of Germany. The eastern division comprehending about five sixths of the territory, is bounded N. by the Baltic, E. by Russia, and the new kingdom of Poland (which belongs to Russia,) S. by the kingdom of Poland, Moravia, and Bohemia, in Austria, and by the kingdom of Saxony. W. by the kingdom of Hanover, the Dutchy of Brunswick and the Dutchy of Mecklenburg. The Western division lies on both sides of the Rhine; is bounded N. by the kingdom of Hanover, E. by several small German states; viz. the Territories of the House of Lippe, the kingdom of Hanover, the principality of Waldeck and the Grand Dutchy of Hesse. S. by the Territories of the House of Nassau, and France. W. by the kingdom of the Netherlands." pp. 306, 307.

In many other parts of Europe, provinces or petty republics and principalities, which were subject to France a few years ago, havo been restored to their former possessors. Italy was especially carved up to suit the designs of the French Emperor, but has reverted nearly to its ancient state. Most of the descriptions of those countries, published between 1792 and 1815, have become, by the late changes, rather slender guides. Concerning boundaries, extent. population, &c. a revision of such works as the present is indispensably requisite, and when well executed is of great value. Any geographer must give frequent revision to his pages, if he expects them to be read; but there has been no period, probably for a century past, in which corrections could be made with so much hope of an established repose among the nations, as at present.

The principal changes in Asia, noticed in this edition, are those in India, where the British possessions already include about 70 millions of inhabitants, and in the large additions to the Russian dominions by the provinces acquired from Turkey and Persia. In the Asiatic Islands also there has been some change of European masters. Even in Asia, whose tenants hate all change, who are willing to retain the worst of all customs, the most debasing chains of pagan idolatry and all the miseries which spring from it,-the miserable inhabitants, with all their sturdy prejudices, cannot escape the common fluctuations of human affairs, nor defend themselves, or secure their governments, from revolutions. The amazing increase of the British power, the vast population now under its control in Southern Asia and the oriental Islands, must be regarded as favorable indications in Divine Providence; particularly by those who desire the civilization of these degraded beings, and their conversion to Christianity.

What appears to us one of the most considerable emendations in this edition, is its record of the advancement of Christian knowledgo in the several nations of the eastern continent, more especially, in the wide spread dominions of Russia both in Europe and Asia, and in other parts of the east which receive laws from their European sovereigns. The writer has endeavored to trace the gradual but steady progress of the Gospel among the wilds of Siberia, the steppes of Tartary, the plains of Hindoostan, and the immense clusters of Islands, denominated POLYNESIA. While turning the volumes for other purposes, the reader is occasionally reminded, that the long established imposture of the Koran, is retiring before the blaze of divine truth; the gigantic empire of paganism is mouldering away. and its defenders retreating before the soldiers of the Cross: and that many of the proudest ramparts of Satan's power have already been successfully assailed; that, relying on the promises and the help of

the Almighty Savior, his disciples are gathering fresh strength and new courage,-assured that in due time the knowledge of the Lord shall fill the earth." Not only the increasing success of Bible Societies is noticed, in whose advancement kings and princes already afford their influence and their personal labors,-but the Missionary Stations and the date of their establishment, are mentioned under the respective articles of the Russian Empire in Asia; Hindoostan in its several presidencies; the Birman Empire and Ceylon; the other large Islands which constitute what is named Australasia; and in West and South Africa.

There are many articles in a book of this kind, in which accuracy requires great patience and much labor; but after all, the author who bestows such labor, to render his work more valuable, receives but scanty praise with a majority of his readers. It often happens, that those particulars which have cost him the most unwearied industry in collecting and arranging, attract the least notice. In these volumes, it will be found that revision has been no idle work. The Statistical tables of the best European writers have been consulted, and many errors respecting the population of eastern countries, which had obtained a wide currency, are here corrected. Valuable additions are made to many parts of the work, which will not be observed by gencral readers, without a comparison of this edition with former ones.

On the whole, we think these volumes will not merely sustain the former reputation of the work, but will place it on a firmer basis than

ever.

MISCELLANEOUS.

