1. The proof of this, if it could only be established by an induction of particular instances, would not only be very tedious, but also very difficult indeed. It will be perceived, on reflection, that even when the occasion of a Homily (suppose) is actually recorded, the Scripture references which it contains, apart from the Author’s statement that what he quotes _had_ formed part of that day’s Service, creates scarcely so much as a presumption of the fact: while the correspondence, however striking, between such references to Scripture and the Lectionary as we have it, is of course no proof whatever that we are so far in possession of the Lectionary of the Patristic age. Nay, on famous Festivals, the employment of certain passages of Scripture is, in a manner, inevitable,(346) and may on no account be pressed. 2. Thus, when Chrysostom(347) and when Epiphanius,(348) preaching on Ascension Day, refer to Acts i. 10, 11,—we do not feel ourselves warranted to press the coincidence of such a quotation with the Liturgical section of the day.—So, again, when Chrysostom preaches on Christmas Day, and quotes from S. Matthew ii. 1, 2;(349) or on Whitsunday, and quotes from S. John vii. 38 and Acts ii. 3 and 13;—though both places form part of the Liturgical sections for the day, no _proof_ results therefrom that either chapter was actually used. 3. But we are not reduced to this method. It is discovered that nearly three-fourths of Chrysostom’s Homilies on S. Matthew either begin at the first verse of _a known Ecclesiastical Lection_; or else at the first ensuing verse after the close of one. Thirteen of those Homilies in succession (the 63rd to the 75th inclusive) begin with _the first words of as many known Lections_. “Let us attend to this delightful section (περικοπή) which we never cease turning to,”—are the opening words of Chrysostom’s 79th Homily, of which “the text” is S. Matth. xxv. 31, i.e. the beginning of the Gospel for Sexagesima Sunday.—Cyril of Alexandria’s (so called) “Commentary on S. Luke” is nothing else but a series of short Sermons, for the most part delivered on _known Ecclesiastical Lections_; which does not seem to have been as yet observed.—Augustine (A.D. 416) says expressly that he had handled S. John’s Gospel in precisely the same way.(350)—All this is significant in a high degree. 4. I proceed, however, to adduce a few distinct proofs that the existing Lectionary of the great Eastern Church,—as it is exhibited by Matthaei, by Scholz, and by Scrivener from MSS. of the viiith century,—and which is contained in Syriac MSS. of the vith and viith—must needs be in the main a work of extraordinary antiquity. And if I do not begin by insisting that at least one century more may be claimed for it by a mere appeal to the Hierosolymitan Version, it is only because I will never knowingly admit what may prove to be untrustworthy materials(351) into my foundations.