The clothes and the views of a late 17th century colonial priest/pastor

Discussion in 'Anglican History' started by MishaR, Jun 3, 2018.

  1. MishaR

    MishaR New Member

    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Country:
    Ireland
    Religion:
    Limerick
    Hello,

    For a live-action role-playing game I need to research an Anglican priest/pastor in an English colonial outpost in the Caribbean in 1695. And while I am Anglican in Ireland myself for the last 10 years and do have a copy of the BCP 1662, I need much help with the details of the character and would appreciate information people here have.

    First and foremost: what would such a person wear? Something flowing, resembling a Catholic priest? Something more resembling a modern suit - then what's the critical difference, so my costume can look authentic, not modern?

    Also: what kind of beliefs, "churchmanship", would he be likely to espouse? Latitudinarianism, an early doctrine of tolerance, already existed in Anglicanism, but would it be normal for a rank-and0file pastor/priest to hold to it?

    And, by the way, would he and those around him refer to his position as "priest" or "pastor" or "minister" or something else?
     
  2. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    190
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    I couldn't tell you exactly what they wore down there then, but both my profile picture and this picture are of a minister in Virginia from that time period. This would have been in the time of William of Orange, so it was probably a bit more low church with a hint of comprehension, and would probably be called a minister.
     
  3. Peteprint

    Peteprint Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    481
    Likes Received:
    450
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    APA
  4. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    812
    Likes Received:
    651
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    There was no low or high church until the 19th century, and all clergy looked and acted the same way
     
  5. Lowly Layman

    Lowly Layman Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    2,094
    Likes Received:
    1,866
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    American Anglican
    Anglicans in Colonial Georgia were ministered to by a young John Wesley in the 1730s. You could look to him for dress tips.

    Also, Jonathan Swift was ordained in 1695, you can look to him as well.
     
  6. PotterMcKinney

    PotterMcKinney Active Member Typist Anglican

    Posts:
    320
    Likes Received:
    190
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    PECUSA
    You are correct, but they would have looked more "low church" to us.
     
  7. Shane R

    Shane R Active Member

    Posts:
    186
    Likes Received:
    185
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    That is a ridiculous retelling of Anglican history. Low church and high church existed from the time Cranmer was elevated to the See of Canterbury. The first BCP served to highlight the growing divide and that is why the second (1552) came so closely on its heels. As one continues to trace the history of the English church, there were then the Puritans and later the non-conformists representing the low church expression (until they were ejected from the official structures of the church) and on the opposite side were the Caroline divines. The Latitudinarians tried to hold it all together but it was not to be. The low church party was dominant from the time of the Elizabethan settlement until the restoration of the monarchy but there was always tension and the high church folk came back into prominence in time.
     
  8. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    812
    Likes Received:
    651
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    People who were ejected from the Church eventually indicate that they were not a part of the Church's essence initially


    The BCPs were not revised by a plebiscite or by some sort of democratic voting mechanism

    They indicate or highlight absolutely nothing

    I haven't seen any evidence from that...

    And that is not the impression I get from the books on this website a host of which date from the Elizabethan settlement

    In fact those categories of 'low' and 'high' church did not exist and weren't used by any of these historical figures to describe themselves... They come into existence in the 19th century, and carry with them a heavy dose of historical fiction and revisionism

    I urge you to read John Jewel's Apology and classify it as a 'low church' document... He made the Church Fathers one of the tests of Church orthodoxy, and called puritans vile vermin, while Archbishop Parker was called 'the Pope of Lambeth' by the puritans, whom he actively sought to suppress... The same goes for Richard Hooker and Thomas Bilson and Archbishop Bancroft

    Methinks you've been reading revisionist history brother
     
  9. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    812
    Likes Received:
    651
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)
    I don't know, isn't the very category itself stretchy?

    Does it mean suit and tie? Or does it mean cassock but no surplice? Or does it mean cassock, surplice, tippet, but no chasuble? Does it mean chasuble but no biretta? Does it mean gothic chasuble but not fiddleback Trent chasuble?

    The word has no meaning... In the 1950s when Billy Graham was king, it meant suit and tie, wherein even many prominent Roman Catholics adopted it

    Here is Josef Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) and Karl Rahner:
    [​IMG]
     
  10. JoeLaughon

    JoeLaughon Member Anglican

    Posts:
    97
    Likes Received:
    58
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Reformed High Anglican
    anglican74 likes this.
  11. anglican74

    anglican74 Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    812
    Likes Received:
    651
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican (ACNA)

Share This Page