of them to save the credit of the Earl
of Aberdeen's learned clergy? One of the main defects of omission in
the work (of course we merely mention the circumstance) is the
omission of the name of one very great non-intrusionist. Ethical and
metaphysical philosophy are represented by Dugald Stewart and Sir
James Mackintosh; mathematical and physical science by Sir David
Brewster, Sir John Leslie, Playfair, and Robinson; political economy
by Ricardo, M'Culloch, and Malthus; natural history by James Wilson
and Dr. Fleming; Hazlitt and Haydon discourse on painting and the fine
arts; Jeffrey on the beautiful; Sir Walter Scott on chivalry, the
drama, and romance; the classical pen of Dr. Irvine has illustrated
what may be termed the biographical history of Scotland; physiology
finds a meet expounder in Dr. Roget; geology in Mr. Phillips; medical
jurisprudence in Dr. Traill. But in whom does theology find an
illustrator? Does our country boast in the present age of no very
eminent name in this noble department of knowledge--no name known all
over Scotland, Britain, Europe, Christendom--a name whom we may
associate with that of Dugald Stewart in ethical, or that of Sir David
Brewster in physical science? In utter ignorance of the facts, we can,
as we have said, but merely refer to the omission as one which will be
assuredly marked in the future, when the din and dust of our existing
controversies shall be laid, and when all now engaged in them who are
tall enough to catch the eye of posterity, will be seen in their
genuine colours and their true proportions. The article Theology in
the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ is written, not by Dr. Chalmers, but
new-modelled from an old article by the minister of an Independent
congregation in Edinburgh, Mr. Lindsay Alexander--we doubt not an able
and good man, but not supereminently the _one_ theologian of
Scotland.

We mark, besides, a few faults, of _commission_ in the work,
apparently of a sub-editorial character, but which, unlike the defect
just pointed out, the editor of some future edition will find little
difficulty in amending. Works the production of a single mind, bear
generally an individual character; works the productions of many
minds, are marked rather by the character of the age to which they
belong. We find occasional evidence in the _Encyclopaedia_ that it
belongs to the age of Catholic Emancipation,--an age in which the
_true_ in science was deemed a very great matter b