The Rabbins have introduced a distinction be tween Proselytes of Righteousness (p-ro called also Sons of the Covenant (rrun '33) or Full Israelites (nnini and lytes of the Gate (1ptfn +-9), so called, according to some, in allusion to the phrase, stranger within thy gates (Exod. xx. to, etc.) • according to others, because they could not come beyond the door of the temple. Under the latter they included those con verts from heathenism who had so far renounced idolatry as to become worshippers of the one God, and to observe, generally, what have been called the seven Noachic precepts, viz., against idolatry, profanity, incest, murder, dishonesty, eating blood, or things strangled, and allowing a murderer to live, but had not formally enrolled themselves in the Jewish state. The former they composed of those who had submitted to circumcision, and in all re spects 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 (Works, vol. pp. ; vol. xi., pp. 313-324, 8vo edit. 1788). That there were, in later times espe cially, 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. It is probable that the distinction above mentioned was introduced by the later Rabbins for the sake of including among the con quests of their religion those who, though indebted probably to the Jewish Scriptures for their im proved faith, were yet not inclined to submit to the ritual of Judaism, or to become incorporated with the Jewish nation. That this, however, was not the ancient view is clearly apparent from a passage in the Babylonian Gemara, quoted by Lightfoot (Her. Heb. et Talm. in Matt. iii. 6), where it is said expressly that ' No one is a pro selyte until such time as he has been circum cised.' Ffirst, himself a Jew, confirms our sug gestion ; for in a note upon the word in his Concordantio Libb. V. T., he says : judxi, in terpretatione magis dogmatics quam historica, de eo interpretantur qui superstitiones barbaras re pudiavit.' 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 free-will sacrifice (Tinirim ;+Nztom pip Se; wni) ; in the case of a woman the first was of necessity omitted. Circumcision was per formed as in the case of a child, only that the pre sence of three witnesses was required : where a heathen already circumcised was admitted, a slight incision was made in the foreskin and a few drops of blood drawn forth. The proselyte then received a new name, which was the one that first presented itself on the opening of the Bible. It was not, however, until he had been baptized that the con vert was fully received. According to the Rabbins, baptism was even more essential than circumcision. The ceremony was performed after the healing of the wound caused by the circumcision, in the pre sence of three persons who had acted as the in structors of the convert, and were regarded as not only witnesses for his baptism, but, with reference to the idea of a new birth therewith connected, as his fathers. Having stripped himself, cut his hair, and pared the nails on his hands and feet, he went into the water up to the arms ; the laws were then read to him, and having promised to obey them, he immersed himself wholly. Females were attended to the bath by persons of their own sex, while their teachers stood outside the door, After their immersion they received a new name. When a proselyte had young children, these were baptized with their parents. Having been thus by circum cision and baptism received into the Israelitish com munity, the convert had to celebrate his entrance by the presentation of an offering unto God, with out which no one could approach the Lord. The offering consisted of a bullock, or a pair of turtle doves, or two pigeons. After the destruction of the temple a vow to present an offering was ac cepted instead of the offering which could no longer be presented (Maimon. Hilt% c. 13, 4, 5).
As to the first and last of these observances, their claim to be regarded as accordant with the ancient practice of the Jews has been on all hands admitted without scruple ; but it has been matter of keen question whether the second can be ad mitted to have been practised before the Chris tian era. The substance of much learned dis cussion on this head we shall attempt summarily to state.
There is no direct evidence that this rite was practised by the Jews before the zd or 3d century of the Christian era ; but the fact that it was practised by them then necessitates the inquiry, when and bow did such a custom arise among them ? That they borrowed it from the Christians is an opinion which, though supported by De Wette (in his treatise De Mort? Christi expiatoria, p. 6o), cannot be admitted when we consider the implacable hatred with which the Jews for many centuries regarded Christianity, its ordinances, and its professors. Laying aside this view, there are only two others which have been suggested. The one is that proselyte baptism was practised 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-service, and when, in consequence of imperial edicts, it became difficult to circumcise converts. This latter opinion is that of Schneckenburger (Ueb. das Alter d. Proselylentaufe, Berlin i828), and has been es poused by several eminent German scholars. To us, however, it appears exceedingly unsatisfactory. The single fact adduced in support of it—viz., the difficulty of circumcising converts in consequence of the imperial edicts against proselytism—is a sin gularly infelicitous piece of evidence ; for, as the question to be solved is, How came the later Rab bins to prescribe both baptism and circumcision as initiatory rites for proselytes ? it is manifestly absurd to reply that it was because they could only baptize and could not circumcise : such an answer is a contradiction, not a solution of the question.
