In need of some Puritan Expertise

[davejonescue]

Hello all. Was working on the Index when I came across this work by a person I never heard of, a Dr. Thomas Lushington. I seems to be there was some controversy regarding Mr. Lushington about forming or supporting Socinian views, so I didnt include him. But my main question is has anybody heard, or could point me to some info on a Puritan by the name of "Edmund Porter." In Dr. Lushingtons Wiki, it mentions him in the following "He experienced various attacks over the years accusing him of heretical opinions and socianianism, largely following comments by the "Puritan" Rev. Edmund Porter. His attacks would see Lushington return to Sittingbourne in 1655." I found out a little bit more about him online in a thesis entitled "“A Reception History of the Letter to the Hebrews in England, 1547-1685”, Kenneth Padley, Corpus Christi College, where it states the following:

"The 1640s were the tipping point for Reformed writers on Hebrews. No longer were they on the offensive against Catholicism. Instead they became reactive and defensive. Early rejoinders to the new challenges were aimed at shoring up individual doctrines, in particular the trinity and Chalcedonian christology. Chapter five considers the way in which two Reformed readings of Hebrews complemented the better known anti-Socinian polemic of Francis Cheynell and John Owen. Edmund Porter’s Theos Anthropophoros (1655) appreciated the integral connection between orthodox christology and soteriology but was limited in its effectiveness because of its tedious style and delayed publication."

But that is all I can really find about him. He has 4 works in EEBO-TCP, so I added them to the Index. Am looking for a little more light shed on him to make sure, but of what I see it looks like he would fall into the Puritan camp, if nothing else for being known as orthodox, and being in that time range, in that region. Also, what led me to search for him as he is being called a Puritan. But please, if anybody knows anything, let me know if its not too much trouble. He has the following works in TCP:

Christophagia, The mystery of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ and the modus or manner thereof discovered / by Edm. Porter ...

Sabbatum. The mystery of the Sabbath discovered. Wherein the doctrine of the Sabbath according to the Scriptures, and the primitive church, is declared. The Sabbath moral, and ceremonial are described, and differenced. What the rest of God signified, and wherein it consisted. The fourth commandment expounded. What part of the fourth commandment is moral, and what therein is ceremonial. Something (occasionally) concerning the Christian Sunday. By Edm. Porter, B.D. sometime fellow of St John's Colledge in Cambridge, and Prebend of Norwich.

Theos anthrōpophoros. Or, God incarnate.: Shewing, that Jesus Christ is the onely, and the most high God· In four books. Wherein also are contained a few animadversions upon a late namelesse and blasphemous commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrewes, published under the capital letters, G.M. anno Dom. 1647. In these four books the great mystery of man's redemption and salvation, and the wayes and means thereof used by God are evidently held out to the capacity of humane reason, even ordinary understandings. The sin against the Holy Ghost is plainly described; with the cases and reasons of the unpardonablenesse, or pardonablenesse thereof. Anabaptisme, is by Scripture, and the judgment of the fathers shewed to be an heinous sin, and exceedingly injurious to the Passion, and blood of Christ. / By Edm. Porter, B.D. sometimes fellow of St. John's Colledge in Cambridge, and prebend of Norwich.

Trin-unus-deus, or, The trinity and unity of God ... by Edm. Porter ...

 

[Phil D.]

Sounds more like a high-Anglican

Edmund Porter, S. T. P. chaplain to the Lord Keeper Coventry rector of Hevingham in Norfolk, and vicar of Ubbeston in Suffolk, installed Jan. 9, 1627. He was born at Worcester, bred in St. John's college in Cambridge, where he became fellow; was a man of parts and learning, as appears by the books he published; among which, one is intitled,​

​

Christofagia, or the Mistery of eating the Flesh, and Drinking the Blood of Christ; or the modus or manner thereof discovered. London 1679.​

Another is intituled, God incarnate, showing that Jesus Christ is the only and most high God. London 1655, oct.​

​

He was a man of great dexterity in managing the affairs of the church; and though he was sequestered from his prebend, having provoked the party more than any of his brethren, yet he was permitted to live quietly on a small estate he had of his own, till the Restoration, with which he was also restored, and lived till 1670, leaving Sir Charles Porter, his son, who was twice Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He was buried in the cathedral in the south isle, in that part of it which is by the 9th and 10th south pillars, between which, on the south wall, is erected a monument with this inscription,​

