746 



from other than Biblical sources. These peenluritiea 



of translation have something of a typical character. 

 In tlu> matter of appeals to tin- Supreme Being, either 

 in oaths -ir vows, the ideas of Christian 

 more or less colored by notions of licatncn origin. 

 Tills appears in our current religious phraseology, our 

 hymnology. our interpretations of Scripture. 



The fundamental law eunccrniiiL' vows is stated in 

 Pent, xxiii. 1II-L.V.. They arc often uieiilioneil in 

 connection with freewill offerings, with which they 

 h.ive this in common, that they are required from no 

 one; the law simply shcm. in case anyone 



deems it a privilege to offer them. But the limits 

 within which the vow is permitted are narrower than 

 f the freewill offering. For example, no vow 

 to offer an animal in sac-ritice is permitted, uni 

 animal is without blemish. When a vow has once 

 been legally made the legal accomplishment of it is 

 rigidly exacted. But it is evident that, the VOW Was 

 (iiininonly thought of rather as a form of prayer, or of 

 public confession ami thanksgiving, than as a bond 

 upon tin; person making it. Tliis is strikingly illus- 

 trated by the faet that the current word for it in the 

 Septiiagmt and the New Testament is ti.fn, prayer, 

 while the most common variants are other forms of 

 fi'-i'iuiii, and tlie woni signifying pub.. 



i. Tbe interpretation thus given to the Old 

 Testament word fit.s its use as f;tr hack as this can be 

 traced. It follows from this that vows are not pre- 

 sented, in the Bible, as modes of bribing the Supreme 

 Beiiin for hi.* interference, or of pay in IT him for favors, 

 but rather as a method of prayer and an expression of 

 praise and gratitude. 



The Biblical vow is ordinarily a promise to offer 

 some sacrifice, or perform some ritual act, or render 

 some other external service. The services vowed are 

 always extern, 1 !, and ordinarily temporary, ji:,t, spirit- 

 ual or perpetual, though of course the spirit with 

 which a vow was performed was regarded a.s all im- 

 portant The law of the devoted things. Lev. xxvii. 

 Ul-12'.l, Num. xviii. 14, cf. Josh, vi., vii., is not an ex- 

 ception to thi-i statement, for the 1 ' herein " is a differ- 

 ent thine from a vow. The ease of the Nazirite I'or 

 life is not an exception. as we shall presently see. The 

 case of Jacob's accepted vow, (Sen. xxviii. 20-ilL', \\\i 

 13, is not an exception, for the words ''Jehovah will 

 be to me for (Jod properly close the protasis of the 

 sentence, instead or' beginning the apodosis. Jacob 

 did not vow that if Jehovah would LM with him and 

 Mipply his wants and bring him back, then Jehovah 

 should lie his (Jod, bill that if Jehovah, fulfilling the 

 promises he has just made to be with him ami In HILT 

 him back, would be hi.. (Jod (\v< cf. xvii. 7). 



then Jacob would make his memorial stone a house of 

 (Jod. and would give liihes. 



The article in the F.\<'Vi'i.(>i'.v.i>! \ BHITANNK'A 

 mentions the prominence given in the Roman Catholic 

 Church to irrevocable vows of certain .-oils Solemn 

 promises made to (md. having something of the 

 nature of vows, arc quite common among I'mie.stant.s. 

 To say nothing of Brotherhoods and Sisterhoods, 

 formed more or le-s upon the Roman model, we have 

 the solemn promises made by ministers at licensure or 

 oi'iitiatinii, those made by ministers am! j>cople at the 

 institution of the pastoral office, those often made ;it 

 the receiving of person> into covenant with the church, 

 the pjedges of the various ^Christian Asso<-iations, 

 Christian Kndeavor Societies, Tcmpcrm- 

 anil many others of the same general character. An 

 to all Mich matters, it should be remembered that 

 while a pled ire of this kind, used within Scriptural 

 limits, may be a privilege and u help, there is great 

 danger of our making it the contrary. If we permit 

 vows of this kind to take the place in our lives that 

 1/clongs to love or conscience or the grace of God, the 

 vow will become a burden and a snare. 



