xii, 34; xxiii, 33; Luke iii, 7; Acts xxviii, 3; a serpent famed for the
venomousness of its bite, which is one of the most dangerous poisons in
the animal kingdom. So remarkable, says Dr. Mead, has the viper been for
its venom, that the remotest antiquity made it an emblem of what is
hurtful and destructive. Nay, so terrible was the nature of these
creatures, that they were very commonly thought to be sent as
executioners of divine vengeance upon mankind, for enormous crimes which
had escaped the course of justice. An instance of such an opinion as
this we have in the history of St. Paul, Acts xxviii, whom the people of
Melita, when they saw the viper leap upon his hand, presently concluded
to be a murderer; and as readily made a god of him when, instead of
having his hand inflamed, or falling down dead, one or other of which is
usually the effect of these bites, he without any harm shook the reptile
into the fire: it being obvious enough to imagine that he must stand in
a near relation at least to the gods themselves, who could thus command
the messengers of their vengeance, and counterwork the effects of such
powerful agents.
VISION, the act of seeing; but, in Scripture, it generally signifies a
supernatural appearance, either by dream or in reality, by which God
made known his will and pleasure to those to whom it was vouchsafed,
Acts ix, 10, 12; xvi, 9, xxvi, 13; 2 Cor. xii, 1. Thus, in the earliest
times, to patriarchs, prophets, and holy men God sent angels, he
appeared to them himself by night in dreams, he illuminated their minds,
he made his voice to be heard by them, he sent them ecstasies, and
transported them beyond themselves, and made them hear things that eye
had not seen, ear had not heard, and which had not entered into the
heart of man. The Lord showed himself to Moses, and spoke to him when he
was at the mouth of the cave. Jesus Christ manifested himself to his
Apostles, in his transfiguration upon the mount, and on several other
occasions after his resurrection. God appeared to Abraham under the form
of three travellers; he showed himself to Isaiah and Ezekiel, in the
splendour of his glory. Vision is also used for the prophecies written
by the prophets. The _beatific vision_ denotes the act of angels and
glorified spirits beholding in heaven the unveiled splendours of the
Lord Jehovah, and privileged to contemplate his perfections and plans in
and by himself.
VOCATION, or CALLING, is a gracious act of God in Christ, by which,
through his word and Spirit, he calls forth sinful men, who are liable
to condemnation and placed under the dominion of sin, from the condition
of the animal life, and from the pollutions and corruptions of this
world, 2 Tim. i, 9; Matt. xi, 28; 1 Peter ii, 9, 10; Gal. i, 4; 2 Peter
ii, 20; Romans x, 13–15; 1 Peter iii, 19; Gen. vi, 3, unto “the
fellowship of Jesus Christ,” and of his kingdom and its benefits; that,
being united unto him as their head, they may derive from him life,
sensation, motion, and a plenitude of every spiritual blessing, to the
glory of God and their own salvation, 1 Cor. i, 9; Gal. ii, 20; Eph. i,
3, 6; 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. The end intended is, that they who have been
called answer by faith to God and to Christ who give the call, and that
they thus become the covenanted people of God through Christ the
Mediator of the new covenant; and, after having become believers and
parties to the covenant, that they love, fear, honour, and worship God
and Christ, render in all things obedience to the divine precepts “in
righteousness and true holiness,” and that by this means they “make
their calling and election sure,” Prov. i, 24; Heb. iii, 7; Rev. iii,
20; Eph. ii, 11–16; Titus iii, 8; Deut. vi, 4, 5; Jer. xxxii, 38, 39;
Luke i, 74, 75; 2 Peter i, 1, 10. The glory of God, who is supremely
wise, good, merciful, just, and powerful, is so luminously displayed in
this communication both of his grace and glory, as deservedly to raise
into rapturous admiration the minds of angels and of men, and to employ
their loosened tongues in celebrating the praises of Jehovah, Rev. iv,
8–11; v, 8–10. See CALLING.
