HORSLEY, Samuel, a very learned prelate of the church of England, the son of the Rev. John Horsley, for many years clerk in orders at St Martin’s in the Fields, and afterwards rector of Thorley in Hertfordshire, was born at his father’s residence in St Martin’s churchyard, in October 1733. He received his early education from his father, and was entered at Trinity-hall, Cambridge, where he applied himself much to the study of mathematics, but, at the same time, perused with care the writings of the ancient and modern divines and logicians. Why he took no degree in arts cannot now be ascertained; we find, however, that, in 1758, he took that of bachelor of laws, and became his father’s curate at Newington, which living he succeeded to the following year, and held until his elevation to the Episcopal bench in 1793, as Bishop of Rochester.

In April 1767, he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society, of which he continued for many years an active member, and, about the same time, he published a pamphlet on the Power of God, “deduced from the computable instantaneous productions of it in the solar system.” This he allows to be a “very singular and whimsical speculation and observes respecting it, that, in all probability, it would “roll down the gutter of time, forgotten and neglected.” In 1768, he went to Christ-Church, Oxford, as private tutor to Hencage Earl of Aylesbury, then Lord Guernsey. In 1770, his first mathematical publication, Apollonii Pergoei Inclinationum libri duo, was elegantly printed at the Clarendon press. This work, though severely criticised at the time, and, in reality, not distinguished by any peculiar felicity of restoration, does not appear to have injured his rising reputation; for, in November 1773, he was appointed secretary to the Royal Society, and in 1774 he had the degree of doctor of civil law conferred on him at Oxford, and was presented by the Earl of Aylesbury to the rectory of Aidbury in Surrey, along with which he obtained a dispensation to hold that of Newington. The same year he published Remarks on the Observations made in the Voyage towards the North Pole, for determining the acceleration of the Pendulum in latitude 79° 51 , . These were addressed to the Hon. Constantine J. Phipps, 4to, and intended to correct some errors committed by Israel Lyons, the mathematician employed on the voyage.

Dr Horsley having long meditated a complete edition of the works of Sir Isaac Newton, issued, in 1776, proposals for printing it by subscription, in five volumes 4to; but the commencement of the undertaking was delayed by severe domestic affliction, nor was it completed until 1785. In the meanwhile, his diligence and proficiency in science attracted the notice of Dr Lowth, who, on his promotion to the see of London in 1777, appointed Dr Horsley his domestic chaplain, collated him to a prebend in St Paul’s cathedral, and procured for him the situation, which had been held by his father, of clerk in orders at St Martin’s in the Fields. In 1778, during the controversy between Dr Priestley, Dr Price, and others, on the subject of materialism and philosophical necessity, Dr Horsley published a sermon on Providence and Free Agency, in which he attempted to draw a distinction between the philosophical necessity of the moderns and the predestination of their ancestors. This discourse was evidently directed against the writings of Dr Priestley, but the latter did not take any immediate notice of the attack. In 1779, Dr Horsley resigned Aidbury, and, in 1780, was presented to the living of Thorley, which he held, by dispensation, along with that of Newington. In 1783, he became deeply involved in a dispute with some members of the Royal Society, which ended in his withdrawing himself from that learned body.

