ENACTING THEOLOGY, AMERICANISM, AND FRIENDSHIP: THE 1837 DEBATE ON ROMAN CATHOLICISM BETWEEN ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND BISHOP JOHN PURCELL Dissertation Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Theology By Herbert Dean Miller, M.Div. UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio August, 2015 ENACTING THEOLOGY, AMERICANISM, AND FRIENDSHIP: THE 1837 DEBATE ON ROMAN CATHOLICISM BETWEEN ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND BISHOP JOHN PURCELL Name: Miller, Herbert Dean APPROVED BY: _______________________________________ William V. Trollinger, Jr., Ph.D. Faculty Advisor _______________________________________ Brad J. Kallenberg, Ph.D. Faculty Reader _______________________________________ Vincent J. Miller, Ph.D. Faculty Reader _______________________________________ William L. Portier, Ph.D. Faculty Reader _______________________________________ Mark A. Noll, Ph.D. Outside Faculty Reader _______________________________________ Daniel S. Thompson, Ph.D. Department of Religious Studies Chairperson ii © Copyright by Herbert Dean Miller All rights reserved 2015 iii ABSTRACT ENACTING THEOLOGY, AMERICANISM, AND FRIENDSHIP: THE 1837 DEBATE ON ROMAN CATHOLICISM BETWEEN ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND BISHOP JOHN PURCELL Name: Miller, Herbert Dean University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. William Vance Trollinger, Jr. This dissertation is an historical study of the 1837 debate on Roman Catholicism between Bishop John Purcell (1800-1883) and his Protestant challenger Alexander Campbell (1788-1866). Held for one week in Cincinnati, this debate showcased two of the Ohio Valley’s leading religious personalities as they argued about Catholicism in historical, theological, and political terms. This dissertation offers an account of the origins and events of the weeklong debate. It also makes two constructive arguments. First, for Purcell and Campbell participating in the debate was an exercise in “pastoral apologetics.” That is to say, each man understood his participation in the debate as an expression of his ministerial calling. Second, the form of the debate itself provided the conditions for a friendship that emerged between the men in the years that followed. iv The Campbell-Purcell debate has been recognized as an historically significant event. As Margaret DePalma notes, in United States history “it was the only occasion in which an American Catholic bishop held an oral debate with a Protestant minister” (Dialogue on the Frontier, 96). Beyond this important fact, the debate and the events that followed offer readers two noteworthy takeaways. First, they provide a counter-narrative to what would become a common storyline of Protestant Nativism in the antebellum period. Second, they are a reminder for contemporary Christian theologians that theological disagreement can be simultaneously robust and civil, while also serving as the starting point for Christian friendship. v For Aimee and the girls vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Writing a dissertation is both a solitary and communal event. The writer is obviously engaging in the solitary activity of wrestling with ideas and struggling to put them on paper; but s/he is supported by a community of friends who energize and sharpen the writing process. As I complete this project, I am reminded of the great debt I owe those friends who have shared this journey with me. I would like to thank my colleagues for their helpful suggestions and patience as they listened to my muddled thoughts: Jason Hentschel for his feedback on Common Sense Realism and comments about Thomas Reid’s confidence in sense knowledge, as well as the helpful suggestion about Nicholas Wolterstorff; D. Michael Cox for our frequent, and often loud, conversations in the library; Phil Webster for a long-distance friendship that provided much encouragement as this project came to its conclusion; and Justin Yankech for being a dependable source of encouragement on the Ph.D. journey. I would be remiss not to thank the institutional friends who supported my research financially along the way: the Cushwa Center for the Study of American Catholicism at the University of Notre Dame for giving me a Research Travel Grant; the Office for Graduate and Academic Affairs at the University of Dayton for a Graduate Student Summer Fellowship; and the Disciples of Christ Historical Society in Nashville, TN for a Ketcherside Scholarship. vii Also, I am grateful to the following archives and centers for their assistance along the way: the Archives of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati; the Cincinnati History Library and Archives; the Athenaeum of Ohio; the University of Notre Dame Archives; the U.S. Catholic Collection and the Archives at the University of Dayton; the Archives and Special Collections at Bethany College; the Disciples of Christ Historical Society; Cincinnati Christian University and Seminary; and Emmanuel Christian Seminary. Additionally, I owe a debt of thanks to the participants who offered valuable feedback on a paper I presented at the Conference on Faith and History at Pepperdine University in 2014. Finally, Father David Endres, editor of U.S. Catholic Historian, for his encouragement to develop part of what appears in this dissertation for an article; that process was a valuable experience that ultimately strengthened my writing in this project. It should go without saying that I stand on the shoulders of my teachers. But I want to single out a few. The Rev. Jeff Gill who taught a Disciples of Christ History and Polity class in which he set early Stone-Campbell history in a pastoral context; that single insight was incredibly formative for my thinking. Dr. Paul Blowers of Emmanuel Christian Seminary for his early encouragement to take up this topic. W. Dennis Helsabeck, now retired from Milligan College, who never formally taught me in a classroom, but was nonetheless my teacher in a great many things related to the Stone- Campbell Movement. To all the members of my committee, I owe a great deal of thanks. Drs. Brad Kallenberg and Vincent Miller offered keen philosophical questions that have sharpened my thinking about the debate. Dr. William Portier, whose Modernism seminar and book project, Divided Friends, probably influenced my theological frame of reference in ways I have not yet come to fully appreciate. Dr. Susan Trollinger, who, viii though she did not sit officially on my committee, I count as an honorary member; her suggestions about and feedback on dissoi logoi turned out to be major contributions to the development of my thinking in this project. Dr. Mark Noll offered insightful questions and invaluable comments that were matched only by his kindness and generosity. And finally, my dissertation director, Dr. William Trollinger. Under his direction, I gladly received the meals he paid for at Tank’s, as well as his advice about my project. I will not forget his tireless encouragement and readiness to entertain even the wildest ideas about my dissertation. But more than advising me about my topic, he modeled the intellectual virtues of honesty, humility, and charity; and in doing this, he taught me the craft of historical scholarship. I am grateful. As I conclude these acknowledgements, I thank my wife Aimee for her unrelenting support and patience in this Ph.D. program, specifically during the dissertation phase. Spouses of doctoral students know in a way foreign to most the sacrifices that go into finishing a doctoral program. I could not have done it without her. And to my children, Sophie, Sidney, and Savannah: I am grateful for their joy, curiosity, playfulness, and probing theological questions. They remind me that as long as there are children asking questions about God, theologians will never have quite the right words to speak about the Divine Mystery. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iv DEDICATION ................................................................................................................... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. vii INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCING ALEXANDER CAMPBELL AND BISHOP JOHN PURCELL ..14 II. THE 1836 EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE DEBATE ...........................................58 III. THE DEBATE: THEOLOGICAL AUTHORITY .....................................................95 IV. THE DEBATE: THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN AMERICA ................145 V. THE PUBLIC RECEPTION OF THE DEBATE AND CAMPBELL AND PURCELL’S RELATIONSHIP..............................................................................180 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................211 x INTRODUCTION The Debate Propositions On January 13th, 1837, the Catholic Bishop John Purcell (1800-1883) walked into a small Protestant church a block south of his cathedral in Cincinnati. There he met Alexander Campbell (1788-1866), the founder of a major new American religious movement known as the Disciples of Christ. The crowd that surrounded them was about to witness the only time in U.S. history when “an American Catholic bishop held an oral debate with a Protestant minister.”1 Campbell and Purcell met three months earlier at a conference on education and clashed over a disagreement about