have discussed these questions (Kitto). SeeZooLOGT. The Mosaic regulations respecting domestic animals exhibit a great superiority over the enactments of other ancient nations (for those of the Areopagus, see « .'uint. I. Juslit. v,9,13; forthose of the Zend-avesta Bee Rhode, ffeU. s ,, , ,, ;:;*. m, W5), and contain the following directions: 1. Beasts of labor must have rest on the Sabbath | Exod. xx. 10; xxiii, 12), and in the sabbatical year cattle were uliowed to roam free
and eat whatever grew in the unfilled fields (Exod. xxiii, 11 ; Lev. xxv, 7). See Sabbath. 2. No an- imal could be castrated (Lev. xxii, 24); for that this is the sense of the passage (which Le Clerc combats) is evident not only from the interpretation of Josephus {Ant. v, 8, 10), but also from the invariable practice of the Jews themselves. See Ox. The scruples that may have led to the disuse of mutilated beasts of bur- den are enumerated by Michaelis (Mas. Recht, iii, 161 sq.). The prohibition itself must have greatly sub- served a higher and different object, namely, the pre- vention of eunuchs ; but its principal ground is certain- ly a religious, or, at least, a humane one (see Ilottin- ger, Leges Hebr. p. 374 sq.). 3. Animals of different kinds were not to be allowed to mix in breeding, nor even to be yoked together to the plough (Lev. xix, 19 ; Deut. xx, 10). See Diverse. 4. Oxen in thresh- ing were net to be muzzled, or prevented from eating the provender on the floor (Deut. xxv, 4 ; 1 Cor. ix, 9). See Threshing. 5. No (domestic) animal should, be killed on the same dajr with its young (Lev. xxii, 28), as this would imply barbarity (see Jonathan's Targum in loc. ; Philo, Opp. ii, 398). The Jews ap- pear to have understood this enactment to apply to the slaughtering (::nu.;) of animals for ordinary use as well as for sacrifice (Mishna, Chollin, ch. v). Respect- ing the ancient law referred to in Exod. xxiii, 19, see Victuals. (Comp. generally Schwabe, in the Kir- chenze.it. 1834, No. 20). Other precepts seem not to have had the force of civil statutes, but to have been merely injunctions of compassion (e. g. Exod. xxiii, 5 ; Deut. xxii, 4, (5, 7). The sense of the former of these last prescriptions is not very clear in the orig- inal (see Rosenmi'iller in loc), as the Jews apply it to all beasts of burden as well as the ass (see Josephus, Ant. iv, 8, 30; comp. Philo, Opp. ii, 39). Deut. vi, 7 sq., however, appears to be analogous to the other reg- ulations under this class (Winer, ii, 610). See Fowl. The'word "beast" is sometimes used figuratively for brutal, savage men. Hence the phrase, " I fought with wild beasts at Ephesus," alluding to the infuri- ated multitude, who may have demanded that Paul should be thus exposed in the amphitheatre to light as a gladiator (1 Cor. xv, 32; Acts xix, 29). A similar use of the word occurs in Psa. xxii, 12, 16 ; Eccl. iii, 18 ; Isa. xi, 6-8 ; and in 2 Pet. ii, 12 ; Jude 10, to de- note a class of wicked men. A wild beast is the sym- bol of a tyrannical, usurping power or monarchy, that destroys its neighbors or subjects, and preys upon all about it. The four beasts in Dan. vii, 3, 17, 23, rep- resent four kings or kingdoms (Ezek. xxxiv, 28; Jer. xii, 9). Wild beasts are generally, in the Scriptures, to be understood of enemies, whose malice and power are to be judged of in proportion to the nature and mag- nitude of the wild beasts by which they are represent- ed ; similar comparisons occur in profane authors (Psa. lxxiv, 1 !). In like manner the King of Egypt is com- pared to the crocodile (Psa. lxviii, 31). The rising of a beast signifies the rise of some new dominion or gov- ernment ; the rising of a wild beast, the rise of a ty- rannical government; and the rising out of the sea, that it should owe its origin to the commotions of the people. So the waters are interpreted by the angel (Rev. xvii, 15). In the visions of Daniel, tho four great beasts, the symbols of the four great monarchies, are represented rising out of the sea in a storm : " I saw in my vision by night, and behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea, and four great beasts came up from the sea" (Dan. vii, 2, 3). In va- rious passages of the Revelation (iv, 0, etc.) this word is improperly used by our translators to designate the living ci-i n/ //ri.< (.v., r ) that symbolize the providential agencies of the Almighty, as in the vision of Fzekiel (ch. i). The "beast" elsewhere spoken of with such denunciatory emphasis in that book doubtless denotes the heathen political power of persecuting Rome. See Wemys's Symbol. Diet. a. v.
BEATIFICATION"
Til
BEAUCIIAMP
Beatification, an act by which, in the Romish Church, the pope declares a person blessed after death. It is to be distinguished from canonization (q. v.), in which the pope professes to determine authoritatively on the state of the person canonized ; but when he beati- fies he only gives permission that religious honors not proceeding so far as worship should be paid to the de- ceased. The day of their office cannot be made a festi- val of obligation. Before the time of Pope Alexander VII beatification was performed in the church of his order if the person to be beatified was a monk; and in the case of others, in the church of their country, if there was one at Rome. Alexander, however, ordered that the ceremony should in future be always in the ba- silica of the Vatican ; and the first so solemnized was the beatification of Francis de Sales, January 8, 1662. At present the custom is not to demand the beatification of any one until fifty years after his death. See Lam- bertini (afterward Benedict XIV), Ds Servorum Dei Be- afficatione el Beaforum Canonisatione, lib. i, cap. 24, 39. — Farrar, Eccl. D.ct. s. v. ; Christ. Examiner, Jan. 1855, art. vii.