Dr Horsley was now about to engage in that celebrated controversy with Dr Priestley; which was conducted on both sides in the fiercest spirit of polemical contention, but on that of Horsley with superior learning and ability. In 1782, Dr Priestley published a work in two volumes 8vo, entitled a History of the Corruptions of Christianity; at the head of which he placed both the Catholic doctrine of Christ’s divinity, and the Arian doctrine of his pre-existence, in a nature far superior to the human, at the same time representing the Socinian doctrine of his mere humanity as the unanimous faith of the first Christians. Dr Horsley conceiving that the best antidote to the poison contained in this work would be to destroy the credit of the writer, and the authority of his name, made its imperfections, moral as well as literary, the subject of review in a charge delivered to the clergy of the archdeaconry of St Alban’s, at a deputation held on the 22d of May 1783. The specimens produced as evidence of the imperfections of the work and the incom [7:11:627]petency of the author, may be reduced to six classes. First, ' instances of reasoning in a circle; second, instances of quotations misapplied through ignorance of the subject; third, instances of testimonies perverted through artful and forced constructions; fourth, instances of passages in the Greek fathers misinterpreted through ignorance of the Greek language; fifth, instances of passages misinterpreted through ignorance of the Platonic philosophy; and, sixth, instances of ignorance of the phraseology of the earliest ecclesiastical writers. Dr Horsley concludes his charge by observing, « I feel no satisfaction in detecting the weakness of this learned writer’s argument, but what arises from the consciousness that it is the discharge of some part of the duty which I owe to the Church of God.” This vigorous and systematic attack staggered the admirers of Dr Priestley; but he himself felt none of the apprehension with -which they were seized. He promised an early and satisfactory answer; predicted that he would rise from his supposed defeat more illustrious than ever; undertook to strengthen the evidence in support of his favourite opinions; flattered himself that he would find a new convert in his antagonist; and even hinted something concerning the shame and remorse with which he felt confident that the latter must be penetrated. Dr Priestley could not but be sensible that his adversary was a man of no ordinary stamp; yet, with a blind self-confidence, he did not profit by this conviction so as to make a careful revision of his writings, but, on the contrary, immediately repeated his former assertions respecting the doctrine of the Trinity, in a publication entitled, Letters to Dr Horsley, in answer to his Animadversions on the History of the Corruptions of Christianity, with additional evidence that the primitive Christian Church was Unitarian, 1783, in 8vo. To this production, in which there are more errors of haste and infirmities of argument than could have been expected from one who had so much at stake, Dr Horsley replied in the same epistolary form, by Letters from the Archdeacon of St Alban’s in reply to Dr Priestley. The object of these letters, which are seventeen in number, and display great learning and research, is to prove that if the mistakes of Dr Priestley, formerly pointed out, are few in number, they are too considerable in kind to be incident to a well-informed writer; that they betrayawant of general comprehension of the subject, and an incapacity to draw right conclusions from the passages cited; that they prove him unskilled in the language of the writers from whom his proofs were professedly derived, and unacquainted with that philosophy, the doctrines of which he pretended to compare with the opinions entertained by the church. Dr Priestley, in his Letters, had attempted to draw his adversary into a controversy respecting the divinity of Jesus Christ; but the latter, knowing that question to have been long since exhausted, defended his own argument, and confined himself to the collection of proofs, from Dr Priestley’s publications, of his inability to throw any light upon the subject.

Dr Priestley, finding that his letters had failed to produce the expected impression, and that his antagonist, untouched with either shame or remorse, remained unshaken in his opinion, now lost all temper; and in a second set of Letters to the Archdeacon of St Alban’s, which appeared in the autumn of 1784, threw aside all profession of personal regard, or even of ordinary civility. The charge of incompetency and ignorance was warmly retorted, and “the incorrigible dignitary” was charged with manifest misrepresentation of his adversary’s argument; with injustice to the character of Origen, whose veracity he had called in question; and with the grossest perversion of ancient history. In a word, he was stigmatised as a “falsifier of history, and a defamer of the character of the dead.” Regardless of this reproach, Dr Horsley remained silent for eighteen months. A sermon on the Incarnation, preached upon the feast of the Nativity in 1785, formed the prelude to the renewal of the contest on his part, and was, early in the ensuing spring, followed by Remarks on Dr Priestley’s Second Letters to the Archdeacon of St Alban’s, with proofs of certain facts asserted by the Archdeacon. This tract consists of two parts; one containing new specimens of Dr Priestley’s temerity in assertion; and the other defending the attack upon Origen, and proving the existence of a body of Christians atAElia after the time of Hadrian, which was the fact upon which the Archdeacon’s historical fidelity had been so loudly arraigned by Dr Priestley. With this publication Dr Horsley had intended that the controversy on his part should close; but having been induced to collect and republish what he had written (in one vol. 8vo, 1789), this led to a second perusal of Dr Priestley’s Letters, which produced not only many important notes, but some disquisitions of considerable length; and as the Remarks on Dr Priestley’s second Letters had elicited a third set, in which he endeavoured to support the veracity of Origen, and to maintain his position respecting the orthodox Hebrews of the church at Aelia, these are replied to partly in the notes, and partly also in two of the disquisitions Towards the conclusion of his Remarks, Dr Horsley observes: “These and many other glaring instances of unfinished criticism, weak argument, and unjustifiable art, to cover the weakness and supply the want of argument, which must strike every one who takes the trouble to look through those second letters, put me quite at ease with respect to the judgment which the public would be apt to form between my antagonist and me, and confirmed me in the resolution of making no reply to him, and of troubling the public no more upon the subject, except so far as might be necessary to establish some facts, which he hath somewhat too peremptorily denied; and to vindicate my character from aspersions which he hath too inconsiderately thrown out.”

The reputation which Dr Horsley had now acquired, recommended him to the patronage of Lord Chancellor Thurlow, who presented him to a prebendal stall in the cathedral of Gloucester; and, by the interest of the same eminent person, he was, in 1788, promoted to the see of St David’s. As a bishop, his conduct was exemplary and praisew orthy; in this character he fully answered the high expectations of eminent usefulness, which his elevation to the mitre had so generally raised. In his diocese, he carried through a general system of reform, regulated the condition of the clergy, introduced greater strictness with respect to candidates for admission into holy orders, preached frequently in the parish churches, and acted with Christian liberality towards the poor. Bishop Horsley’s first charge to the clergy of St David’s was delivered in 1790, and deservedly admired, as was also his animated speech in the House of Lords, 31st May 1791, on the subject of the Catholic Bill. These effective displays are understood to have occasioned his subsequent promotion to the bishopric of Rochester and the deanery of Westminster, upon which he resigned the living of Newington.

