A 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?

Front matter

Fff.

ZD.^o y. ii:oi^

Srom f^e feiBrarg of

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 difficulties, and others appertaining to the mode and extent of correc-

4 PREFACE.

lion, an arrangement was entered into l)y Ihc disputants to fill up the deficiency in the Report, and to correct the speeches, as each niio;Iil tliink proper. The time necessary to re-write the Discussion, added to tlic previous dehiys, 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 view* as to its immediate disposal.

THOMAS BROWN, M. D.

WILLIAM DICKSON,

Cuiumi/lcc un Publication.

May 20///, 1S3G.

RESOLUTIONS

OF THE

UNION LITERARY AND DEBATING INSTITUTE,

Passed April Ath, 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. JNIessrs. 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, z.\\^ 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.

DEFINITIONS AND CONDITIONS.

DEFINITIONS.

I. Religious Doctrines.

Those tenets of faith and morals which a denomination teaches as having been revealed by Almighty God.

II. Religious Liberty.

The right of each individual to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, without injuring or invading the rights of others.

III. Civil Liberty.

The absolute rights of an individual restrained only for the preservation of order in society.

CONDITIONS.

1. That when the question, " Is the Roman Catholic Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, opposed to Civil or Religious Liberty?" shall have been discussed, for any number of evenings not exceeding six, the question then shall be, " Is the Presbyterian Religion, in any or in all its Principles or Doctrines, opposed to Civil or Religious Liberty?" which shall be discussed for an equal number of evenings.

2. That, in both cases, it shall be the duty of the affirmative to prove, that what he calls a doctrine, is really such, before he can use it as an argument.

3. The decree of a General Council, the brief or bull of a

Pope, or the admitted doctrines by a Pope, shall be admitted as proof on the one side; the Westminster Confession of Faith, of the Presbyterian Church in America, shall be admitted as proof on the other side.

4. The discussion to take place before the Union Literary and Debating Institute, with one hundred Catholics and one hundred Presbyterians, to be invited by the Reverend gentlemen.

5. All questions of order shall be decided by the President ; and no person whatsoever to be permitted to take part in the debate, but the Reverend Messrs. Plughcs and Breckinridge.

6. The President shall prevent any manifestation of approbation or disapprobation, and enforce perfect silence in the meeting.

7. That a stenographer shall be engaged by the Institute, to take an impartial report of the proceedings and debate, and that no unauthorized report be given by the Society.

JOHN HUGHES.

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE.

LETTERS, ETC

Philadelphia, March lAth, 1836.

To THE President of the Young Men's } Literary and Debating Society. ^

Sir,

I HAVE had the honour, within a short time, of receiving a resolution from the Society over which you preside, requesting the respective parties, in the discussion which they are now preparing for the press, to condense the matter, as much as practicable, consistently with the end in view.

In reply to this communication, I am prepared promptly to say, that the wishes of the Society are entirely in accordance with my own; and that it will give me much pleasure to do all in my power, without a sacrifice of the object in view, to reduce the size, and hasten the appearance of the intended work.

It is well known to the Society, that it was esteemed by me a violation of my rights, and a departure from the original agreement among the several parties concerned, to adopt the present mode of preparing the debate for the press. It pleased the Society, however, to indulge Mr. Hughes, and I yielded my wishes to his. There were three methods of accomplishing the publication of the Discussion within our reach, viz. — 1, the putting of the stenographer's report to press : 2, debating the whole anew : 3, writing it out anew, as the disputants might choose. The first and second were declined by Mr. Hughes ; and the third adopted. I had preferred the first or second — but acquiesced in the third; and by mutual agreement between Mr. H. and myself, the Society approving, we have been, for some time, engaged in reducing the debate to manuscript form. In proof of this, I beg leave to refer the Society to the correspondence in the hands of your Secretary, and to the testimony of the Publishing Committee.

