The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-12-10 00:00:00

tion whatever with any gentleman, lay or clerical,
connected with the projected institution, since the re-
ceipt of " A Father's" letter. The language which
we employ must not be considered as embodying the
opinions of the parties whose decision is impugned by
our correspondent. We think it necessary to state this
limine, lest any misconception should arise on the
subject, and especially as a caveat to each of our Ra-
dical contemporaries, lest they should attach a degree
of official importance to the remarks which we feel ,
called upon to offer. -
We cannot perceive the force of " A Father's" ap-
peal ad misericor•diam when he complains of " the
practical disadvantage" of his position. Surely, the
fact that he is an anonymous correspondent is fully as
great an advantage as that which he conceives us to
possess. We cordially assure him that we have no
wish whatever to "lord it" over him in any respect;
and we as cordially agree with him that " truth must
ultimately prevail" in every controversy.
Our correspondent is labouring under a very serious
mistake when he says that we laboured to convince
ourselves in the article to which he replies. We may
have expressed ourselves cautiously; but this we en-
deavoured to do in order to avoid the possibility of
giving offence to any party. Our own convictions on
the subject would have justified much stronger language
than that which we employed. We never had the
slightest doubt of the wisdom and propriety of the
course pursued by the great majority of the friends of
the Collegiate Institution. If we had entertained any
such doubts the letters of " A Father" would have
materially contributed to dissipate them.
We confess that we'do not understand "A Father"
when he says that "the vital principle is sacrificed."
He does not condescend to inform us what that " vital
principle" is. The projectors of the institution have
laid down the principle that all the children of Church-
men who may be admitted into the Collegiate Institu-
tion shall be instructed in the doctrines and rituals of
the Established Church. This principle, the sound-
ness of which is unimpeachable, has not been sacrificed.
They have also laid down the principle that all the
members of the committee, under whose controul the
affairs of the College will be placed, shall be members
of the Established Church. From this principle, ad-
mirably calculated as it is to secure the good govern-
ment of the institution, there has been no departure.
They have, furthermore, adopted the same stringent
regulation in reference to all the teachers who are to be
appointed in connection with the proposed college, with
the sole exception of certain professors of foreign lan-
guages. From this principle they have not swerved
in the slightest degree. Again, they have laid down
the principle that Dissenters may be admitted into the
College, on condition that they conform to the rules
and regulations of the institution. This we conceive
to be a principle as sound and unobjectionable as any
of the preceding. But " A Father" here joins issue
with us, and asserts that Dissenters ought not to be
admitted, on any terms, to share in the benefits of the
projected institution. We cannot recognise the neces-
sity of adopting such a principle, and we think that
the friends of the intended college have done well in
discarding it. Having done so, they had no alternative
left but that of exempting the children of Dissenters
from answering the first five and the last but six (we
write from memory) of the questions in the Church
Catechism. The answers to these questions would, in
the case of Dissenters, involve a series of direct untruths,
as it is well known that they have no sponsors in bap-

While we are thus alluding to the only portion of the
Catechism to which Dissenters object, we may as well
inform " A Father" of the principal grounds of that

objection. Our correspondent must be aware that
there is a certain school of theologians in the Church

of England who maintain that the Catechism, in the
introductory questions alluded to, inculcates the doc
trine of baptismal regeneration. We believe that the

great majority of Dissenters, misled by this erroneous
interpretation, attach the same meaning to the language

of the Catechism. Hence their decided objection to
the introductory portion of that excellent formulary.

But who is to blame for this ? Must not the blame

attach to those semi-Popish divines in the Church of
England who maintain the soul-destroying doctrine to
which we have alluded? We must speak plainly on
this subject, because we feel strongly. Believing as
we do that there is not a more pernicious dogma in the
creeds of Popery itself, than the heretical doctrine of
baptismal regeneration, we are not surprised that the
Dissenters should have strong objections to a formulary,
in which they are confidently told by the Laudite or
Puseyite clergy the doctrine in question is inculcated.
Nor are we surprised that the projectors of the Col-
legiate Institution have agreed to remove so serious a
stumbling block out of the way of their dissenting
brethren.

We might here ask "A Father" whether he would
wish that such a doctrine as that which we have al-

luded to should be inculcated in the Liverpool Colle-
giate Institution ? We have no right to assume that
he would : but, if a Puseyite, he would, of course,
answer in the affirmative. If " A Father" had fur-
nished us with such an answer in his letter, we should
not have wasted another word on the subject. We
should have recommended him to send his communi-
cation to a more suitable vehicle than the Standard.
" A Father" is* utterly in error when he speaks of
" conciliation" and " concession" as if in compliance
with any demands made by the Dissenters. The. Dis-
senters never made any demand upon the projectors
of the Collegiate Institution. It is, therefore, quite
irrelevant to talk of concession.

We repeat our assertion that the proposed institu
Lion will be a powerful " auxiliary to the Church o
England." " A Father" rejoins that "it must be
identified with, and be the Church of England." This
is absurd. What scripture warrant has our corres-
pondent for such an assertion ? We recognise the
orders of bishop, priest, and deacon, as scriptural and
apostolical ; but we never heard of the order of school-
masters in the Church. In truth, we do not know
what " A Father" means when he says that the Liver-
pool College should be the Church.
A note which appears in another column will satisfy
" A Father" that Dissenters are admitted at least into
one of our Universities, on precisely the same terms as
those which have been imposed by the Committee of
the Liverpool Collegiate Institution. We never as-
serted that Dissenters could matriculate at either of
the Universities without a specific recognition of the
authority of the Thirty-nine Articles. We merely
stated that they were admitted to the benefits of those
seats of learning. We might also point out another
institution into which Dissenters are admitted on the
same terms. We allude to King's College, London.
We might also allude to the numberless other institu-
tions throughout the country, such as the public
schools of Shrewsbury, Rugby, Harrow, Westminster,
the Charter House, &c., into which Dissenters have,
practically at least, no difficulty whatever in obtaining
admission. Have the conductors of these schools
" sacrificed the vital principle of the Establishment ?"
Have they incurred the charge of having entered into
a guilty compromise ?
We have noticed a few of the more prominent points
in " A Father's" letter. Much of the letter is occu-
pied with vague generalities, which are as difficult to
answer as they are to be understood. He has advanced
nothing to shake our confidence in the stability of the
Collegiate Institution. That institution will, we have
not the most momentary doubt, prove a blessing to the
town of Liverpool for ages yet to come. To Church-
men it will guarantee the instruction of their children
in the sound and scriptural doctrines of the Church of
England. To the Dissenter it will offer an education
in exact accordance with those doctrines without of-
fending his conscientious scruples. But it will teach
nothing—it will suffer nothing to be taught, in opposi-
tion to those doctrines. The grand maxim which its
projectors seem to have most conscientiously kept in
view is that of " Unity in essentials; in circumstan
tials, charity."

ANOTHER TROTTING MATCH.—The backers of the Glas-
gow mare, at the termination of the great trotting match
last Friday, having expressed an opinion that she could beat
the American prodigy (Bob Logic) in another trial, the owner
of the American horse immediately accepted the challenge,
and a match was made instanter for £7O, to trot ten miles on
a common road. This match came off on Saturday last on
the road to the Old Swan, the starting point being Gilead-
house, the horses to run five miles in and out. From the
first the Glasgow mare had not the slighest chance, and she
was ingloriously defeated by a considerable distance. It was
the opinion of many who witnessed the race, that Bob Logic
could have trotted eleven miles to the other's ten. A good
number of persons assembled to witness the sport.—
Chronicle.