if 
¢ 
_ -Of Syria. 
$23 
upper city, where the Temple  ftood, 
which would contain (Ant. xv.) 9, -3:) 
many companies of men. And. in the 
fecond priefthood of Simon, fon of Boe- 
thus, Agrippa firengthened the fortifica- 
tions (Ant. xix. 7, 2.) fo obvioully as to 
excite the mifruft of Marcus, the prefect 
Agrippa almoft feems to have 
depofed Simon for the purpole of fhifting 
on him the blame of a-turbulent innova. 
tion. Sothat of either priefthood of the 
fon of Boethus it might be truly relate}, 
that under him the Temple was fortified ; 
whereas this is not related of the Oniaf- 
fons firft or fecond. 
The conjefture, that fon of Onias’” 
is an-epithet of routine, inferted by a co- 
pyift, can furely notbe thought violent.— 
Suppofe it omitted, the circumitance of - 
the ‘Temple’s being fortified under his 
aufpices; will neceffitate a decifion in fa- 
vour ef this third Simon, initead of the 
firft or the fecond. It muft, therefore, bs 
inferred, thatthe writer was-prefent at 
the in{tallation ‘of the Simon who fortificd 
the Temple ; that is, of Simon Cantheras, 
the fon of Boethus ; and, confequently, 
that the author of the Ecclefiatticus re- 
fided at Jerufalem in the twenty-third 
year of the: Chrifiian zra ; and, at that 
time, took an enthufiaftie and profeffion- 
al interett in the public cexemonies of the 
‘Temple. , - 
Ttis'fome flight forther confirmation of 
the idea that tne fon of Boethus mutt be 
the Simon of the Ecciefiafticus, that his 
remarkable perfonal beauty is there nc- 
ticed with delight (c. 1. vedi.) 5 and that, 
according to Jofephus, he was father 
(Ant. xv. 9. 3.) to a woman no Iris 
dittinguifhed for perfection of external 
form. | 
' ‘Phe fabordinate marks of date all tally 
with the times of Herod and Agrippa.— 
The high fpirit of liberty, of almoik re- 
bellious hoftiliry to the Romans, which 
breaks loofe in the xxxvi. chapter (v. 3. 
and v. 7—11.) is fuch as ought to eha- 
raSterife the fuoje&ts of a Tiberius and a 
Caligula, fuch as’ was really prevalent at 
that very period in Jerufalem, and fuch as 
was worthy to infpire the analogous elo- 
quence of the cotemporary author of the 
firft book of Maccabees. The high value 
which is fet on faith gistc in the Chriftian . 
fyftem, begins to make its appearance in 
the Ecclefialticus (c. xxv. v.12.) No 
fach idea was in circulation a century be- 
fore Chrifiianity. The probably interpo- 
Jated mark of date in the preface has al- 
ready been confidered (vol. xvi. D. 307) ; 
On the Feathers.and Down of Dameftic Fowls, [May i, 
it was, no doubt, an inference from th¢ 
previous error concerning Simon. 
The Ecclefiaticus, therefore, was not 
only not anterior to the Chriftian era, but 
awas actually in the procefs of compofition 
or inditement at the very time; which, of 
all others, moft favours the hypothefis ad- 
vanced in the differtation “* Who wrote 
the Wifdom-?”? One may repeat them 
with additional confidence, and fomewhat’ 
extend-the drigioal »propofition, that the 
pupil of Sirach,* the tranflator of the 
Ecclefiaiticus, and the author of the Wife 
dom, muft be one and the fame Jefus 
with the Chri&t of the Gofpel-hiforians. » 
Gonducive it will furely be found to the 
impr@vement of practical condué among 
men, that two books, fo replete with 
moral inittruGtion as the Ecclefiatticus and 
the Wifdom, fhould acquire theaddition- : 
al circulation and influence which an ori+ 
-gin thus peculiar and illuftrious is likely to 
confer. It remains, therefore, to exhort 
the Proteftant churches fpeedily,to re- 
place thefe all-virtuous writings: among 
their recognized canonical feriptures ; and 
to exhort both Catholics and Proteftaits 
fo-fo new model their creeds, that ** the 
words of their Mailer”? may be adapted 
not only for the edification of the multi- 
tude, but for the confirmation of ecclefi- 
altic dottrine. This,’ however, is the. 
concern not of the critic but of. the 
priefi.:,7)» "i 
a 
For the Montbly Magazine. 
CESERVATIONS on the FEATHERS and 
DOWN of DOMESTIC FOWLS. 
PARMENTIER. => 
i» IRDS are caught and reared not only 
By. 
JED for the fake of their flefh, their far, 
and their eggs, but alo on account of their 
feathers. The feathers, given them by 
nature for their clothing, and to form theiz’ 
principal means of flight, are applied to} 
different purpofes more or lefs uleful tov 
fociety. 
Some, remarkable for their foftnefs and~ 
elafiicity, for the beauty of the filaments” 
of which their harbs are compo'ed, ferve” 
to overfhadow the helmets of warriors, te 
ornament the head-drefs of ladies, to form 
thofe trefles and thofe elegant plumes by * 
which the richeft articles are furmounted. | 
* And who is Sirach, the Syrian > Pra’ 
bably Philo, the brother of Alexander the 
Alabarch. This, . at. leait, 
account for a filiation of idea which has been - 
fatisfatorily made out between the Alexan-+ 
drjan and Chriftian fchools of theology. 
Others, | 
/ 
would neatly. - 
a ee ee a ee 
