Of the later practice, before and after the time of
Christ, we have some clearer knowledge from Jose- phus and the Talmudists. After the institution of the Sanhedrim the final appeal lay to them, and the va- rious stages through which a case might pass are thus described by the Talmudists— from the local consistory before which the cause was first tried to the consistory that sat in the neighboring town ; thence to the courts at Jerusalem, commencing in the court of the 23 that sat in the gate of Shushan, proceeding to the court that sat in the gate of Nicanor, and concluding with the great council of the Sanhedrim that sat in the room Gazith (Carpzov, Appar. p. 571). The Jews themselves trace the origin of these later usages up to the time of Moses : they were, at all events, based on early principles, and therefore reflect back some light upon the intimations respecting the right of appeal which we find in the sacred books (Mishna, De Synedr. x ; Talm. Ilieros. xviii ; Tahn. Bab. iii, x ; Maimon. Be Synedr. x ; Sclden, Be Synedr. iii, 10 ; Lewis, Ori- gines Ilebnecc, i, 6 ; Pastoret, Legislation des Hebreux, x). Sec Trial. .
II. Roman.— The most remarkable case of appeal in the New Testament is that of the Apostle Paul from the tribunal of the Roman procurator Festus to that of the emperor, in consequence of which he was sent as a prisoner to Rome (Acts xxv, 10, 11). Such an appeal having been once lodged, the governor had nothing more to do with the case : he could not even dismiss it, although he might be satisfied that the matter was frivolous, and not worth forwarding to Rome. Accordingly, when Paul was again heard by Festus and King Agrippa (merely to obtain materials for a report to the emperor), it was admitted that the apostle might have been liberated if he had not appeal- ed to Caesar (Acts xxyi, 32). Paul might therefore seem to have taken a false step in the matter, did we not consider the important consequences which result- ed from his visit to Rome (see Conybeare and Howson, ii, 162). But, as no decision had been given, there could be no appeal, properly speaking, in his case : the language used (Acts xxv, 9) implies the right on the part of the accused of electing either to be tried by the provincial magistrate or by the emperor. Since the procedure in the Jewish courts at that period was of a mixed and undefined character, the Roman and the Jewish authorities coexisting and carrying on the course of justice between them, Paul availed himself of his undoubted privilege to be tried by the pure Ro- man law. It may easily be seen that a right of ap- peal which, like this, involved a long and expensive journey, was by no means frequently resorted to. In lodging his appeal Paul exercised one of the high privileges of Roman citizenship which belonged to him by birth (Acts xxii, 28). See Citizenship.
The right of appeal connected with that privilege originated in the Valerian, Porcian, and Sempronian laws, by which it was enacted that if any magistrate should order flagellation or death to be inflicted upon a Roman citizen, the accused person might appeal to the. judgment of the people, and that meanwhile he should suffer nothing at the hands of the magistrate until the people had judged his cause. But what was originally the prerogative of the people had in Paul's time become that of the emperor, and appeal therefore was made to him (see Smith's Diet, of Class. Antiq. s. v. Apellatio, Roman). Hence Pliny (Ep. x, !I7) mentions that he had sent to Rome some Christians, , who were Roman citizens, and had appealed unto C»« sar. This privilege could not be disallowed by any magistrate to any person whom the law entitled to it. Indeed very heavy penalties were attached to any re- fusal to grant it, or to furnish the party with facilities for going to Rome. See, generally, Krebs, Be provo- catione Pauli ad Cwsarem (Lips. 1783) ; Santoroccii Diss, de Paidiad Ccesarem appellatione (Marburg, 1721).
III. Ecclesiastical.' — In the early Church all eccle- siastical matters were originally determined by the
APPEARANCE
.323
APPEARANCE
bishop with his court, from whose decision an appeal lay to the provincial synod (see council of Africa, 418). The case of Apiarius, priest of Sicca, in Mau- ritania, is supposed to have been about the first in- stance of an appeal to Koine, on which occasion the African Church resolutely resisted this papal encroach- ment on her independence. In the Middle Ages it often occurred that those whose doctrines had been censured by the pope appealed from his decision to an oecumenical council. Such, e. g., was the case with Wycliffe. Pius II forbade such appeals, under the penalty of excommunication, in 1459 ; but a numerous school of Roman Catholic theologians and canonists, who maintain the superiority of an oecumenical coun- cil over the pope, have never ceased to advocate them. In England there were no appeals to Rome before the time of King Stephen, when the practice was for the first time introduced by Henry de Blois, bishop of Winches- ter and papal legate (see Johnson, Eccl. Canons, subann. 1143). But by art. 8 of the Constitutions of Clarendon it was declared that, " If appeals arise, they ought to proceed from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the archbishop, and, lastly, to the king (if the archbishop fail in doing justice), so that the controver- sy be ended in the archbishop's court by a precept from the king, and so that it go no further without the king's consent." These appeals were from time to time further prohibited, but they continued to be prac- ticed until the time of the final rupture with Rome in the reign of Henrv VIII, when they were entirely abolished (24 Hen." VIII, cap. 12, and 28 Hen. VIII, cap. 19). The Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, can. 12, and that of Chalcedon, declare that no royal or impe- rial decree can have any force in ecclesiastical mat- ters against the canons. Such indeed has ever been the discipline of the whole Church.