and finds the names of Rubin (ob. 725) and “Cucuimne of Ia” (Hy). He concludes that the collection was compiled in Hy and probably by Adamnan. The question need not be discussed here, since for the present purpose it is indifferent whether the compilation was made in Ireland or in Hy.
The Collection has been characterised by Bradshaw as “an attempt, and there seems good ground for looking upon it as a first attempt, to form a digest of all available authorities, from Holy Scripture, from the decisions of Councils, native and foreign, and from Church writers, native and foreign, arranged methodically under sixty-five several titles; though the method has not been carried out so fully as to produce an arrangement of the titles themselves in any but the most accidental sequence” (Early Collection of Canons, p. 6).
A survey of the sources will be found in Wasserschleben’s Introduction. Native sources are referred to under the headings Hibernenses, Sinodus Hibernensis, Patricius, and also with other superscriptions which will be mentioned below.
Among the canons attributed to Patricius we find fourteen items which are contained in the circular epistle of Patricius, Auxilius, and Iserninus:
| Patr., Aux., Is. | Hibernensis. |
|---|---|
| Preface | 66. 18. a, b |
| 1 | 42. 25. c |
| 4 | 42. 26. a |
| 5 | 42. 26. a |
| 6 b | 52. 7 |
| 8 | 34. 2. b |
| 11 | 39. 10. b |
| 12 | 40. 8 |
| 14 | 28. 10. c |
| 20 | 33. 1. e |
| 24 | 43. 4 |
| 28 | 40. 9 |
| 31 | 10. x |
| 34 b (cp. 3) | 39. 11 |
It is to be observed that 43. 4 = 24 is quoted as from Sinodus Patricii. Another canon of the Patrician conclave is also cited in the Hibernensis, but under a different title, which will be noticed below.
Thus the evidence of the Hibernensis establishes that a considerable portion of the matter in the circular letter of the three bishops was held to be of Patrician origin (c. A.D. 700), and consequently it would be impossible to accept the date assigned by Haddan and Stubbs for the circular letter except in the sense that some interpolations might have been introduced in the course of the eighth century.
The question now arises as to how far we can, prima facie, trust the compiler of the Hibernensis as to the Patrician origin of the canons which he labels Patrician, and which are also found in the circular letter. In estimating the value of his evidence, one consideration, it seems to me, is very important. There is another set of canons (extant in more than one MS.) ascribed to Patrick, and generally referred to as Synodus II. Patricii.[253] Of these thirty-one canons, nine are quoted in the Hibernensis, but in no case attributed to Patrick; three others are quoted in one MS. of the later recension (B-text) of the Hibernensis, namely, in the Valicellanus (tenth century), and one of them is there ascribed to Patrick. The correspondence is shown in the following table:—[254]
| Syn. II. Patricii. | Hibernensis. | |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2. 23: | Sinodus Romana |
| 3 | 47. 8. d: | Romani |
| 4 | 40. 1. c: | Sinodus Romana |
| 8 | 28. 14. d: | Sinodus Romanorum |
| [10 | 11. 1. b: | Sinodus] |
| [11 | 47. 20: | Sinodus Romana] |
| 14 | 12. 15. c: | Sinodus |
| [17 | 47. 20: | Paterius (Patricius)] |
| 23 | 35. 3: | Dominus in evangelio |
| 24 | 16. 4: | Sinodus Romana |
| 25 | 46. 35. b: | Romani |
| 30 | 36. 8: | Sinodus |
The circumstance that the Hibernensis ascribes to Patricius the canons (with one exception) which it quotes from “Synodus I.,” and does not ascribe to him the canons which it quotes from “Synodus II.,” is a fact which places the two “Synods” on a different footing, and furnishes a certain prima facie evidence in favour of the circular letter known as Synodus I. For the claim of Synodus II. to authenticity is invalidated by the fact that one canon (27) is in direct contradiction with a passage in Patrick’s Confession.[255]