From the jxiint of view of those who regard the 

 Biblical account of the origin of the Mosaic legislation 



istorical. the vow of Jcnhthah, Jud. xi., must be 



regarded ;LS illegal, lie had no right to vow a burnt- 

 offering to Jehovah, except a> lie limited t| H > vow to 

 animals legally tit for that purpose. \Ve h c\c here an 

 . nit of a nu-h man who had military tilts and who 

 MI- used by Jehovah, but whose religion- position by 

 no means indicates the true character of the religion 

 of Jehovah at that period. There is nothing to show 

 that either Jephtliah's vow or that of Hannah. 1 Sam. 

 i. II, were eases that would fall within the law of 

 | redemption given in Lev. xxvii., and there is there- 

 Inn, nothing in these cases to show that that law was 

 then non -existent. Instead of saying " the principle 

 that a vow once taken must be fulfilled at any 

 was so far modified in later times in Israel that ex- 

 ceptional vows were by law redeemed at a valuation," 

 it would doubtless be correct to say that from the times 

 of Moses the law provided for a class of vows that 

 might be so redeem. 



In the article NAZARITE or NAZIRITK. in the KN- 

 rvrl.nl'.KIHA BlUTANXICA, it is averted that "the 

 Hebrew root N-Z-R is only dialectical!}' different from 

 N-D-H, to vow." This is in one sense true, but not 

 in the sense that would justify the inference "that the 

 peculiar marks of the Nazirite are primarily no more 

 than the usual sign that a man is under a vow of some 

 kind." Any one will be convinced of this who will 

 notice the distinctness with which the two words are 

 used iii Num. vi. . and throughout the Old Testament. 

 Whatever might supposedly be true of the two words. 

 if they belonged to different dialects, it is a matter of 

 fact that in Hebrew usage they are sharply differ- 

 entiated. 



The statement that the law of the Nazirite, as found 

 in Num. vi., " is not pre-exilic." is, of course, contrary 

 to the explicit testimony of Num. vi. 1, which attrih- 

 the law to Moses. Very likely it may be true 

 that this law is "directed to the regulation of a known 

 _e," but there were already such things as exist- 

 ing usages in the times of Moses. Further, the fact 

 that the law contemplates one form of Nazirite ns-iire 

 does not render it incredible! that other forms of it may 

 have existed. The ease presented in Num. vi. is that 

 of a temporary Nazirite nsiire by vow; the case of 

 Samson (perhaps thai of Samuel also! is the different 

 of a person who is a Nazirite for life by divine 

 appointment, independent of any vow made by him- 

 self. If we regard these cases as two species of a 

 common genus, then the fact of the existence of one 

 ;cs in t he times of the judges indicates i he probable 

 cnce of the other species rather than proves it to 

 be nonexistent in tho.c times. And in any case, the 

 variations between the case of Samson and the de- 

 scription given in Num. vi. have no weight to prove 

 thai the law in Num. vi. had not then been Riven; 

 for the variations may either be due to the difference 

 between the condition of a Nazirite for life and a 

 Na/irile for a limited period, or may be accounted for 

 like the other prevalent negligent s and irregularities 

 in the observances of the national laws that i\ 

 alcnt in the limes of Manoah i'.nd Kli. (\V. J. B.) 



VriJ'IAN. F.PMK FKUX AI.FIII 

 French physiologist, was born at Paris. Jan. .">, ISL'ii. 



I he graduated at the Medical School, and be- 

 coming assistant in (he Museum of Natural History 

 pursued researches on the nervous i system. In 18C7 



-. despite of the charges of materialism made 

 ML-ainst him by the bishop of Sura, called to the 

 chair of pathological anatomy in the Medical School. 

 In Isi'iS his teachings were attacked during the 

 discussion of a petition auainst the instruction in that 

 school, but Vulpian maintained an attitude of sneh 

 dignity that he acquired the esteem of the scientific 

 world, and in the next year was made in rm her of tho 

 . \eademy of Medicine. InlsTl'h. the chair 



of experimental and comparative pathology, and in 

 1875 was made dean of tne facultv. In ISTli he was 

 chosen member of the Academy of Sciences. By his 



