An interesting subject of inquiry presents itself in the fact that among the Teutonic nations of Western Christendom this old pagan name, ' day of the sun,' has established itself in the calendar, whilst the modern Latin nations employ as the universal name the early Christian term dies dom- inica in various forms. (The futile attempt of the Quakers to supersede both forms and revert to NT simplicity by using the colourless expression ' first day ' is a matter of history. ) In the light of this divergence Zahn's plea for the day as alike valuable for Christians and non-Christians has point only when addressed to the Teutonic peoples. The weekly festival, he urges, should be upheld as ' a "Lord's Day" only, of course, for those who call upon the risen Jesus as their Lord, but as a " Sun- day" for all men, a day when God's sun shines benignantly upon the earth' {op. cit. ad Jin.).
Literature.— Art ' Lord's Day ' in HDB (N. J. D. White), EBi (Deissmann), Smith-Cheetham's DCA (A. Barry), art. 'Festivals and Fasts (Christian)' in ERE (J. G. Carleton), art. 'Sonntagsfeier' in PRE'^iZockler) ; Bingham, Antiquities of the Christian Church, Oxford, 1855, bks. xx., xxi. ; Ducliesne, Origiiu^ du culte chrctien*, Paris, 1909 (Eng. tr.. Christian Worship^, London, 1912), also Early History of the Christian Church, vol. i., Eng. tr. from 4th ed., do. 1909; J. A. Hessey, Bampton Lecture on Sunday, London, 1860 ; Th. Zahn, Skizzen aus dern Leben der alten Eirche", Leipzig, 1898, no. 5 : ' Geschichte des Sonntags vornehmlich in der alten Kirche.' J. S. CLEMENS.
LORD'S SUPPER.— See Eucharist.
LOT (Ac6t). — Lot, the nephew, and for a time the companion, of Abraham, is thrice over called 'righteous' in 2 P 2'-^. With all his faults, of which the spirit of compromise was the most con- spicuous, he was relatively SiKaios, i.e. in com- parison with the citizens of Sodom among whom he made his abode. The Vulg. and Erasmus assume that in v.^ he is designated 'just in seeing and hearing' — 'aspectu et auditu Justus '-^but it is better to read, ' in seeing and hearing he vexed his righteous soul.' The active voice (ij3acrdviiei>) implies that while he Avas no doubt continually vexed beyond measure by the conduct of the people around him, his troubles were ultimately of his own making. ' It Avas precisely his dwelling there, Avhich Avas his OAvn deliberate choice, that became an active torment to his soul' (H. von Soden in Handkom. zumNT, iii., Freiburg i. B., 1S99, p. 203).
James Stkahan.
LOTS.— 1. Definition.— The art. Divination in- dicated hoAV at an early period men felt it to be their duty and for their advantage to get into and maintain friendly relations Avith their divinities. There gradually grew up, on the one hand, methods by Avhich the deities revealed their Avill to men ; and on the other, methods by Avhich men could learn the desire or decision of the deities. Among the latter, one of the most primitive and most Avidely diffused Avas kleromancy {kXtjpos + fiavrela).
divination by lot. WliUe the efficacy of klero- mancy in modem civilized life depends on the elim- ination of all possibility of human interference, in the lower culture it depends and depended on the certainty of Divine interference, the untrammelled exercise of the Divine will. This end was attained by (a) the use of certain things through which, according to tradition, the divinities could express theirwill. Therewere many such, as 'a rod' (pd^oos, h^^, hence pa^dofMavreLa, 'rhabdomancy '), 'arrows' (jSeXos, fn; hence (SeXoyoafrta, 'belomancy'), knuckle- bones (daTpdyaXos ; hence darpayaXo/xavTis, ' astra- galomant'), and many others, as pebbles (\pTj(pos, '7'3i3), beans, etc. ; (b) the reverent manipulation of sacred things through which the deity had indicated his pleasure to make known his will, a good ex- ample of which is the use by the Hebrew priests of ' the Urim and the Thummim ' ; (c) the select- ing of a method by which the deity was perfectly free to express his will without human interference, a good example of which is seen in the action of Jonathan (1 S 14"'^^). This latter use approaches very closely to the omen or the ordeal and to some kinds of rhabdomancy.*
2. Diffusion. — Kleromancy is a universal religious practice. It was resorted to by the Romans t and Greeks.:}: It prevailed throughout the Semitic world. In the form of belomancy it was used by the Babylonians (Ezk 21'^ (-^)) ; 'he shook the arrows to and fro.'§ It was employed by the sailors of the ship of Tarshish (Jon F), by the Arabs,] and Assyrians [HDB iii. 152*'), while the Persians re- sorted to it as a means of finding out luckj' days (Est 3'' O--''^-). It flourishes in China and Japan and in all uncivilized countries to-day. In every case it is in close connexion with the worship of the deities, and often takes place in their pre- sence or in their temples, and always under their ausjnces.
'Among the Hebrews in the oldest times the typical form of divine decision Avas by the lot, or other such oracle at the sanctuary.' if Later on, kleromancy was largely and regularly employed with the sanction of Jahweh, so that, apart from all human influence, passion, bias, or trickery. He might be able to dictate His will : • The lot '?;?' p*-? but the whole decision thereof comes from Jahweh ' (Pr 16^^).** This means not 'that the actual dis- posal of affairs might be widely different from what . . . the lot . . . appeared to determine ' (Fairbairn, Imperial Bible Dictionary, ii. 118), but the exact opposite ; hence it was clearly established that ' the lot causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty' (Pr 18'*). We have a conspicuous example of rhabdomancy in the budding and fruit-bearing of Aaron's rod (Xu 17'"* [16-23]), tt and the practice is also referred to in Hos 4'-, and probably in Is 17"*. We find klero- mancy practised in the form of belomancy in 2 K