thrown into a single list, so that each MS. in future will always have the same number, instead of a different number in different sections of the New Testament. In fuller detail, the following is the scheme. The Latin and Greek symbols (A-Z, г-N) are retained, and (as a special exception) for the Codex Sinaiticus; but all other Hebrew symbols are abolished, and the fragments which formerly were classed under the symbols I, O, T, W, and are removed, leaving those letters free to be assigned to certain substantial MSS. for which simple and handy symbols were required. Thus I goes to the recently discovered MS. of the Pauline Epistles, acquired by Mr. C. L. Freer in Egypt and now at Detroit, U.S.A.; O to the Paris fragment of St. Matthew from Sinope, written in gold letters on purple vellum; Tremains for the important Graeco-Sahidic fragment at Rome, formerly known as T, which ranks nearly with B for excellence of text; W is assigned to the Freer MS. of the Gospels, which has many claims upon our interest, besides its remarkable interpolation in the last verses of St. Mark; and ℗ to a Gospel MS. from Georgia, formerly included among the minuscules and numbered 1360. The majority of the letters are applied only to a single MS. in each case, namely, to the Gospel MS. to which it has hitherto belonged; but exceptions are made where a MS. of the Acts or Pauline Epistles is so well known that it would be inconvenient to give it a new name, as in the case of D and H of the Pauline Epistles, or E of the Acts. The letters which thus have double significations are DEFGHKLP, the several MSS. being distinguished as De and DP, E and Ea, H*, Ha, and HP, and so on. I

The uncial MSS. thus provided with letter-symbols are forty-five in all, and it is evident that there remain many which have been dispossessed of their previous symbols; these have to be provided for by some method which will allow of indefinite expansion in the future. The method proposed by Gregory, and ultimately accepted by his correspondents, is to use Arabic numerals with an 0 prefixed; and in order to minimize the risk of confusion with the numerals which denote minuscule MSS,, it is recommended

that the uncial symbols be printed in thick ('clarendon ') type. There are no less than 115 MSS. and fragments of MSS. to be thus provided for; but, in order to meet the possibility that future generations may prefer a uniform nomenclature throughout, the numbers from 01 to 045 are reserved as alternative symbols for the MSS. known by the letters to , and the remainder are numbered from 046 to 0161. Papyrus MSS. are not included in this numeration. They cannot always be classed either as uncial or minuscule; they have a peculiar history and form a class apart, which it is convenient to have separately marked. Consequently (following the example of the Oxford text of Homer) they are indicated by an antique p followed by a small number; thus, for example, the large Oxyrhynchus papyrus of Hebrews is to be known as pls.

With regard to the minuscules, the MSS. of the Gospels retain their old numbers. Those of the other books, if they also contain the Gospels, are known throughout by their number in the Gospel list. The others fill gaps in this list, or are added on at the end. Thus the MS. which formerly was Evan. 35, Act. 14, Paul. 18, Apoc. 17 will in future be 35 throughout; in Gregory's list it is printed 35eapr, in order that its contents may be clearly indicated, but in an apparatus criticus it would be simply 35. All the minuscules thus form a single list, extending from I to 2292. The lectionaries form a single list in the same manner, from 1 to 1540, with the letter 1 prefixed; if they contain the Apostolos they are marked in the list as 1; if they contain the Gospels as well, that can be indicated, if need be, by writing lea. As a rule, when it is not necessary to indicate the contents, the simple I will suffice.

The criticism which will most generally be made on Gregory's new system is, no doubt, that the symbols for the uncials which do not receive letters of their own are cumbrous, and that if a new MS. of the first importance should come to light, it would be very inconvenient to have to call it 0162, or something of the sort. No satisfactory method of meeting this difficulty has, however, been proposed, and in other respects the system seems satis

factory, in that it provides for indefinite expansion without altering the designation of any of the best-known MSS. In a select apparatus criticus (such as that in Dr. Sanday's appendices to the Oxford Greek Testament) probably no change would have to be made, except in the case of such minuscules as are quoted for the Acts, Epistles, or Apocalypse; and the intelligibility of existing treatises on textual criticism remains unimpaired.

