the trumpet-note of defiance may reasonably be supposed to have produced that concentration of his powers which kindled a flame of eloquence in him that had never since or before burnt so bright. Burnett, however, is positive that the letter was not written by Henry.* But this enunciation, unfenced as it is with any qualifi cations or exceptions, betrays a total ignorance or forgetfulness of this indubitable fact, that when Luther threw out oblique hints and insinuations to the foregoing effect, Henry replied, with great distinctness of affirmation, that he was the author of the work printed in his name. "Although ye fayne yourselfe to thynke my booke not my owne, yet it is well knowne for myne, and I for myne avouch it." Wolsey, also, in a letter to Dr. Clarke, the English ambassador at Rome, after informing him "of the king's catholique mind for repressing and extincting the diabolical opinions and detestable heresies of Martin Luther," and likewise "what pain, labour, and studie, his Highness had taken in devising and making a book for the confutation of his said erroneous opinions," states that "the said booke is, by his Highness, perfected."+ Moreover, is it a likely or a conceivable thing, if this performance were not the product of his own pen, that through that envoy he should order copies to be presented, in his name, to the different princes of Europe, and thus swell his shame, instead of his glory? The chief topics of argument in it were the Eucharist, Penance, Satisfaction, Confirmation, Matrimony, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction. * Vol. iii., p. 171. + See Cott. MSS., b. iv., No. 70. If the Cardinal, in the above quoted passage, speaks of Luther with a reprobation sufficiently violent, the Monk in return breaks out into expressions which must have shocked "the full blown pride of Wolsey, with law in his voice and fortune in his hand," for he abuses him with every coarse term of reproach. Take the following specimen of his style and diction,—“ illud monstrum et publicum odium Dei et hominum, pestis illa regni."-Opera., vol. ii. p. 517. The courtliness too of the following epithets, blasphemer and liar, applied by Luther to Henry must have produced a very surprising effect; but, I trow, not of the most pleasing kind, upon the muscles of the Royal countenance. "Nunc quam-prudens et sciens mendacuim componat adversus mei Regis majestatem in cœlis, damnabilis putredo et Vermis, jus mihi erit pro meo Rege, majestatem Anglicam luto suo et sterecore conspergere, et coronam istam blasphemiam in Christum, pedibus conculcare." _ Epist Lutheri contra Henricum Angliæ Regem. Lond. 1626, p. 13. Well therefore might the temperate and judicious Melancthon blush at the outrageous abuse poured forth in the writings of his great Master: “Quem quidem virum ego meliorem esse judico, quam qualis ́videtur facienti de eo judicium in illis volentibus scriptis ipsis." Epist. ad Camer., p. 90. His mental constitution, his spiritual taste, and the spiritual atmos phere that he was daily breathing, enabled Henry to lead, and not to follow, his people on each and all of these debateable points. To be further convinced that Henry was entitled to the authorship of a treatise which Robertson justly says " is not destitute of polemical ingenuity and acuteness,"* it may be necessary to add that Polydore Virgil, Speed, Herbert,¶ Holinshed,§ Strype, and other historians, have formed a correspondent judgment. The evidence appears to them so clear and decisive that he was the writer of the Assertio, that they were induced to speak of this fact in a way which shewed there was no room left, in their minds, for scepticism on the subject. Burnett himself admits** that he had seen a copy of The Necessary Erudition of a Christian Man, with a variety of interlineations by the king; and he mentions, also, other documents which had received the king's amendments, and particularly a Latin definition of the catholic church. His alterations in his coronation oath, and correcting and finishing touches in his royal letters, commissions, speeches, acts of Parliament, convocation regulations, and proclamations, have been noticed by several writers.tt But Mr. Hallam, though by no means disposed to listen to the too common depreciation of Henry's ecclesiastical learning, yet supposes "that he was assisted in his work by some who had more command of the Latin language."++ That prince of Latin scholars, Erasmus, however, declares that Henry had attained to great excellence therein, and to confirm this assertion, produces a specimen of his style of Latin composition, from which I must infer his capability to write the Assertio, for it shews his very great proficiency in copying the gene *The Reign of Charles V., vol. ii., p. 125. The first also of our most popular Historians, need I add the name of Hume, remarks, that if allow ance be made for the subject and the age, the performance does no discredit to his capacity.-Hist. of Engl., vol. iv., p. 36. Both of them also might with great propriety have commended the elegance of its latinity in these words of Luther: "inter omnes qui contra se scripti sunt latinissimum,” buť who at the same time forgets not, in his low scurrility, to designate it as stolidissimum et turpissimum. +Angl. Hist., p. 664. The History of Great Britain. p. 79. Life of Henry VII. p. 79. §i Chronicles of England, &c., vol. ii. p. 872. Eccles Mem,. vol. i. p. 33. ** Hists of the Reform, vol. i, p. 33 ++ See Davies's Athena Britannica, vol. ii. p. 18. + Const. Hist., vol. i., note, p. 64. ral manner of his scholastic models.* Does there lie, also, any self-destroying absurdity in this supposition, that if Henry had not been the real writer of the book, the author or authorst would have received some splendid mark of the royal patronage, if it were only for the prevention of all disclosures? But in what page of the voluminous records of his reign are such traces to be discovered? Now, it is no answer to this question to say that, if they had been troublesome in their applications for reward, or if they had dared to breathe an expression indicative of divulging the truth, Henry would have had them strung up like acorns on trees, without judge or jury. The same escape from his direct tyranny was as open to them as to Cardinal Pole; and in a foreign land, beyond the limits of his power, their fiery attacks upon his reputation would have so scorched it, that it would have shrunk into as vile and worthless a thing as shrivelled parchment. But Henry knew his proud situation too well to subject himself to such critical discipline. Prone as he might be to sacrifice nobles or ecclesiastics, as a holocaust to his fierce and evil passions, yet he took especial care that his throne should never be allied with contempt; and therefore disdained a falsehood, however great the object at stake. He and his people, differ as they might in other points of Scripture, thoroughly acqui * Although School divinity was Henry's favorite study, yet that he did not confine himself to one particular branch of literature, and that he possessed more than a common share of mental endowments, may be evidenced by his becoming an occasional writer of poetry. Warton tells us that Lord Eglintoun had a genuine book of manuscript sonnets composed by Henry, -Hist. of Eng. Poetry, vol. iii., p. 58; and the following effusion of his Muse was addressed to Ann Boleyne, on the authority of Sir J. Harrington.