the soul of the lonely visionary, who, in
the daydreams of youth, has felt as well as meditated on the mysteries
of nature_.' The dissertation of Playfair is also pitched on the
highest key to which that elegant writer ever attained. If we except
the unjust and offensive estimate of the powers of Franklin, a similar
judgment may be passed on the preliminary dissertation of Sir John
Leslie. Jeffrey's famous theory of beauty is, of all the philosophic
pieces of that accomplished writer, by far the most widely known; and
Sir Walter Scott's essay on the drama is at least equal to any of the
serious prose compositions of its great author. There is something
peculiarly fascinating in the natural history of this edition,--a
department wholly rewritten, and furnished chiefly by the singularly
pleasing pen of Mr. James Wilson. It is not yet twenty years since
Constable's supplement to the last edition appeared; and yet in this
province, so mightily has the tide risen, that well-nigh all the old
lines of classification have been obliterated or covered up. Vast
additions have been also made. At no former time was there half the
amount of actual observation in this field which exists in it now; and
it is well that there should be so skilful a workman as Mr. Wilson to
avail himself of the accumulating materials. His treatises show how
very just is the estimate of his powers given to the public in
_Peter's Letters_ considerably more than twenty years ago, at a time
when he was comparatively little known. But we cannot enumerate a
tithe of the masterpieces of the British Encyclopaedia.

Judging from the list of contributors' names attached to the index, we
must hold that Moderatism in the field of literature and science
is very much at a discount. But there is no lack of data of very
various kinds to force upon us _this_ conclusion. Among our sound
non-intrusionists we find the names of Lord Jeffrey, Sir David
Brewster, Professor John Fleming, Professor David Welsh, Professor
Anderson, Dr. Irvine, the Rev. Mr. Hetherington, the Rev. Mr. Omond,
Mr. Alexander Dunlop, and Mr. Cowan; whereas of all the opposite
party who record their votes in our church courts, we have succeeded
in finding the name of but a single individual, Dr. John Lee.

Why has Dr. Bryce thus left the field to the fanatics? had he nothing
to insert on missions? Or could not Mr. Robertson of Ellon have been
great on the article Beza?

Was there no exertion demanded