the Statute appears to have been to permit a second Living to be held as auxiliary to a former one, when such former Living was so low as 87. per annum in the King's Book. After a lapse of 250 years, however, there are many Livings of 15, 20, 25, and 30 pounds per aunum present value, which were of the very same value in Henry the Eighth's day; and yet no person can hold a second Living as auxiliary to any of these. And again, mauy Livings of 87. per anu. and under in the King's Book are now worth 4, 5, and 6001. per annum; and yet any person (who has interest to procure it) can, by the Statute, hold another Living of any value whatever as auxiliary to one of these! There are four Parish-Churches in Yorkshire contiguous to each other, two of them were greater Abbeys, the other two Collegiate Churches before the Reformation; viz. Selby, Drax, Howden, and Hemingbrough. They are all so valued in the King's Book that no second Living can be held with any of them without purchasing a Dispensation; and yet the total amount of the value of them all together is but 1757. per annum! They were all endowed with money-payments to continue the same for ever. The last named Living is but 201. per annum at this day; and it was 201. per annum in the second year of King Edward VI. Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

T is now

T. V-R.

July 2. since I

My first trial was upon 100 different sorts of Trees, Oaks, Elms, Spanish and Horse-chesnuts, Lime, Beech, Sycamore, and Planes. The trees were all young ones, from 10 to 16 feet high. In the ensuing year the bark had collapsed over every wound be fore the month of June. Every one of these trees, I remarked in the course of the year succeeding that in which they had been pruned, enlarged in their girth and head, in a much greater degree than those which had not had the knife.

My second year's trial I extended to 1000 Trees of the same description. Similar success accompanied this experiment with the first. Since that period I have extended it to indefinite numbers, and to growing trees of all sizes and ages, with equal effect. In some cases I applied Mr. Forsyth's composition, to ascertain whether it would accelerate the growth of the bark over the wounds: I tried the use of this composition on several trees, applying it to a wound of an equal size on the same tree where I left another wound on the same tree without it; and I am rather inclined to think the composition impeded, instead of assisting, the growth of the bark. It is scarcely necessary to mention that every bough or branch which was taken away, was cut close and smooth to the stem of the tree. In trees of 10 feet high, I cleared the stem 6 feet; of 12 feet, I cleared it 7 feet; of 14 feet, I cleared it 8 feet; of 16 feet, I cleared it 9 feet. A handsome secured practice to

my Forest Trees in the last week of July, and through the months of August and September. It occurred to me when I first made the experiment, that the wounds made in taking off the limbs would heal before the cold weather set in; and as the tree was in progress of growth, this object would be more effectually attained during the ascent of the sap, and whilst the tree was in full leaf, than at any other period of the year; the leaves contributing to shade from the sun and shelter from the rain.

I am ready to admit that many grave points of doctrine and church discipline are handled in that very witty composition in a most unbecoming way; but, whoever reads the Author's Apology,' prefixed to the Tale, will be disarmed of a large portion of his indignation, when he learns that the publication took place without his privity; that the book was printed eight years after it was written; and that, as he says, 'had he been master of his papers for a year or two before their publication,' he could easily have prevented objections by a very few blots.' It is well known that Archbishop Sharp was much scandalized at the licentiousness in which the author had indulged, and that his disapprobation had a sensible effect, with Queen Anne, in impeding the preferment of Swift. It is said, that the Archbishop afterwards saw the affair in a more favourable light, and was concerned to find that the opinion which he had once given, was the cause of preventing the rise of the Author in his profession.

However this may be, it seems never to have struck Swift's editors, or Sharp's biographers, that both the Dean and the Archbishop adopted, to a certain degree, the same allegory-the father-the sons -and the last will and testament. — Dr. Sharp published ‘a Refutation of a Popish Argument handed about in MS. in 1686,' being at that time rector of St. Giles's in the Fields, and Dean of Norwich. Eleven years after, viz in 1697, Swift (assuming him as the author, then a young man, unpreferred,) wrote the Tale of a Tub. He tells us, in the Author's Apology,' that he resolved to proceed in a manner that should be altogether new, the world having been already too long nauseated with endless repetitions upon every subject:' and it is curious enough that the worthy rector of St. Giles's had, so many years before, fallen upon a mode of illustrating part of his argument against the pretensions of the Church of Home, similar, in a leading point, to that which Swift seized on as altogether new *.

