and the Egyptian, upon Solomon's marriage unto Pharaoh's daughter, and cultivated to a confiderable degree under the reign of different princes in both countries at intervals, by traffic and commerce, by leagues or treaties, and by affistance against enemies. But they all fuppofe, that, after learning in one or other of these channels to circumcife their children within a fhort time of the birth, they altered the feafon of it in procefs of ages to the thirteenth or fourteenth year of life, (if indeed this was ever the period for it with them,) the more effectually to hide their having borrowed the custom from the Hebrews, who were a nation much detested in later times, for impiety toward the gods and unfociable manners, or to ferve fome different purpose. Others again,inftead of fuppofing they took circumcifion from Abraham's defcendants by Ifaac, who circumcised their children on the eighth day, have been of opinion they learned it from his pofterity by Ifhmael, among whom Jofephusmenti

ally ill-afelled toward us. Μαλιςα προς ήμας δυσμενως διατεθεντες κοινῇμεν άπαντες Αιξυπτιοι. fhould be underfood with fuch rigor,as to imply, that this was their temper through all ages. They are introduced by him only to fhew, that it would be unreasonable to arraign the Egyptian writers of falfhood, whom he was about to bring as vouchers for the antiquity of his nation.He uses the fame expreffions there concerning the Tyrians among the Phenicians, when he would fecure credit to their evidence in behalf of the fame point; yet furely the Tyrians were not unfriendly to the Jews in the times of David and Solomon, 1 Kings, v. 1, 11. He himself hath recorded proof of the respect of both people toward the Jews in that period. Ant. 8. 2. 6. and ibid. 6. 4. 5. and Contra Apion. 1. 17. 18.

Of this opinion is Bochart in his Phaleg. lib. 4. cap 31. p. 325. and Huetius, if I mistake not, in his annotations on Origen's works ubi fupra.

ons the Arabians as practifing it in the thirteenth year of life, after the example of their father Ishmael. To this purpose they may obferve, that the Ethiopians, according to Herodotus, used that ceremony fo far back, that it was hard to tell whether they or the Egyptians were first in poffeffion of it, though he inclined to believe the Egyptians had the precedence, as we faw above. They may urge also the affertion of the Ethiopians, with all the reasons in fupport of it related by Diodorus, that the Egyptians learned their laws and cuftoms from them, together with Ambrofe's account likewife already mentioned, that the Egyptians fubjected their children to it in their fourteenth year. And, finally, they may remark, that thofe Ethiopians were called Arabs by the antients fometimes, or, however if they were distinct from them, lived juft on their border, as they were also neighbours to the Egyptians. Eafily therefore, fay they, might the cuftem be com

Artapanus, in a paffage preferved by Eufebius in his Praep. Evang. 9. 27. fays, ' Mofes fled from Egypt into Arabia, es Apabiny, and lived with Raguel the ruler of the country, and married his daughter.' Jofephus, giving an account of the fame fact, Antiq. 2. 11. 1. 2. after he has told us he fled to Madian, a city on the fhore of the Red fea, so named from one of Abraham's fons by Keturah, fays, 'He met Raguel's daughters taking care of their father's flocks, for it was the fervice which belonged to the women in that country • of the Troglodites, δια το ταύτην ύπεργια είναι και γυναιξιν επί χωριον παρα τοις Τρωγλοδύταις. So that he confidered the inhabi tants of that country as Troglodites, who were indisputably reckoned a people of Ethiopia. Elfewhere as he tells us, Ibid. 10. 1. That the Ethiopians were neighbours, poçoinor, to the Egyptians, he speaks, ibid. 9. 5. 3. of the Arabians, as those who dwelt nearest to Ethiopia, Αράβων των εγδια της Αιθιοπιας κατοικοντών.

municated to them.-A third clafs, in fine, though they cannot admit Herodotus's account of the reason of this practice of the Egyptians as very probable, that they performed circumcifion for the fake of cleanlinefs, apprehend superstition might dictate it to

