. He has no mercy for the Romanists, and but little for the
young men of his own school who favor the Papacy. Those who are
accustomed to associate Puseyism with a set of sentimentalists, who
mourn the Reformation, wish for the return of the good old times of
the feudal ages, and give Rome their hearts and Canterbury only their
pockets, will find that such doctrines and practices find no favor in
the present volumes. The greatest rascal in the novel is a piece of
incarnate malignity named Pearce--a Jesuit, whom the author represents
as carrying out the principles of Romanism to their logical results in
practice.

But if the reader will find his common notions of Puseyism
revolutionized by the present novel, he will be a little startled at
its real doctrines and intentions. The author has the most supreme and
avowed contempt for liberal ideas in Church and State; and for every
good-natured axiom about toleration and representative government he
spurns from his path as a novelty and paradox. There is nothing
dominant in England which he does not oppose. The Whig party he deems
the avowed enemies of loyalty, order and religion. The Conservatives,
with Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington at their head, he
conceives destitute of principle, and the destroyers of the British
empire. There is not a concession made to liberal ideas within the
present century which he does not think wicked and foolish. The
manufacturing system and free trade, indeed the whole doctrines of the
political economists in the lump, he looks upon alternately with
horror and disdain. He seems to consider the State and Church as an
organized body for the education of the people, whose duty is
obedience, arid who have no right to think for themselves in religion
or politics, for they would be pretty sure to think wrong. All
benevolent societies, in which persons of different religious views
combine for a common object, he considers as productive of evil, and
as an assumption of powers rightly belonging to the church. Indeed, in
his system, it is wrong for any popular association to presume to
meddle with ignorance and crime, unless they do it under the sanction
and control of the church. He considers it the duty of a church
minister to excommunicate every man in his parish who is _guilty_ of
schism--that is, who has the wickedness to be a papist or dissenter.
But it is useless to proceed in the enumeration of our author's
dogmatisms. If the reader