Egyptians, ere it was inftituted to Abraham and his pofterity. Let us next fee, whether any countenance is given to fuch an opinion by Jofephus and Philo, who have been alfo quoted to ferve the cause.

The vanity of thofe pleas which are taken from Philo and Jofephus to fupport the claim of the Egyptians, expofed.

IT hath been further remarked by the advocates for the fuperior antiquity of circumcifion among the Egyptians, that Philo would never have omitted afferting it belonged originally to the Jews, in his treatise on the subject, unless he had been conscious the Egyptians, whofe practice he mentions for the vindication of his countrymen, had been examples to them in it. But furely Philo's filence upon this head can have no force to perfuade any impartial perfon, that the Egyptians were first in poffeffion of it, as indeed arguments taken from the filence of authors, in general, are of a more dubious and uncertain nature, wherever the fame might proceed from a variety of causes. Philo, though convinced his own nation used the rite earlier than any other, may very reasonably be supposed to have avoided taking any notice of it, left it fhould give offence to the Egyptians, among whom he lived, they being beyond

cifion was unknown to the Egyptians at the time of Mofes's nativity, for how unless circumcifion had been peculiar to the Ifraelites, should Pharaoh's daughter have immediately concluded on feeing the child in the coffer, and the fex thereof, This is one of the Hebrew children. The force of which observations the reader may confider.

See Philo de Circumcif. ubi fupra.

measure jealous of their honour, about the originality of their cuftoms civil and religious, and to have fatisfied himself upon this principle, with giving fuch an explication of the reasons which were affigned for the rite, and the uses to which it was thought subfervient, as tended to justify it both in Jews and Egyptians. It may even feem, on the other hand, had it been his judgment the Egyptians led the way herein, he would not have failed to obferve it, fince it would have been much to his purpose of defending circumcifion, to have faid, not only that the Egyptians, who excelled in numbers and wifdom, were circumcised as well as the Jews, but that they, who were fo famous and renowned a people, fet a pattern of it to them and the reft of mankind.

With the fame view likewife of fhewing, that circumcifion obtained fooner among the Egyptians than among Abraham's pofterity, it hath been obferved, that Jofephus does not confute Herodotus's affertion,

That the Syrians in Palestine acknowledged they • learned it from the Egyptians,' when he quotes † the fame. But the weakness of this argument from his

Says Dr. Middleton, Letter to Dr. Waterland, page 28. Josephus, who in his Defence of the Jews against Apion, takes occafion more than once to mention this teftimony of Herodotus, instead ' of cenfuring or attempting to confute it, argues from it as from a thing granted;' And then quotes his words against Apion, lib. 2. c. 13. which have been already tranflated in a former note on this fection, making Jofephus fay, The Egyptians are all circumcifed,' where he only speaks of their priests. But though Jofephus takes it for granted, that the Syrians in Palestine spoken of by Herodotus were Jews, there is no colour for faying, he takes for granted the truth of the fact which Herodotus makes them own, that they had learned cir- cumcifion from the Egyptians,

*

work against Apion, hath, if I am not mistaken, been already discovered. Only it may be proper to add, it is the more unreasonable to draw fuch an inference as is here done, (I mean, that Jofephus approved Herodotus's account of its being derived to his nation from the Egyptians, from his omitting to cenfure him in patriotic zeal for their credit,) because Jofephus himself labours elsewhere to imprefs men with a belief that all the rites and ceremonies of the Gentiles, which bore any fimilitude or likenefs to the ufages of the Jewish people his countrymen, were borrowed from them. For, fays the, Of old many have had a great forwardness to imitate our religious rites; 'there is no city of the Greeks or Barbarians, no na

tion where a regard to the feventh day, on which 6 we reft from labour, hath not reached; and where faftings, and burning of lamps, and abftinences. 'from many kinds of food, are not observed, &c.' Befides, is Jofephus filent, when he recites Herodotus's words which make the Egyptians authors of circumcifion to them, as to the reft of mankind? So is Origen in one place, when he mentions Celfus's reproach, that the Colchians and Egyptians were taught circumcifion by the Jews; but did Origen therefore esteem Celfus's reflection juft? We are sure he did not; for in another S paffage, as we have feen, he fhews his conviction, that Abraham was circumcised first among men. As therefore Origen's affent to the ftory of the Egyptians in Herodotus, when it comes

See part 1. fect. last, p. 40.

