ck, and said, as she naturally would, that "there was
no salvation but in and by the death of Jesus Christ." "She was
compelled . . . to approve the chief head of our religion, wherein we
dissent from all papists and popery." Knox had strange ideas about the
creed which he opposed. "Of any virtue that ever was espied in King
James V. (_whose daughter she_," Mary Stuart, "_is called_"), "to this
hour (1566) we have seen no sparkle to appear." {168}

With this final fling at the chastity of Mary of Guise, the Reformer
takes leave of the woman whom he so bitterly hated. Yet, "Knox was not
given to the practice so common in his day, of assassinating reputations
by vile insinuations." Posterity has not accepted, contemporary English
historians did not accept, Knox's picture of Mary of Guise as the wanton
widow, the spawn of the serpent, who desired to cut the throat of every
Protestant in Scotland. She was placed by circumstances in a position
from which there was no issue. The fatal French marriage of her daughter
was a natural step, at a moment when Scottish independence could only be
maintained by help of France. Had she left the Regency in the hands of
Chatelherault, that is, of Archbishop Hamilton, the prelate was not the
man to put down Protestantism by persecution, and so save the situation.
If he had been, Mary of Guise was not the woman to abet him in drastic
violence. The nobles would have revolted against the feeble Duke. {169}

On July 6, the treaty of Edinburgh was concluded by representatives of
England (Cecil was one) and of France. The Reformers carried a point of
essential importance, the very point which Knox told Croft had been
secured by the Appointment of July 1559. All French forces were to be
dismissed the country, except one hundred and twenty men occupying Dunbar
and Inchkeith, in the Firth of Forth. A clause by which Cecil thought he
had secured "the kernel" for England, and left the shell to France, a
clause recognising the "rightfulness" of Elizabeth's alliance with the
rebels, afforded Mary Stuart ground, or excuse, for never ratifying the
treaty.

It is needless here to discuss the question--was the Convention of
Estates held after the treaty, in August, a lawful Parliament? There was
doubt enough, at least, to make Protestants feel uneasy about the
security of the religious settlement achieved by the Convention.
Randolph, the English resident, foresaw that the Acts might be rescin