For the Panoplist.

THE NECESSITY OF TECHNICAL TERMS IN THEOLOGY.

To defend that quaint phraseology so frequent in conversation on relig ious subjects, is not the object of this essay. Such a mode of speaking can have no better effect than to present religious truth in a repulsive dress to people of taste. For, although “a religious walk and conversation" and "a sense of divine things," &c. are phrases familiar to a numerous class of Christians on both sides of the Atlantic, they have not the plea of necessity; nor do they possess any advantage over the unaffected language used on other subjects.

Very different from these is that numerous class of words and phrases, which, though used out of their ordinary meaning, have gained a currency in good authors, and are properly called, the technical terms of theology. Whether the use of these is justifiable, is the present inquiry.

There is no need of attempting to prove, that the use of technical terms is indispensable to the improvement of the sciences generally. Take from the Chemist or Astronomer the privilege of using such terms, and you rob him of all hope of improvement. Sooner would the one relinquish his crucible, and the other his telescope, than that more indispensable instrument, by which alone he can intelligibly communicate his improvements to others, or learn theirs in return. All this is granted. Nay, I may affirm, without hazard of contradic

tion, that such terms most abound in those very sciences which have attained the greatest precision; and that they have multiplied in proportion to the rapid advances of the science to which they respectively belong.

But in Theology, it is asserted, no such necessity exists. Where, it is confidently demanded, can be the propriety of using words designed to be commonly understood, in an uncommon sense? I might rest the answer to this interrogation on the argument from necessity.

By every reflecting mind it will be admitted, as a universal fact, that he who devotes particular attention to the cultivation of any science, who carefully investigates all the relations of the several objects of that science, and desires to express those relations minutely and definitely, will, invariably employ either new terms, or common ones in an uncommon sense. And who shall deny to him who speaks of sacred subjects, the same privilege to meet the same necessity?

But without resting the argument here, let the appeal be made to apostolic example.

I am not to prove, that before the advent of the Messiah the knowledge of the true God was nearly, or quite, extinguished, except in one nation; and even in that, some of the most essential duties which men owe to their Creator and to each other, were wholly unknown. It will also be granted, that the language of every nation is formed to express only those objects and those relations with which they are acquainted. This being kept in mind, we see the difficulty, which must every where have met the apostles, as they went with their commission to preach the Gospel to every creature. They had doctrines and duties to teach, of which those to whom they were sent never had any conception, and which, of course they had no words to express. The morals of Pagans were deplorable. They were without God in the world." The apostles were indeed inspired to speak in the language of the nations among whom they preached, but their hearers were not inspired to understand a spiritual language, (so to speak,) which they had never learned. What course then must they take? No words could there be found in the Gentile languages to express the ideas they wished to communicate. They must either coin new words, when necessity demanded, or use those already known in a new signification. If we may judge of their manner of preaching from the style of their writings, we must conclude that they chose the latter method. When their message contained ideas which the language they were then speaking had no words to express, they chose such words in common use as approximated nearest to the thought, leaving it to the context, or the nature of the subject, to supply the meaning. A slight inspection of the style of the New Testament will establish this fact.

The first duty, which Christ and his apostles enjoined upon their hearers, was that of repentance. But how was this to be expressed? The Greek Tavosa contained a part of what they wished to inculcate. (viz. sorrow for a fault committed.) but for the more important part, the exercise of right affections towards God, such as the renewed heart does exercise,-it was not sufficient. And plainly for this reason; those who had hitherto used the word, had never entertained this thought in their minds. The best therefore, that the apos

tles could do, was to use this word in a peculiar theological sense, leaving the remainder of the thought to be understood from the context, and from the general nature of their doctrine.

When Nicodemus came to Christ, to inquire concerning the principles of his religion, Christ said to him, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." That this language was unintelligible to the Pharisee, is sufficiently evident from his exclamation, how can these things be! But to tell him in plain intelligible language, that his heart must be renewed, meaning by it all that we now understand by this phrase, was quite impossible, for the reason already assigned.

