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

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?

 

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.

 

This site deals with a later period, but it might be of some help:

https://www.janeausten.co.uk/well-dressed-clergyman/

 

There was no low or high church until the 19th century, and all clergy looked and acted the same way

 

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.

 

You are correct, but they would have looked more "low church" to us.

 

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.

 

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

 

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:

 

This is a bit closer to the era you are looking for. This was the Archbishop of Canterbury in the time you mentioned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Tenison#/media/File:Thomas_Tenison_by_Robert_White.jpg

 

Indeed

This is how pretty much all bishops looked from the era of Thomas Cranmer down to the late 19th century

 

This doesn't answer the original question but clarifies some of the discussion in this thread. I clipped this text:

" The BCP 1559 states that “here is to be noted, that the Minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church, as were in use by authority of parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the VI.” At first glance this would seem to indicate a reaffirmation of the 1552 as much of the 1559 does, but the key phrase is “in the second year of the reign of King Edward the VI.” Edward reigned from 1547 to 1553 and therefore the second year was 1549, a time when the Church of England was publishing and beginning to operate under the BCP 1549, which allowed for the use of traditional vestments. Hence the BCP 1559 also allows for the use of such vestments. "

from here: https://lurj.org/issues/volume-2-number-1/prayer

I can't find the source but I've read that in practice BCP 1559 allowed the choice of ornamentation - high or low church.

Why do we make such a fuss over this? I think it is because it is easier to argue over chasubles and albs than the real issues of objective presence and sacrifices of masses - adoration of saints and priests in Persona Christi.

We can worship in the beauty of holiness - with bells and smells and great vestments - and still proclaim reformed and biblical faith.

 

Not really, unless you can cite a passage that I'm not aware of. There are a couple of things which have had a historic importance to Anglicanism that are not contained in the BCPs.

Apart from the Homilies, not included in the BCPs, the other most obvious case is the Ordinal, which among other things excludes non-episcopal ordinations as invalid, whereas the BCP says nothing explicitly on the theology of holy orders.

A third case is the situation with the vestments. The primary ecclesiastical law is 6. Edw. which mandates the clerical vestments as cassock, surplice, cope, alb, and chasuble. In addition to it is the rule passed by Archbishop Parker and known as the Book of Advertisements, which repeats 6. Edw. but omits the alb and chasuble (which is why historically they were absent until recent times). These two forms of legislation have influenced the vestments for the Anglican clergy for the last 500 years.