Note 141 — THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, AT EDINBURGH, 1639.

Although Lowdoun and Johnston, as we have seen (vide their Speeches, Report, p. 167), attempted to explain away the effect of the several Acts of Parliament to which we refer, yet it is due to the truth of history to say, that there is no mistaking the tenor and effect of those Acts. By the 1st Act of King James VI., 18th Parliament (9th July, 1606), the power and prerogative of the King are declared “over all estates, persons, and causes whatsoever, within the said Kingdom.” And by the very next Act (2d), he is declared to be “Soveraigne Monarch, absolute Prince, Judge, and Governour over all persons, estates, and causes, both spiritual and temporall;” and, further, the previous Acts by which Bishops had been ousted or denuded of their titles, privileges, and benefices, are rescinded, and the order “restored and redintegrated,” to all intents and purposes. Again, in 1612 (23d Oct.), there is another Act, ratifying the ecclesiastical arrangements made by the packed and bribed Assembly at Glasgow in 1610, which were out-and-out Episcopalian. Furthermore, there was an Act, 26th June 1617, anent the election of Archbishops and Bishops; and, finally, on the 4th of August 1621, there was another Act of Parliament ratifying the 5 Articles of Perth, adopted by another packed Assembly in August 1618. All these statutes, and the surreptitious and corrupt Acts of Assemblies which they ratified, were doubtless infamous encroachments on the liberties of the subject and the legitimate laws of the Church; but still they were the law of the land, emanating from the supreme authority of Parliament, and which Parliament alone could rescind. Johnston (the Clerk of Assembly) said—“I know certainlie that this office of Bishop was never established by any Act of Parliament in Scotland;” and Lowdoun averred that “the Act 1612 does not ratifie that which is concludit in Glasgow Assembly which now is condemned; that ground being taken away, the ratification also falls.” Johnston’s statement is contradicted by the statute-book; Lowdoun’s statement and his inference are equally contradicted, and inconsistent with themselves; for, if the Act 1612 had not ratified the Acts of the Assembly 1610, how could the condemnation of these by the Assembly 1638, infer that the ratification thereby fell? There is reason to apprehend, that the Assembly of 1638 was mystified by such statements—the Acts of Parliament and Assembly not being then, as now, accessible to the community generally—and hence we may ascribe some of the stretches of ecclesiastical authority at that Assembly, to malinformation as well as to passion.