I have just been informed, however, by one of the members of that Committee, that Mr. Hughes declines the continuance of the Controversy, after the completion of the third part of the nights orifriiKiUy set apart lor the debate. Upon what ground he ventures thus to abandon the Discussion, it is not my business to declare. Surely it cannot be with the approbation of the Society ; and it must be at the entire sacrifice, if persisted in, of his cause, his honour, and my rights. I hereby, therefore, utterly protest against giving such a course the sanction of the Society, if, by such sanction, it be understood that it shall be expected, or required of me, noio to close the Discussion ; and I cast myself on the justice of your honourable body, claiming of them, very respectfully, the full protection of my equal rights. Nay, more, I may appeal to the magnanimity of the young gentlemen of the Society, as they must remember, that the very plan which Mr. Hughes now seeks to defeat, by a premature close, was accepted by me, in order to oblige the Society, and to indulge Mr. Hughes.

As, however, I am very desirous to bring this vexed question to an amicable termination, I offer to the Society, (for I can no longer permit myself to have any direct intercourse with Mr. Hughes,) the following propositions : —

I. I will agree to complete six evenings of the debate — three on each question, and then put the work to press. As the written speeches exceed those spoken in length, about eight evenings of the former might probably embrace the substance of what was spoken in twelve ; and six might, with condensation, present the chief part of the Discussion.

In this event, I propose to pursue the subject hereafter on my own responsibility.

n. I will agree to publish eight nights, and for the present, at least, giving no additional matter — to the public-^present the debate as in SUBSTANCE complete.

HI. If Mr. Hughes declines both these propositions, I shall stand prepared to furnish my part of the entire debate, with the confident expectation that the Society will publish all that Mr. Hughes may have contributed; and, stating his withdrawal, publish the matter furnished by the other party.

IV. In the event of the Society's consenting to sustain Mr. Hughes, in the very extraordinary course proposed by him, which appears to me wholly impossible, I must seek another channel to the public; and, at the same time, respectfully ask of the Society to refund to me the sums of $10, and of $150, advanced by me, (the first, as a donation, the second, as a loan, borrowed by me for that end,) to pay the stenographer. If / had refused to abide by the stenographer's report, then there might be some justice in my contributing so largely to pay him, as that refusal, by preventing the publication of the Mork, has dried up one chief source of your revenue. But so far was this from the fact, that my advance to the stenographer was made after I had failed to bring his work to press ; and on the faith that the present arrangements would be enforced by the Society, so as to complete the debate, and secure its sale. Whereas, Mr. Hughes, who vilified the stenographer's report, paid nothing toward defraying the expense of it ; and is now seeking to mutilate the matter, and, as I believe, to defeat the publication of the manuscript.

With much respect, I am, dear sir,

Your friend and servant,

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE.

March 22d, 1836.

To Messrs. Brown and Dickson, Committee, &c.

Gentlemen,

I RAVE now finished the correction of my speeches, and my part of the Discussion. The matter is equivalent to more than eighteen hours' public speaking, and consequently it is time to stop. If the Society had, according to agreement, held a stenographer engaged, and thus taken down the arguments, in the words of the speakers, much trouble and labour would have been saved to all parties. But the first three nights of the Discussion were blanks, as to any report. Then came Mr. Stansbury, under the auspices of Mr. Breckinridge, to take notes of arguments, and fill up the supposed thoughts of the speakers in language, as near as might be to that which they employed. This did not give my arguments — except as Mr. Stansbury conceived them. Consequently, the report was imperfect; — the reporter was not employed at the expense of the Society, as appeared — 1st, by the fact, that Mr. Breckinridge proposed to compensate him by a public collection; and 2d, by the fact, that he neglected the report, until after he had attended to business in Pittsburg and Cincinnati. Hence, it follows, that the Society, having failed in that part of our understanding on which their claim to my speeches depended, could not have any right to expect them. But, least there should be the shadow of legitimate complaint, I have, by my own labour, supplied the defects of their mismanagement, and will hand them my part of the Discussion, authenticated by my signature, to be published for their benefit ; — provided, that not a single page, in the printed copy, shall be allowed more to one side than to the other. If the aggregate numbei of pages, to be occupied by my speeches, should exceed that required by Mr. Breckinridge's manuscripts, I shall curtail. If his should exceed mine, he must curtail, I ask nothing but what is right, I shall submit to nothing that is wrong. I trust, gentlemen, that you, and the independent portion of the Society, will discover, in this proposal, that I ask nothing but tliat the scales of justice be held even. I am aware, that there may be, in the Society, a few little spirits, who, not having strength to burst the nutshell of bigotry in which they are confined, are accustomed to prefer what is expedient to what is only just. Now, I cling to justice.

