far surpasses him in breadth. Meyer's advantage over Tholuck consists in an immensely greater accuracy, and in superior logic. De Wette may have been Meyer's superior in mere exegesis, though I doubt this exceedingly; but when we take a complete view of Meyer, with his superior grammer, his exegesis, his greater reverence for Scripture, his more devout spirit, we cannot but place him far above De Wette. Olshausen is widely known in this country through the excellent translation of his commentaries revised by Kendrick. Wherein does Meyer surpass Olshausen? In critical accuracy and exegetical tact; indeed in almost every particular except, perhaps, the homiletical elements, to which Meyer gives scarcely any attention. Lange's "Bible Work" is now claiming a large share of public attention. The objects of Lange's and Meyer's commentaries are altogether different. Meyer's commentary is simply critical and exegetical; Lange's is not only this, but homiletical, practical, etc. Meyer's commentary, though embracing the results of other men's work, is still an organic whole; Lange's is little more than a conglommerate. We feel that the editors have very inadequately digested their materials; we can scarcely see the personality of any author. Meyer was not a many-sided man. Exegesis was his calling, and he made everything else secondary to this. Though much of his time was spent in the active ministry, and in the performance of official duties, exegesis was what he regarded as his life-work. He was not a systematic theologian, he was not a church historian, except in so far as these departments of study bear upon exegesis; he was not a thousand things; but one thing he was, and as such will always be rememberedhe was an exegete, with all that this term in its widest acceptation implies.

But do Meyer's commentaries still stand at the very head of New Testament exegesis? New works are continually appearing, and new editions of old ones, by men who, still in the prime of life, are enabled to make use of Meyer's results, as well as of the progress of exegetical science in general. Has anyone surpassed Meyer, or, indeed, is anyone now living likely to surpass him? I think not. Most of the recent commentators have made constant, some of them almost unwarranted use of Meyer. Hilgenfeld follows Meyer so closely as to lose, in a great measure, his own individuality. Alford, while giving Meyer no special credit, must have had Meyer's commentaries continually before him, and his principal work must have been to find the passages in which he could not agree with Meyer, and to state the grounds of his disagreement. Had Alford entitled his work, "Notes on the New Testament, based upon the German work of Meyer, with

such corrections and changes in form as would fit them for the author's purpose," there would, perhaps, have been greater fairness. Towards giving still more completeness to our view of Doctor Meyer's works, I will subjoin a number of extracts from the works of eminent English and German writers, showing their estimate of Meyer. Says Ellicott in his preface to GALATIANS:

To the recent German commmentators I am under the greatest obligations, both in grammar and exegesis. Meyer, especially as a grammarian, commands the highest attention and respect, and to him, though a little too Atticistic in his prejudices, my fullest acknowledgments are due.

Again in his preface to EPHESIANS:

I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous and learned commentary of Doctor Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout, and I must again, as in the preface to the GALATIANS, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholarship of the learned. editor. In many doctrinal questions I differ widely from Doctor Meyer, but as a critical and grammatical expositor I entertain for him a very great respect.

Says Lightfoot in the preface to his excellent commentary on Galatians: "Among German writers I am indebted especially to the tact and scholarship of Meyer."

Says Gloag in the preface to his new commentary on Acts:

By far the most valuable work on Acts, and that from which the author has derived greater assistance than from all other works put together, is Meyer's Apostelgeschichte. This work cannot be too highly praised; it is the perfection of a commentary, at once full and concise, though unhappily somewhat tainted with rationalistic opinions.

The following is very important and trustworthy, both from the unsurpassed candor of De Wette, and from the fact that he and Meyer were in a certain sense rivals in the field of New Testament exegesis. Though long, I think the extract well worth translating. It is from the preface to the third edition of the author's "Critical Exegetical Hand-book." I may observe that on most points in which De Wette criticises Meyer we would agree with the latter.

To the revision of the interpretations before given, the new edition of the commentary of H. A. W. Meyer, a work entirely renovated and containing many retractions, gave me much inducement. I rejoice to see that the highly esteemed editor has acceded to me in many explanations; but on the other hand I find much and sharp contradiction, which

We shall

I was obliged either to meet or to flee. Both have I done. not soon agree in everything. He reproaches me as arbitrary; I find his lexical, grammatical and syntactical rigor excessive, while his sternly literal historical apprehension of the dogmatical ideas seems to me not only unfruitful but historically false, resting upon a mistaken view of the ideal nature of these conceptions. To the revising of the critical observations on the gospel history, Meyer gave me abundant inducement. Meyer's view, however, remained at times somewhat obscure to me, when the relation of the parallel accounts came up for discussion.

