EXETER THEOLOGY.

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 603, 24 January 1852, Page 3

EXETER THEOLOGY.

Tlip Bi«hop of K^otei' i« using 1 rapidly into notoriety, ) His docivintw ami hi* disciplina me alike stining. 5 whether wo follow Jhm m his pastoral or hoar him in bis Synod, he excite interest. What has Ins lordship ' not advocated mcl denounced in turn ' With whom has be not qnai relied, horn Mi. Gotham to (he Aichbisbop of C,inicil>Hry ? His hand is literally against eveij man. ! Kxetor twll soon lie a fourth Latetan, and Bishoptowe another holy city. His hst pastoi-.l has not been . weighul acoor<hn^ to its wo>th. Jf is so elaborate i chaise of heio.v the voidable Primate, nnde more louclnng hj a hick or luo at the A 1 titles oj Uie Cbuich of Ki^land. ', Tfis I'iimate whids : —" Faith alonejufifing." il)^ dutiful suffragan declmes in his pastoral —"'iuis js palpable heresy." 'Jho Pinnate ■ita'es his belief that the ProtesMnt clci«y aic invested vilh n mnnsfcji.il, not a judicial powu —amLut-s.idois, not piiests —the "''people's servant o for Christ'^ -zlo." Uo of Exotor is ol.oclod at such longtime. Tho clorc,v have "an aiiibmily to act upon eaith in the slcad of Cliiisl hiiTisclf, anil to dispense his pn^ei or f.r/om a& his vict'oeuuit." Woe (o tho hit/ of f> ' r if they accept llus J< fruition. Tin* Pupate b^i .oo pmver, foi tho J<>ad to l.usnuplw Pooory. The Bisloo ot hxutot f..v;h- — •« thu hvv'iism,sB oj liiajtrs for ibe dead has been d<>ci Jod, though such prayers cannot be urged as a dufj." TLo Archbishop of Cantcibir thinks "it vould be well if chddien w«jio bioug'it lo bsptism Wth twmpst pi overs, that regeneration knight be obtained." The Bishop of Exeter declares " this is rank Popeiy, and woise than Popeiy." One would have thought ihat his lord&hip's recognition of tins, trait on tho face of an ciohiVpiscopal opinion, would have made him like it the bellei. But his fiiiy against the Priraate blinds his eyes lo his ovtn jojs. Ho would smite Pio Nono if the blow could only reach in its lebound the Arch' bishop. Weie (he Pi mi ate to become a Papist, (he Lord Bishop of E:.eter would start up an ultra-Piotes-tfint. Nothing will satisfy rha Ri^ht Reverend man but a tian&lation cf ibo Primacy from Canterbury to I'ißOter, which the Pope will not giant, as he has tiansfeired it to Westminster; which the Qaepn v.jll not sanction, i'oc she prefeis it wheie it is.—-Britannia. i j

MnAiniE akd Wtsh-i in.—-It will be found, upon reference to our law report of yesterday, that the suit of u Aletanie v. Wiseman" has been compromised. The eh cumstances have been co recently belore the public that it is hardly necessary to do more than to refer to them ; but we venture nevertheless to give an out: line of that e-vtiaoidinaiy cage. The facts were these, —Towaids thecloso of tl'dast ceiuuiyMathinin Caire a Fiench emigre, sought a jeiuge in this "c in try from the persecution of tho Dhectory. 11. <*"' > who bad been educated for the pnesthoc'- . a ttacher of lannusncs, and continued toliiM . „■ «ii--.loymont until vrilhin a ie«-\veel:s of hn de- th. i\l. Cane was unmarried, and a raiaer, and tlius contrived in the course of half «t century to amass the auni oi ,£i^>ooo. lie diud in 1847, and by h.13 will hcqaeathed £3,000 amon^ his lalatiom. in Pierce, but jn thit will made no allusion wl'ji.evor to Jhe^7,ooo being the residue of his property. Ifis French lel-itives, however, after a consuiurable lapse ci lave, ascertained that 31. Cane had, down to within a short lime of his depth, possessed £10,000 consols, and vere ultimately infotmed that by a deed executed two days (wo believe) before his death lv. Can 6 had give » £7,000 towards the enlarger"r>!it of the Roman Catholic chapel and school of St. Aloyfciu3 at Somer'b-tovvn. Tie French relative's were not aausf'V- with this explanation, and, with the geneious;.. stance of an EnglLh nobleman intimately connected wil'i Fiance, succeeded in filing a bill in Cbanceiy to impeach the gift to the charily. Mot long aftei the institution of ihe suit an,information was also put on the file, at tbo in^tanco oi tho trustees, in order to establish the chanty, and after a piotiacicd contest ot nine days the fund in dbpute was agreed to bo paid into the Court of" Chancoiy in tlis two causes. On Tuesday, as we learn from oar law inlen-gt-nce, *' c dispute was finally cctvproimssd by a division ' f 1.1 > i'?, 000 in the propoitioaof £1,000 to My. Cant s next of lin, and £.3,000 10 the charily. Now, we must confess that in our judgment the course that 1113 been taken in this matter, is most unsatisfactory. The compromiuo, be it reinembcied, could not have been effected without the sanction of Her Majesty's AttorneyGeneral, who is the authorized guardian of chanties, but though tho guardian of chanties, the AttorneyGeneial is by no means their counrel. It is his duly, doubtles3 to see tbat the lights and interests of charities arc preserved and maintained, but by no means to obtain for them what doos not strictly and legally belong to them. In this respect lug position diiiLrs widely fioiu that of the advocate, whosd duty it i<s uot to look beyond the interests of the cbent who employs li:ji. Applying this pnnciple to die case brtoie us, it is plain ihat the learned and able gentleman who now holds the office of Attorney-General has oiled in the course ho has deemed it right to pursue in assenting lo the compromise. The dispute between the parties was one that admitted of no degrees of right and wrong, Tiio case w?s really black or white, and in no possible lespect could be one of Lord Eldon's gray eases. Either M. Cnnc voluntarily and fieely made a legal gift of £7,000 lo the Chanel and School of St. Aloysius, or he did not. If he \lid, upon what principle does the Auorney-Ceneral sunendtr £-1,000 that belongs to the chanty' If he did not, upon what principle does the legal lopiesontative of the O.c 7a of Groat Britain become a paity to a device to eatoit £""3,000 from an oUcure French family ? We emijlov thovord "extort," because it is idle to pielond \ha~f, the plaintiff voluutauly abandons £3,000 to which Bbc bolzcvGS herself ontuied. It matters little what may he the mode of applying the .;ow 5 it may be the dread (ho unreasonable fecu) of the expensive character of the prod's Anglais or the spiritual leirors of the Romish Chuich, to which she belongs. But, whatever he the cause (hat induces the plaintiff to compromise her claim, one tiling is clear, if cannot be a voluntary act, except, indeed, upon tho supposition that the has no rujht to the propoity m question : and in that view of the case the compromise is .1 fraud upon the charity. It follows, then, that the Attorney-Geneial, and we »ay it with all lespect, has mis^ken his duty, as between the plaintiff and the chanty, in sanctioning whet has been done. We think, also, that on public grounds the matter ought to have been sifted thoioughly. If the charge brought against Romnnkm was, unjust, that charge ought to have been exposed and confuted, for no Protestant could wish to advance lm creed upon false grounds. If, on the other band, the charge was (rue, the tiutli ought to be publicly known, especially in these days of Romish accession. In any view of the cabe, to remove the record fioin the files of the co-irt is, so far as public opinion is concerned, to leave the matter just whero it was. — Slandai d