If this just proposition should be defeated, then I shall hold myself as having done every thing honourable and fair to lay the merits of the Discussion before the public, and let the Society enjoy the benefits arising from it ; but then, too, I shall use my manuscript as I tliink proper. The individual, or party defeating, or attempting to defeat the publication on this basis of justice and equality, must be responsible to the Society for the consequences. As to myself, I have not the slightest doubt but tlie public will see through the whole matter, and, with the exception of the little spirits in the nutshell, form a just judgment.

I have the honour to be, gentlemen.

Your obedient servant,

JOHN HUGHES.

Philadelphia, March 29th, 1836.

To THE President of the Young Men's ^ Literary and Debating Society. S

Sir,

Having been informed, that the young gentlemen of the Society have delayed the final decision of the painful question now pending, in regard to the publication of the debate, until this evening, I take the liberty of making an additional communication through you to the Society.

As no little time has passed since the debate began, and many changes have taken place in our arrangements, a rapid reti-ospect of the circumstances may not now be amiss. The following facts will not be disputed, it is supposed, by any member of the Society ; or if disputed, are capable of ample proof.

1. Mr. Hughes refused, on the third night, to proceed without a reporter — yet he afterwards rejected the reporter's work.

2. Mr. Hughes selected the present method of preparing the debate for the press; and he pledged himself to complete it in this way ; and he proposed no limits or terins at the commencement of this plan of preparation : on the contrary, he found fault with the former Publishing Committee for seeking to restrict him ; and a new committee was appointed by the Society to carry the new plan into effect.

3. The Society did thus and otherwise sanction the present plan, and agree to carry it into effect. And it was on the faifch of Mr. Hughes's pledge, and theirs, that I gave up the stenographer's report, and adopted Mr. Hughes's plan. And it was on the faith of the same united pledge, that the debate should be completed, sold, and published, that I advanced a considerable sum of money to pay the Society's debt to the reporter.

4. Mr. Hughes first set the example of enlarging the form of the original debate ; for when the first Publishing Committee opposed his additions to the report of the stenographer, he said he was to be the judge of how much or how little should be added. Acting on this principle, we began, afterward, to rewrite the whole, each having full liberty. When, therefore, Mr. Hughes complains of the dilation of the Discussion, he should remember that he is not only the sharer, but author of the practice.

5. Though more matter has been written than was spoken on the same number of nights, yet a considerable portion of the topics, piesented in the oral debate, have, as yet, not been touched in the manuscript; as, for example, the supremacy of the Pope; the doctrine of the Roman priesthood ; the order of the Jesuits ; the monastic institutions ; the imm,oral tendency of the system of popery ; the Inquisition; the papal conspiracy abroad against the liberties of our country, are all yet to be examined, and was all gone over in the debate. This, Mr. Hughes well knows. Yet he seeks now to stop short, and exclude all that yet remains. Besides all this, there are allusions in the discussion of the second general question, to the discussion of the first, which first will not appear, if we arrest the debate here. How absurd will this appear; and to me, how palpably unjust? Mr. Hughes, contrary to the order of the debate, contrived to alternate, very absurdly, one speech on one question, and one speech on the other. And now we have each question half discussed ; yet he insists on publishing now, and publishing no m,orel

In view of all these facts, I can hardly think it possible for your honourable body to do such violence to my rights, as now to force a close of the Discussion on me. Being, however, unfeignedly anxious to bring every part of the Discussion, as speedily as possible, before the American people, I have conceded much to the wishes of others, as will be seen in my last letter, to which I respectfully refer the Society.