During the agitating period between 1793 and the close of the century, Bishop Horsley ranged himself on the side of the government, and with great zeal and warmth opposed the enemies of the constitution, and the professors of democratic principles, under which categories were then included all those who sought for reform in the representation of the people as a guarantee for the removal of abuses, and the progressive improvement of our institutions·, ecclesiastical as well as civil. As a senator, his talents and activity necessarily gave him weight; and there were few discussions of importance in Which he did not take part. He was not, however, an every-day speaker, nor desirous of protracting the debate, unless he had something original or important to communicate. In 1802, he was translated [7:11:628]to the bishopric of St Asaph, and resigned the deanery of 'Westminster. Until 1806, his vigour of body and mind remained unimpaired. In the month of July of that year he went to his diocese, and after a residence of two months intended to visit his patron Lord Thurlow at Brighton, where he arrived on the 20th of September, after learning on the road that his noble friend was no more. On the 30th, he became affected with a complaint in the bowels, which, slight at first, soon terminated in mortification, and on the 4th of October proved fatal. Bishop Horsley died in the seventy-third year of his age.

Dr Horsley was throughout life an indefatigable student; he indulged no indolence in youth, and amidst an accumulation of preferments, contemplated no time when he might rest from his labours. His mind was constantly intent on some pursuit, and, setting a high value upon the fame he had acquired, his ambition was to justify the favourable opinion of the public, and the liberality of his patrons. In classical acquirements, and in the critical knowledge of the languages in which the sacred books were originally written, he stood in the very first rank of excellence. In the mathematical and physical sciences, if he stood not in the first rank, he occupied at least a very respectable station. In metaphysical acuteness and research, he had probably few superiors; whilst, in his proper science of theology, we will venture to affirm that he had none. The ablest champion of orthodoxy that the church had for many years seen, he was so much of an original thinker, and so independent of his predecessors or contemporaries, that his mode of defence was entirely his own, and his style and manner, like Warburton’s and Johnson’s, though dangerous to imitate, were nevertheless the best, perhaps, that could have been devised in the conflict of opinions with which he was surrounded. In his writings, as in his character, there was nothing lukewarm, nothing compromising. His character and manner were indeed somewhat harsh, and arrogant, and dogmatical; but, whilst due allowance must be made for the heats and errors which controversy engenders, charity induces us to believe that much of his apparent asperity arose from his zeal for the truth, and his high sense of its importance, and that, in fact, he possessed more genuine liberality than some of his most clamorous opponents. He was classed, indeed, and he classed himself amongst High-churchmen; but he was no doubt perfectly sincere in his attachment to the constitution and doctrines of the Church of England; and on more than one occasion he gave proof that he understood the great principles of practical toleration better than some who made louder pretensions to liberality. It is certain, indeed, that he was not only willing, but anxious, to enter into a Parliamentary inquiry into the claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and to grant them whatever that inquiry might shew could be granted with security to the Protestant Establishment, and the Protestant succession.

In his fierce controversy with Dr Priestley, Bishop Horsley had a manifest advantage both in learning and argument; and when we reflect that his adversary aimed at nothing less than the overthrow of the English establishment, and avowed his purpose in language not remarkable either for modesty or íòr delicacy, we cannot justly wonder that he used strong language in return. Yet it is dignified language; and will not now, perhaps, appear to any candid reader, to be much stronger than the ease required. The concluding paragraph of his Remarks upon Dr Priestley’s Second Letters, affords a striking specimen of his manner as well as of his temper; of a manner, no doubt, sufficiently authoritative and decided, but of a temper which appears to us entitled to the name of Christian. “For eighteen months or more,” says he, “it hath been the boast of the Unitarian party, that the Archdeacon of St Alban’s hath been challenged to establish facts which he had averred; that he hath been insulted in his character, as a scholar and a man; charged with ignorance, misrepresentation, defamation, and calumny; and that, under all this, he hath continued speechless. He hath at last spoken, in a tone which, perhaps, will little endear him to the Unitarian zealots. It matters not. The time seems yet so distant when the train which they are laying may be expected to explode, that the danger is exceedingly small that he will ever be reduced to the alternative of renouncing his faith, or relinquishing his preferments; or to the harder alternative which Dr Priestley seems to threaten, of a prison with a good conscience, or his present emoluments without one. If those happy times of which Dr Priestley prophecies, should overtake him ere his course is finished; when an Arian or Soeinian Parliament shall undertake the blessed business of a second reformation, and depose archbishops from their thrones, and arehdeaeons from their couches of preferment; he humbly hopes that he may be supplied with fortitude to act the part which may not disgrace his present professions. The probability, however, seems to be, that ere those times arrive (if they arrive at all, which we trust they will not), my antagonist and I shall both be gone to those unseen abodes, where the din of controversy, and the din of war, are equally unheard. There we shall rest together, till the last trumpet summon us to stand before our God and King. That whatever of intemperate wrath, and carnal anger hath mixed itself, on either side, with the zeal with which we have pursued our fierce contention, may then be forgiven to us both, is a prayer which I breathe from the bottom of my soul, and to which my antagonist, if he hath any part in the spirit of a Christian, upon his bended knees will say Amen.”

