James Nayler and the Puritan Crackdown on the Free Spirit
Author: Leo Demrosch
Reviewer: John Cowan
(2021 updated version of review + consequences for us)
In the mid-Seventeenth Century the central figure and in some ways the founder of Quakerism was George Fox, although many others were leaders also. One such, James Nayler, in some circles, particularly London, was considered more important than Fox. Nayler was a better preacher and a better writer than the less educated Fox.
Quakerism in its beginnings was an ecstatic religion. Quakers were nick-named “Quakers” as they lost control of their bodies, in ecstasy, quaking and crying out.
Nayler and a handful of his women followers on a Palm Sunday decided to reenact the entrance of Jesus on the first Palm Sunday by Nayler riding into Bristol on a horse, donkey unavailable, with a few women followers, in an ecstatic manner, throwing branches and clothing before him onto the muddy street. (Later pictures of this scene show dozens of followers and hundreds of watchers. That was not the case.)
This was not an extraordinary action in those times. Quakers, among others, thought, something like Catholics with the Mass, that in some way such an action brought Jesus back to life in that moment. Unfortunately, although the act was played out in rain and mud with few to watch, one person who did see the scene, found it blasphemous, genuinely horrified he turned the Nayler in to the authorities. After a lengthy local trial, in which Naylor was not found guilty of blasphemy, Nayler was turned over to Parliament which sentenced him to severe punishment, time in the stocks, whipping until not a square inch of his back was undamaged, a hole burned through his tongue, and a brand of “H” for “Heretic” burned into his forehead. Then hauled behind a cart from town to town to be insulted, pelted with garbage, even an occasional stone, and two years of solitary prison time to serve after that.
This condemnation of this individual spilled over into increased persecution for Quakers generally, who then denied and excommunicated Nayler. leaving him the scapegoat for all evils the Quakers brought on themselves. (For instance, telling others they are going to hell, is at the least irritating, and plants the seeds for later reprisals.) Nayler appears in much Quaker writing to this day as at best a brilliant nut job seduced by a group of even nuttier women into acting on his worst inclinations.
Leo Damrosch, after rigorously searching the sources for what really happened, retells the story with a happier twist.
Nayler was a brilliant and God-fearing man. The ride into Bristol was a judgment call. His judgment that this was acceptable was incorrect but this was the third such ride that he had participated in and the others had been accepted as theatrical reminders of a past event and accomplished without reprisal. The women involved may have been amped up by the occasion, but when not in an ecstatic state they were remarkably bright and knowledgeable believers.
Nayler was not a blasphemer. The critical charge was that he had claimed to be the Son of God. When asked at trial if he had said that, he agreed that he had, but that he was such as every person is a son or daughter of God. When somebody says that he intended no blasphemy, a court cannot declare that person a blasphemer. Therefore, he was passed onto Parliament as not guilty.
Parliament, however was not interested in judging him they were into punishing him, and so they did.
Did Fox and his fellow Quakers help him in this moment? They did not. Fox visited Nayler during his imprisonment and when he tried to take Fox’s hand, a move that in the situation would require Fox to bend, Fox offered him his foot instead. I do not know if in that day there might be a pleasant interpretation of that gesture. I have read about it in several places and the authors have made no effort to sugarcoat Fox’s action.
After his punishment, Quaker writers referred to Nayler as rehabilitating himself. That is not so. He saw no need to be rehabilitated. He had done nothing wrong. Except for expressing his sorrow at the pain he had unintentionally brought on the Quaker movement, he went on preaching and writing for two years after his release, becoming recognized for his kindness and humility. While walking for home in the North, he was set upon by thieves, beaten, and died alone.
In response to this event and others like it, Quakers under Fox’s guidance began organizing checks and balances to bring the pressure of the group to bear on the spontaneity of the individual, a sea change from the flagrant, exciting, ecstatic beginnings. Under these disciplines Quakers have accomplished much, but have we lost track of the “pearl of great price?” At one time the leadership thought the world which had been joining in droves would maybe all become Quaker. Growth seems to have slowed radically since new members no longer experienced ecstatic breakthrough.
(I had one of those breakthroughs fifty some years ago after a Human Relations Laboratory, and have struggled to return to it for the last fifty years. Based on my short-lived experience I am not surprised at the sacrifices and the bonding of the early Quakers. Nor surprised that rules quench that flame.)
I thank Leo Damrosch for moving James Nayler from a position of stain on my spiritual family to being a man I now admire. Fox and the rest of that generation of Quakers proved themselves human and began the caution that lives on to this day, making the possibility of a new James Nayler not very likely. Without people with ecstatic inclinations on whom does the Holy Spirit breath? With rules, some written and many not written, that force decorous behavior how can the Quaker respond to the Spirit’s nudges?
In 1653 James Nayler , in his examination before the justices at Appleby, described the experience that led to his throwing in his lot with Friends.:
I was at the plough, meditating on the things of God, and suddenly I heard a voice saying unto me, ‘Get thee out from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house’. And I had a promise given with it, whereupon I did exceedingly rejoice that I had heard the voice of that God which I had professed from a child, but had never known him… And when I came at home, I gave up my estate, cast out my money; but not being obedient in going forth, the wrath of God was upon me, so that I was made a wonder to all, and none thought I would have lived. But after I was made willing, I began to make some preparation, as apparel and other necessaries, not knowing whither I should go. But shortly afterwards going a gate-ward with a friend from my own house, having on an old suit, without any money, having neither taken leave of wife or children, not thinking then of any journey, I was commanded to go into the west, not knowing whither I should go, nor what I was to do there. But when I had been there a little while, I had given me what I was to declare. And ever since I have remained not knowing today what I was to do tomorrow… [The promise was] that God would be with me, which promise I find made good every day.
How would taking the path that he took play out in your Quaker community?