dismiss it at once, and summarily to pronounce that all pretensions
to extraordinary premonitions, since the completing of the canon of
inspiration, are unwarranted, and that they ought, without examination,
to be discarded and treated as fanciful and visionary. Nor would this
fix any {265} peculiar imputation on the character or talents of our
Reformer, when it is considered that the most learned persons of that
age were under the influence of a still greater weakness, and strongly
addicted to the belief of judicial astrology. But I doubt much if
this method of determining the question would be doing justice to
the subject. _Est periculum, ne, aut neglectis his impia fraude, aut
susceptis, anili superstitione, obligemur._[328] On the one hand, the
disposition which mankind discover to pry into the secrets of futurity,
has been always accompanied with much credulity and superstition;
and it cannot be denied, that the age in which Knox lived was prone
to credit the marvellous, especially as to the infliction of divine
judgments on individuals. A judicious person, who is aware of this,
will not be disposed to acknowledge as preternatural whatever was
formerly regarded in this light, and will be on his guard against the
illusions of imagination as to impressions which may be made on his
own mind.
Nor would it be difficult to produce instances in which writers
of a subsequent age, through mistake or under the influence of
prepossession, have given a prophetical meaning to words, which
originally were not intended to convey any such idea. But, on the
other hand, is there not a danger of running into scepticism, and
of laying down general principles which may lead us obstinately to
contest the truth of the best authenticated facts, if not also to
limit the {266} operations of divine providence? This is the extreme
to which the present age inclines. That there are instances of persons
having had presentiments as to events which afterwards did happen to
themselves and others, there is, I think, the best reason to believe.
Those who laugh at vulgar credulity, and exert their ingenuity in
accounting for such phenomena on ordinary principles, have been
exceedingly puzzled with some of these facts――a great deal more
puzzled than they have confessed; and the solutions which they have
given are, in some cases, as mysterious as any thing included in
the intervention of superior spirits, or in preternatural and divine
intimations.[329] The canon of our faith, as Christians, is contained
in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; we must not look to
impressions or new revelations as the rule of our duty; but that God
may, on particular occasions, forewarn persons of some things which
shall happen, to testify his approbation of them, to encourage them
to confide in him in circumstances of peculiar difficulty, or to serve
other important purposes, is not, I think, inconsistent with {267}
the principles of either natural or revealed religion. If to believe
this be enthusiasm, it is an enthusiasm into which some of the most
enlightened and sober men, in modern as well as ancient times, have
fallen.[330] The reformers were men of singular piety; they were
exposed to uncommon opposition, and had uncommon services to perform;
they were endued with extraordinary gifts, and why may we not suppose
that they were occasionally favoured with extraordinary premonitions,
with respect to certain events which concerned themselves, other
individuals, or the church in general? But whatever intimations of
this kind they received, they never proposed them as a rule of action
to themselves or others, nor rested the authority of their mission
upon these, nor appealed to them as constituting any part of the
evidence of those doctrines which they preached to the world.
Our Reformer left behind him a widow and five children. His two sons
were born to him by his {268} first wife, Marjory Bowes. We have
already seen, that, about the year 1566, they went to England, where
their mother’s relations resided. They received their education at
St John’s college, in the university of Cambridge; their names being
enrolled in the matriculation‑book only eight days after the death
of their father. Nathanael, the eldest of them, after obtaining the
degrees of bachelor and master of arts, and being admitted fellow of
the college, died in 1580. Eleazar, the youngest son, in addition to
the honours attained by his brother, was created bachelor of divinity,
ordained one of the preachers of the university, and admitted to the
vicarage of Clacton‑Magna. He died in 1591, and was buried in the
chapel of St John’s college.[331] It appears that both sons died
without issue, and the family of the Reformer became extinct in the
male line. His other children were daughters by his second wife. The
General Assembly testified their respect for his memory by assigning
his stipend, for the year after his death, to his widow and three
daughters, and this appears to have been continued for some time
by the regent Morton, who, though charged with avarice during his
administration, treated them with uniform attention and kindness.[332]
Margaret Stewart, his widow, was afterwards married to Sir Andrew Ker
of Fadounside, a strenuous supporter {269} of the Reformation.[333]
The names of his daughters were Martha, Margaret, and Elizabeth.[334]
The first was married to James Fleming, a minister of the church of
Scotland;[335] the second, to Zachary, son of the celebrated Robert
Pont;[336] and the third to John Welch, minister of Ayr.
Mrs Welch seems to have inherited no inconsiderable portion of
her father’s spirit, and she had her share of similar hardships.
Her husband was one of those patriotic ministers who resisted the
arbitrary measures pursued by James VI. for overturning the government
and liberties of the presbyterian church of Scotland. Being determined
to abolish the General Assembly, James had, for a considerable time,
prevented the meetings of that court by successive prorogations.
