This inquiry is not foreclosed, as some have thought, by the account in Gen. xvii. t 1, ff., and our Lord's declaration recorded in John vii. 22, 23. These passages undoubtedly preclude the supposi tion that the Hebrews borrowed the rite from the Egyptians or any other nation ; but they do not shut us up to the conclusion that we have in the former of them the account of the origin of the practice. The mere fact that God appointed it, as the token of his covenant with Abraham, is no proof that it was then originated ; for God might have selected a practice already in use among other nations, and given it a new significancy by the special use to which he consecrated it ; just as he made a natural phenomenon, with which men must have been familiar from the creation, the sign of his covenant with Noah (Gen. ix. 12-17) ; or as our Lord selected an ordinance already in use to occupy under the new dispensation a place analo gous to that which circumcision held under the old. It is open, therefore, for us to ask whether the usage is to be regarded as purely Hebrew in its origin, or whether it may not have had a more gene ral source. This question is substantially whether, seeing the Hebrews did not borrow it from the Egyptians, the Egyptians borrowed it from them.
Now, it must be asserted that it is quite possible that such may have been the case. The considera tion which is commonly adduced as conclusive against it, viz., That the Egyptians would never have borrowed any practice from a despised race like that of the Israelites, is of no weight at all ; for, however despised the Israelites were in the times immediately preceding the Exodus, it must be remembered that Abraham and Isaac were re ceived in Egypt as princes, who associated with its chief men, and that Joseph's position in Egypt was second only to that of the Pharaoh himself. From such men there would be no disgrace in borrowing any usage sanctioned by them ; and as with them it was a sacred usage, this may account for its be coming in Egypt a priestly institute, and for its being found among the Colchians, who were ori ginally soldiers from Egypt, and as such, also a sacred class. It is worthy of notice also that the information we possess of the existence of the usage in Palestine remounts to a far higher anti quity than the information we have regarding its existence in Egypt ; which gives a presumption pro tcnto in favour of its having originated with the Hebrews. Herodotus, it is true, says that the Palestinian Syrians (meaning by them probably the Jews) themselves acknowledge that they have derived it from the Egyptians ; but this must he admitted to be a mistake on the part of the Father of History, as the sacred books of the Jews amply shew. So far, then, the probability seems in favour of the conclusion that the Egyptians bor rowed this rite from the Hebrews. When, how ever, we consider that the practice had certain hygienic uses for which it was followed by the Egyptians and other nations, the scale of probabi lity seems rather to incline to the side of the con clusion that the practice had its origin in the discovery of these uses, and was probably known in Egypt before the time of Abraham.
But it may be asked if the usage was not origin ally and from the first exclusively Hebrew, how came it to be distinctive of the Hebrew people? That it was so cannot be doubted. The entire phraseology of Scripture shews that the Jews them selves regarded it as such ; the fact that those who were ashamed of their nation sought to obliterate this mark of their descent confirms this; and we may appeal to such a statement as that of Tacitus, who says of the Jews circumcidere genitalia insti tuere ant diveriitate noscantur' (Hist. v. 5), and to
such allusions as those of Juvenal (Sat. xiv. to4) and Martial (Epig. w. Sr) as tending to the same conclusion. But wherein did this distinctiveness exist if other nations besides the Jews practised circumcision? To this it may be replied—I. That they alone practised it as a religious rite; with other nations it was a usage, a custom more or less generally observed; with the Jews it was a religious rite, and this gave it a specialty in their case, just as baptism by being made a religious rite becomes a special mark of a Christian, though other nations practise `divers baptisms.' 2. Among the Jews alone was circumcision made universally imperative by statute ; with other nations it might be observed or not as circumstances dictated; with the Jews it could not be omitted without exposing to the severest penalties. 3. The Jews alone practised it on children; with other nations it was delayed till some occasion in adult age rendered it necessary, but with the Jews it was invariably observed on the eighth day after birth. The only nation who approached to the Jews in this respect was the Arabs, who delayed it only till the child was past teething (Abulfeda Annal. Illusion.) In conse quence of these peculiarities the presumption was that every circumcised man was a Jew, and if he was not, his being in that state was a thing to be accounted for by some special reason.
3. Meaning and use of the rite.—Circumcision, as practised by the Gentiles, was simply an expedient to promote health, facilitating cleanliness, and pre venting certain painful afflictions, such as that of the 6eOpaE, to which in hot climates men are sub ject (Philo De Circumcis., Opp. ed. Henschel, p. 8I0; Joseph. cont. ii. 13; Niebuhr De ra bic, ch. 19). In so far as it served this end the Israelites had, of course, the benefit of it ; but that this formed the reason and design of its appoint ment among them by God, though asserted by some men of learning and ability, seems utterly untenable ; for, in the first place, this opinion is without the slightest support from Scripture; often as the subject is referred to there, we find no hint as to this being the purpose of the observance ; 2dly, This hypothesis is quite opposed to the ac count given by Moses of the introduction of the rite among the Israelites ; 3dly, It is absurd to sup pose that a mere prophylactic usage should by God be elevated to the solemnity of a religious ordinance ; 4thly, Whatever advantages in a hygie nic respect might accrue from the practice, these were confined to individuals; circumcision is not necessary for health to men generally in hot cli mates (Niebuhr, lac. cit.); and therefore to oblige the whole male community to undergo this process in infancy for purposes of health, would have been to act as unwise a part as if it had been enjoined that every one should lose a limb, because it was possible that some might contract severe disease in that limb if allowed to remain ; and 5thly, If cir cumcision was a mere hygienic precaution, why should it have been abolished by Christianity? why should the apostles have held it to be so hos tile to Christianity? and why should the difficulty of becoming a Christian have been increased by the prohibition to those who embraced Christianity of a necessary condition of their children's health ? These considerations seem to us sufficient to de monstrate the error and absurdity of the opinion they are intended to set aside.