Appeal
Appeal
See Trial-At-Law.
Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church
appeal
A party to an ecclesiastical trial who considers that he has a grievance against the sentence, as well as the promoter of justice and the defender of the bond, in suits in which they took part, have the right of appealing from the sentence to the next highest court or to the Holy See. Within ten days from the notification of the sentence, the appeal is lodged before the lower court. It should as a rule be in writing, though an oral application is allowed at times. Within the next month, unless the lower judge grants an extension of the time, the one appealing must follow up his application by calling on the higher court to amend the decision, enclosing a copy of the sentence and of his own bill of appeal. The appeal suspends the effects of the first sentence, unless the law states otherwise. The court of appeal has to confine itself to the exact case decided by the lower court, but will admit any additional proofs that have come to light in the meantime. There is an appeal from non-judicial acts which is an appeal in the wide sense and is treated under the word recourse.
Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary
Appeal
(appellatio, in Greek , Act 25:11-12; Act 25:21; Act 25:25), 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 considered an essential concomitant of inferior judicatories.
I. Jewish. In 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 adulterous Tamar to be brought forth and burnt (Gen 38:24). 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 referred to Jacob.
In the desert Moses at first judged all causes himself; and when, finding his time and strength unequal to this duty, he, at the suggestion of Jethro, established a series of judicatories in a numerically ascending scale (Exo 18:13-26), 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 compact body, made other arrangements necessary, it was directed that there should be a similar reference of difficult cases to the metropolitan court or chief magistrate (the judge that shall be in those days) for the time being (Deu 16:18; Deu 17:8-12). Some, indeed, infer from Josephus
(Ant. 4, 8, 14, , sc. ) 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 ( . . . ), 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 Jdg 4:5), and under the monarchy to the king, who appears to have deputed certain persons to inquire into the facts of the case, and record his decision thereon (2Sa 15:3). Jehoshaphat delegated his judicial authority to a court permanently established for the purpose (2Ch 19:8). These courts were re- established by Ezra (Ezr 7:25). That there was a concurrent right of appeal appears from the use Absalom made of the delay of justice, which arose from the great number of cases that came before the king his father (2Sa 15:2-4). These were doubtless appeal cases, according to the above direction; and M. Salvador (Institutions de Moise, 2, 53) is scarcely warranted in deducing from this instance that the clients had the power of bringing their cases directly to the supreme tribunal.
Of the later practice, before and after the time of Christ, we have some clearer knowledge from Josephus and the Talmudists. After the institution of the Sanhedrim the final appeal lay to them, and the various 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. 10; Talm. Hieros. 18; Talm. Bab. 3, 10; Maimon. De Synedr. 10; Selden, De Synedr. 3, 10; Lewis, Origines Hebraeae, 1:6; Pastoret, Legislation des Hebreux, 10). See TRIAL.
2. 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 (Act 25:10-11). 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 appealed to Caesar (Act 26:32). Paul might therefore seem to have taken a false step in the matter, did we not consider the important consequences which resulted from his visit to Rome (see Conybeare and Howson, 2, 162). But, as no decision had been given, there could be no appeal, properly speaking, in his case: the language used (Act 25:9) 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 Roman law. It may easily be seen that a right of appeal 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 (Act 22:28). 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 Dict. of Class. Antiq. s.v. Apellatio, Roman). Hence Pliny (Ep. 10:97) mentions that he had sent to Rome some Christians, who were Roman citizens, and had appealed unto Caesar. 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 refusal to grant it, or to furnish the party with facilities for going to Rome. See, generally, Krebs, De provocatione Pauli ad Caesarem (Lips. 1783); Santoroccii Diss. de-Pauli ad Caesarem appellatione (Marburg, 1721).
3. Ecclesiastical. In the early Church all ecclesiastical matters were originally determined by the 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 Mauritania, is supposed to have been about the first instance of an appeal to Rome, on which occasion the African Church resolutely resisted this papal encroachment 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 council 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 Winchester and papal legate (see Johnson, Eccl. Canons, sub ann. 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 controversy 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 practiced until the time of the final rupture with Rome in the reign of Henry 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 imperial decree can have any force in ecclesiastical matters against the canons. Such indeed has ever been the discipline of the whole Church.
