It is worth noticing that in the Memoir of Tírechán two episcopal seats in Connaught seem to be distinguished as places for the ordination of _bishops_: Aghagower _in quo fiunt episcopi_ (322₇) and perhaps Donaghmore in Fochlad.[438] Did Patrick specially mark out certain episcopal residences as places where bishops might be consecrated? The outcome of this discussion is that Patrick’s organisation was from one point of view monastic, from another episcopal. It was monastic in so far as many of the churches in the various regions were connected with religious communities of a monastic character, and the clergy were largely monks. But this did not prevent it being episcopal, in the sense that there were episcopal districts or dioceses. There was not a body of bishops without sees, who went round visiting churches promiscuously, but each bishop had his own diocese. There is another consideration which has not been noticed, and which seems to me of great weight. It is the position which bishops hold in the few laws in the _Senchus Mór_ which touch the Church. The bishop appears in these laws as the dignitary in the Church who corresponds to the king in the State. There is no mention of presbyter abbots as sharing the privileges of the bishop, who has the same “dire” fine as a king.[439] Clearly a state of things is contemplated in which the bishops are the important administrators in the Church. Such rights could not have been established from the sixth century forward, when the bishops were of less account. This feature of the _Senchus Mór_ seems to me, therefore, to have a double significance, in establishing both the antiquity of the code itself and the eminence of the episcopal office in the fifth century; the two things hang together and mutually support each other. A corroboration is perhaps also supplied by the _De Abusionibus Seculi_, a treatise of Irish origin, written before 700 A.D. (see App. A, i. 4), where the tenth Abuse is the _Episcopus negligens_, in which the pastoral duties of the bishop are insisted upon, and his functions as a _speculator_. It seems by no means improbable that the work is older than 600 A.D. 19. _The Place of Patrick’s Burial_ The decisive reasons for determining the vexed question of Patrick’s burial-place in favour of Saul have been given in the text; but something more may be said here in criticism of the evidence. Among the miscellaneous notices appended to Tírechán’s Memoir (p. 332) by the scribe Ferdomnach, occurs a comparison of Patrick to Moses in four points, of which the fourth is: _ubi sunt ossa eius nemo nouit_. The author of this similitude has simply taken advantage, for his purpose, of the fact that there were two rival claimants, Saul and Downpatrick. It does not imply that there was no distinct and universally accepted tradition placing his burial in this district; for if there had been any room for doubt about that, Armagh could not have failed to claim his bones.