Page:Protestant Exiles from France Agnew vol 2.djvu/444

 philosopher most accurately and beautifully explains, σεμνόηςμαλαχή χαί εύσχήμων βαρύτης. Wit without ill nature, and sense without effort, he could at will scatter upon every subject; and in every book the writer presents us with a near and distinct view of the real man —

ut omnis Votivâ pateat tanquam descripta tabellâ Vita senis.

His style, though inartificial, is sometimes elevated — though familiar, it is never mean — and though employed upon various topics of theology, ethics, and criticism, it is not arrayed in any delusive resemblance either of solemnity from fanatical cant, of profoundness from scholastic jargon, of precision from the crabbed formalities of cloudy philologists, or of refinement from the technical babble of frivolous connoisseurs. At the shadowy and fleeting reputation which is sometimes gained by the frolics of literary vanity, or the mischievous struggles of controversial rage, Jortin never grasped. Truth, which some men are ambitious of seizing by surprise in the trackless and dark recess, he was content to overtake in the broad and beaten path; and in the pursuit of it, if he does not excite our astonishment by the rapidity of his strides, he at least secures our confidence by the firmness of his step. To the examination of positions advanced by other men he always brought a mind, which neither prepossession had seduced, nor malevolence polluted. He imposed not his own conjectures as infallible or irresistible truths, nor endeavoured to give an air of importance to trifles by dogmatical vehemence. He could support his more serious opinions without the versatility of a sophist, the fierceness of a disputant, or the impertinence of a buffoon — more than this, — he could relinquish or correct them with the calm and steady dignity of a writer who, while he yielded something to the arguments of his antagonists, was conscious of retaining enough to command their respect. He had too much discernment to confound difference of opinion with malignity or dulness, and too much candour to insult where he could not persuade. Though his sensibilities were neither coarse nor sluggish, he was yet exempt from those fickle humours, those rankling jealousies, and that restless waywardness which men of the brightest talents are too prone to indulge. He carried with him into every station in which he was placed, and every subject which he explored, a solid greatness of soul which could spare an inferior though in the offensive form of an adversary, and endure an equal with or without the sacred name of a friend. The importance of commendation, as well to him who bestows as to him who claims it, he estimated not only with justice but with delicacy, and therefore he neither wantonly lavished it nor withheld it austerely. But invective he neither provoked nor feared; and as to the severities of contempt, he reserved them for occasions where alone they could be employed with propriety, and where by himself they were employed with effect, for the chastisement of arrant dunces, of censorious sciolists, of intolerant bigots in every sect, and unprincipled impostors in every profession. Distinguished in various forms of literary composition, engaged in various duties of his ecclesiastical profession, and blessed with a long and honourable life, he nobly exemplified the rare and illustrious virtue of charity. The esteem, the affection, the reverence, which I feel for so profound a scholar and so honest a man as Dr. Jortin, make me wholly indifferent to the praise and censure of those who vilify without reading his writings, or read them without finding some incentive to study, some proficiency in knowledge, or some improvement in virtue.”

Dean Milman (in the Quarterly Review, July 1859) praised and criticised Jortin in the following paragraph (which I quote, although I acquit the refugees of a blind hatred of Romanism):—

“If we could have designated the modern scholar, whose congenial mind would best have appreciated and entered most fully into the whole life of Erasmus, it would have been Jortin. Jortin had wit, and a kindred quiet sarcasm. From no book, except, perhaps, the Lettres Provinciates, has Gibbon drawn so much of his subtle scorn, his covert sneer, as from Jortin’s ‘Remarks on Ecclesiastical History.’ In Jortin lived the inextinguishable hatred of Romanism which most of the descendants of the Exiles, after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, cherished in their inmost hearts, and carried with them to every part of Europe — that hatred which in Bayle, Le Clerc, and many others, had an influence not yet adequately traced on the literature, and through the literature, on the politics and religion of Christendom. It was this feeling which gave its bitterness to so much of Jortin’s views on every event and dispute in Church history. In these he read the nascent and initiatory bigotry which in later days shed the blood of his ancestors. He detected in the fourth or fifth century the spirit which animated the dragonnades. Jortin was an excellent and an elegant scholar; his latinity, hardly surpassed by any modern writer, must have caused him to revel in the pages of Erasmus; he was a liberal divine, of calm but sincere piety, to whose sympathies the passionless moderation of Erasmus must have been congenial; nor was there one of his day who would feel more sincere gratitude to Erasmus for his invaluable services to classical learning and to biblical criticism. We cannot altogether assent to the brief review of Jortin’s book growled out by the stern old dictator of the last century, ‘Sir, it is a dull book.’ It is not a dull book; it contains much lively and pleasant remark, much amusing anecdote, many observations of excellent