Against<every species and degree of this superstition the sternest denunciations of the Mosaic law were di- rected (Exod. xxii, 18 ; Lev. xix, 26, 81 ; xx, 27 ; Deut xviii, 10, 11), as fostering a love for unlawful knowledge (comp. the Koran, ch. v ; Cato, Dt Re Rust. 5; "vanusuperstiiionerudesanimosinfestant;'* Colu- mell. ii, 1) ; because prying into the future beclouds the mind with superstition, and because it would have been (as indeed it proved to be, Isa. li, 6 ; 2 Kings xxi, 6) an incentive to idolatry ; indeed, the frequent denun- ciations of the sin in the prophets tend to prove that these forbidden arts presented peculiar temptations to apostate Israel (Hettinger, Juris Hebr. kges^ p. 258, 254). But God supplied his people with substitutes for divination, which would have rendered* it superflu- oua, and left them in no doubt as to his will in circum- stances of danger, had they continued faithful. It waa only when they were unfaithfVil that the revela- tion was withdrawn (1 Sam. xxviii, 6 ; 2 Sam. ii, 1 ; v, 28, etc.). According to the Rabbis, the Urim and Thumraim lasted until the Temple ; the spirit of proph- ecy until Malachi ; and the Batb-Kol, as the sole means of guidance from that time downwards (Maimonides, de Fundcan. Iaq. cap. 7 ; Abarbanel, Prolegg, in Dan" iel.). See below.
How far Moses and the Prophets believed in the re- aUttf of necromancy, etc, as distinguished firom various forms of imposture, is a question which at present does not concern us. But even if, in those times, they did hold such a belief, no one will now urge that we are bound to do so at the present day. Yet such was the opinion of Bacon, Bishop Hall, Baxter, Sir Thos. Browne, Lavater, Glanville, Henry More, and num- berless other eminent men. Such also was the opin- ion which led Sir M. Hale to bum Amy Duny and Rose Cullenden at Bury in 1664; and caused even Wesley to say, that " to give up a belief in witchcraft was to give up the Bible." (For a curious statute against witchcraft [5 Eliz. cap. 15], see Collier's Eccl. Hist. VI, 866.) Much discussion, moreover, has been carried on by learned men to determine the question whether the ancient tribe of diviners merely pretended to the powers they exercised, or were actually assisted by demoniacal agency. The latter opinion is embraced by almost all the fathers of the primitive Church, whQ appeal, in support of their views, to the plain language of Scripture ; to the achievements of Jannes and Jaro- bres in the days of Moses ; to the divine law, which cannot be chargeable with the folly of prohibiting
]
crimes that never existed; and. to Uie mtTKmgpnf^. tion that pretensions to interpret dreazns, to ewks u dead, etc., would never hare met ^vith credit ixas^ so many ages had there not beea some koown tmA u i thenticated instances of success. On the ocber bu, it has been maintained with great «l»nity and etB6- tion that the whole arts of divioation "were m. systen cr imposture, and that Scripture itselT frequently riiku> those who practised them as utterljr belpleaa, a^ma- pable of accomplishing toiyth^nf^ \ieyand the at^kar powers of nature (Isa. xl\ii, 11-13 ; xliv, 25 ; J<z. -m, 14 ; Jonah li, 8). See WircHC&a.FT'.
I. Of the many instances of divinatum wbkh ocnr in Holy Scripture, some must be taken in a good mam. These have accordingly been classed hj J. C. Wkh- mannsb^usen (Dissert, de Dirinat^ SadyL [ed. fikUs et Me88erer.],Viteb. 1720 sq.) as truly ** diTine.'* (» Peucer, De prcscipuis divincaiomitn peneribmt, ZakoL 1591 ; F. a. M. 1607.) See Inspibattox.
1. Clerotnancg (xXfipoftavrtia), divinatism hy leL T^ mode of^decision was used by the He trews in attes of extreme importance, and always with lelfpmi? and religious preparation (Josh, vii, 13^. Tte b^ was divided by lot (^^"lA, tXifpoiy mirm^ Nnm. zzri. 55, 56 ; Josh, xiv, 2) ; Achan's gnilt was detected ^ lot (Josh, yii, 16-19); Saul was elected king by kt (i Sam. X, 20, 21); and, more reniarkalde still, Mattlsf was chosen to the vacant apostlesfaip hy sefeaB kc, .and invocation of God to guide the decision (Acts L 26). This solemnity and reverence it is wfai^ pro force to such parages as Pro v. xvi, 33; xvm. ^K (See Augustine, De Dodr. Ckrisi. i, 28 ; Thorn. Aqae. ii^ 2, qu. 95, art. 8.) Under this process of V^ et lot, were appointed the interesting ordinances d" &e scape-goat and the goat of the sin-offering for the peo- ple (Lev. xvi, 8-10). See Lot.
2. Oneirornancy(J>viipoiiavTiia\diri0iatumUfirf3ai (Deut. xiii, 2, 3; Judg. vii, 13; Jer. xxiii, S; Jose- phus, Ani. xrii, 6, 4). The interpretation of rtiar^'i dreams by the divinely-gifted Joseph (Gen. xB, S- 82), and the retracing and interpretation of tbo^ cf Nebuchadnezzar by the inspired prophet (Dan. ii, ST, etc. and again iv, 19-28), as opposed to the diriaen of false dreams (Zech. x, 2), are very prominent et» in point ; and, still more, the dreams themeehee diriadr sent (as those in Gen. xx, 6; Jodg. vii, 15; 1 Kicgi iii, 5; so those in Matt i, 20; ii, 12, 13, 19, 22). nwt he regarded as instances of divination in a good $tmi^ a heavenly oneiromancy (comp. Blohammed's &^: *' Good dreams are from God ;" ** Good dreams are aae of the great parts of prophecy,'* Lane's Arab. Ai^bk. i, ^). This is clear from Num. xil, 6 (where dnam [to Uie sleeping] and f^dont [to the awake] an ex- pressly mentioned as correlative divinationi aotkr- ized by God), compared with 1 Sam. xxviii, 6. Uaxtr warnings occur in Scripture against the Impostans at- tendant on the interpretation of dreams (Zech. r, 2. etc.). We find, however, no direct tnee ofse^mghr dreams such as occurs in Virgil, .£n. vii, 81 ; FIsqck^ Cwrcul i, 1. 2, 61. See Dream.