ry unlikely,
or rather very absurd; and in the mean time it is allowed, that
the article is not in the treaty; nor do the congregation, in their
subsequent manifesto, insist upon it. Knox, p. 184. Besides, would
the queen regent, in an article of a treaty, call her own religion
idolatry?]

[Footnote 5: NOTE E, p. 25. The Scotch lords, in their declaration, say,
"How far we have sought support of England, or of any other prince, and
what just cause we had and have so to do, we shall shortly make manifest
unto the world, to the praise of God's holy name, and to the confusion
of fell those that slander us for so doing; for this we fear not to
confess, that, as in this enterprise against the devil, against idolatry
and the maintainers of the same, we chiefly and only seek God's glory to
be notified unto men, sin to be punished, and virtue to be maintained;
so where power faileth of ourselves, we will seek it wheresoever God
shall offer the same." Knox, p. 176.]

[Footnote 6: NOTE F, p. 61. This year, the council of Trent was
dissolved, which had sitten from 1545. The publication of its decrees
excited anew the general ferment in Europe, while the Catholics
endeavored to enforce the acceptance of them, and the Protestants
rejected them. The religious controversies were too far advanced
to expect that any conviction would result from the decrees of this
council. It is the only general council which has been held in an age
truly learned and inquisitive; and as the history of it has been written
with great penetration and Judgment, it has tended very much to expose
clerical usurpations and intrigues, and may serve us as a specimen of
more ancient councils. No one expects to see another general council,
till the decay of learning and the progress of ignorance shall again fit
mankind for these great impostures.]

[Footnote 7: NOTE G, p. 69. It appears, however, from Randolfs Letters,
(see Keith, p. 200,) that some offers had been made to that minister,
of seizing Lenox and Darnley, and delivering them into Queen Elizabeth's
hands. Melvil confirms the same story, and says that the design was
acknowledged by the conspirators, (p. 56.) This serves to justify
the account given by the queen's party of the Raid of Baith, as it is
called. See farther, Goodall, vol. ii. p. 358. The other conspiracy, of
which Murray complained, is much more uncertain, and is founded on very
doubtful evidence.]

[Footnote 8: NOTE H, p. 73. Buc