That there may be no room left to complain of my terras, I here add, to the proposals of that communication, the following, viz. : —

As Mr. Hughes refuses to go farther in the debate, let it be agreed, that, /or this reason, we will now publish /omj* nights of the manuscript debate : let me then complete my argument on the papal question, and publish it under the sanction of the Society, accompanied by an explicit avowal of the fact, that Mr. Hughes declines to pursue the Discussion. I will publish the second part at my own risk, and ask no more than what is stated above. If Mr. Hughes asks more, his country must see why; and his best friends must bhish for him, when he shall not only abruptly, and after all his pledges, withdraw from the Controversy, but even seek to silence me midway the question.

I feel well assured, sir, that the honourable young gentlemen, of all names and sects, over whom you preside, will esteem my wishes reasonable ; and will unite to sustain me in my obvious rights.

But if not, then I must appeal to the American public; and reverting to the alternative, the painful alternative, stated in my former letter, I must seek shelter from injustice, before a larger and better tribunal, who love liberty, who will do justice ; and before whom, if God give me help, I am resolved to spread out the whole of the debate, and the history, as well as the matter of it, if my stipulated rights should now be so seriously invaded.

With full conlidence in the candour and justice of the Society, I remain, dear sir, very respectfully.

Your friend and fellow-citizen,

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE.

P.S. I understand it has been alleged, that, inasmuch as I called on the audience to aid in paying the fees of the stenographer, at the close of the debate, therefore, he was confessedly my reporter. It is well known, as I then avowed, that the reason of the call was the poverty of the Society, (which had no funds,) and the pressing wants of the reporter, who expected to leave the city the next morning. Besides, it is fully known, that, for three nights, the Committee had failed to get a reporter ; and Mr. Hughes refused to proceed ivithout one. Then, at the request of the Committee, I wrote for Mr. Stansbury — the faithful reporter of the American Congress for some dozen years. And yet, after all, Mr. Hughes rejects his reports. Then, when we yield to his wishes, give up the reporter's manuscript, and begin, at his request, to write anew, he proceeds but half way through ; when lo, again, and of a sudden, without consultation, or agreement with the other parties, he resolves to stop. Will the Society sustain such a course ? It was on the faith of Mr. Hughes's repeated pledge, to complete the debate, and on the faith of the Society's pledge, to cause it to be completed, and sold, and published, that I advanced money to pay the debt of the Society. Will the Society now permit, nay, aid in a continuance to defeat the publication ?

J. B.

Philadelphia, April 5th, 1836.

To Messrs. Brown and Dickson.

C4entlemen,

I AM sure you must be weary, as I am, most heartily, of the interminable contests which have been going on about the publication of the debate. It seems apparent that Mr. Hughes will not, on any terms, publish the entire debate; and my friends have urgently solicited me to consent to publish ihefoicr nights, which will be complete, on my furnishing my reply to his sixth speech on the Presbyterian question. I hereby, then, signify to you my consent to this course, which I pray you to make known to the Society this evening.

In thus waiving my rights so entirely, I hope you will understand that it is intended as a testimony of my high respect for the Society which I am unwilling longer to embroil, even in doing me justice; and that it is my purpose to go on, through the press on my own responsibility, to complete the Discussion. For their desire, and their long continued efforts to issue the whole debate, I owe them my sincere thanks ; and I am consoled by the thought, that the young gentlemen have had so practical a proof, that it is not Protestantism, but Popery, which shuns the light.

The only condition which I feel at liberty to make, is that the correspondence which relates to the publication of the debate, shall be published with it.

I know not, after this, what else Mr. Hughes can require of the Society, or of me, than that I should be bound to tvrite and debate no tnore on popery, as the condition of his publishing any part of the debate.

I am, gentlemen, very respectfully.

Your friend and fellow-citizen,

JOHN BRECKINRIDGE.

Philadelphia, April 11th, 1836.

To THE President of the Union Literary AND Debating Society.

