us of the relation of Berwick-upon-Tweed to England and Scotland; for he might be claimed on either hand but for special mention. His parents were married according to the rites of the church of Rome; his eldest sister was christened in the same faith; and it is only from the establishment of a parochial register at Stratford a few months before his birth, that we know he received baptism in the Protestant communion. But he is a prize too great to be surrendered; and, in spite of the evidence of the register, the Roman Catholic church claims him as a son.' This, indeed, is no ground for reproach. Seven cities disputed for the honour of being the birthplace of Homer, and rival religions may contend for the merit of having moulded Shakespeare. Dante, Tasso, and Milton belong to sects: Shakespeare is catholic, embodying in his precepts the meek endurance, the sweet sympathy, the soft flow of love and pity; the simple, confiding faith, which are the breathing spirit of the Gospel, and which he brought home to the dullest perception in human actions. Thus he may be said to have converted the intellect and Rome may be excused for claiming the glory of such a missionary. But the dispute about Shakespeare's religion was not allowed to rest on the facts: some ardent Roman Catholic, who wished to link him with Dante and Tasso, enlivened it with fiction. In 1771, the roof of one of the Shakespeare dwellings in Henley Street was out of repair, and a bricklayer at work upon it, on removing some old tiles, found on the rafters a folded paper, having the appearance of an ancient manuscript. This, on examination, professed to be an exposition of the creed of John Shakespeare, who was made to declare himself "an unworthy member of the holy Catholic Church," enumerating its doctrines as his articles of belief. The document was forwarded to Malone, 1 Chalmer's Apology for the Believers.' and as he was known to be editing the works of Shakespeare, and searching everywhere for information respecting his life, nothing could have happened more to the satisfaction of its fabricator. There were points about it that ought to have excited suspicion. The phraseology, though studiedly antiquated, was not that of the sixteenth century. It was highly improbable that a religious confession should be deposited in such a place, and, indeed, there could be no motive for making it, if it was to be concealed. But these inconsistencies did not strike Malone, and, after taking some years for reflection, he published the document in his edition of Shakespeare as a statement of the creed of the poet's father. At a later period he discovered his error, and declared that papers in his hands proved that it was not written by any of the family. In fact, he ascertained that John Shakespeare himself could not write. We may leave controversalists to decide whether the poet's father was brought up in the tenets of the old church; but as he must have been born after the secession of England in the reign of Henry the Eighth, and grew up in that of Edward the Sixth, the probability is that he was reared in the doctrines of the Reformation. At any rate, he was a zealous adherent of the Protestant faith under Elizabeth. One of the first acts of the new reign required all municipal authorities to take the oath of supremacy, and this was done by John Shakespeare, as he was appointed successively to the offices of constable, chamberlain, alderman, and bailiff of Stratford. There is even proof that he was something of a fanatic, for, in 1564, the chamberlain's accounts record that he paid two shillings for the defacement of "an image in the chapel." But, after all, it is not with the creed of John, but with that of William Shakespeare that we are concerned. Of him we know that he was born under a Protestant sovereign, baptized in a Protestant church, and educated in a Protestant school. It is true that he shows himself versed in the Roman Catholic divinity; and the fact of his making a Catholic discourse of penance and absolution, unction and purgatory, exactly as a Roman Catholic should, is alleged as a proof that these doctrines were his own. We might as well infer that he was a believer in Jove, because his pagan characters profess paganism. Evidere against him is found in his very charity, and it is thought conclusive that he was of the old faith, because he not only abstains from reviling Catholics on account of their religion, but even presents monks and priests in the garb of humanity, when it was the fashion of the day to regard them as monsters. But, though free from religious bigotry, and untainted with sectarian bitterness, Shakespeare never leaves us in doubt as to his religious predilections. These are not to be gleaned from isolated sentiments, but from the whole development of the characters he presents-characters so complete that, like persons in real life, they pass before us again and again ere their points are apparent, as if they were endued with the power of keeping them out of sight. The monk's cowl is even worn so close that it hides his nature from himself as well as others, so that he is not conscious of the little traits that creep out. The delicate touch is spread through the action, as in real life, and scrutiny is required to see that what has captivated us by a general resemblance is natural in every lineament. Such is the character of Friar Laurence, who wins our respect by his benevolence, and our love by his gentleness, but who, on closer acquaintance, will be found wanting as a Christian priest. Not only is God not in all his thoughts; He is not in his thoughts at all. Thus he is angry with Romeo for his threat of suicide; but instead of pointing out the wickedness of such a design, and reminding him of the Christian duty of endurance, he speaks to him as a man of the world, seeking to reconcile him to life by the advantages it has given him, and by making light of his misfortunes. On another occasion he promises to give him " to resist his trials, and we might suppose him to have in view "the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God "—"God's Word,"2 as Shakespeare has it. But all he proffers is armour 99 1 Adversity's sweet milk, philosophy, To comfort thee when thou art banished.” 3 Well may Romeo exclaim, "Hang up philosophy!" While Shakespeare marks the Christian character so faintly in his model friar, he presents no trace of it in his Romish prelates, those wondrous creations which we may call the hierarchy of the drama. The sleek insolence of Pandulph, the restless treason of Scroop, the "monstrous life" of Beaufort, who "dies and makes no sign," all attest his antagonism to the old church. Even his favourite Wolsey, a butcher's son like himself, does not remember his holy calling till his fall, and then but to tell how he had neglected it— "Oh, Cromwell! Cromwell! Had I but served my God with half the zeal But he is careful to throw the halo of sanctity over Wolsey's end To add greater honour to his age Than man could give him, he died fearing God." 5 In contrast with these types of the old priesthood, Cranmer, accused by the fierce Gardiner of filling the realm with "new opinions," is portrayed as a saint, and vested with the attributes of a prophet. No provocation exhausts his patience, and he preserves his meekness and humility under every affront. In the darkest peril he trusts for deliverance from his enemies to "truth and honesty," and, above all, to God. As we mark his demeanour, as we hear his words, the inspiration is obvious, and testifies as much to Shakespeare's creed as his own. But, in truth, Shakespeare needs no witness: he speaks for himself. On the great dogmas of the ancient church he has unmistakably pronounced. Absolution he utterly rejects, deriding those who- "Purchase corrupted pardon of a man Who, in that sale, sells pardon from himself." He denies the supremacy of the pope, and contemns his spiritual powers.3 He ridicules the notion that there is miraculous virtue in the shrines of saints, and brings forward Saunder Simpcox to show what tricks were practised at those resorts to keep up their odour and repute. The varying emotions of King Henry in this scene form, indeed, a sermon of themselves, breathing such exquisite piety, such confiding faith, such fervent adoration. Even in delivering rebukes Shakespeare does not lay aside his excellent gift of charity. The childlike credulity of the gentle king, which disposes him to believe the miracle before he hears the report of it, is wrapped in the beautiful mantle of devotion "Good fellow, tell us here the circumstance, And we are taught that holiness may exist in every creed |