Chatelherault and Arran, native princes, next heirs to the crown while
Mary was childless, could be produced as legitimate "Authority." But to
do this implied a change of "Authority," an upsetting of "Authority,"
which was plain rebellion in the opinion of the Genevan doctors. Knox
was thus obliged, in sermons and in the pamphlet (Book II. of his
"History"), to maintain that nothing more than freedom of conscience and
religion was contemplated, while, as a matter of fact, he was foremost in
the intrigue for changing the "Authority," and even for depriving Mary
Stuart of "entrance and title" to her rights. He therefore, in Book II.
(much of which was written in August-October or September-October 1559,
as an apologetic contemporary tract), conceals the actual facts of the
case, and, while perpetually accusing the Regent of falsehood and
perfidy, displays an extreme "economy of truth," and cannot hide the
pettifogging prevarications of his party. His wiser plan would have been
to cancel this Book, or much of it, when he set forth later to write a
history of the Reformation. His party being then triumphant, he could
have afforded to tell most of the truth, as in great part he does in his
Book III. But he could not bring himself to throw over the narrative of
his party pamphlet (Book II.), and it remains much as it was originally
written, though new touches were added.

The point to be made in public and in the apologetic tract was that the
Reformers contemplated no alteration of "Authority." This was untrue.

Writing later (probably in 1565-66) in his Third Book, Knox boasts of his
own initiation of the appeal to England, which included a scheme for the
marriage of the Earl of Arran, son of the Hamilton chief, Chatelherault,
to Queen Elizabeth. Failing issue of Queen Mary, Arran was heir to the
Scottish throne, and if he married the Queen of England, the rightful
Queen of Scotland would not be likely to wear her crown. The