The episcopalis audientia in Late However, Sirm. That is contrary to another fundamental rule of Roman procedure, viz. Particularly this, neglected by those in favour of authenticity, demonstrates that Sirm. It is a forgery, likely concocted to buttress the claims of the Church in Merovingian Gaul for more power and combined with true constitutions to give it veracity.
Cependant, la Sirm. In the Theodosian Code we find the term iudicium episcopale , but as such it is the same. Basically it concerns a way of deciding a dispute, next to the official way of entering the official hierarchy of courts of local judge, the provincial judge, the diocesan vicar, and then the prefect, either in last resort vice sacra iudicans or as one but last phase before the emperor as supreme judge.
Yet deferring the decision to one or more persons in the unofficial capacity of arbitrator was far from usual. It was commonly known by the name of arbitrium and the agreement to do so was a compromissum actually two promises. The decision was called a sententia , as with state courts.
Abeyance could be ensured by mutual penal stipulations, included or combined with the compromissum. This meant that if one party did not follow the sententia , the other could sue him before a state court for breach of promise, for the promised sum. As such, arbitration had its advantages. It turned out, later on, not to be so exclusive after all in the east: the emperor also legislated cfr.
CTh Rather the question is: what about jurisdiction by bishops in secular matters? In another constitution, CTh 1. The form of this is not known but it may have been an edict and as such it might have been the edict Sirm. But Constantine also declared that such recourse to a bishop could not be done by one party alone. It also underlined that an agreement between parties was required. Likewise CJ 1. For secular cases the normal courts are competent.
