Having failed in their application to him, their next choice fell on John Goodwin, afterwards, if we are not mistaken, the noted minister of Coleman street, and the far-famed champion of arminianism and republicanism. He also was a Cambridge man, and had been Fellow of Queen’s College ever since 1617. He and Tho. Goodwin were both Norfolk men, and also near relations, if the present writer is not misinformed. But surely no two relations—not even Herbert Marsh and William Frend, could be more unlike one another. Thomas was a high supralapsarian Calvinist, and, of course, mortally hated Arminianism: John, on the other hand, was a decided Arminian, and one of its most redoubtable champions; and therefore held Calvinism in the utmost abhorrence. His firm and successful opposition to that system is said to have saved him at the restoration from utter ruin, in which his antimonarchical and republican productions would have inevitably involved him, when one or more of his books, together with some of Milton’s, were burnt by the common hangman:—a poor way, by the bye, to refute their contents, or arguments.
3. John Goodwin when invited to Lynn held the living of Rainham in the same county: yet he accepted that invitation, took up his residence here, and became the successor of Mr. Nic. Price, as chief minister of St. Nicholas’ chapel. But his settlement here was not long, scarcely exceeding one year; for he was chosen July 31. 1629—acceded to that choice on the 10th of the next month, and within a year, or very little more, from that period, he was, as the MS. says, inhibited for preaching here, [by the bishop we presume; but on what account does not appear;] and Dr. Arrowsmith was appointed to succeed him, at the michaelmas following, i.e. 1630, for further particulars concerning him, the reader is referred to the historians of the succeeding period, and to our general biographers. [994] With all his singularities and imperfections, he must have been in his day a very considerable and highly distinguished character.
4. John Horne—was another of our townsmen of former times, whose name deserves to be rescued from oblivion, and retained in the memory of the inhabitants. He was born at Long Sutton, Lincolnshire, in 1615; and educated at Trinity College in Cambridge, where he had Henry Hall B.D. for his tutor. He probably went into orders before 1640; and we are told that he preached first at Sutton St. James, in his native neighbourhood. It has been also supposed that he had afterwards a curacy at or near Bullingbrook, in the same county, and it seems somewhat probable that he married during his residence at that place. [995] Be that as it might, it is certain that his stay there was not very long, for he took up his residence at Lynn in 1646, [996] where he continued ever after to the day of his death, which was full thirty years. His coming hither was in consequence of having obtained the living or vicarage of Allhallows, or All-saints, in South Lynn, where he succeeded Mr. John Man, whom we noticed before, at p. [702] of this work, and who had resided here, first as usher, then master of the Grammar School, and afterwards as vicar of South Lynn, for the long space of between 50 and 60 years. [997a]
Having obtained the vicarage of South Lynn Allhallows, in 1646, Mr. H. continued in the faithful and diligent discharge of his duty there till 1662, when the act of uniformity, which took effect on Bartholomew day that year, [997b] rendered his situation there no longer tenable. He was then ejected from his vicarage of Allhallows in this town, as were also above 2000 worthy clergymen in different parts of the kingdom, to the great discouragement of integrity and piety, and the eternal disgrace of the rulers in church and state. A very respectable biographer and memorialist speaks of Mr. Horne as follows—“He was an Arminian in the point of redemption, and contended earnestly for the universality of it; but did not either believe or teach, that men may therefore live as they list, because Christ died for them; but taught that Christ therefore ‘died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him that died for them and rose again.’ 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. He was a man of most exemplary and primitive piety, and blameless conversation; very ready in the scriptures; excellently skilled in the oriental tongues, and very laborious in his private capacity after he was cast out of his living. He went constantly to church, and yet preached thrice at his own house every Lord’s day; first, in the morning before sermon; then after dinner, before church-time; and again in the evening. On the other days of the week, beside lecture-sermons, he constantly expounded the scriptures in order twice a day, to all that would come to hear him, as some always did. [998] He was a man of great charity, commonly emptying his pocket of what money he had in it amongst the poor, when he went into the town. He was of great compassion and tenderheartedness towards such as were in any affliction; a man of wonderfull meekness, patience, and dispassionateness; and was generally very much honoured and esteemed for his goodness, both in town and country.” We need no further proof of his being held here in high and general esteem, than that he was suffered to live in the town, and exercise his ministry, for the whole fourteen years he resided here after his ejection, and which was perhaps the very worst part of the persecuting and detestable reign of Charles II. Some old people used to say some years ago, that his lecturing or preaching place was in some obscure alley about Black-goose Street. However that was, Mr. Horne may justly be considered as the father of the Lynn Dissenters: nor need they be ashamed to own him as such. Beside his other labours, which were so very abundant, his labours as a writer were by no means inconsiderable. Mr. Palmer has preserved the titles of near thirty publications, of different sizes, of which he was the author; [999] which shews how active he was in employing his pen, as well as his tongue, in promoting what he deemed useful and profitable instruction. On the whole, it may be pretty safely concluded that such a union of laboriousness, conscientiousness, and piety, as appeared in the person of Mr. Horne, was scarce ever witnessed in any minister of this town, either before or since his time. His memory therefore ought to be very highly honoured. He died here on the 14th of December 1676, aged 61. His wife survived him near ten years. She died May 24. 1686, aged 73. What family they had we are unable to say. One Son, named Thomas, died about two years before the father, at the age of 28: and we are inclined to think there was another son, of both the father’s names, who long survived his parents, and that this son was no other than the afterwards famous master of the Lynn grammar school, who may be justly called the Dr. Busby of this town. That he exercised over his pupils so severe a discipline as that of the celebrated master of Westminster School, is what we will not take upon us to affirm—nor yet that he educated an equal number of eminent men; but in the assiduity with which he executed his charge there must have been a strong resemblance, and especially in the length of time he continued at the head of his seminary, for he held the mastership of the Lynn grammar school upwards of fifty years. He must therefore have been notable and eminent in his day among the inhabitants of this town. On which account, whether he was the son of the former John Horne, or not, he is entitled to some notice in the present list.
