PROPITIATION (pro-pish'I-a'shiln), (Gr. IXao i.L6s, hil-as-mos'), that which appeases, propitiates t John ii:2; iv:io). This word is used in the LXX as the translation of the Hebrew word (kaft po' rah), a covering.
It is the averting the punishment due to any one, by undergoing the penalty in the room of the guilty. Jesus Christ is called the "propitia tion," or ATONEMENT, as his complete righteous ness satisfies all the demands of the law and jus tice for all our transgressions (Rom. iii :25; r John ii :2). As it respects the bloodless propitia tory sacrifice of the mass, little need be said to confute such a doctrine. Indeed, it is owned in the church of Rome, that there is no other founda tion for the belief of it than an unwritten tradi tion. There is no hint in the Scripture of Christ's offering his body and blood to his Father at his in stitution of the eucharist. It is also a manifest contradiction to St. Paul's doctrine, who teaches, that, without shedding of blood, there is no re mission; therefore there can be no remission of sins in the mass. The sacrifice of Christ, accord ing to the same apostle, is not to be repeated. A second oblation would be superfluous; conse quently the pretended true and proper sacrifice of the mass must be superfluous and useless.
Buck. PROSELYTE (prOs't-lit), (Gr. upocOuTos, pros ayloo-los, a newcomer), the name applied in the New Testament and the Septuagint to converts from heathenism to Judaism.
In the Old Testament such persons are called strangers, and settlers, For the reception and treatment of these, provision was made in the law of Moses (Exod. xii :48; xvii :8 ; Num. xv :r5, etc.) ; and the whole Jewish state was considered as composed of the two classes, Jews, and strangers within their gates, or pros elytes. In later years this distinction was ob served even to the second generation.
(1) Jewish. It has been customary to make a distinction between two classes of Jewish pros elytes, the one denominated proselytes of the gate, and the other proselytes of the covenant, uu or of righteousness. Under the former have been included those converts from heathenism who had so far renounced idolatry as to become worshipers of the one God, and to observe, generally, what have been called the seven Noachic precepts, viz., against idolatry, profanity, incest, murder, dis honesty, eating blood, or things strangled, and al lowing a murderer to live, but had not formally enrolled themselves in the Jewish state. The latter is composed of those who had submitted to circumcision, and in all respects become converts to Judaism. The accuracy of this distinction. however, has been called in question by several, especially by Lardner, whose arguments appear decisive of the question (IV orbs, vol. vi, pp. 533 ; vol. xi, pp. 313-324, 8vo, edit. 1788). That there were, in later times especially, many among the Jews who had renounced the grosser parts of heathenism without having come over entirely to Judaism, is beyond all doubt ; but that these were ever counted proselytes admits of question. Certain it is that the proselytes mentioned in the New Testament were all persons who had re ceived circumcision, and entered the pale of the Jewish community.
(2) Rites. The rites by which a proselyte was initiated are declared by the Rabbins to have been, in the case of a man, three, viz., circumcision, baptism, and a freewill sacrifice; in the case of a woman the first was of necessity omitted. As to the first and last of these, their claim to be regarded as accordant with the ancient practice of the Jews has been on all hands admitted with out scruple; but it has been matter of keen ques tion whether the second can be admitted to have been practiced before the Christian era. The sub stance of much learned discussion on this head we shall attempt summarily to state.
