James Nayler and the Quest for Historic Quaker Identity offers a timely and ambitious examination of one of the most controversial figures in early Quaker history. James Nayler’s life has been overshadowed by the dramatic events that took place from October to December 1656. He has been turned into a cautionary tale of sorts and historians often find themselves pitting Nayler against George Fox on opposite sides of the spectrum of thought – Nayler almost always treated with hostility, like a theological outlier and a scapegoat. McArthur challenges this narrative by examining the complex life of James Nayler, his spiritual and radical development, his writing and actions in the 1650s, and his posthumous reputation. McArthur rightfully states that Nayler is either seen as an adherent Quaker, embodying their early radical spirit or he is viewed as a theological renegade, pushing against the early Quaker beliefs and practices (p2). This leads to central argument of the volume: what defined an authentic Quaker identity?

The volume begins by exploring the background of the Bristol incident and provides a detailed summary of Nayler’s activities in the months leading up to the infamous reenactment on 24 October 1656. The incident itself was called a ‘fall’ by George Fox and George Whitehead, a ‘transgression’ through ‘blindness’ and ‘temptation’ by Edward Burrough and Richard Hubberthorne (pp6–7). McArthur provides commentary made by non-Quakers in the late seventeenth and eighteenth century, labelling Nayler as insane, weak, or delusional, judging him more harshly than Fox and the other Quaker leaders of the time while also reinforcing those early narratives. In more recent years, Nayler has been accepted by scholars as representative of early Quakerism and his actions on that October day in 1656 are not viewed as a ‘mad prank’ but inevitable. This aligns with what Nayler and his followers originally said in their defence – the performance was in deference to God in them (p9). When considering the rehabilitation of Nayler’s reputation, McArthur reminds us that Christopher Hill wrote that the post-Bristol period ‘closed the door on much that was courageous and live-giving in the early Quaker movement’ (p12). Unsurprisingly, when Nayler is rehabilitated, it is often at the expense of George Fox, who is in turn viewed as ‘corporate’ with an ‘authoritarian approach’ (p13). McArthur warns us to proceed with caution.

This volume dissects the theological doctrines of Fox and Nayler up to 1657, reexamines Quaker actions and behaviours of the 1650s, and explores the reasons why Nayler’s ‘drift’ occurred and pinpoints the strategic shift that took place in 1655 and 1656. Within its pages, McArthur truly and thoughtfully engages with the primary source material, especially the voluminous print records, while also demonstrating an impressive grasp on the historiography – not only of the Nayler schism, but of the early Quaker experience of the 1650s.

Both Fox and Nayler encouraged keeping Christ’s ‘measure’ by displaying personal humility and moral righteousness; Nayler in particular urging Friends to ‘avoid divisions’ (p32). As relevant case studies, McArthur highlights the actions of Quakers John Toldervy, John Gilpin, and James Milner. Milner publicly identified himself with Christ and John the Baptist. Both Fox and Nayler were compelled to issue a response to Milner’s critics. Nayler had previously warned Milner and his followers to ‘mind the light in thee’ and in a co-authored pamphlet entitled Saul’s errand to Damascus they explained that Milner’s ‘mind did run out’ (pp41–2). Of course, it was not only Friends who were causing trouble by claiming to identify with Christ. McArthur also provides the case study of William Franklin, whose case draws many similarities to the Bristol incident.

The latter quarter of the volume looks at the importance of Nayler’s time in London from June 1655 to July 1656. Exposed and influenced by apocalyptic groups, radical ideas, and persuasive followers, McArthur provides a convincing argument that this led to the shift that would lead to Nayler’s disastrous reenactment in Bristol. Not only that, but a methodical examination of Fox’s and Nayler’s writing – how their message converged and the fracture that took place during Nayler’s time in London.

James Nayler and the Quest for Historic Quaker Identity is a significant and thought-provoking contribution to our understanding of early Quakerism. It carefully, methodically reframes James Nayler and his place in Quaker history. For historians of seventeenth-century radicalism and scholars of Quaker studies, this volume is an essential point of reference.