I had made a number of other extracts, to much the same effect, from other writers, especially a very valuable one from Auberlen's "Divine Revelation" (pp. 364, 365), but these must suffice.

It is a matter for congratulation to students who have been so unfortunate as to learn, either not at all or imperfectly, the German language that an English translation of this greatest of exegetical works is being published. Yet our congratulation should be accompanied with a warning against the rationalistic views which so frequently find expression there, and which are liable to mislead those that have not had the advantage of broad and profound study. We might perhaps say with some justice, that in their original language, Meyer's works are accessible to almost everybody to whom they ought to be accessible. In other words, almost everybody who ought to use these commentaries, either has acquired or can easily acquire the German language. It is to be feared lest the multitude of translations that are being published, should lessen the inducement to study German. Let us hope, on the contrary, that many students having once tasted the strengthening waters in this somewhat impure state, may be led to seek access to the living fountain.

ROCHESTER, NEW YORK.

ALBERT H. NEWMAN.

THE MUTUAL RELATION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES.*

THE

HE practical importance of this topic is evident. We are having a rapid growth, our churches are multiplying, our influence as a Christian people is great and constantly increasing, while our denominational work in publication, mission, and educational enterprises is annually enlarging all its proportions, and extending the area of our operations. Hence the necessity of making our unity perfect and efficient to the highest degree possible. This is pressing itself on us because our aggressiveness is bringing out with greater distinctness our special mission, and in this way rendering yet more apparent the object of our denominational existence. If, therefore, we fail to meet this question, discuss it calmly and with the largest scope of Christian charity, yet maintaining the most unyielding loyalty to Jesus Christ, it is possible our position in this respect may not only become indefinite to yourselves, but the vagueness of our expressed opinions, the inconclusiveness of our discussions, and the absence of strong conviction embodied in decided action in test cases, will leave us without authorized definition or settled polity by which

We have special reference to American Baptists. Other bodies in this country bearing the ecclesiastical designation "Baptist," and a section of the English Baptist denomination have more or less departed from the theory of unity here discussed. The results of such departure confirm the soundness of the principles on which the American Baptists are established. Respecting English Baptists, we are of the opinion that it can be shown that these departures were innovations; with American Baptists they undoubtedly are. The Welsh repudiate them.

others may judge us intelligently and fairly. As yet, this is not the fact; but the drift of thought on this subject, and the vital practical bearings of the subject itself, both call for its thorough examination, while the life and vigor of the denomination is, as we believe, pressing it to a final solution. And if the first assertion in this statement be true, the proposition embodied in the second is of superlative importance in order that while the mutual relation of Baptist churches is being redefined, we may carefully guard all pertaining legitimately to church independence, and also secure the most complete co-operation, based on the unity of our one life and common faith and practice possible. Hitherto this has been our object, and we have largely realized it, while at the same time the intelligent student of the historic development of our existing unity, and the candid observer of the "signs of the times," in all relating to the perpetuity of this unity, will concede that independency has been zealously preserved while unity, resting on the foundation we have defined, has been and is now each year becoming more and more apparent.

In making this statement we have reference to the characteristic features of our denominational work and development. That there have been incidental abuses in both directions is doubtless true. Churches have abused the principle of independency; organizations emanating from the churches may have overstepped their vested prerogatives, though while instances of the former are frequent, instances of the latter are scarcely known. In both the exceptions are such as to prove the rule. They appear as abuses of a principle, as usurpations of delegated prerogatives. And if in Baptist associations at times there have been suspicions that there were tendencies toward assumptions of authority over the constituency of those bodies, the occasion of such suspicion has always been the readiness of the churches to constitute the association a sort of court of appeal to which they referred all their internal disputes, or submitted questions to the solution of which they felt their wisdom inadequate. The minutes of the Philadelphia Association, for the first century of its existence, afford confirmation of this. At every session they had church troubles or "queries" submitted to them for adjudication or solution. The frequency of such references is explained by the agreement into which the churches constituting the Philadelphia Association in 1707 entered, that grievances might be presented at the "general meeting" of the "brethren of the several congregations, and with such as they might nominate to decide the difference;" and also "that the church and the person so grieved do fully acquiesce in their determination." Evidently what they designed was Christian