_Biographical sketches of some of the most eminent or distinguished
personages among the natives or inhabitants of Lynn_, _from the
reformation to the present
day—Watts—Arrowsmith—Goodwin—Horne—Phelpes—Falkner—Goddard_.
In the list of persons of real note, or memorable distinction who
appeared since the reformation among the natives or inhabitants of this
town, the first place, in order of time, seems to belong to _William
Watts_, said to have been a native of this borough, or its vicinity. The
time of his birth is not recorded, but is supposed to have been about the
close of the reign of Elizabeth. He probably received the rudiments of
his education in the Grammar school of this town, which was from 1597 to
1608 under the care of _Mr. John Man_, afterwards minister of South Lynn,
and from 1608 to 1612 or 13, under that of _Mr. Henry Allston_. He was
afterwards sent to Caius College in Cambridge, where he appears to have
made great proficiency, and to have finished his academical education.
He then went and made some stay at Oxford; after which he travelled, as
Anthony Wood says, into several countries, and became master of divers
languages. In his travels he is supposed to have made his chief stay in
Holland, where he became acquainted with the celebrated _John Gerard
Vossius_, who entertained a very favourable and high opinion of him, and
spoke of him as _doctissimus et clarissimus Watsius_, _qui optime de
historia meruit_. At his return, after the accession of Charles I, he
was made one of the king’s chaplains, and preferred successively to
livings and dignities in the church. Being, as might be expected, a
zealous royalist, and adhering firmly to the king’s cause, he was
sequestered, plundered, and left without a shelter for his wife and
children. He was carried by his courage and resentment into the field
with prince Rupert, during the hardiest of his exploits; and died, in
1649, on board his fleet, in the harbour of Kinsale. He had an especial
hand, says Wood, in Sir Henry Spelman’s Glossary; he edited Matthew
Paris, and, exclusively of other treatises, he published, before the
civil war of England began, several numbers of new books, in the English
tongue, (more than forty,) containing the occurrences in the wars between
the king of Sweden and the Germans. When he returned from his travels,
Newspapers were very little known in this country. They had first
appeared in the reign of Elizabeth, under the sage direction of Burleigh;
but they were published only occasionally, and were all extraordinary
gazettes. They appeared frequently about the time of the armada, and are
supposed to have then answered very important purposes. Being no longer
deemed necessary when that danger was past, they were discontinued. The
public curiosity having been much gratified by these publications, the
people would be no longer satisfied without a newspaper. It was
therefore not long before publications of that kind began to make their
appearance. They were at first occasional, and afterwards weekly.
“_Nathaniel Butter_, at the Pyde-Bull, St. Augustin’s gate,” established
a weekly newspaper, in August 1622, entitled “The certain news of the
present week.” How long he continued his hebdomadal intelligences does
not appear. He is said to have laid little before his readers, which
could enlarge knowledge, or excite risibility; though his battles may
have surprised and elevated, and his sieges may have alternately agitated
the hopes and fears of his countrymen. He had, however, competitors and
imitators. In February 1635–6 was first published a fresh paper of
Weekly Newes. The foreign intelligence of May 22, was conveyed in number
13. This too was a small quarto of 14 pages; and it was printed in
London, for Mercurius Britannicus; which proves sufficiently that that
well known title had a more early origin than has been generally
supposed. Similar papers were continued, though they assumed different
names. Butter, who appears to have been the most active and enterprising
newsmonger of his time, was influenced by his interest to tell—
“News, old news, and such news as you never heard of.”
He was thus induced to convert his Weekly News into _half-yearly news_,
(two of which making a kind of _annual register_) which shews that he was
a person of no common enterprize. In order to insure success to so novel
an undertaking, an able compiler seemed absolutely necessary; and Butter
very judiciously fixed upon Watts for that department. He accordingly
complied with the projector’s proposal, and so became the precursor of
_Johnson_, _Burke_, _Kippis_, _Southey_, and the rest of our
distinguished literary characters, who have been since employed in
similar departments. How long he continued thus employed we have not
been able to discover; but it is probably it might be till near the
commencement of the civil wars: and as he was likely to have
distinguished himself, in the mean time, as a warm, and perhaps violent
advocate for the measures of the court, it may in some measure account
for the hardship and severity which he and his family afterwards
experienced from the opposite party, by the hands of the sequestrators.
Be that as it might, William Watts was certainly a person so
distinguished in his day, as to deserve to have his name preserved among
the most eminent characters that sprung up here during the period we are
now reviewing.
2. _John Arrowsmith_ M.A. Fellow of Catherine Hall, in Cambridge,
afterwards D.D., Master of St. John’s College, and member of the
Westminster Assembly of Divines. Where he was born we have not been able
to learn; but he came to this town about Michaelmas 1630, being then
chosen minister of St. Nicholas’ chapel, in which capacity he continued
during the whole time of his residence here, which was fourteen years.
The town allowed him a salary of 100_l._ a year, which must have been
equal to 6 or 700_l._ of our money. He was also allowed a house to live
in, or 5_l._ a year in lieu of it, which would pay a house-rent now of
between 30 and 40_l._ a year. It appears that he was treated here,
during the whole of his residence, with singular and universal respect;
from which it may be inferred that he came well recommended, conducted
himself with great prudence and propriety, and that his ministerial
labours were highly acceptable. Yet Arrowsmith evidently belonged to the
puritans, a party for which Lynn was never understood to entertain any
particular predilection. How far his ministry contributed to prepare the
town for the new order of things which took place in consequence of the
siege, and with which the generality of the inhabitants appeared very
compliable, we have not the means of ascertaining. But whatever might be
the political tendency of his public labours here, their being highly
acceptable to his hearers seems very clear and undeniable. For though he
and the principal cotemporary minister of St. Margaret’s had several
assistants, {990a} who performed the parts assigned to them on Sundays
and week days with good acceptance, yet the present writer has in his
hands sufficient documents {990b} to prove that he stood above them all
in the public estimation. It is therefore presumed that we are fully
warranted in placing him among the most eminent of the inhabitants of
this town during the said period. The historian Neal speaks of him as a
person “of unexceptionable character for learning and piety;” and further
says, that “he was an accute disputant, and a judicious divine, as
appears by his _Tactica Sacra_, a book of great reputation in those
times.” He died before the restoration, and therefore his name does not
appear in _Calamy_ and _Rastrick’s lists of ejected ministers_.
Before we take our final leave of Dr. Arrowsmith, it may not be improper
to apprize the reader of two persons whom the town successively fixed
upon to occupy the vacant place of principal minister of St. Nicholas,
immediately previous to their making choice of him. These, as appears to
the present writer, were no other than the two _Goodwins_, _Thomas_ and
_John_, who became so famous and distinguished afterwards among the
English nonconformists. In a document or record above alluded to, and
extracted probably from the Hall-Books, the following passage
occurs.—“1629, 12 June; Mr. Mayor and Mr. Tho. Gurlyn, aldn. travel to
Cambridge to move Mr. Tho. Goodwin A.M. to come hither to (be) preacher
in ys town, and Mr. M. A. CC elected sd. Mr. G. if he will accept
thereof.” But he did not accept of their invitation, owing probably to
his having been previously chosen lecturer of Trinity church in
Cambridge, of which he afterwards became vicar. {993}
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.