Robert Horrobin, Archdeacon, Isle of Man, 1720, part 2

This is the second of two posts. It is focused on the accusation of heresy against Archdeacon Horrobin.

Conflict between the bishop and his archdeacon, Horrobin, was but one element in a longer story of conflict within the governing class of the Isle of Man. I have set out a drop of that story in the previous post.

Both posts are drawn from E.B. Pusey, The Works of the Right Reverend father in God, Thomas Wilson D.D. Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man. Volume 2, 1722 here; Volume 1 is here. (Page numbering for the second volume is continuous with the first and begins at p.491.)

===========

Horrobin’s heresyIn Whitsun week May, 1722 the annual Convocation of clergy in the Isle of Man took place. The Bishop addressed the assembled clergy and then turned to his Archdeacon.

First Horrobin had permitted Madam Horne, the Governor’s wife, to Holy Communion despite being barred from receiving it by the Bishop (p. 503). Horrobin denied knowing she was under censure. A litany of witnesses declared he did know.

One Thomas Harley had accused Horrobin of “preaching false doctrine”. Horrobin had complained to the Bishop about the accusation ‘more than once’. The Bishop had delayed to answer, he told his assembled clergy, in the hope that Horrobin would have himself recognised the ‘evil tendency’ of his words and actions. Instead Horrobin had, in turn, accused Harley of heresy.

However, the Bishop continued,

“... having compared the several depositions with the sermons to which they refer, it appears to us, and so we adjudge, that the said Archdeacon, either from a fond imitation of some late heterodox writers, or from a desire of novelty, has delivered several things from the pulpit not agreeable to truth and sound doctrine; and by an obstinate defence of them, after he was seriously admonished to forbear giving offence, he has done what in him lay to involve in endless disputes a Church which, at his coming hither, he found in perfect peace and unity.” (p.505)

Specifically, Horobin had (1) falsely accused his fellow clergy of teaching a doctrine of absolution which implied that they themselves (and not God alone) had power to absolve sins. (2) He asserted that “the absolution of a priest, whether Papist or Protestant, is at the best a false foundation of comfort” (p.506). He said (3) that Jesus’ words to the Apostles “‘Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them,” [John 20:23] applied to the Apostles only and not to subsequent generations of clergy , and thus (4) he affirmed Socinianism. 5) By his “uncertain conjectures of God's uncovenanted mercy” he left open the question of whether heathens who lived by the light of nature might also be saved. And, finally, he was casually dismissive of the debates of the early church:

“... the wrangling, jangling disputes about the Divinity of our Saviour, — the two natures in Christ, — the doctrine of the sacred Trinity, — heretical baptism, &c., are niceties in religion, which consists not in the knowledge of such things;”  “and many more novel assertions” … “shocking and offensive to Christian ears”. (p.507).

His behaviour too continued to offend the Bishop. He refused communion to one person who had complained against him and compounded the offence by not giving them the statutory notice. He allowed Mrs Horne, the Governor’s wife, to receive Communion despite knowing that the Bishop had forbidden it, and had done so “deliberately, and in contempt of the rubric before the Communion, the canons, and the laws and statutes of this Church and nation.” (ibid.)

Consequently, the Bishop concluded,

“It being therefore high time, and our express duty, to remove the offence given to the flock of Christ, by laying him under ecclesiastical censures, we do accordingly pronounce him, the said Mr. Robert Horrobin, Archdeacon, suspended ab officio et beneficio, until he give such satisfaction to the Church as the nature of his crimes before-mentioned requires.    — Dated May 17, 1722. " Tho. Sodor and Man."

Horrobin turned to the secular courts. The Governor asserted that all his family and officials, including his chaplain, Horrobin, were exempt from the Bishop’s jurisdiction. The Bishop dismissed this claim and pointed to the Island’s “34th Customary Law … [that no] appeal shall be made from Church censures to the Staff, (i.e. the secular government,) and none to be privileged from them.” The catalogue of grievances between church and state, Governor and Bishop were recapitulated (pp.514-515).

The Bishop incarcerated
The power struggle between Bishop and Governor intensified. The Bishop appointed the “Academical Professor” Rev. Ross, to officiate in Castletown Chapel on a temporary basis; Governor Horne locked its doors and pocketed the key (p. 511).

The Bishop and his officers publicly delivered a written protest to the Governor. The reply was in the form of an order purporting to be from the Tynwald Court - the Island’s government - although in fact written (Pusey’s term is ‘virtually forged’) by Governor Horne and a small group of colleagues:

At a Tinwald-Court holden the 25th of June, 1722.

“Forasmuch as the Bishop and Vicars-General of this island were, by an order of the 9th of February last, required to retract and cancel several late proceedings in their Courts, which were contrary to the laws of this island, and the state and government thereof; and were again required by precept to observe and perform the same as the law directs in such cases; and having this day publicly refused to give due obedience to either of them:

“Therefore for their contempt the said Bishop is fined in fifty pounds, and the Vicars-General in twenty pounds a-piece, which the Coroner is required forthwith to demand.

"Alex. Horne,” (pp.516-517)

Other Keys subsequently dissociated themselves from the note. The Bishop dismissed it.

Arrest
The following day a Tynwald officer arrived at the Bishop’s home and demanded the £50 fine. The Bishop refused. Three days later the fine seems to have shot up and “I and my two Vicars-General were carried to prison by three soldiers for not paying a fine of £90, most arbitrarily imposed upon us & imprisoned in Castle Ryssin.”(sic) (p.519). They were each walked to prison through the Island, a spectacle for the crowds.