+ Contra Ap. lib. 2. c. 39.

Ubi fupra, Origen adv. Celf. 5. 259. § Ibid. 1. 17.

from Celfus's pen, cannot be gathered with truth from his forbearing to contradict it, at his introduction of it, no more is Jofephus's acquiefcence in the justice of his tale, to be collected merely from his neglecting to deny and oppose the fame, where he brings it in; and the lefs, because it did not fall in with his view then, as was faid, to call him to account Sfor it: not to repeat what was also before observed, that he hath fufficiently discovered his fenfe elsewhere, that at God's inftitution of the rite to Abraham and his pofterity, its ufe was peculiar to them.*

§ See part 1. fect. last, p. 40.

• I am aware, Dr. Middleton urges alfo Jofephus's words, Antiq. 8. 10. 3. where after quoting Herodotus's account about the confeffion of the Syrians in Palestine, and remarking, 'It is manifest none ⚫ others of the Syrians in Palestine are circumcifed, but ourselves alone;' he adds, About these things however let every one fpeak as he pleases.' For would Jofephus have expreffed himself in this manner, if he had not looked upon circumcifion as of previous ufe among the Egyptians? But I answer, these words must relate chiefly at least, if not folely, to the ftory of Shifak's plundering the city and temple of Jerufalem, and to the question, whether Herodotus referred to that tranfaction or not; for Jofephus having related the history contained in 2 Chron. xii. and i Kings, xiv. adds, 'Herodotus the Hali'carnaffian hath mentioned this expedition, only committing a mistake about the name of the king, (he intends, it hath been thought, hẹ ❝ calls him Sefoftris, lib. 2. p. 145.) for he tells us, that he invaded · many other nations, and reduced to fervitude Palestine in Syria, hav❝ing taken its men without fighting a stroke. Now it is plain he meant

to declare, that our nation was fubdued by the Egyptian, since he fays, he left pillars in their country, who furrendered to him without any battle, with a figure engraven on them which was expreffive of 'their effeminacy, adoiα yurainwr eyypatas; and Rehoboam our king yielded the city to him without lifting an arm.' Then he goes

Upon the whole then, I apprehend, I may conclude without incurring any blame either for want of understanding, or candour, or moderation, that Mr. Voltaire and others have had no fufficient reason for affirming, that the rite of circumcifion was introduced among the Jews in imitation of the practice of on, He alfo fays, that the Ethiopians learned circumcifion from the E• gyptians, for the Phenicians and Syrians in Palestine own they learned ' it from them,' and concludes as above in the beginning of this note. Now hereby every one muft perceive, what Jofephus writes about the testimony of Herodotus to the circumcifion of the Jews, is only brought in to fhew, that this hiftorian, by the country of Palestine in Syria which Sefoftris conquered fo eafily, understood their country; and therefore, that the indulgence which he gives to every person to speak about these things according to his fentiments, muft refer chiefly, if not only, to the subject which gave rise to that episode, if I may fo call it, for the confirmation of his opinion, that Herodotus described the fame expedition of the king of Egypt against Jerufalem, which was defcribed in their facred books. Dr. Middleton indeed contends, that his allowance of this freedom of speech, regards what he had faid about circumcifion, not only in part, which may be granted, because the mention of circumcifion immediately precedes the words which contain it, but principally, if not folely; and he gives this reafon for faying it must be thought to do fo, That though Jofephus ufes the fame reflection very often, he never applies it but to fome fact or point of great mò⚫ment to the truth or effential character of the Jewish religion. Therefore, as the story of Shifak is of no confequence to the Jewish nation or religion, it is rational to think the reflection here is to be applied (he fhould have faid, especially,) to the cafe of circumcifion, which ' is of confequence thereunto.' See Middleton's Remarks on a Reply to the Defence of his Letter to Dr. Waterland, Works, vol. 3. p. 187. But whoever takes the trouble of examining all the places where Josephus uses that mode of expreffion, will be fenfible that he does not always confine his ufe of it to matters fo important. Here in particular, of whatever moment it was to a Jew to be circumcifed, it was a thing which no way affected the truth or effential character of the Jewish religion, whether Herodotus took notice that the Jews practifed the ce