I proceed to lay the passage in question before your readers. The force of the Popish Argument combated by Dr. Sharp lay in these two points:-'We cannot shew a visible Church that hath, from Christ's time to the Reformation, opposed the Church of Rome in those doc. trines and practices wherein we differ from her; and, "There was a time when all Christian churches were in communion with the Church of Rome,' The conclusion from hence is, that therefore the present Church of Rome is the only true Church of Christ upon earth."

"This is as surprising a conclusion from such premises, as can enter into the mind of a man. First of all we cannot shew a visible Church that hath, from Christ's time to the Reformation, opposed the Church of Rome in her pretences; therefore the Church of Rome is the only true Church. Why, supposing that all the churches of the world had, from Christ's time to this, agreed with the Church of Rome in all points, both of doctrine and practice, yet doth it from thence follow, that the Church of Rome is the only visible Church? No, not in the least: she is still but a part of the visible Church, and the other churches that agree with her are as much parts of it as she. And if this be so, how can it in the least follow, that when churches are divided from her both in doctrine and practice, she is any more the whole visible Church than they? Why are not they as much the visible Church, after they are divided, as they were before, supposing it was ber fault and not their's, that occasioned this division and separation? And if the visible Church can be but in one communion, why are not those churches that are separated from the Church of Rome, the only true Catholic visible Church, and the Church of Rome no part of it at all, since it appears that in this case it is she that hath caused the schism?

"But that I may fully expose the sophistry of this argument to the meanest understanding, and enable every one to give an answer to it, I will put the whole force of it into an obvious case.

"The argument is, that if we cannot shew a visible Church distinct from the Roman, that hath in all times, from the beginning, opposed the doctrines and practices of the present Church of Rome, then it will undeniably follow, that the present Church of Rome is the only visi ble Church.

"Why now, methinks, this is just such an argument as this:

"A father bequeaths a large estate among his children, and their children after them. They do for some generations quietly and peaceably enjoy their several shares,

shares, without disturbance from each other. At last, one branch of this family (and not of the eldest house neither) starts up, and being of greater power than the rest, and having got some of the same family to join with him, very impudently challengeth the whole estate to himself, and those that adhere to him; and would dispossess all the rest of the descendants, accounting them no better than bastards, though they be far more in number than his own party, and have a far greater share in the inheritance. Upon this they contest their own right against him, alledging their father's will and testament, and their long possession, and that they are lawfully descended from their first common ancestor.

"But this gentleman, who would lord it over his brethren, offers this irrefragable argument for the justice of his claim. If, says he, you deny me and my adherents to be the sole proprietors of this estate, then it lies upon you to shew, that, ever since the death of our progenitor, who left us this estate, there hath appeared some of the family who have always opposed my claim to this estate. But that you cannot shew; and therefore I have an undoubted title to the whole estate: I am lord of the whole in heritance.

"I do appeal to any man living, whether this plea would pass in any court of judicature; nay, whether any private man, though never so unlearned, can believe that this insolent pretender doth offer any fair reason for the disseising the coheirs of their inheritance. And yet this is just the argument with which those learned gentlemen would persuade us to give up our birth-rights, to depart from that share of the inheritance we have in the Catholic Church.

“Well, but what will the co-heirs that are concerned, say to this argument? Why there are three things so obvious to be said to it, that if the persons concerned have not the wit to hit upon them, they are fit to come under the custody and guardianship of this pretended heirgeneral. May they not say to this gentleman that makes so universal a

wheedled some of our family, and forced others to join with you, you know you were presently opposed by others of our family, who would not so easily part from their rights. You know, that, as soon as ever you made your claim, there were some that stoutly declared against it, though they had not power, and strength, and interest enough in the world to stem the torrent of your ambition.

"But then thirdly, may they say, supposing it was not so; supposing you had met with no rub in your pretences (which yet you know you did); supposing our family were not so suddenly aware of the mischief that would come upon them from those your usurpations, as to make a present opposition; doth now it follow, that, because no opposition was just then made to your pretences, therefore your pretensions to the whole estate are justifiable? No, we can prove they are net so; for it is plain by the testament, by the settlement of our common father, that we have as much a right to our parts in this estate as you have, or as your ancestors ever bad. Tell not us, that

you were not at first, or that you were not always, opposed in your claim: but tell us by what right or justice you can pretend to be the sole lord of this inheritance. Let the will of our common parent be produced, and that will plainly shew, that we have as much a share in this estate as you have.

"This allegory is so pat to our business, and the application of it so easy to our present case, that I think I should injure the most vulgar understanding, if I should suspect his ability to make that use of it which I intend."

