strictly formalised ceremonies and believe strongly intead in following one's inner (divinely inspired) light for spiritual enlightenment. Egalitarianism and community harmony are among their guiding ideals. For this reason they are rarely viewed as heretics or a threat to mainstream established religion.
The Pilgrims, in contrast, were expressly dissenting from and arguing against the prevailing orthodoxy of how Christian worship should happen: they objected to unnecessary, excessive and as they saw it -- insincere -- sacraments, doctrine and theology. The Pilgrims mostly came out of one small community in Nottinghamshire, England -- not a wider regional movement like the Quakers were. The Pilgrims believed in pre-destination; it was decided before you were born if you would go to heaven or hell; in contrast to conventional theology said that a person could always repent and save themselves -- as the Quakers also believe. The Pilgrims believed that most of the usual Sacraments of the Anglican and Catholic church were inventions and distractions. Not least because salvation was predestined, the role of a priest or the church building was not very important in their religion.
Compared to the Quakers, The Pilgrims were much more idealist and stubborn about their path of enlightenment being the only one worth having. Quakers are more inclusive, and willing to listen to alternative viewpoints, especially on matters doctrinal.
It is interesting to note that the Quakers has flourished as a religious movement, whereas the movement started by William Brewster and his Pilgrim followers melted away.
Like 1 in seven Americans I'm descended from the Pilgrims so really should know more about them than I do. They were very inbred for several generations in the New World, probably one big reason their religious views didn't propagate so well.
The Quakers: believe strongly in the value of one's direct relationship with God. There is a heavy emphasis on mysticism in this faith, but achieved through group rather than individual worship and action. Quakers very much embrace the outside world and want to improve it. Quakers eschew doctrines, creeds, theological statements strictly formalised ceremonies and believe strongly intead in following one's inner (divinely inspired) light for spiritual enlightenment. Egalitarianism and community harmony are among their guiding ideals. For this reason they are rarely viewed as heretics or a threat to mainstream established religion.
The Pilgrims, in contrast, were expressly dissenting from and arguing against the prevailing orthodoxy of how Christian worship should happen: they objected to unnecessary, excessive and as they saw it -- insincere -- sacraments, doctrine and theology. The Pilgrims mostly came out of one small community in Nottinghamshire, England -- not a wider regional movement like the Quakers were. The Pilgrims believed in pre-destination; it was decided before you were born if you would go to heaven or hell; in contrast to conventional theology said that a person could always repent and save themselves -- as the Quakers also believe. The Pilgrims believed that most of the usual Sacraments of the Anglican and Catholic church were inventions and distractions. Not least because salvation was predestined, the role of a priest or the church building was not very important in their religion.
Compared to the Quakers, The Pilgrims were much more idealist and stubborn about their path of enlightenment being the only one worth having. Quakers are more inclusive, and willing to listen to alternative viewpoints, especially on matters doctrinal.
It is interesting to note that the Quakers has flourished as a religious movement, whereas the movement started by William Brewster and his Pilgrim followers melted away.
Like 1 in seven Americans I'm descended from the Pilgrims so really should know more about them than I do. They were very inbred for several generations in the New World, probably one big reason their religious views didn't propagate so well.