Besides, this hypothesis suggests a source of pro selyte 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 sug gested, 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 subsequently to the death of Christ, a religious rite which was well known to be the initiatory rite of Christianity. Assuming that they practised that rite before, we can account for their not giving it up simply because the Chris tians 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 Tarty which of all others perhaps the Jews most bitterly hated, any consideration what ever should have induced them to begin to practise it. On the other hand we have, in favour of the hypothesis that proselyte baptism was practised anterior to the time of our Lord, some strongly corroborative evidence. We have, in the first place, the unanimous tradition of the Jewisk Rabbins, who impute to the practice an antiquity commensurate almost with that of their nation. 2dly, 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 autho rity upon any special divine revelation. 3dly, We have the fact that the Pharisees looked upon the baptism both of John and Jesus as a mode of pro selyting 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 apparently a dispute as to the competing claims of John and Jesus to make proselytes (John iii. 25, seq.) 4thly, We have the fact, that on the day of Pentecost Peter addressed to a multitude of persons 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. 5thly, We have the fact, that according to Josephus, the Essenes were in the habit, before admitting a new convert into their society, solemnly and ritually to purify him with waters of cleansing (De Bell. 'led. ii. 8. 7), a statement which cannot be understood of their ordinary ablutions before meals (as Mr. Stuart pro poses in his Essay on the diode of Baptism, p. 67) ; for Josephus expressly adds, that even after this lustration two years had to elapse before the neo phyte enjoyed the privilege of living with the Pro ficients. And, 6thly, We have the mode in which Josephus speaks of the baptism of John, when, after referring to John's having exhorted the people to virtue, righteousness, and godliness, as prepara tory to baptism, he adds, For it appeared to him that baptism was admissible 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. A passage has also been cited from Arrian's Discourses of Epictetus (ii. 9), in which, after stating that some who called themselves Jews yet played a double part, he adds, ' But if any one assume the condition (or endure the suffering, avaXcifiv rd rdeos) of one who has been baptized and convicted (rjpnl.tevou, instead of which some have conjectured that repoyyry.41vov, circumcised, is the true reading), then is he indeed a Jew, and is called such.' Were one sure that in this passage Arrian did not confound Jews with Christians, his testimony would be of great value in regard to the antiquity of Jewish baptism ; but the doubt attaching to this point, and the general obscurity of the passage (which we have translated somewhat differently from the usual rendering, but as the words seem to us to require), make it unsafe to lay much stress upon it.
On these grounds we adhere to the opinion that proselyte baptism was known as a Jewish rite anterior to the birth of Christ. The reader will find the whole subject amply discussed in the following works : Selden, De Jere Nat. et Gent., 11. 2 ; Otho, Lex. Rab., p. 65 ; Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. et Talm. in Matt. iii. 6 ; Danz in Meus chenii Nov. Test. ex Thlm. Illust., p. 233, seq., 287, seq. ; Witsius, Oecon. Feed., iv. 15 ; Kuinoel, Comm. in Libros N. T. Histor. ap. Matt. iii. 6 ; Jahn, Bibl. Arch/tot., Pt. III., p. 219 ; and Halley, The Sacraments, Pt. I. Baptism, Lond. 1844, p. 114, ff.—all of whom contend for the antiquity of Jewish proselyte baptism, whilst the following take the opposite side : Ernesti, Opusc. Theoll., p. 255, ; Wernsdorff, Controv. de Bapt. Recent., sec. IS ; Carpzov, Apparat., P. 47, seq.; Paulus, Comment., i. 279 ; Bauer, Gottesdienst. Ventassung der Allen Heb., ii. 392; Schneckenburger, Lib. sup, cit. ; De Wette, do. ; and Moses Stuart, do. (American Bib. Rep., No. X.) It is worthy of notice that it was chiefly among the female sex that the proselytising Jews made converts, a fact which hes been ascribed to the dislike of the males to submit to circumcision. Josephus tells us that nearly all the women at Damascus were attached to Judaism (Ibid. ii. 20. 2 ; comp. Antiq. xviii. 4. 5 ; xx. 7. I I ' • De Bell.• phd. 18. 2, etc. Juv. Sat., vi. 543, ff. ; Tacit. Hist. v. 5 ; Dion. Cass. 37, p. 21).
On the subject of this article generally, besides the works of Carpzov, Bauer, and already referred to, the reader may consult Jahn, "Archaeo logic, iii. 215, ff. ; Leusden, Phil. Nebr. Ilhxt., p. 142, seq. ; Alting, Diss. de Proselylis ; Ugolino, Thes. 27 ; Schroder, and Gebrauche des Tabll. Rabb. 7udenthuills Saalschiitz, Mosaisch. Recht, ii. 69o, ff., 704, if., and the article Pro selyten,' by Leyrer in Herzog's Real Encycl, xii. 237.—W . L. A.