​

M. S. Edmundus Porter Vigorniæ natus, S. Theologiæ Professsor Olim Collegij S. Johannis in Academiâ Cantabrig. socius, Dein hujus Ecclesiæ Præbendarius, quam ingenio præstant, Eruditione perfecta, moribus Antiquis per XLIII annos Cohonestavit, Ecclesiæ Anglo-Catholicæ filius devotissimus; Annis & virtutibus canus, fato cessit, Octobris quinto, anno Dom: MDCLXX; Etatis suæ 75, Exuvijs hic positis​

​

[Sacred to the Memory of, Edmund Porter, born in Worcester, formerly Professor of Theology at the College of St. John in the University of Cambridge. a member, then a Prebendary of this Church, which by ancient customs they attain by their talent and perfect erudition; For forty-three years he was honored as a most devoted son of the Anglo-Catholic Church; Aging in years and virtues, he succumbed to fate, on the fifth of October, in the year of our Lord, 1670, 75 years in age; His remains are here laid]​

​

[Francis Blomefield, An Essay Towards A Topographical History of the County of Norfolk, (London: W. Miller, 1806), 3:666f.]​

 

[Phil D.]

A quick perusal of his Sabbatum shows he was actually an anti-Sabbatarian or at least a non-Sabbatarian, a rarity even among old Anglo-Catholics. That could well be why it was said he "provoked the party more than any of his brethren." In context "the party" must refer to the Puritans in power prior to the Restoration.

 

[davejonescue]

A quick perusal of his Sabbatum shows he was actually an anti-Sabbatarian or at least a non-Sabbatarian, a rarity even among old Anglo-Catholics. That could well be why it was said he "provoked the party more than any of his brethren." In context "the party" must refer to the Puritans in power prior to the Restoration.

So, if it were up to you, and you were doing an Index on Puritans and Non-Conformists, would you include him, or no?

 

[Phil D.]

I can't see any basis for calling him a Puritan or Non-Conformist. He appears to have written an orthodox treatise on the Incarnation, but so do many Roman Catholic writers.

 

[Logan]

A lot of the Puritans are going to have some weird quirk or another. Possibly part of the reason not all of them have been reprinted.

 

[Phil D.]

A lot of the Puritans are going to have some weird quirk or another. Possibly part of the reason not all of them have been reprinted.

Are you saying you think Porter qualifies as a Puritan?

 

[davejonescue]

A lot of the Puritans are going to have some weird quirk or another. Possibly part of the reason not all of them have been reprinted.

This is what excites me about the Index to be honest. To get in there; as well as helping researchers get in there, and get to the nitty-gritty of the span and nuances of Puritan/Non-Conformist thought. There have been collections of secondary sources; where people have explained for us, to a certain degree what the Puritan consensus is; but this is with the limited ability to really mine them. The fact that facsimile OCR's almost intelligibly; making previous offerings, like say The Puritan HD limited in scope; and a cohesive collection of primary source documents fully searchable non-existent to my current knowledge; (the closest I have been able to find is PRTS's Perkins "Puritan Index" but is sourced with secondary sources) this is why I want to make sure I dont leave someone out who is considered a Puritan, or Reformed Non-Conformist. This Index I think will be a pretty innovative tool for Puritan research, and the most obscure, as well as the most known are important; especially because of the nuances.

 

[Logan]

Are you saying you think Porter qualifies as a Puritan?

I'm not saying he does or doesn't. But Dave's list contains a lot of individuals with a lot of views which are questionable, depending on what each person calls "questionable". I don't know if you'll ever be able to draw a line between who is "really" a Puritan and who isn't. I don't know anything about Porter specifically.

 

[Phil D.]

Here's how I would read Blomefield's statement:

...and though he was sequestered from his prebend, having provoked the party [i.e. those who effected his removal, namely the recently come to power Puritans] more than any of his brethren [i.e. his fellow high Anglicans], yet he was permitted to live quietly on a small estate he had of his own, till the Restoration [effected by the fall of the Puritan parties from power, and resulting in the restoration of high-Anglicans to their former ecclesial positions], with which he was also restored...​

​

I'm not saying he does or doesn't. But Dave's list contains a lot of individuals with a lot of views which are questionable, depending on what each person calls "questionable". I don't know if you'll ever be able to draw a line between who is "really" a Puritan and who isn't. I don't know anything about Porter specifically.