During the appeal the sentence of the inferior court is suspended; and it is usual for the superior court, at the instance of the appellant, to grant an inhibition to stay the execution of the sentence of the inferior court until the appeal shall be determined (Bingham, Orig. Eccl. bk. 2, ch. 16, 16).
In the Methodist Episcopal Church, the right of appeal from lower to higher courts, both for ministers and laymen, is carefully guarded by a constitutional provision (Discipline, pt. 1, 4).
In Presbyterian churches there are formal modes of appeal from a lower to a higher court, or from a session to a presbytery, from it to a synod, and from the synod to the general assembly.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Appeal
a reference of any case from an inferior to a superior court. Moses established in the wilderness a series of judicatories such that appeals could be made from a lower to a higher (Ex. 18:13-26.)
Under the Roman law the most remarkable case of appeal is that of Paul from the tribunal of Festus at Caesarea to that of the emperor at Rome (Acts 25:11, 12, 21, 25). Paul availed himself of the privilege of a Roman citizen in this matter.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Appeal
Deu 17:8-9 implies a court of appeal in hard cases; compare Jdg 4:5. The king subsequently deputized persons to inquire into and decide appeals (2Sa 15:3). Jehoshaphat appointed Levites, priests, and some of the fathers to constitute a court of appeal (2Ch 19:8). Compare Ezr 7:25. Afterward the final appeal lay to the Sanhedrim. A Roman citizen could appeal, in criminal cases, from the magistrate to the people; and in after times to the emperor, who succeeded to the power of the people. Paul’s appeal (Act 25:11) was from a trial by a provincial magistrate to one by the emperor.
Fuente: Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
Appeal
APPEAL.See Justice.
Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible
Appeal
a-pel: If an appeal be, as it properly is, a petition for the removal of a case that has been decided for rehearing and review and final decision by a higher court, we find no such instance either in the Old Testament or the New Testament.
In the institution of judges by Moses (Exo 18:26), the reference: The hard cases they brought unto Moses, but every small matter they judged themselves, indicates simply a distribution of cases between two courts, but gives no trace of any provision for the rehearing of any case, by a higher court, that has already been decided by a lower. In Deu 17:8-13, directions are given that a lower court, under certain conditions, shall ask a higher for instructions as to procedure, and shall strictly follow the order prescribed: nevertheless, the decision itself belongs to the lower court. When its sentence was once given, there was no appeal.
In the New Testament, the provision of the Roman law, for an appeal from a lower to a higher court, is clearly recognized, although the case of Paul in Acts 25 does not strictly fall within its scope. The Roman law originally gave a citizen the right of appeal to the tribune of the people, but, with the establishment of the Empire, the emperor himself assumed this function of the tribune, and became the court of last resort. The case of Paul, however, had not been tried before Festus, nor any verdict rendered, when (Act 25:10, Act 25:11) he utters the proper legal formula: I appeal unto Caesar ( , Kasara epikaloumai). That Roman citizens could insist upon such procedure, as right, is not perfectly certain (HJP, II, 2 279). Paul evidently acted upon the suggestion of the governor himself (Act 25:9), who seems to have been desirous of avoiding the responsibility of a case involving questions most remote from his ordinary attention. At first sight, Paul’s decision to appeal seems premature. He throws away his chance of acquittal by Festus, and acts upon the assumption that he has been already condemned. Act 26:32 shows that the possibility of his acquittal had amounted almost to a certainty. His course is explicable only by regarding his appeal the master stroke of a great leader, who was ready to take risks. In the proposition of Festus, he grasps at what had been an object of hope long deferred. For many years, he had been desiring and praying to get to Rome (Act 19:21; Rom 1:11, Rom 1:15; Rom 15:23, Rom 15:24). The Lord had just assured him (Act 23:11), that as he had testified at Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. With this promise and direction in view, he hastens toward the world’s capital and the center of the world’s influence, in the seemingly precipitate words, I appeal, which a lower order of prudence would have deferred until he had first been condemned.
Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Appeal
The right of appeal to superior tribunals has generally been considered an essential concomitant of inferior judicatories. When, from the paucity of the population or any other cause, the subjects of litigation are few, justice is usually administered by the first authority in the state, from whose award no appeal can lie. But when the multiplication of causes precludes the continuance of this practice, and one or more inferior courts take cognizance of the less important matters, the right of appeal to the superior tribunal is allowed, with increasing restrictions as, in the course of time, subjects of litigation multiply, and as the people become weaned from the notion that the administration of justice is the proper function of the chief civil magistrate.
In the desert Moses at first judged all causes himself; and when, finding his time and strength unequal to his duty, he, at the suggestion of Jethro, established a series of judicatories in a numerically ascending scale (Exo 18:13-26) 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 compact body, made other arrangements necessary it was directed that there should be a similar reference of difficult cases to the metropolitan court or chief magistrate (‘the judge that shall be in those days’) for the time being (Deu 16:18; Deu 17:8-12). That there was a concurrent right of appeal, appears from the use Absalom made of the delay of justice, which arose from the great number of cases that came before the king his father (2Sa 15:2-4). These were doubtless appeal cases according to the above direction.
Of the later practice, before and after the time of Christ, we have some clearer knowledge from Josephus and the Talmudists. It seems that a man could carry his case by appeal through all the inferior courts to the Grand Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, whose decision was in the highest degree absolute and final. 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.
The most remarkable case of appeal in the New Testament belongs to another class. It is the celebrated appeal of St. 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 (Act 25:10-11). 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 appealed to Caesar (Act 26:32).
It may easily be seen that a right of appeal 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 (Act 22:28) [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. 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. Hence Pliny mentions that he had sent to Rome some Christians, who were Roman citizens, and had appealed unto Caesar. 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 refusal to grant it, or to furnish the party with facilities for going to Rome.
Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature
Appeal
It would appear from the arrangements made by Moses that some of the judges were accounted as judges of appeal, but that Moses himself, as having the mind of God, was the ultimate judge. Exo 18:13-26. It is not probable, when the kingdom was established, that all causes were tried at Jerusalem; but only cases of appeal from the tribal judges; and it was such that Absalom alludes to in 2Sa 15:2-3: see also Deu 16:18. It is evident from Deu 17:8-12 that the mind of God was to be sought where He put His name, if the matter was too hard for the judges. The Jewish writers say that before and after the time of Christ on earth, appeals could be carried through the various courts to the Grand Sanhedrim at Jerusalem.
In the case of Paul appealing to Caesar, it was not an appeal from a judgement already given, as is the case in what is now called an appeal; but Paul, knowing the deadly enmity of the Jews, and the corruption of the governors, elected to be judged at the court of Caesar, which, as a Roman, he had the right to do. Act 25:11. There is One who “cometh to judge the earth: with righteousness shall he judge the world, and the people with equity.” Psa 98:9.
Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary
Appeal
Paul makes appeal to Caesar
Act 25:10-11; Act 25:21-27; Act 26:32; Act 28:19 Change of Venue; Court, Superior and Inferior
Fuente: Nave’s Topical Bible
Appeal
Appeal. The principle of appeal was recognized by the Mosaic law in the establishment of a central court under the presidency of the judge or ruler for the time being, before which all cased too difficult for the local court were to be tried. Deu 17:8-9.
According to the above regulation, the appeal lay in the time of the Judges to the judge, Jdg 4:5, and under the monarchy, to the king. Jehoshaphat delegated his judicial authority to a court permanently established for the purpose. 2Ch 19:8. These courts were re-established by Ezra. Ezr 7:25
After the institution of the Sanhedrin, the final appeal lay to them. St. Paul, as a Roman citizen, exercized a right of appeal from the jurisdiction of the local court at Jerusalem to the emperor. Act 25:11.
Fuente: Smith’s Bible Dictionary
Appeal
“to call upon,” has the meaning “appeal” in the Middle Voice, which carries with it the suggestion of a special interest on the part of the doer of an action in that in which he is engaged. Stephen died “calling upon the Lord,” Act 7:59. In the more strictly legal sense the word is used only of Paul’s “appeal” to Caesar, Act 25:11-12, Act 25:21, Act 25:25; Act 26:32; Act 28:19. See CALL (upon), SURNAME. See also eperotema, under ANSWER.