(3) Baptism. There is no direct evidence that this rite was practiced by the Jews before the second or third century of the Christian era ; but the fact that it was practiced by them then neces sitates the inquiry : when and how did such a custom arise among them? That they borrowed it from the Christians is an opinion which, though supported by De \Vette (in his Treatise De Ilforte Christi exfiiatorid), cannot be for a moment ad mitted by any who reflect on the implacable ha tred with which the Jews for many centuries re garded Christianity, its ordinances, and its pro fessors. Laying aside this view, there are only two others which have been suggested. The one is that proselyte baptism was practiced among the Jews from a period long anterior to the birth of Christ ; the other is that the custom of baptizing proselytes arose gradually out of the habit which the Jews had of purifying by ablution whatever they deemed unclean, and came to be raised for the first time to the importance of an initiatory ordinance after the destruction of the temple serv ice, and when, in consequence of imperial edicts, it became difficult to circumcise converts. This latter opinion is that of Schneckenburger (Ueb. das Alter d. Pea'. Proselytentaufe, Berlin, 1828), and has been espoused by several eminent German scholars. To us, however, it appears exceedingly unsatisfactory. The single fact adduced in sup
port of it, viz., the difficulty of circumcising con verts in consequence of the imperial edicts against proselytism is a singularly infelicitous piece of evidence; for, as the question to be solved is, how came the later Rabbins to prescribe both baptism and circumcision as initiatory rites for proselytes? —it is manifestly absurd to reply that it was be cause they could only baptize and could not cir cumcise: such an answer is a contradiction, not a solution of the question. Besides, this hypothesis suggests a source of proselyte baptism which is equally available for that which it is designed to supersede; for, if the practice of baptizing proselytes on their introduction into Judaism had its rise in the Jewish habit of ablution, why might not this have operated in the way suggested, two hundred years before Christ as well as two hundred years after Christ? And in fine, this hypothesis still leaves unremoved the master diffi culty of that side of the question which it is designed to support, viz., the great improbability of the Jews adopting for the first time subse quently to the death of Christ a religious rite which was well known to be the initiatory rite of Christianity. Assuming that they practiced that rite before, we can account for their not giving it up simply because the Christians had adopted it ; but, trace it as we please to Jewish customs and rites, it seems utterly incredible that after it had become the symbol and badge of the religious party which of all others, perhaps, the Jews most bitterly hated, any consideration whatever should have induced them to begin to practice it. On the other hand we have, in favor of the hypothesis that proselyte baptism was practiced anterior to the time of our Lord, some strongly corroborative evidence. We have, in the first place, the unani mous tradition of the Jewish Rabbins, who impute to the practice an antiquity commensurate almost with that of their nation. (2) We have the fact that the baptism of John the Baptist was not regarded by the people as aught of a novelty, nor was represented by him as resting for its authority upon any special divine revelation. (3) We have the fact that the Pharisees looked upon the baptism both of John and Jesus as a mode of proselyting men to their religious views (John iv: 1-3), and that the dispute between the Jews and some of John's disciples about purifying was ap parently a dispute as to the competing claims of John and Jesus to make proselytes (John iii:25, sq.). (4) We have the fact that on the day of Pentecost Peter addressed to a multitude of per sons collected from several different and distant countries, Jews and proselytes, an exhortation to 'Repent and be baptized' (Acts ii :38), from which it may be fairly inferred that they all knew what baptism meant, and also its connection with repentance or a change of religious views. (5) We have the fact that, according to Josephus, the Essenes were in the habit, before admitting a new convert into their society, of solemnly and ritually purifying him with waters of cleansing (De Bell. Iud. ii. 8. 7), a statement which cannot be under stood of their ordinary ablutions before meals (as Mr. Stuart proposes in his Essay on the Mode of Baptism, p. 67) ; for Josephus expressly adds that even after this lustration two years had to elapse before the ntophyte enjoyed the privilege of liv ing with the Proficients. And (6) we have the mode in which Josephus speaks of the baptism of John, when, alter referring to John's having exhorted the people to virtue, righteousness, and godliness, as preparatory to baptism, he adds, 'For it appeared to him that baptism was ad missible not when they used it for obtaining forgiveness of some sins, but for the purification of the body when the soul had been already cleansed by righteousness' (Antiq. xviii. 5. 2) ; which seems to indicate the conviction of the historian that John did not introduce this rite, but only gave to it a peculiar meaning.
On these grounds we adhere to the opinion that proselyte baptism was known as a Jewish rite anterior to the birth of Christ. (See BAP TIS M. ) See the work of Dr. Halley on the Sacraments, Lond. 1844, p. t 14. ff. He, with other writers, con tends for the antiquity of Jewish proselyte baptism.
For opposite views, see Moses Stuart, Bib. Reft. No. X.
From the time of the Maccabees the desire to make proselytes prevailed among the Jews to a very great extent, especially on the part of the Pharisees, whose intemperate zeal for this object our Lord pointedly rebuked ( Matt. xxiii The greater part of their converts were females, which has been ascribed to the dislike of the males to submit to circumcision. Josephus tells us that the Jews at Antioch were continually con verting great numbers of the Greeks (De Bell.
vii. 3. 3), and that nearly all the women at Damascus were attached to Judaism (Ibid. ii. 20. 2; comp. Antiq. xvii:11; xx:2; De Bell. hid. 2. 18, etc.; Tacit. Hist. 5, 5; Dion Cass. 37, p. 21. See Jahn, Arclzwologie, iii, 215 sq.: Horne's Introduction, vol. iii, p. 265 sq.) W. L. A.