« PreviousContinue »
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,
REVEREND JOHN HUGHES,
OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCII,
REVEREND JOIIN BRECKINRIDGE,
OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
No. 178 MARKET STREET.
APR 25 1888
Barn Harveer Treat.
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1836, by
CAREY, LEA & BLANCHARD, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of th, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Copyright purchased ly William DICKSON.
STEREOTYPED BY L. JOHNSON & CO.
PHILADELPHIA, MAY, 1836.
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