It will be observed that the concordat that has been arrived at involves the final disuse of Scrivener's peculiar numbers. That has been accepted by the English scholars consulted, not without some sense of regret (since they hold that the blame for the original divergence did not rest with Scrivener) but for the sake of uniformity and in recognition of the superiority of Gregory's later lists over the last edition of Scrivener. It is to be hoped that the concordat will now find universal favour, and that references will in future always be given in accordance with Gregory's revised list. It has already been employed, not only by Gregory himself in the German edition of his Canon and Text of the New Testament, but by Nestle in the third edition of his Einführung in das griechische neue Testament. Nestle had originally proposed an alternative system, an elaborate method of permutations and combinations of the Latin, Greek and German alphabets, but abandoned it for the sake of concord, He adds that he was especially influenced by the example of the Oxford scholars, Sanday, Turner, and Souter, the last-named of whom has in hand a text of the Greek Testament, with select critical apparatus, for the University Press. It should be added that half of Gregory's book is taken up by exhaustive lists of the numbers and symbols applied to the New Testament MSS. in other editions, from Stephanus to von Soden, and by a catalogue of libraries in which the MSS. are now preserved. In short, it is a complete guide to the identification of MSS., and as such will be invaluable to the textual student.

In one respect only does an advantage remain with von Soden, but it is (or may be) a considerable advantage, which it has been held may be decisive in his favour, in spite of

the many obvious drawbacks of his system. It lies in the fact that his system will be attached to the most exhaustive critical text of the New Testament in existence, which scholars are likely to have to use for a long time to come. If von Soden's critical apparatus is so arranged as to be generally useable, quite apart from an acceptance of his textual theories-if, that is, it gives the various readings with a simple list of the MSS. containing them-it will no doubt be difficult to avoid using his nomenclature. If however, he quotes, not the MSS. themselves but the families into which he has classified them, the force of this argument will be greatly diminished, and there will still remain an opening for an edition which will simply record the facts, without being committed to the support of a particular textual theory.

In conclusion, it may be of interest to give the totals at which these two latest catalogues of Greek New Testament manuscripts arrive. Von Soden's list includes 167 8-MSS., 1277 -MSS., 378 a-MSS., 281 texts with Gospel commentaries, and 235 with commentaries upon the other books. Gregory's list gives 161 uncials, 14 papyri, 2292 minuscules, and 1540 lectionaries—a total of 4007 manuscripts. If von Soden's edition really enables us to deal confidently with this huge mass, it will indeed have done good service to the cause of New Testament criticism, however unacceptable its nomenclature may be. Of his textual theories we hope to be able to speak later, when the results of them are laid before us in his actual text.

F. G. KENYON.

ART. VI.-THE ETHICS OF DIVISION.1

1. Conference of Bishops of the Anglican Communion. Holden at Lambeth Palace, July 27 to August 5, 1908. Report of the Committee appointed to consider and report upon the Subject of Reunion and Intercommunion. (London: S.P.C.K. 1908.) 2. The Doctrine of Holy Communion and its Expression in Ritual. Report of a Conference held at Fulham Palace in October 1900. Edited by HENRY WACE, D.D. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1900.) 3. Unity in Diversity. Five Addresses delivered in the Cathedral Church of Christ, Oxford, in 1899. By CHARLES BIGG, D.D., Canon of Christ Church. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1899.)

4. The Vision of Unity. By J. ARMITAGE ROBINSON, D.D., Dean of Westminster. (London: Longmans, Green, and Co. 1908.)

WITH a strange yearning men are to-day ringing the changes on the note of unity. In looking back to the discussions of the Pan-Anglican Congress, people are saying on all sides that this note was struck throughout, that a marked readiness to accentuate points of agreement and depress topics or aspects of topics which provoke divergence was one of the Congress' distinguishing features. This, too, is to be noticed in the recent deliberations of the Lambeth Conference, as evidenced in the tone of its Encyclical, and especially in its treatment of the subject of Home Reunion. This, again, was the staple of the memorable sermon of the Dean of Westminster preached in Westminster Abbey at the opening of the Conference: a sermon which made so deep an impression upon those who heard it. And while the subject has been engaging the minds and enlisting

The article on The Ethics of Division' is one of the late Bishop of Burnley's last contributions to the cause of Reunion. Owing to his lamented death the proofs have not received his correction, but his MS. had been most carefully reconsidered, and there is no reason to suppose that any further alteration would have been introduced.