the 1837 debate on roman catholicism between alexander campbell and bishop john

229 Pages·2015·1.1 MB·English

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