James Nayler

Naylor's 'confession' has been a wall companion for almost 20 years. It is a beautiful expression of the work of the Spirit in a man's heart. As regards his riding into Bristol on a donkey and allowing folks to put leaves and clothing before him... And I am disappointed that George Fox distanced himself from Naylor at this time. It is good to read the introduction to Fox's Journal which shows the kind of choatic conditions that these things took place in. Fox always distanced himself from the Ranters and this kind of behaviour was more in keeping with their antics. I think I was the first to post Naylor's confession on here some 2 years or more ago. It was in our discussion on your views on reincarnation.there is quite a full wikipedia entry on James Naylor.

Wow, thanks Jake and Ron.Had never heard of him prior. What a powerful paragraph in that testimony;“There is a spirit which I feel, that delights to do no evil, nor to avenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in thought to any other: if it be betrayed, it bears it; for its ground and spring are the mercies and forgiveness of God. Its crown is meekness, its life is everlasting love unfeigned, and takes its kingdom with entreaty, and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind. In God alone it can rejoice, though none else regard it, or can own its life. It is conceived in sorrow, and brought forth without any to pity it; nor doth it murmur at grief, and oppression. It never rejoiceth but through sufferings; for with the world's joy it is murdered. I found it alone, being forsaken. I have fellowship therein with them who lived in dens, and desolate places of the earth, who through death obtained this resurrection, and eternal holy life.”Read more at the link.Couldn't find it, could you re-link it here?

there is an interesting insight here to modern quakerism? New Testament reports that Jesus once entered Jerusalem seated upon an ass, with people laying their cloaks before him and chanting "Hosanna!" I don't think we'll ever know whether this story records an actual event or is simply an expression of the faith of some of Jesus' followers.(1) We do know, however, that a similar scene did take place in England many centuries later, when the Quaker James Nayler, one of the most influential and beloved of the first group of Quaker ministers, entered the town of Bristol on horseback as chanting people spread their scarves upon the ground.We have here a writer who is not prepared to believe the Bible but takes the absolute word of more modern sources. This hostility to the scriptures' accuracy would seem to be a modern quaker tendency?

Hi NeilThere can be no justifying what was done to Naylor. However, the times were very different to our own. Cromwell's commonwealth was failing, Charles II was poised for his return, and during the civil war there had been what they called 'Fifth Monarchy Men'. These were radicals who believed that the 4 kingdoms of Daniel were coming to an end and that the 5th Kingdom, Christ's was about to appear. They were anarchists who wanted to see all government fail to make room for Christ's. The extremist were under suspicion of the civil power. Britain had executed its king, and the kingdom was ready to strike back. It was a time of fear and suppression when every extremist's action was interpreted as treason against the commonwealth, and the most dangerous of all was religious treason. The climate was similar to your Salem Witch Trials half a century later. Fear stalked the land.One of Cromwell's chief ministers was George Downing, the man they named Downing Street after. George Downing. Surprisingly he was from Salem and was a Harvard man. He had returned to England and become a government minister under Cromwell. He was cruel, vindictive and sly. He was the man responsible for the 'punishment' of James Naylor. He changed sides so completely that he was one of those who welcomed Charles II back at the restoration of the monarchy!These were evil times and they were evil men as well and good men whose deeds were evil. Our civil war was the bloodiest, percentage-wise, of all England's wars. The suspicions ran deep and brother had fought brother. Religion could so easily be the spark to the powder keg. When Charles II became king most Quaker boys spent their 16th birthday in jail because they refused to swear the oath of allegiance to the king. In the midst of all this volatility James Naylor's action was sheer folly. Does that excuse what they did to him? Not at all, but it is difficult to get into the mindset of another century and England in the 17th century was another world!! I agree with you about the separation between church and state but it would not have spared Naylor; any such non-conformity was bound to draw the hostility of a frightened government down on itself.When it comes to sources the Naylor story seems to be from those who opposed George Fox's discipline of the Societies of Friends. They would tolerate no authority other than that of their own spirit. Fox believed in that too, but knew that God had set in the church ... apostles, evangelists etc and when he tried to exercise his gentle authority he was opposed by the more extreme of the early Quakers. It is good to remember that whenever there is a move of God there is always a lunatic fringe which throws everything into jeopardy. Fox tried to modify some of these extremes, and some have never forgiven him for it.

I am not sure whether or not Howard or John Carter was imprisoned. In fact 'ministers' of recognised denominations were not required to take up arms and a number of Pentecostal ministers were 'added' to the ranks of 'registered Pentecostal ministers' at that time. It was usually 'independents' who spent time in prison for refusing to take up arms. This would have been the Second World War rather than the First World War. That conflict 1914-1918 was much harsher on conscientious objectors but that would have been too early for Howard Carter I think.I heard Howard Carter speak.