Sir, In certain letters of Mr. Breckinridge, which he wishes to have prefixed to the publication of our Debate, there are statements which are calculated to mislead those who are not acquainted with the facts of the case, and to which I have been indulged with the privilege of replying. In his letter of the 14th ult. he complains ol" the " present mode ol" preparing the Debate for the press." To this 1 reply, that owing to our not having a stenographer the first three nights of the discussion, and owing to the manner in which the remainder, or at least portions of it, continued in the hands of the stenographer for months after the debate closed, there was no other mode left in which to prepare it. After having attended the General Assembly, and the trial of Dr. Beecher, the reporter wrote to your Committee, on the 24th of June, that " his next business would be to resume the report," &c. By whose fault did this happen? Mr. Breckinridge says, there were "three methods :" 1 , " putting the stenographer's report to press." This is absurd. That report was but tliree-fourths of the discussion, and not the whole. It contained none of the citations of authorities, which were numerous. It merely referred to them, and left it to the speakers to fill up. Would it not have been absurd, then, to put it to press in this condition ? His second method was, " debating the whole anew." This, indeed, would be a new method of preparing the debate for the press. The third was that which has been adopted. He says this was done to " indulge Mr. Hughes." The statement was incorrect ; — it was done because no other, in the circumstances of the case, was practicable. I called on him through the Committee, and on the Committee themselves, to point out any other practicable method; — and when they could not, he, and they, and I, agreed, by mutual consent, to adopt the present mode. This is the simple history of the whole matter; and shows, that so far, if Mr. Breckinridge has any reason to complain, it is not of me, but of the Society — for not having a stenographer from the first, and not obliging him to attend to the business for which he was supposed to have been engaged, consecutively and in season.

2. He complains, in the same letter, that I discontinued the debate after the completion of " the third part of the nights originally set apart for the Discussion. To this I reply, that each of the written speeches, one with another, contains as much matter as three of those that were spoken. Both parties spoke one hour and a half every evening; which, for the twelve evenings, makes, for each, eighteen hours speaking. In each half hour there must have been a waste of two or three minutes, by interruptions, looking for references, &;c., which would take off more than an hour of the whole time, making it, for each, less than seventeen hours. Now, let Mr. Breckinridge take his twelve ivritten speeches, and attempt to deliver them, with that solemnity, and those graces of elocution, for which he is so distinguished, and he will find that twenty hours will not be sufficient. Consequently, the written speeches, though fewer in number, contain more than those that were spoken. But who began these long speeches? Mr. Breckinridge himself! liOok at the speech with which he opened; — and according to which I was under the necessity of regulating my reply. Here, therefore, is my reason for stopping — at the conclusion. Another reason was, that the Society had requested that the matter should be condensed as much as possible. A third reason was, that if the two parts, out of three, which Mr. Breckinridge says are wanting, were added, it would swell the work to six or seven volumes, which would frighten any publisher in the city. It is on all these grounds that I have allowed Mr. Breckinridge to call it only the third part of the Discussion, knowing, that if he says he spoke inore in the time allowed for speaking, than what he has written out, no one, who reflects a moment, will put any belief in the assertion.

In his letter of the 29th of March, Mr. Breckinridge complains that, owing to the pretended abridgment of the Discussion, there are a great manv subjects which he has not had an opportunity to introduce. To this I reply, that he had the privilege, in common with myself, of correcting the report in any manner, and to any extent he might think proper. If, then, instead of adhering to the original substance, he thought it more serviceable to fill up his space with new and apocryphal matter, he must not blame me for the consequences of his choice. He introduced, for instance, the subject on which the Rev. Murtoch O'Sullivan has been holding forth in Exeter Hall, viz., Dens's Theology. I did not blame him for this ; on the contrary, I approved it, by following his example in other instances.

But, besides, the very topics which he says he has been obliged to omit, are to be found in his speeches in tedious repetition. For the correctness of this statement, I refer to his speeches in connexion, or rather, in contrast with his letter. He has introduced, into his written speeches, vfhole columns of printed matter from his own former writings, and from the writings of others ; and this fact shows, that he ought not to complain of want of space. He was uncontrolled in the choice of his matter and argument. The interchange of speeches on both questions at the same time, was merely to expedite the work according to the wish of the Society. From all this, it is evident, that the matter of the corrected, or written speeches, is fully as much as that of the entire Discussion; and, secondly, that the introduction of new topics was a matter of choice, and not of necessity, with Mr. Breckinridge.