Perceiving the design of the court, a number of the delegates from
synods resolved to keep the diet which had been appointed to be held
at Aberdeen in July 1605. They merely constituted the Assembly and
appointed a day for its next meeting, and being charged by Laurieston,
the king’s commissioner, to dissolve, immediately obeyed; but the
commissioner, having ante‑dated the charge, several of the leading
members were thrown into prison. {270} Welch and five of his brethren,
when called before the privy council, declined that court, as
incompetent to judge the offence of which they were accused, according
to the laws of the kingdom; on which account they were indicted to
stand trial for treason at Linlithgow. Their trial was conducted
in the most illegal and unjust manner. The king’s advocate told the
jury that the only thing which came under their cognizance was the
fact of the declinature, the judges having already found that it was
treasonable; and threatened them with an “azize of error,” if they
did not proceed as he directed them. After the jury were empannelled,
the justice‑clerk went in and threatened them with his majesty’s
displeasure, if they acquitted the prisoners. The greater part of the
jurors being still reluctant, the chancellor went out and consulted
with the other judges, who promised that no punishment should be
inflicted on the prisoners, provided the jury brought in a verdict
agreeable to the court. By such disgraceful methods, they were induced,
at midnight, to find, by a majority of three, that the prisoners
were guilty, upon which, they were condemned to suffer the death
of traitors.[337]
Leaving her children at Ayr, Mrs Welch attended {271} her husband in
prison, and was present at Linlithgow, with the wives of the other
prisoners, on the day of trial. When informed of the sentence, these
heroines, instead of lamenting their fate, praised God who had given
their husbands courage to stand to the cause of their Master, adding,
that, like him, they had been judged and condemned under the covert of
night.[338]
The sentence of death having been changed into banishment, she
accompanied her husband to France, where they remained for sixteen
years. Mr Welch applied himself with such assiduity to the acquisition
of the language of the country, that he was able, in the course of
fourteen weeks, to preach in French, and was chosen minister to a
protestant congregation at Nerac, from which he was translated to
St Jean d’Angely, a fortified town in Lower Charente. War having
broken out between Lewis XIII. and his protestant subjects, St Jean
d’Angely was besieged by the king in person. On this occasion, Welch
not only animated the inhabitants of the town to a vigorous resistance
by his exhortations, but he appeared on the walls, and gave his
assistance to the garrison. The king was at last admitted into the
town in consequence of a treaty, and being displeased that Welch
preached during his residence in it, sent the duke d’Espernon, with
a company of soldiers, to take him from the pulpit. When the preacher
saw the duke enter the church, he ordered his hearers to make {272}
room for the marshal of France, and desired him to sit down and hear
the word of God. He spoke with such an air of authority that the
duke involuntarily took a seat, and listened to the sermon with great
gravity and attention. He then brought Welch to the king, who asked
him, how he durst preach there, since it was contrary to the laws of
the kingdom for any of the pretended reformed to officiate in places
where the court resided. “Sir,” replied Welch, “if your majesty knew
what I preached, you would not only come and hear it yourself, but
make all France hear it; for I preach not as those men you use to hear.
First, I preach that you must be saved by the merits of Jesus Christ,
and not your own; and I am sure your conscience tells you that your
good works will never merit heaven. Next, I preach, that, as you are
king of France, there is no man on earth above you; but these men
whom you hear, subject you to the pope of Rome, which I will never do.”
Pleased with this reply, Lewis said to him, “_Hé bien, vous seriez mon
ministre_;”[339] and addressing him by the title of Father, assured
him of his protection. And he was as good as his word; for St Jean
d’Angely being reduced by the royal forces in 1621, the king gave
directions to De Vitry, one of his generals, to take care of his
minister; in consequence of which, Welch and his family were conveyed,
at his majesty’s expense, to Rochelle.[340]
{273} Having lost his health, and the physicians informing him that
the only prospect which he had of recovering it, was by returning
to his native country, Mr Welch ventured, in the year 1622, to come
to London. But his own sovereign was incapable of treating him with
that generosity which he had experienced from the French monarch; and,
dreading the influence of a man who was far gone with a consumption,
he absolutely refused to give him permission to return to Scotland.
