T 
MONTHLY 
MAGAZINE. 
No. 100. ] 
+ MAY 1, 1803. 
| No. 4, of Vox. 15: 
ORIGINAL COMMUNICATIONS. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N Mr. Zouch’s edition of Ifaac Wal- 
ton’s Lives (4to. 1796) among the 
notes with which the editor has enriched 
the work, I have met with two-or three 
which appear to me in their turn to afford 
matter for annotation. ‘Thefe, with your 
leave, I thall make the fubject of a letter, 
To a highly laudatory character by 
the biographer, of Hooker’s writings, the 
editor has fubjoined this note. ‘This cha- 
racter of Mr. Hooker’s works is confirmed 
by the approbation of our beft writers. 
Is it not then painful to read in a modern 
author, whofe learning and critical know- 
ledge deferve every encomium, of ¢a 
malicious obfervation of Hooker, and as 
remote from truth as itis from charity,’ 
(See Memoirs of the Life of Gilbert 
Wakefield).” 
That Hooker's name is highly refpec- 
table, few, it is prefumed, will deny ; 
but to bring a general character as the 
‘refutation of a fpecific charge—or to 
fuppofe that a perfon ought to be pro- 
tected by fuch charaéter from every kind 
of cenfure, is furely unworthy of any 
one who pretends to the exercile of pri- 
vate judgment. The queftion in this 
cafe ought to be, whether Mr.Wakefeld’s 
imputation is juft ; not whether it is pain- 
ful. But the editor has nct even hinted 
at the nature of the obfervation which 
called it forth. It is as follows, accord- 
Ing to the reference made to it by Mr. 
Wakefield ina letter to Mr. Milner :-— 
*‘that it is a plaufible and tempting office to 
fet one’s-felf againft eftablifhed opinions, 
as a proof of fuperior difcernment.”” I will 
not jultify Mr. Wakefield’s epithet of ma- 
licious, which I think Hooker was too 
‘good a man to deferve; but I will ven- 
ture to affert that his obfervation is juftly 
fligmatifed as unfair and uncharitable, 
It is, in fa&, one of thofe which authority 
can at all times oppofe to attempts for 
promoting truth and reform; and comes 
with a peculiarly ill grace from the chani- 
pion of a church lately emancipated from 
the fetters of popery. It is poffible that fome 
individuals may contend againt prevailing 
opinions from the mere pride of affetted 
fuperiority of underftanding ; but oppofi- 
tion toa lordly and powerful eftablith- 
Monruty Maa, No, 100. 
* ment is too ferious a thing in its worldly 
confequences to be engaged in, for the 
moft part, without the fupport of real 
convistion and a fenfe of duty. The 
times in which Hooker lived affoided 
fufhicient proof of this truth. 
Mc. Zouch has followed a fimilar mode 
of exculpation, that is, fetting the opi- 
nion of a friend in oppofition to that of 
an enemy, with refpect to Archbifhop 
Laud. To a paflage of the life of 
Bifhop Sanderfon, in which Laud is men- 
tioned, he introduces this note, ‘* whom 
the author of the. Confeffional hath dif- 
tinguifhed with the harfh epithet of a- 
lictous. The noble hiftorian has delinea:ed 
the character of this great prelate with 
his ufual ability and candour.”’ He then 
goes on to tranfcribe Clarendon’s portrait 
of Laud. But if truth were the object, 
would it be thought fufficient to copy the 
reprefentation of a partial friend, inftead 
of appealing to the general tenor of a 
man’s conduct, as difplayed in authentic 
records, One mult have read the hiftory 
of thofe times with much prejudice or 
little difcernment, who has not difcovered 
that Laud was a fiery intolerant bigot ; 
though learned, yet weak and narrow ; 
and as much a fanatic in his zeal for 
trifles, as any of thofe on the other 
fide, to whom the epithet is ufually, tho” 
very unjuitly, appropriated. Nor can it 
be doubted that the fevere perfecutions 
which he excited againft all who in the 
leaft deviated from his model of do&rine 
and difcipline, were a principal caule of 
the troubles which followed. That fuch 
aman, notwithftanding his general good 
intentions, was. capable of malice towards 
thofe who thwarted his views and offended 
his pride,will not be doubted by an obfer- 
ver of human nature. 
The laft remark I fhall make upon this 
editor, relates to a note appended to the 
following paffage of the text in the life of . 
Hooker. <* He did not beg a long 
life of God for any other reafon, but 
to finifh his three remaining books of 
Polity ; and then, Lord! let thy fervanr 
depart in peace.”’ ‘* How different this 
(fays Mr. Zouch) from the application of 
the fame words by Hugh Peters, and by 
an advocate for political reform in later 
times !””) The aflociation of Doétcr Price 
(the advocate for reform alluded to) with 
Qq ‘ Huga 
—— 
Te os Tee 
a 
a eam 
Sa 
SoS een as Sie wines jt 
— 
arn 
—— 
acai 
vo het = 
a7 
a ASEM Es Ga aN ae 
ee 
et 
