DISCUSSION OF THE QUESTION IS THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION, In any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, INIMICAL TO CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY? AND OF THE QUESTION, IS THE PRESBYTERIAN RELIGION, In any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, INIMICAL TO CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY? BY THE REVEREND JOHN HUGHES, OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, AND THE REVEREND JOHN BRECKINRIDGE, OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. PHILADELPHIA: PUBLISHED BY WILLIAM DICKSON, No. 175 CATHARINE STREET. 1855. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1836, by CAREY, LEA & BLANCHARD, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. PREFACE. THE following brief statement of the origin of this Discussion, and of the measures adopted for its publication, seems necessary. The question, "Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, inimical to Civil or Religious Liberty?" was adopted, January, 1835, as a topic of debate in the Union Literary and Debating Institute. The object in view, was in accordance with the general design of the Institute-the improvement of its members. The Society, consisting of Roman Catholics and Protestants of various denominations, whilst it disclaimed all sectarian motive, entered on the discussion in that bold spirit of inquiry, conducted by candour, which characterized its debates, and without the slightest expectation that any but subscribing members would take part in the discussion. So interesting and exciting, however, did this question prove, that after the debate had been continued three evenings, during which the Rev. Messrs. Hughes, M'Calla, and Breckinridge, Honorary Members of the Society, were the principal speakers, arrangements were made, by a Committee of the Society, for a continuance of the discussion, between the Rev. Messrs. Hughes and Breckinridge, for six evenings. It was further agreed, that at the expiration of the six evenings, the word "Presbyterian" should be substituted for the words "Roman Catholic," and an equal portion of time should be devoted to the new question. According to the articles of agreement between Messrs. H. and B. and the Society, a Reporter was to be employed by the Society, and a report of the speeches furnished. The Society were disappointed as to the services of the Reporter on the first three evenings of the debate. The concluding speeches were also retained in the hands of the Reporter for some months after its close. In consequence of these diffi culties, and others appertaining to the mode and extent of correction, an arrangement was entered into by the disputants to fill up the deficiency in the Report, and to correct the speeches, as each might think proper. The time necessary to re-write the Discussion, added to the previous delays, has protracted the publication to a whole year after the close of the oral debate. These delays, though attended with some inconvenience to the Society, have, at least, given the disputants an opportunity of doing justice to themselves, respectively, in giving their own report of their speeches. The only disagreement between them now is, as to the amount of matter:-the one contending, that only one-third of the number of speeches delivered in the oral discussion are produced in their written report:-and the other maintaining, that each of the written speeches contains the matter of three, as they were spoken. It is not for us to decide, but to leave, as we do, the gentlemen themselves, and the public, to form their own opinion on this point. This misunderstanding, however, between the disputants, required the action of the Society, which was had in the annexed resolutions. In accordance with instructions from the Society, the Committee have disposed of the work to the present publishers, and we trust that the importance of the questions discussed, will cause it to meet with an extensive circulation. The Letters, referred to in the subjoined resolutions, are appended, and will fully explain the views of the reverend gentlemen as to the publication. In justice to the Society, it is necessary to state, that to have sanctioned a continuance of the debate for publication by them, would have so increased the size of the volume, as to have prevented the Committee from carrying out their views as to its immediate disposal. THOMAS BROWN, M. D. May 20th, 1836. Committee on Publication. RESOLUTIONS OF THE UNION LITERARY AND DEBATING INSTITUTE, Passed April 4th, 1836, Whereas, The Union Literary and Debating Institute has become involved, beyond the extent of its means, in consequence of providing a Reporter for the late Discussion between the Rev. Messrs. Breckinridge and Hughes: and whereas, the report of the stenographer, and the manuscripts furnished by him, were, after this expense incurred by the Institute, condemned as unsatisfactory and incorrect, and another mode, viz., rewriting the whole, agreed upon, and a satisfactory arrangement entered into to that effect: and whereas, another difficulty has now arisen relative to this affair, and the Institute can see no prospect of an event promised in the beginning, and are weekly at more expense and trouble on this account; therefore Resolved, That the Committee of Publication are hereby instructed, forthwith, to dispose of the manuscripts of the Discussion in their hands for immediate publication, and report final action on the next evening of meeting; and that all the letters which have passed between the parties be included in the publication. Resolved, That both clergymen be permitted to continue the work, under the sanction of the Society, but at their own expense. 5 |