Haruspicy and Sortilegy

Chapter 7 of Demonology and Theology (1650) by Nathanael Homes (1599–1678), edited and modernized.

Of divination called haruspicy and sortilegy.

These two we have put together because they are so joined in Scripture, and sometimes in use:

For the king of Babylon stood at the parting of the way, at the head of the two ways, to use divination: he made his arrows bright (the Hebrew word means he shot or shook them), he consulted with images, he looked in the liver. At his right hand was the divination for Jerusalem, to appoint captains, to open the mouth in the slaughter…

Ezekiel 21:21-22

It should seem by this text that the world has been anciently addicted to these superstitious divinations, by haruspicy and sortilegy, that is, lottery. And that the king of Babylon, when going to war, divined by both whether he should go against Rabbath of the Ammonites or Jerusalem of the Jews (Eze. 21:20). Some, as Vatablus, render the Hebrew word as it is in our English, he made bright his darts or arrows; that is, the iron of them, that it might shine; and so therein the diviners might see which way he (the king of Babylon) was to go in his military expedition. For the superstitious world has also used this divination (as R. David, R. Solomon, Vatablus, Alapide, etc. tell us), called catoptromancy, that is, divination by mirrors, in which the diviners, in the glittering and shining of the points of spears and swords, or in the shining of the thumbnail, or in some crystal, etc. would see (by rules learned from the Devil) things past or foresee what should come to pass.

But this is not so natural a signification of the Hebrew word, nor the kind of divination that the king here used. Learned Schindler makes a portion of the Hebrew word a root, an absolute word of itself, rendering it according to the Chaldee's use of the word projecit, meaning to throw forth, or fling out. According to the Arabian use, concussit, meaning to shake together. Yet the same Schindler, as also Buxtorf, Pagninus, Mercer, and Arias, refer the Hebrew word to the root which signifies light or swift, etc. And in the conjugation Piel, by doubling of the first radical, signifies fly swiftly, or shot. The Chaldee Targum renders it, he shot his arrows out of a bow. The Syriac, he cast, or hurled, or shot his arrow. The Arabic, by shooting his arrow. The Greek Septuagint renders it, that he might make the rod to issue forth. Other Greeks, to shoot arrows. Jerome's ancient Latin translation reads, commiscens sagittas, meaning mingling arrows together. By all that we have said, this in the general plainly appears that anciently there was a superstitious art of divination by darts, rods, or arrows, for which the Greeks have a particularly fit name—dart or arrow magic, or staff or rod magic, or divination. And this divination was not only in use among the Chaldeans as appears in Ezekiel 21:21, but was sinfully imitated by the Jews, as Jerome, Cyril, and Theophylact conclude from Hosea 4:12, My people ask counsel at their stocks (Hebrew in, or by their wood), and their staff declareth unto them. The word for staff both in the Hebrew and Greek signifies both a staff and rod, or wand, or branch.

Thus it is plain, in the general, that anciently they did divine by arrows, darts, staffs, rods; and the Word of God condemns all of this as a heathen invention, which was sinfully imitated by the Jews.

In particular, the manner was two ways (as we have intimated it a little in the various meanings of the words)

• First, by the mingling of arrows, after various names were written upon them of the things concerning which the lottery was to be made; putting those arrows up again promiscuously into the quiver, one blindfolded draws one, and as it is written on the arrow, so is the divination concluded. For instance, the king of Babylon in Ezekiel 21:21 would divine whether he should go to war against Kabbath of the Ammonites or against Jerusalem of the Jews. These two names are written upon two arrows, which put up, and drawn again, in manner aforesaid, the first that came, determined where he should go to war. And it should seem, by the intent of Ezekiel 21, that God, willing to punish Jerusalem, permitted that their lot should fall upon it. So Jerome.
• Secondly, by staffs, rods, darts, arrows, etc. thrown, darted, or shot up into the air, and wherever they tended in their return and fall, there the divination (as they conceived) directed them. Of this, Chald, Polichron. Caelius Rhodiginus, l. 7. Antiquarum Lectionum, 29.