Dr. Middleton, Letter to Dr. Waterland, pp. 31. 32. fays, • Though all thefe opinions, (he means thefe which derive circumcifion to the Egyptians from Abraham, or Joseph, or Jacob and his fons, or the friendship with the Jews in Solomon's time, for all these he had mentioned,) are wholly groundless and irrational, yet none seems fo 'improbable as that which you embrace, that this custom was carried

into Egypt by Abraham's posterity, the Arabian Ifhmaelites; for how ⚫ can it be imagined, that a fet of wild Arabs, or wandering fhepherds, an occupation abominable to the Egyptians, (Gen. xlvi. 34.) of all men the most barbarous and illiterate, could have authority enough ⚫ with a polite and learned nation, to establish fo odious and painful a ⚫ custom among them?' But not to repeat any former reflections, do we not fee that the Ethiopians were a powerful people in Moses's time? Jofephus, Antiq. 2. 10. 1. reprefents, that they made incurfions into Egypt then, and carried away much spoil, that they defeated the Egyptians in a pitched battle, penetrated even to Memphis and the fea, no city being able to resist them, and over-ran the whole country, fo that the Egyptians were reduced to great distress? And do we not further fee, that they brought immenfe armies into the field in following ages, against Asa king of Judah, 2 Chron. xiv. 9. and xvi. 8. ?My late worthy friend Mr Brekel of Liverpool, hath supposed the fhepherd kings, who, acccording to Manetho in Jofephus, fubdued Egypt, and reigned over it several hundred years, to have been Arabians, who invaded it soon after the children of Ifrael left it, when, being in a weak and broken state, they would be an easy prey to their enemies, and hath thought they impofed the rite of circumcifion on their Egyptian fubjects, while they again more readily fubmitted to their requirements in the matter, from their knowledge that it had been obferved by the Ifraelites, whom God had fo lately honoured with most peculiar tokens of his favour. See his Differtation on Circumcifion; and if his notion be true, it opens an eafy account of its prevalence among the Egyptians.

them, as well as other rites to an equal or greater degree painful; and indeed what might not fuperstition, in that measure in which they were under its fway, make them do or fuffer, though no others were confidered as a model or pattern to be followed in it?

But it seems to me of lefs importance, to fix the era and mean of the entrance of this ceremony among them, than hath been pretended. It might very well be of later use among the Egyptians and Arabians than in Abraham's family, though we cannot tell at what time, or by what caufes, it was begun to be used by them; this is nothing, if I am not deceived, but what hath happened fince with regard to many civil ufages, and is in this case less strange, when fo many books are perished, from which we might have received information.

This fection hath been flong, but if the reasoning

Dr. Middleton ibid. feems to lay great stress on this, that they who think circumcifion was propagated from the Hebrews to other nations, cannot agree either on the person who first introduced it, or the period of time when it was first brought into Egypt; and fo do others.

-I may observe here, though the Ifraelites discovered a strong inclination to imitate Egyptian cuftoms in making the golden calf, after an abode of 200 years in Egypt, as fuch writers remind us, this can be no evidence that God commanded it to Abraham 400 years before and upward, to gratify fuch a byafs in him, who had made but a fhort vi fit there about 20 years before; nor can it even be any proof that he re-injoined it to the Ifraelites, in compliance with fuch a temper in them after they left Egypt. For it is certain he appointed many rites oppofité to thofe which prevailed among the Egyptians, the more to prevent their apoftacy from his pure worship. Why therefore might not this be in that number?

Indeed I had once and again thrown afide this difquifition for its prolixity, yet it appeared to me beft upon the whole to canvafs the matter, as Mr. Voltaire returns to it again and again,

hath been folid, and the representation of facts juft, I flatter myself the reader will think his labour well fpent; fome great writers have maintained the fuperior antiquity of circumcifion among the Egyptians, and from them all our infidel writers almoft, after Tindal, have with an air of triumph displayed it.

SECTION XXII,

Of his affertion in his Philofophical Dictionary, that it was customary among the patriarchs to use an obfcene rite in making a promise.

IN many or most of these misreprefentations of the fense of Scripture, which have been cenfured as they occured in Mr. Voltaire's Philofophy of Hiftory, I have remarked any agreement which was between them and the accounts in his Philofophical Dictionary. There follow fome instances which are peculiar to this piece, fo far as I am acquainted with his works, or do now recollect them.

In the article of Ezekiel here, having afferted,* That it was cuftomary, on any important promise, 'to touch the genitals of him to whom the promise was made,' he adds, We have thought proper to render the genitals by thigh. Eliezer put his hand under Abraham's thigh. The like Jofeph ⚫ does to Jacob. This had been a custom of great antiquity in Egypt.'

But where is there any record of such a shameful usage of long standing in Egypt, as he affirms? Or what evidence is there that the fame was practised Phil. Dict. page 166.