I conceive, Mr. Editor, that I need not offer any apology for this Letter, which at once contains what I am inclined to deem a literary curiosity, and an argument against the encroaching spirit of Popery.-Of this at all events be assured, that no man can possibly wish success to the efforts of The Protestant Advocate more sincerely than, Sir, Yours, &c.

INDAGATOR."

as the death of our forefather, who us this joint-inheritance. Your ancestors and ours lived a great while peaceably together, without any clashing about this estate; and we were suffered for some ages to enjoy our own right, without any molestation from you or those you derive from: And the case being so, there was no need of opposing your pretences, because you made none. But then, (which is the second thing) when you did set up for this principality, and

the Imprecations in the 109th Psalm, as spoken not by David against his Enemies, but by his Enemies against him. There is nothing in the original language against this interpretation, but on the contrary, something in its favour. For what is more common in Hebrew than the omission of the word saying? If this word were supplied at the end of the 5th verse,

all would be clear: Thus, " They have rewarded me evil for good, saying, Set thou a wicked man over him," &c.

I cannot, however, agree with your Correspondent, that David supplicates that his slanderous enemies may be themselves the victims of those calamities which they had imprecated upon him. If indeed the 20th verse be properly rendered in our Translation, "Let this be the reward of mine adversaries," it must be so. But our Translators were certainly mistaken. The verse should be rendered thus: "Such is the requital of those who falsely accuse me before Jehovah;" or "This behaviour of mine enemies is from Jehovah;" as David says of Shimei in the 16th Chapter of the 2d Book of Samuel, "Let him curse, because the Lord hath said unto him, curse David." And "Let him curse, for the Lord hath bidden him." All the antient versions support such a translation. Dr. Sykes (in his Comment on the Epistle to the Hebrews) was the first who proposed the above interpretation of the 109th Psalm; and it has since been adopted by several learned men; viz. Green in his translation of the Psalms; and Keate and Partridge in single Sermons. W. W.

Mr. URBAN,

IN

Chelsea, July 15. N September 1806, the Rev. John Rush, Richard Yates, and your Correspondent, canvassed votes for the Lectureship of Chelsea; I was favoured soon by the clergyman who retained the appointment with a written assurance, that "it was not his intention to resign the duty."-In June 1814, the Rev. John Rush, Jas. Gibson, and your Correspondent, canvassed votes for the same office: I was again favoured, thus: "Dear Sir, From the repeated assurances of respect which I have frequently received from you, I should be very ungrateful indeed if I did not answer your Letter, to acknowlege that I gave you the earliest information of my wish to resign the Lectureship of Chelsea: consequently, no inhabitant can think you were premature in your canvas. Í bave been induced to give up the intention, in the hope that my poor services may be acceptable to a very large portion of the inhabitants. Had I retired, it would have been very grateful to my feelings, to have been succeeded by so able and conscienti

ous a Minister as yourself. I remain, dear Sir, yours, &c. J. HUTCHINS. “Rectory, Noblę-st. July 4, 1814.” WEEDEN BUTler, Jun. Lecturer of Brompton.

Mr. URBAN, July 19. GLADLY avail myself of the permission accorded to me in the very polite and instructive Letter of " Investigator," received in London yesterday; and with deference offer a few. observations in reply.

The work on the Pleasures of Reading, which has been honoured by Investigator's notice, is very humble in all its pretensions: copiousness (which the subject invited) was designedly avoided in what I was pre-determined should be a concise volume; and to save it from the neglect to which gravity might have exposed it in the eyes of the young and gay, who are too apt to think it impossible to be pleased and serious at the same time, I have done no more than glance at religious reading; of all reading sure ly the most calculated to produce pleasurable effects.

Investigator has instanced the great Lord Mansfield as one of those who were inclined to maintain the authenticity of "The Poems of Ossian."-If he believed those poems genuine, Lord M. may have been biassed in his opinion by national feelings; but I really had supposed the question decided by the result of recent inquiries; and, for my own part, I believe the Poems to be, strictly speaking, forgeries by M'Pherson, i. e. that he built his volume on the slight foundation of a few traditionary fragments of uncertain date: if so, the book thus made, ceases to be what it professes, namely, a curious specimen of antient manners, and actually the poetry of a very remote period.

I am unconscious of having consigned all kinds of Light Reading to contempt; in the Essay on that subject I have carefully excepted some works belonging to that class of books, and endeavoured to join my feeble voice to the loud applauses which most deservedly attend on the venerable name of Samuel Richardson. In the volume of Letters lately published, Richardson is introduced without the smallest intention of attempting to depreciate an author to whom his Country is under eternal obligation; and for whose

genius