And this is the most likely kind of divination that the king of Babylon used in Ezekiel 21, that balancing two or three arrows bolt upright (as we say) or shooting them upright into the air, if in their return they fell towards Jerusalem, it was a certain judgment by divination that he was to make his expedition accordingly.

So Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, He made arrows, and made them fly in the air, that he might see in what direction they fell; And if they fell to the side of the children of Hammon, he would go thither; if at the side of the children

So Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, fecit sagittas, ac volare fecit in aere, ut videret in quam partem caderent; Et si caderent ad latus filiorum Hammon, iret illuc; sin ad latus filiorum, etc. Likewise the Chaldee Targum, as before, he shot out of a bow his arrows, etc. And reason tells us that to this superstition the king of Babylon would rather incline, at this time (as Alapide conceives). He would not now divine by books or other means, but by arrows, with which he was to fight the battle he intended. And his shooting of them up to heaven was a fair semblance of asking counsel of God, as Gregory Nazianzen expounds concerning Abaris the Scythian, who shot an arrow from some part of Greece into part of Scythia to signify a mind contemplating his eternal country in heaven.

All things considered thus far concern but the first clause of Ezekiel 21:21—the meaning of the Babylonian king's use of arrows in divination in a way of lottery.

Next, it is said, he consulted with images, or idols, that is, with Bel, Nebo, and other idols.

Thirdly, he looked into the liver. Here is his haruspicy, or extispicy, looking into the exta, the entrails of beasts which were killed in sacrifice, after their heathen manner. Properly the heart and lungs were called exta ab extando because they are placed in the upper part within a man, as also the spleen, liver, and stomach were called exta because they were placed above the rest of the bowels and innards. The heathens did indeed divine by considering in the sacrifice the heart, liver, stomach, etc.

It follows in Ezekiel 21, At his right hand was the divination for Jerusalem, to appoint captains, to open the mouth in the slaughter—that is, he concluded by his haruspicy, imagery, and lottery a certain divination that he must go against Jerusalem, and there open his mouth, exhorting his captains and soldiers to open the mouth of the sword (as the Scripture phrase is, to signify the edge of the sword) to destroy the Jews.

Having heard the Scriptures concerning haruspicy and sortilegy, that we may the better understand their manifold sinful superstitions, let us hear what history, antiquities, and customs can produce concerning their unlawful manner and usages.

Haruspicy

First, of haruspicy, or extispicy (so called by Cicero in De Divinatione, ab exta inspiciendo, from looking into the entrails of beasts), the manner in brief was this. The soothsayer observed some things before he killed the beast, some things in the entrails of the beast being killed, and some things after, when it was offered up by fire.

1. First, before the beast was killed, whether it came willingly without the need of force, whether it received the stroke without bellowing, and whether it died without struggling, and with one blow only—all which were good signs—and whether no unlucky signs were seen or heard while they were sacrificing.
2. Secondly, when the beast was ripped up, he observed whether the bowels were not of an unnatural color, or were not parched, abscessed, or ulcerous, which were bad signs. He divided the bowels into two parts, the one was called pars familiaris, from which the diviner foretold what should befall their own party; the other was called pars hostilis, from which he foretold what should befall their enemies.
3. Thirdly, afterward, when the sacrifice was to be burned, it was diligently observed whether the flame of the fire was smoky, whether the smoke rolled and tumbled in the air, whether of any continuance or not, for all these were unlucky signs, as the contrary were lucky signs (as they spoke). Those who observed these tokens of the smoke had a peculiar name, Capnomantes, that is, smoke-diviners.

All this superstition came to the Romans (as the story goes) from the Hittites, who had it from a young youth named Tages, and he from the Devil. Of these things many touches in Seneca's Tragedies, Ovid's Metamorphoses, and more in Cicero's De Divinatione.