VOW, a promise made to God, of doing some good thing hereafter. The use
of vows is observable throughout Scripture. When Jacob went into
Mesopotamia, he vowed to God the tenth of his estate, and promised to
offer it at Bethel, to the honour of God, Gen. xxviii, 22. Moses enacts
several laws for the regulation and execution of vows. A man might
devote himself, or his children, to the Lord. Jephthah devoted his
daughter, Judges xi, 30, 31. Samuel was vowed or consecrated to the
service of the Lord before his birth, by his pious mother Hannah; and
was really offered to him, to serve in the tabernacle, 1 Sam. i, 21, &c.
If a man and woman vowed themselves to the Lord, they were obliged to
adhere strictly to his service, according to the conditions of the vow;
but in some cases they might be redeemed. A man from twenty years of age
till sixty, gave fifty shekels of silver; and a woman thirty, Lev.
xxvii, 3. From the age of five years to twenty, a man gave twenty
shekels, and a woman ten; from a month old to five years, they gave for
a boy five shekels, and for a girl three. A man of sixty years old, or
upward, gave fifteen shekels, and a woman of the same age gave ten. If
the person was poor, and could not procure this sum, the priest imposed
a ransom upon him, according to his abilities. If any one had vowed an
animal that was clean, he had not the liberty of redeeming it, or of
exchanging it, but was obliged to sacrifice it to the Lord. If it was an
unclean animal, and such as was not allowed to be sacrificed, the priest
made a valuation of it; and if the proprietor would redeem it, he added
a fifth part to the value, by way of forfeit. They did the same in
proportion, when the thing vowed was a house or a field. They could not
devote the first born, because in their own nature they belonged to the
Lord, Lev. xxvii, 28, 29. Whatever was devoted by way of anathema, could
not be redeemed, of whatever nature or quality it was. An animal was put
to death, and other things were devoted for ever to the Lord. The
consecration of Nazarites was a particular kind of vow. The vows and
promises of children were void, of course, except they were ratified
either by the express or tacit consent of their parents. It was the same
with the vows of a married woman; they were of no validity, except
confirmed by the express or tacit consent of her husband, Num. xxx. But
widows, or liberated wives, were bound by their vows, whatever they
were.
Whosoever invokes the awful name of God to witness any untruth, knowing
it to be such, is guilty of taking it in vain. Our Lord did not mean to
preclude solemn appeals to heaven, whether oaths or vows, in courts of
justice, or in important compacts. For an oath, or appeal to the
greatest of all beings, as the Searcher of hearts, to witness a
transaction, and to punish falsehood or perjury, is necessary, for
putting an end to all strife or controversy among men, to promote
confirmation or security of property, Heb. vi, 16. And it was sanctioned
by the example of God, swearing by himself, Genesis xxii, 15; Heb. vi,
17, 18; and by the example of the patriarchs and saints of old; thus
Abraham swore by the most high God, Creator of heaven and earth, Gen.
xiv, 22; the transjordanite tribes, by the God of gods, the Lord, Joshua
xxii, 22. And the law prescribed, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and
serve him, and shalt swear by his name,” Deut. vi, 13. And afterward,
“All Judah rejoiced at the oath, for they had sworn unto the Lord with a
loud voice, with all their heart, and sought him with their whole
desire: and he was found of them; and the Lord gave them rest round
about,” 2 Chron. xv, 14, 15. And a highly gifted Apostle uses the
following most solemn asseveration, “The God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, who is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not,” 2
Cor. xi, 31. See the vows of the priests and Levites, to put away
strange wives, Ezra x, 5; and to take no usury from their brethren, Neh.
x, 29. St. Paul also vowed a vow, which he performed, Acts xviii, 18;
xxi, 23. Our Lord, therefore, reënacted the law, while he guarded
against the abuse of it, by prohibiting all oaths in common
conversation, as a profanation either of God’s name, where that was
irreverently used, or where any of his works was substituted instead of
the awful and terrible name of the Lord, which the Jews, through
superstitious dread, at length ceased to use, from misinterpretation of
Deut. xxviii, 58: “But I say unto you, Swear not at all,” in common
conversation, by any of your usual oaths, “neither by heaven, for it is
God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is his footstool,” &c. For, by
the detestable casuistry of the scribes and Pharisees, some oaths were
reckoned binding, others not, as we learn from the sequel; thus, to
swear by the temple, the altar, heaven, &c, they considered as not
binding: but to swear by the gold of the temple, by the gift on the
altar, &c, they considered as binding; the absurdity and impiety of
which practice is well exposed by our Lord in Matt. xxiii, 16–22.