As a preacher, or rather as a writer of sermons, Bishop Horsley must be allowed to stand in the first class, yet we do not know with whom in that class we can well compare him. In force, depth, and erudition, in precision and distinctness of ideas, in aptitude and vigour of expression, and, above all, in the original powers of thinking displayed in them, Dr Horsley’s discourses are unquestionably sui generis. But difficult as the subjects often are, which he discusses in them, even ordinary readers, moderately conversant with the Bible, and with the theory and practice of their religion, may derive more advantage from them than from any volumes of sermons which have issued from the press for more than half a century. Even difficulties, and very serious difficulties, Dr Horsley frequently renders plain and practical, by clear, patient, and ingenious criticism; and having fixed his principle on a scriptural ground, and made that ground comparatively clear and easy, he enforces the practical consequences on that direct authority of God which, within the walls of a Christian church, ought to supersede every other. Dr Clarke, in his sermons, which stand in the very first rank of excellence, often treats and largely discusses, Christian subjects, the mysteries of redemption, and the various positive ordinances of the gospel. But he does so with this remarkable difference from Bishop Horsley, that he is never satisfied with any scriptural principle or precept, till he has laboured to render it conformable to what he calls eternal reason and the fitness of things. Thus, even on subjects of which we should never have known any thing but from Scripture, and which derive all their importance and authority from revelation, we are frequently perplexed with thorny and intricate discussions, intended to accommodate them to this eternal reason and immutable relation of things. The evil of such discussions is, that they are apt to leave an impression on the mind that the obligations of duty rest on something different from, and independent of, the will of God; whereas, to a Christian, the source of the obligation, whether as respects moral or religious duties, is beyond all controversy, the revealed will of God [7:11:629]alone. Hence it was that Bishop Horsley, when he had distinctly traced a principle, doctrine, or precept to Scripture, justly conceived that he had done all which a Christian could require to enforce obedience. It may be interesting, it may even be important, to trace the admirable conformity which subsists between the revealed will of God, and the same will as it may be deduced from the nature of things, and the condition of man; but it never can be absolutely necessary to establish this conformity; for whether we are able to trace it or not, the Christian obligation is the same. The supposition that revelation may, in every instance, be accommodated to reason, or, in other words, that a conformity can always be traced between the dictates of reason and the doctrines of Scripture, is a supposition not only fraught with danger, but incompatible with the very import of the term revelation, which necessarily implies the disclosure to man of that which reason could never have informed him of.

Besides the works already mentioned, Bishop Horsley was the author of the following, viz. 1. On the Properties of the Greek and Latin Languages, 1796, in 8vo; 2. On the Achronical Rising of the Pleiades, appended to Dr Vincent’s Voyage of Nearchus, 1797; 3. A Circular Letter to the Diocese of Rochester, on the Scarcity of Corn, 1796; 4. Another Circular Letter to that Diocese on the Defence of the Kingdom, 1798; 5. Critical Disquisitions on the 18th chapter of Isaiah, 1799, in 4to; 6. Hosea translated from the Hebrew, with Notes explanatory and critical, 1801, in 4to; 7∙ Elementary Treatises on the fundamental principles of Practical Mathematics, for the use of Students, 1801, in 8vo. Since his death have appeared, 1. Sermons, 1810 and 1812, in three vols. 8vo; 2. Tracts in controversy with Dr Priestley, upon the historical question of the belief of the first ages in the Divinity of Jesus Christ, revised and augmented by the author, with an appendix by his Son, 1812, in 8vo; 3. The Speeches in Parliament of Samuel Horsley, 1813; and, 4. The Charges delivered at his several visitations of the dioceses of St David’s, Rochester, and St Asaph, 1813, in 8vo.—(Chalmers’s Biog. Diet. art. Horsley i Edinburgh Review, vol. xvii. p. 465, 468.) ' (a.)