Thus out of forty-two (45) “Roman” headings, it is remarkable that only twelve can be identified in non-Irish sources, and of these four are from non-Roman councils, six from the _Statuta eccl. ant._, two from the decrees of a bishop of Rome. Seven others are from Irish sources. It seems, on the face of it, much more likely that most of the remaining quotations which have not been identified were derived from native sources, seeing that the Acts of the Irish synods before A.D. 700 have not been preserved; it is hardly likely that so many as twenty-two (25) citations of this kind from foreign sources would remain unidentified. There is a particular indication which seems to me of some significance; 33. 1. e cites a canon found in the circular letter of the three bishops (can. 20), as from _Sinodus Romana_. 33. 1. f follows with a quotation, evidently from the same context and under the heading _item_, but not found in the circular letter.[258] The inference, I submit, is that both sections are quoted from the Acts of an Irish synod, in which the canon found in the circular letter was adopted, but without a reference to its origin. The only theory which seems to me to cover all the facts is that in the Hibernensis, _Sinodus Romana_ (or _Romani_) designates synods held in Ireland[259] in the seventh century in the interest of Roman reform, and under the influence of its advocates. This view will explain the two categories of canons which can be identified as of Irish origin, and canons which are unidentified. It is also perfectly consistent with the fact that twelve canons have been identified in foreign sources, only that we have to suppose that the compiler took them, not from the original sources, but from the Acts of Irish synods at which they were adopted. We may infer that the document known as _Synodus II. Patricii_ was taken from the Acts of an Irish synod of the seventh century. * * * * * Before we leave the Hibernensis, it must be mentioned that it contains a number of other canons ascribed to Patrick which do not appear in the circular letter. They are fourteen in number,[260] besides two which are found only in one or two MSS.[261] The two most remarkable of these quotations (chapters entitled _de eo quod malorum regum opera destruantur_ and _de eo quod bonorum regum opera aedificent_)[262] are found in the pseudo-Patrician treatise _De Abusionibus Saeculi_, c. 9.[263] The most important is 20. 5. b, ordaining an appeal to Rome (cp. chap. iii. § A, and App. C, 16). * * * * * The question has now to be considered whether the objections which have been urged against the circular letter of Patricius, Auxilius, and Iserninus amount to a valid proof that it is spurious or has been interpolated.