perfection, notwithstanding the expreffions of fome writers are fo general, as to lead every reader naturally to fuppofe circumcifion was in common use and ed in religious rites, fo that from them almost all others derived their facred ceremonies, none ftudied aftronomy or geometry, none was a priest, a diviner, or a minister of any divinity, none even learned the facerdotal letters of the antient Egyptians called Hieroglyphics, none was a hierophant or prophet as they called him, unless he was circumcifed. Vide Origen. Opera, Edit. Huet, and Conf. Not. p. 5, 13.— In the fame manner, Epiphanius Haeres 30. when he reproves Ebion for glorying in circumcifion, does not fay that the Egyptians in general fuffer circumcifion, as he does with relation to the Saracens, Samaritans, Idumeans, &c. but, The priests of the Egyptians undergo cir• cumcifion, Οι ιερεις των Αιγυπτιων περιτομην εχεσι. Finally, Hom rapollo in his Hieroglyphics, lib. 1. cap. 15. when he is declaring the emblematical uses of the cynocephalus, does not afcribe to all the Egyptians, but to their priests alone, a zealous or careful observation of it.

ἣν και οι ιερεις επιτηδεύεσι περιτομην. Such is the evidence, fo far as I know it, for circumcifion's being peculiar to the priests, or perfons employed about facred functions in Egypt, instead of being prac tifed by the nation univerfally; and in confideration of it, many have been of opinion it was never in general use among the Egyptians. To this purpose in particular, speak the authors of the Antient Univerfal Hiftory, vol. 3. p. 258. Note. It is certain that neither they (the Egyptians,) nor any other nation we know of, the Jewish excepted, ⚫ did practise circumcifion uuiverfally. The priests were indeed obliged to be circumcifed, but the reft of the people were left wholly at their liberty. Even Dr. Middleton himself, is fo impreffed with the arguments for its being reftrained to the priests, in his controversy with the present bishop of Rochester, though he maintain still, it was commonly performed by all the Egyptians, that he owns there may poffibly have been fome diftinction between the priests and the people, in refpect of its neceffity, and the former may have been under fome peculiar obligation to comply with the rite, together with all who defired admittance to their religious myfteries; wherefore it is recorded, that Pythagoras fubmitted to be circumcifed, on account of the Egyptian prophets, that he might enter the adyta, and learn their recondite and fecret phi

obfervation among the nation. There is not then fure ground to infer from that language, which God held to the Ifraelites upon their circumcifion,

any

lofophy. See his Defence of his Letter to Dr. Waterland, p. 89, 90. and compare Clem. Alex. Stromat. lib. 1. P. 302.

It is true, Herodotus, who is a much older author than any of these writers already mentioned in this note, reprefents circumcifion as a cuftom which prevailed among the Egyptians in general, far from giving any hint it was confined to the facerdotal order, or men occupied in offices of religion, as they who have ability and inclination may further fatisfy themselves, by looking into him, lib. 2. p. 117. and 143. Agatharcides alfo, who is placed under Ptolomy Philometor, as he is quoted by Photius in his Bibliotheca, p. 1358, makes circumcifion a practice of all Egyptians promifcuoufly; for he fays, it is the custom of the Troglodites (with exception of those whom he mentions,) to be circumcifed, even as it is of all the Egyptians, Τα δε αιδοια τοις μεν άλλοις Τρωγλοδύταις εσιν ειθισμένον περιτεμνεσθαι, καθαπερ Αιγυπή TING TAYTAS.—And on account of their teftimonies, it might be thought, that the Egyptians were generally circumcifed in more antient times, when their monarchy flourished, whatever restriction there may have been of its use in later ages, when their kingdom was dif folved, and the country converted into a Roman province, according to those other authors, as indeed fome have attempted, by fuch an hypothefis, to explain and reconcile the oppofite accounts. But when we confider, that Diodorus Siculus and Strabo, who wrote about the age of Auguftus, use as general expreffions about the Egyptian practice, as thofe earlier writers, though there seems to be a fuperior weight of teftimony, that the rite was then confined to the priests, and when we remember, that there is no intimation to be met with of any change and revolution in their custom, through the interval between the different periods wherein Herodotus or Agatharcides wrote,and that wherein these witnesses for the limited observation of it lived, there is room to suspect that there must have been fome misapprehension about the extent of the rite by those men, and that they have been by some means or other led to conceive it greater than it in truth was. If the reader shall also think this most probable, he will be hereby confirmed in the interpre tation I have given of God's words in Joshua, v. 9. for the Egyptians

after they croffed the Jordan, This day I have rolled away the reproach of Egypt from you,' that circumcifion was in that age practifed by the Egyptians; for from what hath been said, it is more natural to interpret God's meaning to be, that he had taken away that, for which the Ifraelites* had abhorred the Egyptians, than that for which the Egyptians had flighted and decried them, as much as †Mr. Vol

would never upbraid the Ifraelites with their uncircumcifion, when fuch was the state of all among themselves, except their priefts.

