{98} About the beginning of April 1553, he returned to London. In the month of February preceding, archbishop Cranmer had been directed by the council to present him to the vacant living of All‑Hallows, in the city.[149] This proposal, which originated in the personal favour of the young king, was very disagreeable to Northumberland, who exerted himself privately to hinder the appointment. But the interference of this nobleman was unnecessary; for Knox declined the living when it was offered to him, and, being questioned as to his reasons, readily acknowledged that he had not freedom in his mind to accept of a fixed charge in the present state of the English church. His refusal, with the reasons which he had assigned for it, gave offence, and, on the 14th of April, he was called before the privy council. There were present the archbishop of Canterbury, Goodrick, bishop of Ely and lord chancellor, the earls of Bedford, Northampton, and Shrewsbury, the lords treasurer and chamberlain, and the two secretaries of state. They asked him, why he had refused the benefice provided for him in London. He answered, that he was fully satisfied that he could be more useful to the church in another situation. Being interrogated, if it was his opinion, that no person could lawfully serve in ecclesiastical ministrations according to the present laws of that realm, he frankly replied, that there were many things in the English church which needed reformation, and that unless they were reformed, ministers could not, in his opinion, discharge {99} their office conscientiously in the sight of God: for no minister had authority, according to the existing laws, to prevent the unworthy from participating of the sacraments, which was “a chief point of his office.” Being asked, if kneeling at the Lord’s table was not a matter of indifference, he replied, that Christ’s action at the communion was most perfect, and in it no such posture was used; that it was most safe to follow his example; and that kneeling was an addition and invention of men. On this article, there was a smart dispute between him and some of the members of the council. After long reasoning, he was told that they had not sent for him with any bad design, but were sorry to understand that he was of a judgment contrary to the common order. He said he was sorry that the common order was contrary to Christ’s institution. The council dismissed him with soft words, advising him to use all means for removing the dislike which he had conceived to some of the forms of their church, and to reconcile his mind, if possible, to the idea of communicating according to the established rites.[150]