CIRCUMCISION. 



517 



~\ti- person who first introduced them into the country, was 

 s '""- celebrated for his wisdom, as well as his power ; and he 

 ""V ' who led them out of E^ypt, became formidable by the 

 tremendous miracles which he performed. 



Let Us tlv.n compare Herodotus with Moses, (and we 

 shall claim for the latter only the privilege of an ordina- 

 ry historic.), and see whose accou it is most entitled to 

 credit. Herodotus c HJ ctures that circu ncision had its 

 origin amnng'the Eg^ptisns; Moses, who wrote about 

 1000 yc-ari bt-fore hvin, affirms that it originated with 

 Abraham by the express command of God. Nobody 

 can d; uht that circumcision was practised by the Israel- 

 ite 5 at the time when M -if cs wrote, otherwise he never could 

 have referred to it as an ancient practice: and would it not 

 have been a most glaring absurdity, to state it as a dis- 

 tinction, as a token of God'a covenant with the seed of 

 Abraham, and as a mark of his peculiar people, had it 

 been at that time generally practised among the Egyp- 

 tians ? In short, we have every evidence which the na- 

 ture of the subject can ifford, or which any reasonable 

 person could demand, that the Israelites did not borrow 

 circumcision from the Egyptian?. S:iall we affirm, then, 

 that the Egyptians received it from the Israelites ? We 

 have stated reasons which seem to render this probable : 

 but we think it still more probable, that they received 

 it from sr.me of the other descendants of Abraham. In 

 this view of the subject, there is much probability in the 

 conjecture of Herodotus, that the Egyptians might bor- 

 row the practice from the Ethiopians, meaning thereby 

 the Arabians, for it is certain that Arabia is often call 

 cd Ethiopia by the ancients ; and the confusion was still 

 more increased by this circumstance, that the Ethiopians 

 of Africa, in all probability, came from Arabia, so that 

 writers were induced to give the same names to countries 

 which they found possessed by the same people. 



Now, there is no doubt whatever that all the Arabians 

 were circumcised, and that too, long anterior to the time 

 of Mo-es : and the reason is obvi. us ; they were the lineal 

 descendants of lahmael the son of Abraham, and, like the 

 founder of their nation, were circumcised, not on the 

 eighth day, but in the thirteenth year of their age ; 

 that being the age of Ishmael when God commanded 

 Abraham to circumcise his family. Here, then, we have 

 brought the Egyptians fairly within the contagion of 

 the practice. And if it should be suspected, that they 

 would not willingly borrow this custom from nations infe- 

 rior to themselves in point of antiquity and refinement, 

 we are not without grounds for supposing that it was 

 imposed by force. Joscphus, contra Apion. quotes a 

 long passage from Manelho, an Egyptian author, who 

 says, that a great part of Egypt was '.vcrrun by a race 

 from Arabia whom he calls royal shepherds, and that 

 they held the country in subjection for many years. If 

 these conquerors were Arabians, then they were Ish- 

 maelitcs who circumcised, and, like all sects, would pro- 

 bably have a desire to proselytize. 



We wuuld not venture to pronounce which of the cir- 

 cumstances we have mentioned, introduced the partial 

 use of circumcision among the Egyptians ; for it never 

 appears to have been general ; probably they might all 

 conspire in producing this effect. We have shewn, how- 

 ever, from the most authentic documents, that cucum- 

 cision was practised by the dencendants of Abraham, at a 

 time when the history of Egypt and of Greece was lost 

 in fable. We have shewn also, that the Egyptians were 

 frequently brought in contact with these people, and 

 various reasons, besides those which have been nv.miourd, 

 might be assigned for their ad'/pun^ tliii practice. 



But how shall we account for its introduction among 



other nations ? From whom did the Phem'cians receive it ? Circumd- 

 Ifit ever was adopted by the Phfnician?, properly so s ''^ 

 called, it may be easily accounted for by their vicinity to > "^~-'~"" 

 Palestine. But there is a strong probability that the 

 Phenicians of Herodotus actually mean the Samaritans, 

 their immediate neighbours, who were composed of the 

 ten revolted tribes of Israel, and of course were all cir- 

 cumcised. 



A long story is given, on the very questionable autho- 

 rity of Sanchoniatho, of circumcision being introduced 

 into Phenicia by llus or Cronus. Sir John Marsham 

 insists that this was no other than Noah, and that there- 

 fore circumcision must have been practised long before 

 the time of Abraham ; Shuckford maintains, with more 

 probability, that this llus or Cronus, was Abraham him- 

 self, especially as it is said that this founder of the Phe- 

 nician dynasty sacrificed his only son, and that this was 

 the origin of human sacrifices among the Phenicians. 

 But we should reckon it a waste of time to dwell on 

 such a dubious argument. They who wish for farther 

 information on this part of the subject may consult Shuck- 

 ford's Connect, vol. 1. p. 326. 



But circumcision was also practised by theColchians; 

 and it is not so easy to trace the manner of its introduc- 

 tion among this people. Grotius supposes, and the opi- 

 nion is not improbable, that the Colchians, and some of 

 the neighbouring nations, were part of the ten tribes who 

 Wire carried captive by Shalmanezer. It is very evident 

 that there was at that time a deficiency in the population 

 of various parts of the Babylonian empire, and its mo- 

 narchs swept away whole nations to supply the defect. 

 The ten tribes never returned from their captivity, and 

 evident traces of them are to be found at this day, in 

 various places of that vast extent of territory, which was , 



subject to the kings of Babylon : and this is a probable 

 way of accounting for the existence of circumcision, 

 among many modern nations, whose history is lost, and 

 who exhibit no other marks of their origin. Grotius sup- 

 p ;rs his opinion respecting the Colchians, and some of 

 the neighbouring nations of Thrace, by quoting the 

 Scholiast on Aristophanes ; his words are, ' Colchi cf 

 eorum ticini ex decem mint trihubun, quas transtulit Sal- 

 manasar. Indc et in Thraciim quiilam venere. Sco- 

 liastcs nd Arislo/ihanes Achurnenses ; o3 ( Ti t9es 

 &ffcx.ixt>, tfita-t 3i avn', lb-3<*i*s ntxi. O/loma ntum gens est 

 T/iracicn : dicitntur ant em tsse Judcei." 



We do not reckon it necessary to pursue this subject 

 farther : the amount of our argument is this, that cir- 

 cumcision never was practised but by the descendants of 

 Abraham, and those nations who learned it from them. 

 It is universally practised at present by the Arabs, Moors, 

 and Turks, who have derived it from the Saracen*, the 

 lineal descendants of Ishmael. 



Some authors have endeavoured to assign physical 

 reasons for the adopti n or' circumcision, such as clean- 

 liness, convenience, &c. Were this argument admitted, 

 it would destroy the notion of a positive appointment, 

 and lead us to eek for the origin of the practice in 

 causes common to many nations. But all the arguments 

 which have been advanced in support of this opinion, 

 appear equally fuule and absurd. The practice was uni- 

 versally accounted disgraceful, especially by the Roman 

 writer., and n the subject of many san-asms ; hence we 

 have the curt is Jttditis> and the Jitdceus appella of Ho- 

 race, ami tli illibi-r.il misrepresentation or Juvenal, in 

 w: ich he c-iarge* the Jews with want of common hu- 

 uid ity, iilli-gii.g ^ to be thrir r^ctice. 

 A r '"t momttare 0-0*, ra.'u-'i. .'-.nfi 



Q-J , iff, vi fo d'slvffrt ver|*w< Sat. It- v. 104. 