Again, I fail to see anything in what seems to be available on him that would commend him as a Puritan within his historical milieu, and certain things that are contrary to it. Of course, as you note that is a personal opinion. Not being involved in the project, I'll stop there.

 

[davejonescue]

Are you saying you think Porter qualifies as a Puritan?

This is the complication in the matter, for example. Consider John Scott 1639-1695 . They have him in Wiki as "was an English clergyman, known as a devotional writer, and a defender of Anglican orthodoxy in his preaching." A Member here, NaphtaliPress commented about him: "Seems like a conformist Anglican. What's your dividing line as to who is and is not a puritan?" Yet, when you go to PRTS' (Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary) website, they include him listed under their "Puritans" heading. So, something about him makes them include him under the heading "Puritan." And if anybody were going to be experts on Puritansim, it would be PRTS, but, as a publisher of Puritan texts, so would NaphtaliPress. See my struggle here, lol? Nobody in my list has been considered a Puritan or Non-Conformist on my own account, but by others more knowledgable than myself; many who have published works on them like Calamy, Brooks, Lyon Turner, APM, and Beeke & Pederson. The mention of him being a Puritan in the Wikisource is what had me reach out. Because I am very well convinced there are still tons of people within that timeframe who would of been of the elk we just havent uncovered yet. And if so, the writer of that Wiki article could have been wrong, or is privy o information we have yet to be.

​

 

[davejonescue]

I'm not saying he does or doesn't. But Dave's list contains a lot of individuals with a lot of views which are questionable, depending on what each person calls "questionable". I don't know if you'll ever be able to draw a line between who is "really" a Puritan and who isn't. I don't know anything about Porter specifically.

Here's how I would read Blomefield's statement:

...and though he was sequestered from his prebend, having provoked the party [i.e. those who effected his removal, namely the recently come to power Puritans] more than any of his brethren [i.e. his fellow high Anglicans], yet he was permitted to live quietly on a small estate he had of his own, till the Restoration [effected by the fall of the Puritan parties from power, and resulting in the restoration of high-Anglicans to their former ecclesial positions], with which he was also restored...​

​

Again, I fail to see anything in what seems to be available on him that would commend him as a Puritan within his historical milieu, and certain things that are contrary to it. Of course, as you note that is a personal opinion. Not being involved in the project, I'll stop there.

Hey guys, thank you so much for your feedback. Had to do some Google Book research, and I am going to take him out of the Index. Though he may of wrote a good treatise upholding the Reformed tradition of the Trinity; he was not a Puritan. Thank you guys again so much for the feedback. This is so hard at times with so many different sources of who is and isnt a Puritan, Non-Conformist, etc. But I think this is pretty cut and dry. The preview cuts off after that page.

 

[Logan]

I'm not sure how that makes it cut and dry. The Puritans were not a monolithic group. I'd consider many Anglicans "Puritans" but some might not. But the mere fact that Porter argued against Interregnum Cromwellian Puritans on some topic doesn't really prove he wasn't. Lots of Puritans argued against them on various topics. I don't really care whether he's included or not but I'm not seeing how it's cut and dry.

 

[Phil D.]

I know I said I'd stop, but.... The fact that, in his particular time, Porter is ideologically linked to the Laudians and was known as a rabid advocate for retention of the BCP, makes him by very definition anti-Puritan.

Also, the fact that the only given reference to Porter as a "Puritan" (their quotation marks) is in the article on Lushington, is rather interesting. Again, in context, that would seem to be in reference to an attempt by Lushington to attach a derogatory title to one of his anti-Socinian antagonists. The quotation marks imply a misnomer, as historically judged.

 

[davejonescue]

I'm not sure how that makes it cut and dry. The Puritans were not a monolithic group. I'd consider many Anglicans "Puritans" but some might not. But the mere fact that Porter argued against Interregnum Cromwellian Puritans on some topic doesn't really prove he wasn't. Lots of Puritans argued against them on various topics. I don't really care whether he's included or not but I'm not seeing how it's cut and dry.

Of the sources I have been using, many people also consider more than a few Anglicans, Puritans as well.