5. John Horne junr. A.M. (of the University of Cambridge, as it is supposed) was born in 1644. So that in case he was the son of the former, he must have been born about two years before his father settled in this town, which will very well agree with the former supposition, of his being previously married, while he resided at, or near Bullingbrook. After he left the university, the subject of the present article was for some time usher of the Grammar School at Norwich, whence he was invited to become master of that at Lynn. This was in 1678: whereupon he removed hither, and continued at the head of this school above 50 years; so that it may pretty safely be concluded that he educated a far greater number of pupils than any other master in this town. He died in 1732. aged 88, and was buried in St. Nicholas’ chapel, close to the grave of the other John Horne; which, together with his refraining from going into orders, may corroborate the opinion of his being the son of that worthy and memorable man. [1001a] However that was, he appears to have been a person of a very respectable character, who faithfully served his generation, and deserved well of his cotemporaries and of posterity; [1001b] which, it is to be feared, is more than can be said of all, or every one of his successors.
6. Charles Phelpes. In point of time he ought to have been placed before the last, being his senior, by near twenty years. But as the former was supposed to be the son of the preceding, it was thought proper to let his name immediately follow. The subject of this article, if not a relation, was yet an intimate friend of the elder Horne, and perhaps an occasional assistant to him in the ministry; but of this there is no clear proof. Nor is it at all certain that he afterwards ever officiated in the congregation as a public teacher. [1002a] All we know of him is, that he was a person eminently distinguished here in his day for his religious knowledge, his benevolence, and his piety, which he strove unweariedly to promote by his example, his conversation, and his writings. [1002b] In short, he was a blessing to the town, and one of that sort of men that may not improperly be called the “salt of the earth,” to whose benevolent and pious exertions we owe almost every thing truly good and valuable that is to be found amongst us. He was therefore clearly entitled to a place in this list, or biographical sketch. He died on 3rd of January 1711 in the 85th. year of his age, as we learn from his grave stone to St. Nicholas’ Church yard, over against the great South door, where it is said, and said truly no doubt, that he was “a person of exemplary piety and goodness.” We have heard that he was great uncle to the late vicar of South Lynn of the same name, who, though of inferior worth, was yet far from being one of the worst sort of clergymen.
7. Guybon Goddard. We hear of him first as Deputy Recorder of this borough, in 1645, under the memorable Miles Corbet, who had been chosen Recorder the preceding year. Goddard continued his deputy till 1650, or rather till the beginning of the ensuing year, when he succeeded to the recordership, as appears from the following passage in the Hall-books. “Jan. 31. 1650, 51; This day Mr. Mayor and aldermen have elected and chosen in the place of Miles Corbet, Esq. (called by the Parliament to the service of Ireland) Guybon Goddard Esq. Recorder, provided always, that he, accepting of the place, shall come and inhabit in this town, for the better assistance of the succeeding mayors with his advice and councell.” It may be supposed that he took up his residence here accordingly. However that might be, it seems he retained the place over after, and executed the duties, attached to it with much credit to himself, and to the satisfaction of the body corporate and the rest the community. He was doubtless very good lawyer, but more distinguished perhaps as an antiquary, to which pursuit he was much devoted, in which his acquirements we supposed to have been very considerable. His brother-in-law, Sir William Dugdale, and Parkin also, make honourable mention of his antiquarian attainments, [1003] and is such a case they must have been very competent judges. To archaiological objects in the adjacent and surrounding country he paid much attention, and still more to those that appertained to this town, his collection for a history of which is supposed to have been very complete, and excited for a long while very high expectation among his cotemporaries. But they were all sadly disappointed; for it was never suffered to see the light: and though the corporation, after his decease, endeavoured to procure it from his son, and offered for it what must have been at that time a handsome gratuity; yet it does not appear that they were able to obtain it. What became of it afterwards no one can tell: but it is most probable that it has long ago been irretrievably lost. Had it been preserved, and fallen into the present writer’s hands, it might (as was hinted at p. [821],) have rendered this work far more worthy than it now is of the public patronage. In Parkin’s History of Freebridge (p. 293,) the death of Goddard is placed in 1671, which we suspect to be a mistake for 1677, as the application to his son was made about the beginning of the next year; and it is not likely it would have been deferred for so long a time as seven years. However that was Guybon Goddard seems clearly entitled to have his name enrolled among the memorable men of Lynn.