Castle Rushen 

To begin with at least “Several hundreds assembled daily” to support the bishop. He wrote circular letters to his clergy to be read in the parish churches. He appealed to Lord Derby and received in reply “a most abusive letter” (p.526) telling the Bishop, amongst other things, that he had no-one to blame but himself. A copy was sent to the Governor with an invitation to copy and distribute it. Letters from supporters were withheld from the Bishop (p.527).

ReleaseThe Bishop petitioned the King. The King sent a copy to the Governor for comment, at the same time permitting the Bishop access to the records of the Tynwald. He referred the matter to the Crown lawyers who favoured the Bishop’s release. The King’s Council approved the Bishop’s release on August 7th 1722, although the order only arrived with the Bishop on August 29th. He was duly released (p.534) and returned home accompanied by a cavalcade of jubilant supporters. (p.537)Imprisonment had taken its toll. He was aged 59, “ancient and infirm”, and had lost the use of the fingers of his right hand through the ordeal (p.538).

And release did not resolve the legal process. He later found that proceedings were still underway to recover the fine and that, for his refusal to pay a fine of £50, the Bishop’s name had been posted at the Market Cross of Peel - beside one John Looney being whipped there for suspicion of theft of a beehive. (p.541)

Horrobin’s second thoughts, and the Bishop’s response

Robert Horrobin remained suspended from his benefice. In December 1722 he petitioned the Bishop that he might be restored to his post, acknowledging,

“in whatever circumstances he has erred, his hearty concern for the same, and promising all due obedience to your Lordship's authority, admonition, and judgment, and in all respects to behave himself agreeably to his sacred character and profession.” (p.546.)

It might not be too cynical to suggest that an extended period without an income was a factor in his submission.

The Bishop was cautious and set conditions: first, that Horrobin acknowledge that the sentence the Bishop had passed on him in Convocation was legal and just and, if not, that he had had a legal remedy he could have pursued; second, that he accepted the Bishop’s authority and jurisdiction over him; and third, that he sincerely promise “to avoid giving any occasion of disturbing the peace and unity of this Church.”(pp.546-7).

The Bishop gave permission for Horrobin to receive Holy Communion on December 24th. On the 26th he retracted his permission, having learned of Horrobin’s praise for The Independent Whig as having “rules and directions in it sufficient to bring us to heaven, if we could observe them.” (p.547 - see previous post)

Archdeacon Horrobin

Ten months later, October 31, 1723, Horrobin wrote again to the Bishop seeking reconciliation and restitution to his post:

My Lord, — I am desirous to throw myself entirely upon your Lordship's goodness and mercy, with this single reserve to myself of the liberty of preserving the quiet of my own mind. I am sincerely disposed to be at peace with all men, and to make restitution to the uttermost of my power for injuries done by me to your Lordship or any other; and on the other hand, I may and do rely upon your Lordship's accepting me to favour, and restoring me to my place and office upon terms as easy and tolerable as may suffice to answer the ends of justice, and to preserve a due regard and deference to ecclesiastical discipline and censures ; which is what I am stedfastly (sic) purposed always to bear to them. (p.571)

 

He implored the pardon of Almighty God. He begged the Bishop’s forgiveness for 

“... the irregularities I have been guilty of, and whatever I have done amiss in the exercise of my ministry, or in disobedience, or contrary to the Laws, Canons, and Constitutions of our Church,”. He sought restoration to his post, “most faithfully promising to be more careful of my behaviour for the future, by a strict observance of my duty, according to the laws of this Church, and pay that due submission to your Lordship and my superiors which those require.” (p.572)

After a few days the Bishop accepted Horrobin’s penitence and restored him to office and benefice on November 7th.(p.573).
Petitioning the Privy Council

Though Horrobin was reconciled, the dispute between the Bishop and Governor Horne remained unresolved. On July 18, 1724 the Privy Council began its judicial consideration of the issues (p.560). After a series of journeys and maneuvers involving the Earl of Derby, and frustrating communications back and forth with the Isle of Man, the case came to its culmination in the Privy Council meeting at Kensington on July 4th, 1724.

But, Pusey says, “of the actual pleadings, unfortunately, we have no details.” (p.580) However, the conclusion was clear: the Privy Council found for the Bishop in all particulars:

… the judgments or sentences given by the Governor, Council, and Deemsters of that Isle, on the 9th and 10th days of (p.583) February, 1721, ought to be reversed, in regard they had no jurisdiction; and that the order signed by the Governor as made at the Court of Tinwald the 25th of June, 1722, was not an order of that Court; and that therefore the fines imposed by the said order upon the Bishop and Vicars- General ought to be restored to them. (ibid.)

The question of whether the cabal of five who had engineered this illegal action should pay the costs of the appeal to the Privy Council was referred to his Majesty's Attorney and Solicitor-General.


Aftermath

Costs were not awarded (p.585). This left the Bishop significantly out of pocket, even after receiving £264 15s in individual donations (p.588). He declined the offer of the more lucrative bishopric of Exeter and the King died in Hanover leaving his offer of recompense unfulfilled.The Bishop declined to sue for damages. His estate, and his son’s, were mortgaged for the rest of his life in order to cover the costs of the law case.

At the beginning of October 1723 a new governor, Major Floyd, was sworn in. A warrant was issued for Horne’s arrest for contempt, but apparently not implemented. (p.592). John Rowe was over 70 and his age protected him from further action. He was, however, arrested in London in July 1724 for an alleged debt, but Pusey was unable to discover what happened to him (pp.592-4). Ex-Governor Horne

…. did not peevishly or hastily with-draw from the island, but stayed and died there, and lies buried under the shadow of Bishop Wilson's chapel, where his resting-place is now pointed out. (p.594)