Mrs Welch, by means of some of her mother’s relations at court,
obtained access to James, and petitioned him to grant this liberty
to her husband. The following singular conversation took place on
that occasion. His majesty asked her, who was her father. She replied,
“John Knox.”――“Knox and Welch!” exclaimed he, “the devil never made
such a match as that.”――“It’s right like, sir,” said she, “for we
never speired[341] his advice.” He asked her how many children her
father had left, and if they were lads or lasses. She said three, and
they were all lasses. “God be thanked!” cried the {274} king, lifting
up both his hands; “for an they had been three lads, I had never
bruiked[342] my three kingdoms in peace.” She again urged her request,
that he would give her husband his native air. “Give him his native
air!” replied the king, “give him the devil!”――“Give that to your
hungry courtiers,” said she, offended at his profaneness. He told
her at last, that if she would persuade her husband to submit to the
bishops, he would allow him to return to Scotland. Mrs Welch, lifting
up her apron, and holding it towards the king, replied, in the true
spirit of her father, “Please your majesty, I’d rather kep[343] his
head there.”[344]
Welch was soon after released from the power of the despot, and
from his own sufferings. “This month of May, 1622,” says one of his
intimate friends, “we received intelligence of the death of that
holy servant of God, Mr Welch, one of the fathers and pillars of
{275} that church, and the light of his age, who died at London, an
exile from his native country, on account of his opposition to the
re‑establishment of episcopal government, and his firm support of the
presbyterian and synodical discipline, received and established among
us; and that after eighteen years’ banishment――a man full of the Holy
Spirit zeal, charity, and incredible diligence in the duties of his
office.” The death of his wife is recorded by the same pen. “This
month of January, 1625, died at Ayr, my cousin, Mrs Welch, daughter of
that great servant of God, the late John Knox, and wife of that holy
man of God, Mr Welch, above‑mentioned; a spouse and daughter worthy of
such a husband, and such a father.”[345]
The account of our Reformer’s publications has been partly anticipated
in the course of the preceding narrative. Though his writings were
of great utility, it was not by them, but by his personal exertions,
that he chiefly advanced the Reformation, and transmitted his name to
posterity. He did not view this as the field in which he was called
to labour. “That I did not in writing communicate my judgment upon the
scriptures,” says he, “I have ever thought myself to have most just
reason. For, considering myself rather called of my God to instruct
the ignorant, comfort the sorrowful, confirm the weak, and rebuke the
proud, by tongue and lively {276} voice, in these most corrupt days,
than to compose books for the age to come, (seeing that so much is
written, and by men of most singular erudition, and yet so little
well observed,) I decreed to contain myself within the bounds of
that vocation whereunto I found myself especially called.”[346]
This resolution was most judiciously formed. His situation was very
different from that of the first protestant reformers. They found the
whole world in ignorance of the doctrines of Christianity. Men were
either destitute of books, or such as they possessed were calculated
only to mislead. The oral instructions of a few individuals could
extend but a small way; it was principally by means of their writings,
which circulated with amazing rapidity, that they benefited mankind,
and became not merely the instructors of the particular cities and
countries where they resided and preached, but the reformers of Europe.
By the time that Knox appeared on the field, their translations of
scripture, their judicious commentaries on its different books, and
their able defences of its doctrines, were laid open to the English
reader.[347] What was more immediately required of him was to use {277}
the peculiar talent in which he excelled, and, “by tongue and lively
voice,” to imprint the doctrines of the Bible upon the hearts of his
countrymen. When he was deprived of an opportunity of doing this
during his exile, there could not be a more proper substitute than
that which he adopted, by publishing familiar epistles, exhortations,
and admonitions, in which he briefly reminded them of the truths which
they had embraced, and warned them to flee from the abominations of
popery. These could be circulated and read with far more ease, and to
a far greater extent, than large treatises.
Of the many sermons preached by him during his ministry, he published
but one, which was extorted from him by peculiar circumstances. It
affords a very favourable specimen of his talents; and shows, that
if he had applied himself to writing, he was qualified for excelling
in that department. He had a ready command of language, and expressed
himself with great perspicuity, animation, and force. Though he
despised the tinsel of rhetoric, he was acquainted with the principles
of that art, and when he had leisure and inclination to polish his
style, wrote with propriety, and even with elegance. Those who have
read his Letter to the Queen Regent, his Answer to Tyrie, or his
papers in the account of the dispute with Kennedy, will be satisfied
of this. During his residence in England, he acquired the habit of
writing the language according to the manner of that country; and in
all his publications which appeared during his lifetime, the English
and not the Scottish {278} orthography and mode of expression are
used.[348] In this respect, there is a very evident difference between
them and the vernacular writings of Buchanan.