*To take away a reproach from one, is, to leave no longer occafion or pretence for cafting a flur upon a person, as may be seen by comparing Genefis, xxx. 23. Ifaiah, iv. 1. and Pf. cxix. 22.

Thus he paraphrafes the words in Joshua, I have delivered you from what was a reproach to you among the Egyptians,' and then proceeds, Now what elfe could this reproach be to people hemmed in between the Phenicians, Arabians, and Egyptians, but that for which

⚫ these three nations defpifed them? how is this reproach removed? by taking away a little of the foreskin. Is not this the natural import ' of that paffage?' Philofoph. Diction p. 129. Article, Circumcifion. But how justly the reader may determine, after perufing with attention what is above offered.- I am aware fome have explained God's expreffions, on which Mr. Voltaire and others build so much, to have no reference to uncircumcifion at all, and by confequence have destroyed. all inference from them, in favour of the then practice of circumcifion among the Egyptians. But they differ much in fixing their fenfe. Thus Dr. Delany, in his Revelation examined with Candour, makes the meaning, that God, by imprinting that mark in their flesh which distinguished them from the people of Egypt, had taken away all handle for branding them with the character of vagabond and fugitive Egyptians, vol. 2. p. 121. Schmidius understands it, of God's removing their reproach against himself about Egypt, that it would have been better he had allowed them to tarry there, and not brought them into the deserts, for afmuch as he now granted them an happy iffue from all their toils and difficulties, by introducing them into a rich and fruitful land, See Num. xiv. 3, 4. Others again fay, the declaration fignifies, God's taking a

taire triumphs in this sense, as if it were the only genuine one. And if these words of God will not prove that circumcifion prevailed among the Egyptians in Mofes's age, far lefs can they furnish any fhadow of argument for afferting, that they were circumcifed in Abraham's time, who fojourned in their country feveral hundred years fooner.

II. It is argued further, that the Egyptians must have been circumcifed earlier than the Jews, because they are mentioned by God before the Jews, when he threatens to punish the circumcifed and the uncircumcifed nations together, Jer. ix. 25, 26. 'Behold the days come, faith the Lord, that I will punish all them who are circumcifed with the uncircumcifed; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and 'the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that ' are in the utmoft corners, that dwell in the wildernefs.' But there feems to be little ftrength in this reafoning. For, fhould it be granted, that God in this enumeration, recited firft the circumcifed, and then the uncircumcifed nations, upon whom he was about to execute vengeance, it would by no means follow, from the preference of Egypt to Judah in the catalogue, that the Egyptians were in pofway the reproach which the Egyptians caft on them, as if they had departed, relying on vain promises of a fettlement in Canaan, which would never be accomplished, from Numb. xiv. 13-16. and Exod. xxxii. 12. And there may be authors, who propose a fourth or fifth interpretation. Besides, to expound it of uncircumcifion, appears the most easy and obvious fenfe, from the occafion and context. I do not therefore embrace any of them. Nor is there, if I am not deceived, any need to prefer any of those more violent and strained comments, that fo we may wrest it from their abuse, who thence argue circumcision obained before among the Egyptians.

feffion of the rite of circumcifion ere it was injoined to the Jews. For they might be named firft for a very different reason than the more antient poffeffion of it; even because they excelled in power and wealth among the people who obferved that ceremony, and, accordingly, were the frequent truft and confidence of the Jews in seasons of danger and diftrefs, fee Ifai. chap. xxx. and xxxi. Ezek. xxix. 6, 7, &c.-Is there, however, any ground to believe, that God intended here to mention first circumcifed, and then uncircumcifed nations, who would be the fubjects of his wrath? It rather feems, that he numbers nations promifcuously, fince he adds, at the end of his detail, this reflection, For all these nati6 ons are uncircumcised, and all the houfe of Ifrael are uncircumcifed in heart.' For hence we are naturally led to conclude, that the nations he had spoken of befide the Jews, the Egyptians whom he had introduced before them, and the Ammonites and Moabites whom he had brought in after them, were uncircumcifed in a different fenfe from the Jews, in their flesh namely, and not merely in their heart. Agreeably, the Egyptians, under the appellation of Pharaoh and all his multitude, are elsewhere, in the writings of this prophet, defcribed as uncircumcifed, Ezek. xxxi. 18. Thou fhalt lie in the 'midst of the uncircumcifed, with them that are 'flain by the fword:' for, to lie in the midst of the ⚫ uncircumcifed,' is the phrase used by him concerning the deftruction of the Edomites, xxxii. 29. who were, in his age, ftrangers to the rite, fince Jofephus tells us, they only fubmitted to it on Hyrcanus's conqueft of their country, which happened long af

U