Sortilegy

Secondly, of sortilegy, divination by lots. Generally speaking, this involves a lottery, or deciding by lot. The genus or general in this description is some casual event. Aquinas and others speak too broadly when they say it involves merely a doing of anything by which, being considered, a hidden thing may be discovered, for a man may leave money up and down in the house to test a suspected servant, and thereby discover his honesty or dishonesty, yet this is no lot. What makes a casual event a lot is when, by the intent and use of a man, it is applied according to his disposal for the purpose of deciding and determining of some doubt (i.e., either some doubtful act to be done, as yet in suspense, or some hidden truth to be discovered in things already done or suspected to be done). But for a man to meet some notable person or thing unexpectedly in the way, intending other business, and a thousand such casualties incident to a man all his life long, is no lottery or lot at all.

Now because some lottery or casting of a lot is lawful, we must distinguish between the bad use we are to speak of, from the good, and between the basic kinds of lots, and what is lawful and unlawful.

Ultimately, there are three kinds of lots:

• First, such as are divine; namely, having prescript from the Word of God
• Secondly, vain sporting and foolish, invented by the idle brains of men
• Thirdly, diabolical for divination, hatched by the traditions of the Devil

1. Divine Lots

Of the first sort, the Scripture makes mention of the allowable use of these sorts of lots.

• First, of lots in sacred things that cannot otherwise be well determined, as to determine which of the two goats should be the scapegoat, the other to be sacrificed (Lev. 16:8), and to determine which of the two should be an apostle in the room of Judas (Acts 1:23-26).
• Secondly, of lots in moral things, as to find out by lot who is guilty, in a multitude, of some eminent transgression that has caused a great affliction on the rest, such as finding out Achan (Jos. 7:16-19) and Jonah (Jon. 1:7). And the Lord did so approve of lots of this kind, that he was with them in casting lots to find out who had eaten of the honey contrary to Saul's adjuration (1Sa. 14), though it appears by the event that God's intent was showing Saul his sin in his rash adjuration, rather than showing Jonathan his sin in eating of the honey, being ignorant of his father's oath.
• Thirdly, of lots in political and civil things, as to divide estates, goods, lands, etc. into portions, who shall have which part (Jos. 14:1-5); likewise to choose magistrates, as Saul was chosen as king by lot (1Sa. 10:17-21).

The Scriptures, in addition to the matter, shows us the manner how we should use lots in such cases:

• First, it must be a case of necessity, where things cannot so satisfactorily be determined otherwise.
• Secondly, lots should be looked on as an ordinance of God, in which God has a special hand in the determination by them.
• Thirdly, in the use of lots, therefore, men should look up to God in faith and prayer, either solemn or secret ejaculatory, to afford his special guidance in the case.

These three conditions are hinted in these Scriptures:

• Proverbs 18:18 The lot causeth contentions to cease…
• Proverbs 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
• And therefore, they prayed over the lot (Acts 1:24-26)

2. Vain Lots

That which has been said of divine lots, being particularly and thoroughly weighed, easily overthrows such lots as are vain, lusory, unnecessary, contentious, and causing or accompanying much iniquity, as in tables, cards, dice, etc. Such lots have been abundantly denounced by the godly learned fathers and ancients.

3. Diabolical Lots

Diabolical lots (lots used for divination, to foretell future arbitrary events, etc.) not only lack divine prescription, but also exceed the evil that is in lusory or unnecessary lots in that they are attended by the direction and assistance of the Devil, since there is nothing from God or nature to predict by such kind of things. The very name has no good omen in it, for we all agree that sorcery signifies a diabolical art, and likewise no man can deny that the term sorcery (a sortibus) is derived from lots, which (Minsh says) "men used that wrought by the help of the Devil."

That this divination by lots was common among the heathen, and in their diabolical way, is commonly confessed in their own writings, as we might abound with instances:

• Pindar's Pythian Ode 1, The diviner by birds, and lots, etc. Upon which the scholiasts say they were accustomed to divine by lots.
• Valerius Maximus, book 1, ch. 1, When anything was to be inquired, it was to be done by entrails of beasts or by lots, etc.
• Cicero speaks abundantly of these heathen lots in his De Divinatione, mentioning Palestine lots, Dodonaean lots.
• Suetonius mentions Antiatine lots, Aponian lots.

