Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

75%
+4 −0
Q&A Why did John Knox reject the offer of the bishopric of Rochester?

In a lecture on the historical background to the Westminster Standards, around minutes 12–13, Sinclair Ferguson mentions that John Knox was offered the bishopric of Rochester, "whether to give him ...

0 answers  ·  posted 3y ago by Nathaniel‭

#1: Initial revision by user avatar Nathaniel‭ · 2020-11-18T17:04:00Z (over 3 years ago)
Why did John Knox reject the offer of the bishopric of Rochester?
In a [lecture on the historical background to the Westminster Standards](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/course/the-westminster-standards/#course-introduction-history), around minutes 12–13, Sinclair Ferguson mentions that John Knox was offered the bishopric of Rochester, "whether to give him more scope for ministry or to silence him." Per [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Knox&oldid=987959176), the offer was given because Knox was seen as a "useful political tool."

Knox turned down the offer, but it's not clear to me what his motivation was.  Did he see it as an attempt to silence him or co-opt his ministry, or for some other reason?  Did he explain why in any surviving documents?  If not, is there a consensus among historians?