I offer one example more. Wherever the apostles went preaching, they insisted on humility. But in doing this, they found themselves under the necessity of employing a word, which, in common use, signified that pusillanimity, that degradation of mind, which is as far removed from the humility of the Gospel, as it is opposed to the pride of paganism.

The enumeration of words and phrases used in this manner might be continued to an indefinite extent. The words faith, salvation, grace, edification, conversion and justification, are all witnesses to the fact, that the Sacred writers adopted words and phrases, which, though now in common use, were then strictly technical.

Perhaps it will be further objected, that such a necessity as has been supposed, can rarely, or never, exist.

To make this objection is much easier than either to prove its validity, or to give it an answer which shall be felt by those who have had no opportunity to learn its fallacy by experience. If the opinions of writers or preachers of any denomination may be inferred from their practice, I conclude that few will deny the necessity of technical terms in Theology.

I close with one remark. If the use of words and phrases out of their ordinary meaning, is common to all the other sciences, and if this was the practice of the Sacred Writers,-it is easy to discover the palpable injustice of those, who choose to understand the technical language of their opponents according to its more ordinary use, and their folly, in thus busying themselves to demolish castles of their own building.

ON THE OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF CREEDS COMPOSED IN UNINSPIRED LANGUAGE?

SUPPOSE we put the question in Scriptural language, "What think ye of Christ?" One says, He is the man Christ Jesus. Another, He was made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they." And a third, He is "God, manifest in the flesh."

Now their answers are all in the language of Scripture, and are all true. Will it, therefore, be taken for granted, that they are all agreed in sentiment with respect to the character of Christ? Suppose they are permitted to explain, in their own language, what they do mean. One will tell you, he believes Christ to be a mere man. The second,

that He is a super-angelic being, inferior to none but God. The other believes him to be a complex character, God, Man, Mediator, united in one infinitely glorious Being.

Suppose another question be put in the language of Scripture; "What must I do to be saved?" One answers; "Work out your own salvation." Another; "Repent." Another; "By grace are ye saved." And another; "if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" Another; "Ye must be born again." And another still; "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." These answers are all pertinent, and in the language of Scripture. But does it follow, of course, that all those who use this variety of expression, agree in sentiment?

Again, the Scriptures say; "These (viz. the wicked) shall go away into everlasting punishment." One supposes this language to be a mere glowing figure of speech, containing no definite meaning. Another limits the meaning of everlasting to a short period. And another understands it to mean literally punishment interminable.

Among the above variety of persons, we find those, who differ essentially with respect to the character of the Savior, the object of worship, the terms of salvation, the nature of sin, the retributions of eternity, and the whole plan of redemption. But they all profess to derive their sentiments from the word of God.

The question returns. then, is it admissible, for those who do agree with respect to the leading truths of the Bible, to express their sentiments, in language the most concise, and least liable to be misunderstood? This implics no want of confidence in the Word of God. It adopts no human standard as infallible. It only leaves every man to understand the Scriptures for himself, and to explain to others how he understands them. And does not the very supposition, that the Scriptures are a rule of faith, imply the necessity of attaching to them some definite meaning? If they point out no distinct object of faith or duty, how can they be a guide with respect to what is to be believed or practised?

The principle that is recognized by objecting to the use of Creeds, carried to its extent, involves the grossest absurdities. It wholly disarms the minister of the Gospel. It forbids any comment or explanation of Scripture, and utterly excludes all investigation of divine truth. It sets aside all copies of the Bible, the original excepted, and counts them worse than useless. It annihilates the principle, which forms the bond of society, the common badge by which the members of the same community are known to each other, and which gives union and cfciency to their designs, councils, and operations. It counteracts the first principles of natural, civil, and ecclesiastical right. It takes away the liberty of conscience, and makes man a mere machine.

While the civil magistrate may give scope to all the powers of his mind, in explaining the statutes of law, must he, who takes the Bibie for his statute, tamely resign all claim to reason, and believe, he knows

not what?

The conclusion is,that according to Scripture and reason, and according to the principles of religious liberty and toleration, adopted and practised by all Protestants, any individual man, or any body of men, has a