VULGATE, a very ancient Latin translation of the Bible; and the only one
the church of Rome acknowledges to be authentic. The ancient Vulgate of
the Old Testament was translated almost word for word, from the Greek of
the Septuagint. The author of the version is not known. It was a long
time known by the name of the Italic, or old version; as being of very
great antiquity in the Latin church. It was the common, or vulgar
version, before St. Jerom made a new one from the Hebrew original, with
occasional references to the Septuagint; whence it has its name Vulgate.
Nobilius, in 1558, and F. Morin, in 1628, gave new editions of it;
pretending to have restored and re-collated it from the ancients who had
cited it. It has since been retouched from the correction of St. Jerom;
and it is this mixture of the ancient Italic version, and some
corrections of St. Jerom, that is now called the Vulgate, and which the
council of Trent has declared to be authentic. It is this Vulgate alone
that is used in the Romish church, excepting some passages of the
ancient Vulgate, which were left in the Missal and the Psalms, and which
are still sung according to the old Italic version. St. Jerom declares
that, in his revisal of the Italic version, he used great care and
circumspection, never varying from that version but when he thought it
misrepresented the sense. But as the Greek copies to which he had access
were not so ancient as those from which the Italic version had been
made, some learned authors have been of opinion that it would have been
much better if he had collected all the copies, and, by comparing them,
have restored that translation to its original purity. It is plain that
he never completed this work, and that he even left some faults in it,
for fear of varying too much from the ancient version, since he renders
in his commentaries some words otherwise than he has done in his
translation. This version was not introduced into the church but by
degrees, for fear of offending weak persons. Rufinus, notwithstanding
his enmity to St. Jerom, and his having exclaimed much against this
performance, was one of the first to prefer it to the vulgar or Italian.
This translation gained at last so great an authority, by the
approbation of Pope Gregory I., and his declared preference of it to
every other, that it was subsequently brought into public use through
all the western churches. Although it was not regarded as authentic,
except by the council of Trent, it is certainly of some use, as serving
to illustrate several passages both of the Old and New Testament.
The two principal popish editions of the Vulgate are those of pope
Sixtus V. and Clement VIII.: the former was printed in 1590, after Pope
Sixtus had collected the most ancient MSS. and best printed copies,
summoned the most learned men out of all the nations of the Christian
world, assembled a congregation of cardinals for their assistance and
counsel, and presided over the whole himself. This edition was declared
to be corrected in the very best manner possible, and published with a
tremendous excommunication against every person who should presume ever
afterward to alter the least particle of the edition thus authentically
promulgated by his holiness, sitting in that chair, _in quâ Petri vivit
potestas, et excellit auctoritas_, [in which the power of Peter lived,
and his authority excelled.] The other edition was published in 1592, by
Pope Clement VIII.; which was so different from that of Sixtus, as to
contain two thousand variations, some of whole verses, and many others
clearly and designedly contradictory in sense; and yet this edition is
also, _ex cathedrâ_, [from the chair,] pronounced as the only authentic
one, and enforced by the same sentence of excommunication with the
former. Clement suppressed the edition of his predecessor; so that
copies of the Sixtine Vulgate are now very scarce, and have long been
reckoned among literary rarities. Our learned countryman, Dr. James, the
celebrated correspondent and able coadjutor of Archbishop Usher,
relates, with all the ardour of a hard student, the delight which he
experienced on unexpectedly obtaining a Sixtine copy; and he used it to
good and effective purpose in his very clever book, entitled “_Bellum
Papale_,” in which he has pointed out numerous additions, omissions,
contradictions, and glaring differences between the Sixtine and
Clementine editions. All the popish champions are exceedingly shy about
recognizing this irreconcilable conflict between the productions of two
such infallible personages; and the boldest of them wish to represent it
as a thing of nought. But it is no light matter thus to tamper with the
word of God.
