Tell him this tale; and from the mouth of England Add thus much more,--that no Italian priest Shall tithe or toll in our dominions; But, as we under Heaven are supreme head, So, under Him, that great supremacy, Where we do reign, we will alone uphold, Without the assistance of a mortal hand: So tell the Pope; all reverence set apart To him, and his usurp’d authority. _King John_ is, indeed, simply the manifesto of Protestantism against papal aggression. What could be more contemptible than the character of Pandulph and the part which he plays? Is it credible that Shakespeare could have had any sympathy with a religion whose minister is one whom he represents as saying: Meritorious shall that hand be called, Canonized, and worshipped as a saint, That takes away by any secret course Thy hateful life. In _Henry VIII._, again, we have an elaborate eulogy of the Reformation, Cranmer being presented in the most favourable light, Gardiner in the most unfavourable, while Wolsey is almost as detestable as Pandulph. It is really pitiable to see the shifts to which the authors of this book are reduced to make out their theory. They have even pressed into its service Jordan’s palpable and long-exploded forgery of John Shakespeare’s Will, and the fact that John Shakespeare’s name is found on a list of Recusants, when it is, in that very list, expressly stated that he had absented himself from church, simply from fear of process for debt. Passages in the dramas are similarly perverted. Shakespeare’s hostility to the Protestants induced him, we are told, to pour contempt on Oldcastle by depicting him as Falstaff. His delineation of Malvolio, and his frequent sneers at the Puritans, are attributed to the same motive. The famous lines in _Hamlet_, placed in the mouth of the Ghost, are cited to prove his belief in purgatory; the comical penances imposed on Biron and his friends in _Love’s Labour Lost_ to prove his belief in penance. When in _Lear_ it is said of Cordelia that:-- She shook The holy water from her heavenly eyes.