1803. } 
it the epithet malicious, to pronounce it 
equally remote from truth and charity, was 
furely unneceflary and unfeafonable. Se- 
veral of Mr. Wakefield’s writings ‘are 
truly excellent. As a Latin~ critic, he 
may be clafled next to Bentiey. His Sylva 
Critica, and his noble edition of Lucretius, 
will endear his name to every lover of an- 
cient literature. | Orthophilus ingenuoully 
acknowledges, that he will not juftify the 
epithet malicious as applied to Hooker. 
In what milder terms then could the edi- 
tor of Walton’s Lives have expreffed his 
opinion, than by faving it was painful to 
him to obferve the epithet thus applied. Mr. 
Richard Hooker was fo medeft, fo humble, 
fo innocent, fo angelical in his whole life 
and converfation, that we cannot con- 
template his charaéter but with every 
fentiment of refpect and veneration.” To 
afcribe malevolence to fuch a man !—but 
I forbear. 
On the receipt of the following note 
from the late Mr. Wakefield, it was inti- 
mated to him, that ina fecond edition; 
the obnoxious paflage fhould be erafed. 
Hackney, Aprii 29; 1796. 
“¢ Mr, Wakefield felt much concern at in- 
curring a mixture of reprehenfion from a man 
like Mr. Zouch, proclaimed by his writings to 
be fo intelligent and virtuous. | Perhaps, 
however, Hooker, in the warm defence of a 
caufe, without perfonal malignity may be 
be guilty of a remark intrinfically malici- 
ous in its afpect and tendency, and that quef- 
tion ftill remains to be decided. 
*¢ In the mean time, Mr. Wakefield (who 
was for many years of his life a devoted 
fifherman, but unwittingly in unbelief) wifes 
Mr. Zouch to confider how much is conneét- 
ed with that paftime, as followed by Wal- 
ton, andcommended by Mr. Zouch—no lefs 
than the moft exquifite torture of numberlefs 
animals in procefs of time impaled on a hook, 
each of which in mortal fuffcrance fecls a pang 
as great as when a giant dies. Let Mr. Zouch 
under.this confideration reprefent to'himfelf 
the whole courfe of Walton’s life, and confi- 
der whether his barbaritics would not coun- 
terpoife thofe of all the popith inquifitors that 
have yet exifted: for to a benevolent heart 
man or maggot make no difference. Matt. x. 
29.” 
—-animus meminiffe horret, luctuque 
refagit. 
“¢ Such caution fhould be ufed by frail man 
in his cenfures on his neighbour.” 
II. Archbifhop Laud is named in Wal- 
ton’s Lives, p. 434, whete it is remarked 
jn a note that “ the author of the Con- 
feffional has diftinguifned Laud with the 
epithet malicious; and then Lord Claren- 
Mr. Zouch vindicated. 
40} 
don’s portrait of his charafter’is intros 
duced.”” Now the term malicious implies 
a: temper fo corrupted and debafed, fo 
much under the influence of a wicked 
being, that I fhould not venture to apply 
it to any perfon of whole total depr:vity 
of mind I was not thoroughly convinced, 
Would it not have been more commend- 
able in the author of the Confcflional to 
have abitained from the term? Would 
the energy of his argument have been lefs 
efficacious, or the caufe, which he defend- 
ed, lefs powerfully fupported ? Inthe ins 
{eription en ‘his montment ‘he is, called, 
if my meinory “does not deceive me, a 
caufie writer, “Be it fo—no*one will ef 
teem him the more for it. Nothing: is fo 
hoftile to the inveftigation oftrath, as the 
ufe of harfh language and illiberal ap. 
pellations. is ‘92 
III. In Walton’s Lives, p. 1805) Mre 
Hooker is introduced, as declaring that 
‘* he did not beg a long life’ of God, for 
any other reafon but to live to finith his 
three remaining books of ‘Polity ; and, 
then, (Lord let thy fervant depart in peace !) 
which ‘was ‘his ‘ufual expreffion.” » On 
this paflage Mr.-Zouch remarks :/<* How 
different this from the application of the 
fame words by Hugh Peters, and by an 
advocate for political reform in later 
times.” This remark incurs the cenfure 
of the author of the letter im your Maga- 
zine. When Dr. Price, the advocate for 
reform here meant, preached his’ anniver- 
fary fermon at the Old Jewry, the French 
Revolution had already commenced with 
circumitanees of the moft dreadful and 
the mott atrocious nature. | Orthopbilus 
owns that the judgment of Dr. Price con- 
cerning this Revolution was premature 
and ovey-fanguiney. Would it not then 
have been more prudeat to have fufpend- 
ed that judgment, and not to have antici+ 
pated the event, but to have waited pa- 
+ The paffage in Dr, Price’s Difcourfe’ is 
as follows: “* What an eventfa! period ‘is 
this, Iam thankful that I have lived 'to itt 
I could almott fay ‘ Lord, now lettef? thou 
thy fervant depart in peace, for mine eyes buve 
Jeen thy falvation” \ T bave lived to fee a dife 
fifien ot knowledge, which has undermined 
fuperfition and error ; 1 Have lived to fee the 
rights of men better underftood than ever, and 
Nations panting for liberty, which feemed to 
have loit the ideaofit. 1 have lived to fee 
thirty millions of people indignant and refo-~ 
luce, fpurning at flavery, and demanding ti. 
berty with ‘an irretittible voice: their king 
led in triumph, and anarbitrary monarch fur- 
rendering himfelf to his fubjects.” 
tiently 