The Romanists generally hold the Vulgate of the New Testament preferable
to the common Greek text; because it is this alone, and not the Greek
text, that the council of Trent has declared authentic: accordingly that
church has, as it were, adopted this edition, and the priests read no
other at the altar, the preachers quote no other in the pulpit, nor the
divines in the schools. Yet some of their best authors, F. Bouhours for
instance, own, that among the differences that are found between the
common Greek and the Vulgate, there are some in which the Greek reading
appears more clear and natural than that of the Latin; so that the
second might be corrected from the first, if the holy see should think
fit. But those differences, taken in general, only consist in a few
syllables or words; they rarely concern the sense. Beside, in some of
the most considerable, the Vulgate is authorized by several ancient
manuscripts. Bouhours spent the last years of his life in giving a
French translation of the New Testament according to the Vulgate. It is
probable that at the time the ancient Italic or Vulgate version of the
New Testament was made, and at the time it was afterward compared with
the Greek manuscripts by St. Jerom, as they were then nearer the times
of the Apostles, they had more accurate Greek copies, and those better
kept, than any of those used when printing was invented.
“Highly as the Latin Vulgate is extolled by the church of Rome,” says
Michaëlis, “it was depreciated beyond measure at the beginning of the
sixteenth century by several learned Protestants, whose example has been
followed by men of inferior abilities. At the restoration of learning,
when the faculty of writing elegant Latin was the highest accomplishment
of a scholar, the Vulgate was regarded with contempt, as not written
with classical purity. But after the Greek manuscripts were discovered,
their readings were preferred to those of the Latin, because the New
Testament was written in Greek, and the Latin was only a version; but it
was not considered that these Greek manuscripts were modern in
comparison of those originals from which the Latin was taken; nor was it
known at that time, that the more ancient the Greek manuscripts and the
other versions were, the closer was their agreement with the Vulgate.
Our ablest writers, such as Mill and Bengel, have been induced by F.
Simon’s treatise to abandon the opinion of their predecessors, and have
ascribed to the Latin Vulgate a value perhaps greater than it deserves.”
VULTURE, דאה, and ראה, Lev. xi, 14; Isa. xxxiv, 15; a large bird of
prey, somewhat resembling the eagle. There are several birds of the
vulturine kind, which, though they differ much in respect to colour and
dimensions, yet are all easily distinguished by their naked heads, and
beaks partly straight and partly crooked. They are frequent in Arabia,
Egypt, and many parts of Africa and Asia. They have a most indelicate
voracity, preying more upon carrion than live animals. They were
declared unclean in the Levitical constitution.
WALDENSES, WALLENSES, or ALBIGENSES, the Vaudois, or inhabitants of the
beautiful valleys of the Alps, between Italy and Provence. Many have
supposed that they derived their name from Peter Waldo, or Valdo, a
merchant of Lyons, in the twelfth century, and one of their leaders and
patrons; but their history has been traced considerably farther back,
which has led others to suppose that, on the contrary, he derived his
name from them, as Peter the Waldensian, or Peter of the Valleys. The
learned Dr. Allix, in his “History of the Churches of Piedmont,” gives
this account: For three hundred years or more, the bishop of Rome
attempted to subjugate the church of Milan under his jurisdiction; and
at last the interest of Rome grew too potent for the church of Milan,
planted by one of the disciples; insomuch that the bishop and the
people, rather than own their jurisdiction, retired to the valleys of
Lucerne and Angrogne, and thence were called Vallenses, Wallenses, or,
The People in the Valleys. From a confession of their faith, of the
early date, A. D. 1120, we extract the following particulars: 1. That
the Scriptures teach that there is one God, almighty, all-wise, and
all-good, who made all things by his goodness; for he formed Adam in his
own image and likeness; but that by the envy of the devil sin entered
into the world, and that we are sinners in and by Adam. 2. That Christ
was promised to our fathers, who received the law; that so knowing by
the law their unrighteousness and insufficiency, they might desire the
coming of Christ, to satisfy for their sins, and accomplish the law by
himself. 3. That Christ was born in the time appointed by God the
Father; that is to say, in the time when all iniquity abounded, that he
might show us grace and mercy, as being faithful. 4. That Christ is our
life, truth, peace, and righteousness; as also our pastor, advocate, and
priest, who died for the salvation of all who believe, and is risen for
our justification. 5. That there is no mediator and advocate with God
the Father, save Jesus Christ. 6. That after this life there are only
two places, the one for the saved, and the other for the damned. 7. That
the feasts, the vigils of saints, the water which they call holy, as
also to abstain from flesh on certain days, and the like, but especially
the masses, are the inventions of men, and ought to be rejected. 8. That
the sacraments are signs of the holy thing, visible forms of the
invisible grace; and that it is good for the faithful to use those signs
or visible forms; but that they are not essential to salvation. 9. That
there are no other sacraments but baptism and the Lord’s Supper. 10.
