So which? Jame I or Charles II ???

[Wayne]

Great quote for a T-shirt:

"Presbyterianism is no religion for a gentleman." - King Charles II.

Only problem--another source says it was James 1st :

The theology of Calvinism, with the rights of man thought of as granted by a sovereign God, has had immeasurable results for liberty and democracy. The Puritan is a natural republican, says Tawney. James I of England, by an unintentional insight, gave wide expression to this truth when he said, "Presbyterianism is no religion for a gentleman." James knew what he was talking about. - Jesus and the American Mind, by H.E. Luccock, 1930, p. 66.

But then contrast G.K. Chesterton's autobiography:

Charles II is often quoted as saying that Presbyterianism is no religion for a gentleman; it is less often quoted that he also said Anglicanism was no religion for a Christian. But it is odd that his brief and distorted memory of the Scots made him say that Presbyterianism is no religion for a gentleman, touching the one country where gentlemen were often Presbyterians. Scotland has been much modified by this Puritan creed long ruling among the nobles, like old Argyll of my boyhood's time. And Balfour had something in his blood which I think was the cold ferocity of Calvinism; a bleak streak sometimes felt when the wind changes even in the breezy voyages of Stevenson. The comparison will show that this is without prejudice; for I had from childhood
a romantic feeling about Scotland, even that cold flat eastern coast. It may not be believed, but I have played golf as a lad on the links a bowshot from Whittinghame, in the days when ordinary English people asked, "What is golf?" It came with a rush over the Border, like the blue bonnets, a year or two later; and grew fashionable
largely because Arthur Balfour was the fashion. Whatever else it was, his spell was a Scottish spell; and his pride was a Scottish pride; and there was something hollow-eyed and headachy about his long fine head, which had nothing in it of the English squires; and suggested to me rather the manse than the castle. Also, as one
who went to neither great University, and has many jolly friends from his, very unlike him, I may be allowed to hint that somehow one did think of him as a Cambridge man.

(I would have cut short the Chesterton quote, but you just can't do that to Chesterton.)

So can anyone on the Board confirm one way or another as to who actually said it? Or was the grandson perhaps fond of quoting the grandfather in this instance?
Or does it matter at this point? Probably not. Still a great quote.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well the son was a grandson. They both agreed as did Cromwell in my estimation. I will look into those they persecuted, the Covenanters. I will ask some of my friends.

 

[TimV]

James was tutored by a Scot (duh), the poet and Calvinist theologian Buchanan, who often paddled his royal behind. But still, if the man quoted said both, then it would pretty much have to go to Charles, who hated both. James 1 loved high church Anglicanism, at least.

 

[Wayne]

James I
Charles I
Charles II
James II

Thanks for the reminder, Martin.

 

[Prufrock]

Wayne, while it's possible that James may have said it as well, the traditional account comes from Gilbert Burnet's History of My Own Time. He relates that the Earl of Lauderdale told him [Burnet] that Charles II made this statement to him [Lauderdale]. It may be found on p. 116 of vol. 1 of the 1818 printing of the work, under the title Bishop Burnet's History of His Own Time.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Actually the numbers changed from one title to another depending on which Country. Actually James the First of Scotland became James the 6th of England. If I am not mistaken. James the first was actually James the Sixth. It all gets so confusing. Wasn't there a Charles who was Reformational?

 

[TimV]

If I recall correctly James 6th of Scotland, son of Mary Queen of Scots became James 1 of England. He had a popular kid, who died, and Charles 1 became King. He lost his head, and Cromwell took over for a bit, then one of his kids Charles 2 became King, then his brother James 2. The a Dutch army under William, who had a (kind of) claim to the throne because of his marriage to Mary, daughter of James 2. The Dutch army kicked an English army's butt, and the English called it a glorious revolution since, well, let's not go there.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I knew that there was a changing of numbers from my past reading. I just wasn't sure which way it went. Thanks Tim. I don't always keep my facts straight.