The malignant leprosy (r^X^ M^S, tsaraath' mime'reih, fretting scab), which attacked not only clothing, but also skins and leather, consisted of green and reddish spots; but its true character has not yet been explained. It was probably some form of mould engendered by dampness or confinement. Michaelis {Mos. R. iv, 265 sq.) supposed it to be the so-called wool-rot (i. e. wool from diseased sheep ; see Heben- streit, Curm sanitatis ap. ret. erempla, Lips. 1783, p. 24) ; others explain it of small insects, not cognizable by the eye, that appear green or red, and corrode the wool (Jahn, I, ii, 163). That also linen stuff (ver. 48, d^PllIJS) might be similarly affected, is improbable (comp. Michaelis, in Bertholdt's Journ. iv, 365 sq.) ; and to understand cotton material to be meant is very arbitrary. Sec Linen. This subject can only be cleared up by closer investigation in the East itself.
Among Greek and Roman articles of apparel men- tioned in the Bible arc the x^apvc, or cloak; a wide overcoat or mantle, which hunters (Lucian, Dial. deor. xi, 3), soldiers, especially horsemen (Bockh, Staats- haush. i, 115), and their officers wore (2 Mace, xii, 35); the <pai\6vijc or QaivoXrjc, panida (Talm. N^PS), travelling or rain-cloak (2 Tim. iv, 13), which was worn by the Romans over the tunica (Suet. Ner. 48), and was furnished with a hood for the protection of the head (Cic. Mil. 20 ; Juven. v, 78 ; Senec. Ep. 87, p. 329, ed. Bip. ; Horace, Ep. i, 11, 18 ; comp. Wet- stein, ii, SG6 ; Stoseh, De pallio Pauli, Lugd. 1709), according to others a portmanteau or book-satchel j (see the commentators in loc.) ; and the military ! x^apvg KOKKivij (chlamys purpurea, Donat.), or purple i robe (Matt, xxvii, 28), a woollen scarlet mantle, bor- j dered with purple, which Roman generals and officers (Liv. i, 26 ; Tac. xii, 56 ; Hirt. Bell. Afr. 51) wore (Lat. I paludamentum) at first (Eutrop. ix, 26).— Winer, i, 661. ! APPAREL of Ministers. See Clergy, Dress of. ! Apparition (iirupavtia, 2 Mace, v, 4; IvdaXfia, j Wisd. xvii, 3; (pdvran^ia, Wisd. xvii, 15 [14]), the ; sudden appearance of a " ghost" or the spirit of a de- parted person (comp. Luke xxiv, 37), or some other preternatural object. See Spectre. The belief in such occurrences has always been prevalent in the East ; and among the modern Mohammedans the ex- istence and manifestation of efreets is held an un- doubted reality (Lane's Mod. Eg. i, 344). See Su- perstition. Such a belief, however, has no sanction in the canonical Scriptures beyond the doubtful case of Saul (1 Sam. xxviii, 14). See AVitchcraft. The visits of Christ to his disciples after his resurrec- tion come under altogether a different category. See Appearance.
Apparitor, an officer who summons others to ap- pear. Among the Romans this was a general term to comprehend all attendants of judges and magistrates appointed to receive and issue their orders (Smith's
APPEAL
322
APPEAL
Did. of Class. Antiq. s. v.). Similar is the duty of an ecclesiastical apparitor, who serves the process of a spiritual court : summons the clergy to attend visit- ations, calls over their names on such occasions, and assists the bishop or archdeacon in the business be- longing to their respective courts. The}' seem to have originated in England from the synod of Lon- don, 1237. By can. 8 of the Council of London, 1342, under Archbishop Stratford, it was ordered that each bishop should have only one riding apparitor, and each archdeacon one foot apparitor only.
Appeal (appellatio, in Greek imKaXiopai, Acts xxv, 11, 12, 21, 25), the act by which a party who thinks that he has cause to complain of the judgment passed by an inferior judge demands that his case may be re-examined by a superior court. The right of appeal to superior tribunals has generally been con- sidered an essential concomitant of inferior judicato- ries. (We quote from Kitto, s. v.)
I. Jeu-Uh.—ln the patriarchal times, as among the Bedouins, the patriarch or head of the tribe — that is to say, the sheik — administered justice ; and as there was no superior power, there could be no appeal from his decisions. The only case of procedure against a criminal which occurs during the patriarchal period is that in which Judah commanded the supposed adul- terous Taniar to be brought forth and burnt (Gen. xxxviii. 24). But here the woman was his daughter- in-law, and the power which Judah exercised was that which a man possessed over the females of his own immediate family. If the case had been between man and man, Judah could have given no decision, and the matter would, without doubt, have been re- ferred to Jacob:
In the desert Moses at first judged all causes him- self; and when, finding his time and strength unequal to this duty, he, at the suggestion of Jethro, establish- ed a series of judicatories in a numerically ascending scale (Exod. xviii, 13-26), he arranged that cases of difficulty should be referred from the inferior to the superior tribunals, and in the last instance to himself. Although not distinctly stated, it appears from various circumstances that the clients had a right of appeal, similar to that which the courts had of reference. When the prospective distribution into towns of the population, which had hitherto remained in one com- pact bod}-, made other arrangements necessary, it was directed that there should be a similar reference of difficult cases to the metropolitan court or chief magis- trate (" the judge that shall be in those days") for the time being (Deut. xvi, 18; xvii, 8-12). Some, in- deed, infer from Josephus (Ant. iv, 8, 14, uvuTrtfnv'i- -(o(Tcn>, sc. oi diicaarcti) that this was not a proper court of appeal, the local judges and not the litigants being, according to the above language, the appellants; but these words, taken in connection with a former passage in the same chapter (si' tiq . . . rivu alriav Trpoi/jt'poi), may be regarded simply in the light of a general direction. According to the above regulation, the appeal lay in the time of the Judges to the judge (1 Jud^. iv, 5), and under the monarch}' to the king, who appears to have deputed certain persons to inquire into the facts of the case, and record his decision thereon (2 Sam. xv, 3). Jehoshaphat delegated his judicial authority to a court permanently established for the purpose (2 ( Ihron, six, 8). These courts were re-established by Ezra (Ezr. vii, 25). That there was a concurrent right of appeal appears from the use Ab- salom made of the delay of justice, which arose from the great number of cases that came before the king his father (2 Sam. xv, 2-4). These were doubtless appeal cases, according to the above direction; and M. Salvador (Institutions de Moise, ii, 53) is scarcely warranted in deducing from this instance that the cli ents had the power of bringing their cases directly to the supreme tribunal.