Our Reformer left behind him a widow and five children. His two sons were born to him by hisfirst 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 supporterof 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.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 attendedher 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 makeroom 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]
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 theking, 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 ofthat 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 livelyvoice, 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 usethe 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 Scottishorthography 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,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]