8. William Falkner, D.D.—He came to this town in 1658, recommended by Dr. Arrowsmith and Dr. Tuckney, and was engaged as an assistant to Mr. Hoogan, who had succeeded Dr. A. as senior or principal minister of St. Nicholas’ Chapel. Falkner was then Fellow of Peter-house in Cambridge; so that there is no reason to suppose him the same as that William Falconer, M.A. of Aberdeen, whom, according to Granger, Wood in his Fasti mentions, under 1671, as incorporated into the University of Oxford, and one of the first exhibitioners at Baliol College. At the death or removal of Mr. Hoogan, F. appears to have succeeded him as chief minister, and in that situation he is supposed to have continued ever after; though, considering the prominent appearance he made among his brethren, it is not likely that he was left without other preferments. His residence here was about 24 years. He died April, 9. 1682: nor does it appear that he was then an old man; about 50, perhaps, or very little more. We have not been able to learn the character of his public ministry and pastoral labours, or how far he therein resembled Horne, or Arrowsmith. But, as a scholar and writer, he must have stood high among the Lynn clergy, and even among those of the whole diocese; for he was very learned, and his writings for the most part, were well calculated to render him famous among his brethren, and gain him the approbation and applause of the highest dignitaries of the church, and the chief functionaries of the state, or civil government. For passive obedience and non-resistance, and the whole tory system, then the darling doctrine of the clergy and the court, he was a warm and able advocate. Nor was he less so for the church of England, against the Romanists, on the one hand, and our protestant sectaries, on the other. How he would have stood, had he lived a few years longer, or till the eve of the revolution, it is impossible to say. But it is certain that many, who were to the full as torified as he in the reign of Charles, changed their minds and their tones greatly during that of his successor, so as to caress as friends and brethren, those very sectaries and schismatics, as they used to call them, whom they had before endeavoured with all their might to distress and crush. That Dr. F. would have done the same, had he lived so long, is more than we are warranted to affirm, through we would fain hope that such would have been the case.—Among the books of which he was the author were several pieces of divinity, which first perhaps appeared separately, but were in 1684, two years after his death, printed together in a quarto volume. As it has never fallen in our way, we can say nothing of its merits. But his principal publications seem to be the following; 1. Libertas Ecclesiastica, an english octavo volume, published in 1674, and spoken of, by Granger, as a book of merit. 2. A vindication of Liturgies, or set forms of prayer: printed in London in 1680. This was animadverted upon and answered by the memorable Dr. Collinges of Norwich, an eminent ejected Minister, first in a piece entitled, “A reasonable account of the judgment of nonconforming ministers, as to prescribed forms of prayer; with a supplement in Answer to Dr. Falkner of Liturgies;” and afterwards in another piece, entitled, “The vindication of Liturgies, lately published by Dr. Falkner, proved no vindication, &c.” 3. Christian Loyalty: or a discourse, wherein is asserted that just Royal Authority and Eminency which in this Church and Realm of England is yielded to the KING. Especially concerning supremacy in Causes Ecclesiastical. Together with the disclaiming of all Foreign Jurisdictions and the unlawfulness of Subjects TAKING ARMS against the King. This is a most notable production, and it seems not a little unaccountable that it did not immediately procure him a mitre. It is much in the way of Sir Robert Filmer, and the rest of our great Tory-writers, and scarcely inferior to the very best of them. It was printed in London in 1679, and again, it seems, in 1684, which shews that it was well approved of and sought for. Dr. Falkner dying, as was said, in 1682, was succeeded at St. Nicholas’ by a Mr. Killeingbeck, of whom we have heard nothing further.
Section XI.
Biographical Sketches continued—Littel—Pyle—Hepburn—Rastrick—Browne—Keene—&c.