That we ought to honour the secular powers by subjection, ready
obedience, and paying of tribute. On the subject of infant baptism, they
held different opinions, as Christians do in the present day.
For bearing this noble testimony against the church of Rome, these pious
people were for many centuries the subjects of a most cruel persecution;
and in the thirteenth century the pope instituted a crusade against
them, and they were pursued with a fury perfectly diabolical. Their
principles, however, continued unsubdued, and at the Reformation their
descendants were reckoned among the Protestants, with whom they were in
doctrine so congenial; but in the seventeenth century the flames of
persecution were again rekindled against them by the cruelty of Louis
XIV. At the revocation of the edict of Nantz, about fifteen thousand
perished in the prisons of Pignerol, beside great numbers who perished
among the mountains. They received, however, the powerful protection and
support of England under William III. But still the house of Saxony
continued to treat them as heretics, and they were oppressed by a
variety of cruel edicts.
When Piedmont was subjected to France in 1800, the French government,
Buonaparte being first consul, placed them on the same plan of
toleration with the rest of France; but on the return of the king of
Sardinia to Genoa, notwithstanding the intercession of Lord William
Bentinck, the old persecuting edicts were revived in the end of 1814;
and though they have not been subjected to fire and faggot as aforetime,
their worship has been restrained, and they were not only stripped of
all employments, but, by a most providential circumstance only, saved
from a general massacre. Since then they have been visited by some pious
and benevolent Englishmen; and the number of Waldenses, or Vaudois, has
been taken at nineteen thousand seven hundred and ten, beside about
fifty families residing at Turin.
Mr. Milner very properly connects this people with the Cathari, or
Paulicians, of the seventh century, who resided chiefly in the valleys
of Piedmont, and who, in the twelfth century, according to this valuable
historian, received a great accession of members from the learned
labours and godly zeal of Peter Waldo, a pious man of unusual learning
for a layman at that period. His thoughts being turned to divine things
by the sudden death of a friend, he applied himself to the study of the
Scriptures, and was, according to Mr. Milner, the first who, in the west
of Europe, translated the Bible into a modern language. Waldo was rich,
and distributed his wealth among the poor, and with it the bread of
life, which endeared him to the lower classes; and it was probably the
great increase of these pious people, in consequence of his exertions,
which brought upon them the horrible crusade in the next century. This
was, however, wholly on account of their pretended heresies,--their
bitterest enemies bearing testimony to the purity of their life and
manners. Thus a pontifical inquisitor, quoted by Usher, says, “These
heretics are known by their manners and conversation; for they are
orderly and modest in their behaviour and deportment; they avoid all
appearance of pride in their dress; they are chaste, temperate, and
sober; they seek not to amass riches; they abstain from anger; and, even
while at work, are either learning or teaching.” Seysillius, another
popish writer, says of them, “Their heresy excepted, they generally live
a purer life than other Christians.” Liclenstenius, a Dominican, says,
“In morals and life they are good; true in words; unanimous in brotherly
love; but their faith is incorrigible and vile, as I have shown you in
my treatise.” But most remarkable is the testimony of Reinerus, an
inquisitor of the thirteenth century: “Of all the sects which have been,
or now exist, none is more injurious to the church, (that is, of Rome,)
for three reasons: 1. Because it is more ancient. Some say it has
continued from the time of Silvester; others from the time of the
Apostles. 2. Because it is more general. There is scarcely any country
into which this sect has not crept. 3. Because all other heretics excite
horror by the greatness of their blasphemies against God; but these have
a great appearance of piety, as they live justly before men, and believe
rightly all things concerning God, and all the articles which are
contained in the creed.”