His practical treatises are among the least known, but most valuable,
of his writings. In depth of religious feeling, and in power of
utterance, they are superior to any works of the same kind which
appeared in that age. The thoughts are often original, and always
expressed in a style of originality, possessing great dignity and
strength, without affectation or extravagance.[349]
The freedoms which have been used in the republication of such of
his works as are best known, have contributed to injure his literary
reputation. They were translated into the language commonly used in
the middle of the seventeenth century, by which they were deprived of
the antique costume which they formerly wore, and contracted an air
of vulgarity which did not originally belong to them. Besides this,
they have been reprinted with innumerable omissions, interpolations,
and alterations, {279} which frequently affect the sense, and always
enfeeble the language. The two works which have been most read,
are the least accurate and polished, in point of style, of all his
writings. His tract against female government was hastily published by
him, under great irritation of mind at the increasing cruelty of Mary,
queen of England. His History of the Reformation was undertaken during
the confusions of the civil war, and was afterwards continued by him
at intervals snatched from numerous avocations. The collection of
historical materials is a work of labour and time; the digesting and
arranging of them into a regular narrative require much leisure and
undivided attention. The want of these sufficiently accounts for the
confusion that is often observable in that work. But notwithstanding
this, and particular mistakes from which no work of the kind can be
free, it still continues to be the principal source of information
as to ecclesiastical proceedings in that period; and although great
keenness has been shown in attacking its authenticity and accuracy,
it has been confirmed, in all the leading facts, by an examination of
those ancient documents which the industry of later times has brought
to light.[350]
His defence of Predestination, the only theological treatise of any
extent which was published by him, is rare, and has been seen by
few. It is written with perspicuity, and discovers his controversial
acuteness, with becoming caution, in handling that {280} delicate
question. A catalogue of his publications, as complete as I have been
able to draw up, will be found in the notes.[351]
* * * * *
I have thus attempted to give an account of our national Reformer,
of the principal events of his life, his sentiments, writings, and
exertions in the cause of religion and liberty. If what I have done
shall contribute to set his character in a more just light than
that in which it has been generally represented, and to correct the
erroneous views of it which have long been prevalent; or if it shall
tend to elucidate the ecclesiastical history of the eventful period in
which he lived, and be the means of illustrating the superintendence
of a wise and merciful Providence, in the accomplishment of a
revolution of all others the most interesting and beneficial to this
country, I shall not think any labour which I have bestowed on the
subject to have been thrown away, or unrewarded.
{281}
NOTES
TO
VOLUME SECOND.
Note A, Footnote 16.
I SHALL, in this note, add some particulars respecting the early
practice of the reformed church of Scotland, under the following
heads:
_Of Doctors._――The doctrine of the church of Scotland, and indeed of
other reformed churches, on this head, has not been very uniform and
decided. The first Book of Discipline does not mention doctors, but it
seems to take for granted what has been stated respecting them in the
Book of Common Order, where they are declared to be “a fourth kind of
ministers left to the church of Christ,” although the English church
at Geneva could not attain them. Knox’s Liturgy, p. 14. Dunlop’s
Confessions, ii. 409, 410. In the second Book of Discipline, the
office of doctor is expressly mentioned as “ane of the twa ordinar and
perpetual functions that travel in the world,” and “different from the
pastor, not only in name, but in diversity of gifts.” The doctor is
to “assist the pastor in the government of the kirk, and concur with
the elders his brethren in all assemblies,” but not “to minister the
sacraments or celebrate marriage.” Dunlop, ii. 773, 774. The Book of
Common Order and second Book of Discipline agree in comprehending,
under the name and office of a doctor, “the order in schooles,
colledges, and universities.” Ibid. The fact seems to be, that there
never were any doctors in the church of Scotland, except the teachers
of divinity in the universities. “Quamvis ecclesia nostra,” says
Calderwood, “post primam reformationem, quatuor agnoscat ministrorum
genera, pastorum, doctorum, presbyterorum, et diaconorum, tamen
doctores alios nondum habuit quam scholarchas.” De Regimine Ecclesiæ
Scoticanæ Brevis Relatio, {282} p. 1, 2. Anno, 1618. Some writers have
asserted, that it was as doctors that Buchanan and Andrew Melville sat,
and sometimes presided, in the church courts. The episcopalians having
objected, that the church of Scotland admitted persons to act as
moderators in her assemblies who were in no ecclesiastical office, and
having appealed to the instances of the two persons above mentioned,
Mr Baillie gives this answer: “Mr Melvil was a doctor of divinity,
and so long as episcopal persecution permitted, did sit with great
renowne in the prime chair we had of that faculty: George Buchanan had
sometimes, as I have heard, been a preacher at St Andrews: after his
long travells he was employed by our church and state to be a teacher
to king James and his family: of his faithfulnesse in this charge
he left, I believe, to the world good and satisfactory tokens: the
eminency of this person was so great, that no society of men need be
ashamed to have been moderated by his wisdome.” Historical Vindication,
p. 21, 22. The report which Mr Baillie had heard of Buchanan having
been a preacher, probably originated from the divinity lectures which
Calderwood informs us he read with great applause in the university of
St Andrews. “Buchanan and Mr Melvill were doctors of divinity,” says
Rutherford, in his Lex Rex, pref. p. 5. Lond. 1644.