—Nűga Antique, Lond., 1804, p. 388. "The eagle's force subdues each byrd that flies : And melte the ice, and make the frost retyre ? The hardiest stones are piercede thro' wyth tools; The wysest are, with princes, made but fools." These lines were set to music by the famous Bird, and printed in Psalms, Sonnets, and Songs, 1611. + Seckendorff, in his Comment. de Lutheranismo, p. 187, ascribes the regius libellus, or the king's book, to the pen of Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York; but, observes Mr. Bruce, from a passage in the next page, it would appear that Luther merely suspected that prelate, and the grounds of his suspicion are not stated. Mr. Bruce has investigated the whole subject with the greatest care, and has looked into all the authorities where doubts are entertained of the king's authorship of the book.—See Archæologia, vol 25, p. 67-76. VOL. IV.-NO. XVI. survey esced in this, that "lying lips become not a prince's mouth." In my view, therefore, Burnett has manifested himself, on the foregoing subject, as deficient in reflection as in research, in deciding with constitutional confidence where the careful of a minute specification of circumstances is so necessary, before any opinion can be urged from a conviction of its superior force and validity. Truly, this our historian's style of judging can only be compared, in its want of acuteness and discrimination, to that of Horace Walpole, who with one stroke of his pen affirms the book in question to be a contemptible performance,* and with the next, pronounces Henry to be unequal to its composition. F. A. S. REMARKS ON MR. COMBE's "CONSTITUTION OF MAN,"+ WITH ILLUSTRATIONS OF HIS DOCTRINE AND ITS TENDENCIES. MR. COMBE's essay on The Constitution of Man originally formed the concluding part of a course of lectures delivered by him at Edinburgh, in the winter of 1826-27; and, at the time, his exposition of the natural laws excited a profound interest in the minds of his hearers. Many of these expressed their perfect conviction of the truth and practical importance of his doctrine; and, in the end, he was urgently solicited by them to publish his views, as well calculated to promote the best interests of society. Having patiently considered this application in all its bearings, he printed a very small impression of the essay exclusively for private distribution, with the object of presenting copies to reflecting individuals who entertain a disinterested concern for the improvement of mankind, and of thus obtaining their deliberate opinions on the tendencies of his propositions, and on the inferences he maintains. His own judgment clearly discerned the duty and advantages of their publication; and, finding himself encouraged to submit his principles to * Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors, vol. i., p. 24. + The Constitution of Man, considered in Relation to External Objects, by George Combe. 8vo. Edinburgh and London, 1835. The fourth edition, revised, corrected, and enlarged. a general discussion, Mr. C. sent them forth to the world on the 9th of June, 1828, in the first edition of his work. Since that time, upwards of sixteen thousand copies have been sold in this country, besides three large editions in America, and translations into the French and Swedish languages. From these facts, the deduction stands self-evident-that Mr. Combe's volume, which is an extraordinary production, has succeeded completely in creating a very considerable degree of attention to the study of that system of mental science on which the elements of his positions and inductions rest their foundations. When the late Earl of Bridgewater died, in February, 1829, Mr. Combe's "Constitution of Man" had already taken a conspicuous position among ethical systems, and the wisdom as well as the philanthropy of his work were acknowledged with increasing favour, for several years before the appearance of those "Bridgewater Treatises," which embrace the same subject and profess a similar aim, but which might have proved more practically useful if they had been similarly constructed on a definite arrangement of primitive mental principles. One object of these treatises appears to have been to ascertain what the character of external nature and the capacities of the human mind really are, and what is the adaptation of the latter to the external world. Now, these are questions of vast importance in themselves, and they manifestly can be solved only by direct, bold, and unbiassed appeals to nature herself. Before we can successfully trace the adaptation of two objects to each other we must be acquainted with each by itself; the first inquiry, therefore, that ought naturally to be pursued in the execution of the proposed object is "What is the constitution of the human mind?" This branch of inquiry however is entirely neglected in the forementioned essays: in them, no system whatever of mental philosophy is propounded: in them, indeed, there is no attempt to assign to human nature any definite or intelligible constitution: and consequently, as is felt generally, they have thrown very little new light on the moral government of the world. Mr. Combe had long previously endeavoured to avoid this inconsistency. Having been convinced, after minute and long continued observation, that Phrenology is the true science of mind, he assumes this as the basis of his reasoning; and as, in this inquiry, it is indispensably necessary to admit some system of mental philosophy in order to obtain one of the elements of the comparison, he recommends the student, if he chooses, in the mean time either to regard the phrenolgical views as hypothetical and to judge of them by the result, or to |