This is the point that has perplexed me, for Knox, no less than the
Congregation, seems to have deliberately said good-bye to truth and
honour, unless the Lords elaborately deceived their secretary and
diplomatic agent. The only way in which I can suppose that Knox and his
friends reconciled their consciences to their conduct is this:

Knox tells us that "when all points were communed and agreed upon by mid-
persons," Chatelherault and Huntly had a private interview with Argyll,
Glencairn, and others of his party. They promised that they would be
enemies to the Regent if she broke any one jot of the treaty. "As much
promised the duke that _he_ would do, if in case that she would not
remove her French at a reasonable day . . . " the duke being especially
interested in their removal. But Huntly is not said to have made _this_
promise--the removal of the French obviously not being part of the
"Appointment." {148a}

Next, the brethren, in arguing with the Catholics about their own
mendacious proclamation of the terms, said that "we proclaimed nothing
which was not _finally_ agreed upon, _in word and promise_, betwixt us
and those with whom the Appointment was made. . . . " {148b}

I can see no explanation of Knox's conduct, except that he and his
friends pacified their consciences by persuading themselves that
non-official words of Huntly and Chatelherault (whatever these words may
have been), spoken after "all was agreed upon," cancelled the treaty with
the Regent, became the real treaty, and were binding on the Regent! Thus
Knox or Kirkcaldy, or both, by letter; and Knox later, orally in
conversation with Croft, could announce false terms of treaty. So great,
if I am right, is a good man's power of self-persuasion! I shall welcome