And their oracles were (as Gloss. affirms) sortes, lots.

• Festus says, Sors a Deis responsum significat.
• Ovid in his Metamorphoses says, Placuit, Caleste precari Numen & auxilium per sacras quaerere sortes. Mota Dea est, sortemque dedit. Sofforat, Dictae per carmina sortes.

From these lots, says Varro and others, were wizards or soothsayers called sortilegi or sortiary. Sorcerers—a name we still give to witcheries of all kinds.

And besides all this, the manner of lots, as casting of a die, opening of a book, with names and predictions in it, with a thousand more strange devices to that end (if I would spend time to name them) do smell of the Devil's claw, I mean, they are suitable to diabolical inventions. And therefore this sorcery, that is, divination by lots (apart from that which is allowed in the Word of God, as previously discussed), is forbidden as one kind of those diabolical arts in Deuteronomy 18:10-11.

Though I confess some learned men draw the prohibition from one word, others from another used in that place. Regarding the second of those diabolical artists listed in the text, what our new translation renders an observer of times, the Syriac renders a sorcerer, that is, sortilegus, a lot-sorcerer or lot-diviner. Other learned men also say that this kind of sorcery by lots is included in the same word. But most certainly inasmuch as lot-sorcery was usually adjoined to most of the diabolical arts, as before we have partly intimated, so it is forbidden throughout this text as the appendix to the principal. And further in this also appears the diabolical nature of this sorcery or sortilegy, that God never giving to such things an instinct to predict future things, yet notwithstanding men casting such lots put confidence in them that they will certainly divine future things to them. Master Perkins therefore affirms that as men put such confidence in these things for the attaining any foreknowledge by them, do therein explicitly or implicitly have confederacy with the Devil.

Parallels

Now for a brief parallel of these times with these ancient practices.

• First, it is evident that it is common with diabolical artists to use cataptromancy, to divine by mirrors, therein showing to their inquiring clients the shape of persons and things which they would know.
• Secondly, rhabdomancy (divination by a staff), has also been practiced, where one sets up a staff bolt upright, and the way it falls is where the owner is to go, as directed by a special prediction.
• Thirdly, for haruspicy, it cannot be so much followed in these days wherein all sacrifices are repudiated, but I suspect there is too much of this art in the minds of men these days, while they so much observe the birth of monsters, either of mankind or beasts. But such things heeded of late years, as ominous, have preceded only the ruin of the friends of that superstition, so that those predictors have but prophesied ill to themselves.
• Fourthly, imagery, which is much in use by papists and witches. Of which before.
• Fifthly, for sorcery, properly so called; divination by lots. It is too apparent how it abounds. For lusory lots, the state groans under the loss by them, to the ruin of many men and families, and the churches lament under the sins by them. And for other lots, such as by sieves or books, they abound as much as witchery abounds.

Was it not a strange thing that a man pretending to some godliness and much learning would cast lots to know of what judgment and practice he should be in matter of religion? And when that was determined to him by lot, he then cast another lot to know of what society he should be, to manifest and practice that his judgment.

Conclusion

It is an ill sign when we are more inquisitive to know what shall be than to know what we are, or to endeavor to be what we ought to be. And these times will prompt this to you, that while men, in a diabolical way inquire after events, they neglect God's means of salvation. And in particular, the Word—which is the true cataptromantia, to know ourselves by a glass (Jas. 1:23). The true imagery to represent to us God and good—by Christ, and him crucified (Rom. 8:29; Heb. 1:3). The true lottery—Psalm 16:6.

While men heed other things, they are apt to delude themselves with interpretations, that are not properly analogical to the signs. Such was the case with Julian the Apostate, who concluded that because his Babylonian horse with its trappings fell to the ground, he therefore would have dominion over Babylon; as well as with Caesar, who, stepping on the African shore and falling by the slipping of his foot, cried out while clasping the sand in his arms, "Teneo te Africa"—"I possess thee, O Africa," though the bystanders looked on it as an evil sign.