What do you think?
Rate this book
Discussions of Robert Lewis Dabney
Robert Dabney (1820-98), who was for forty years Professor in Union Seminary, Virginia, U.S.A., was in the opinion of Dr. Archibald Alexander, 'the best teacher of theology in the United States, if not in the world'. The third volume includes Dabney's treatment of issues in society which are of perennial concern to the Church of Christ, including Anti-Christian Science, Secularized Education, Strikes and the influence of Roman Catholicism. A number of biographical skethes of great Christians whom Dabney knew also appear, including one of General T. J. ('Stonewall') Jackson, to whom Dabney had been Adjutant-General during the Civil War.
- GenresTheologyPhilosophy
728 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1967
7 people are currently reading
64 people want to read
About the author
Robert Lewis Dabney
153 books42 followersRobert Lewis Dabney (March 5, 1820 – January 3, 1898) was an American Christian theologian, a Southern Presbyterian pastor, and Confederate Army chaplain. He was also chief of staff and biographer to Stonewall Jackson. His biography of Jackson remains in print today.
Dabney studied at Hampden-Sydney College and the University of Virginia (M.A., 1842), and graduated from Union Theological Seminary in 1846.
He was then a missionary in Louisa County, Virginia, from 1846 to 1847 and pastor at Tinkling Spring, Virginia from 1847 to 1853, being also head master of a classical school for a portion of this time. From 1853 to 1859 he was professor of ecclesiastical history and polity and from 1859 to 1869 adjunct professor of systematic theology in Union Theological Seminary, where he later became full professor of systematics. In 1883, he was appointed professor of mental and moral philosophy in the University of Texas.
By 1894 failing health compelled him to retire from active life, although he still lectured occasionally. He was co-pastor, with his brother-in-law B. M. Smith, of the Hampden-Sydney College Church 1858 to 1874, also serving Hampden-Sydney College in a professorial capacity on occasions of vacancies in its faculty. Dabney, whose wife was a first cousin to Stonewall Jackson's wife, participated in the Civil War: during the summer of 1861 he was chaplain of the 18th Virginia regiment in the Confederate army, and in the following year was chief of staff to Jackson during the Valley Campaign and the Seven Days Battles.
After the Civil War Dabney spoke widely on Jackson and the Confederacy. He continued to hold racial views typical in the South before the Civil War, and his continued support of slavery in speeches and a book published after the war and his strong loyalty to the Confederacy until the 1890s made him a visible figure in the post-war South (Hettle, 2003).
While at the University of Texas he practically founded and maintained the Austin School of Theology (which later became Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary), and in 1870 was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.
Major works
Memoir of Rev. Dr. Francis S. Sampson (1855), whose commentary on Hebrews he edited (1857);
Life of General Thomas J. Jackson (1866)
A Defense of Virginia, and Through Her, of the South, in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party (1867), an apologia for the Confederacy.
Lectures on Sacred Rhetoric (1870)
Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology (1871; 2nd ed. 1878), later republished as Systematic Theology.
Systematic Theology (1878)
Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Examined (1875; 2nd ed. 1887)
Practical Philosophy (1897)
Penal Character of the Atonement of Christ Discussed in the Light of Recent Popular Heresies (1898, posthumous), on the satisfaction view of the atonement.
Discussions (1890-1897), Four volumes of his shorter essays, edited by C. R. Vaughan.
Dabney studied at Hampden-Sydney College and the University of Virginia (M.A., 1842), and graduated from Union Theological Seminary in 1846.
He was then a missionary in Louisa County, Virginia, from 1846 to 1847 and pastor at Tinkling Spring, Virginia from 1847 to 1853, being also head master of a classical school for a portion of this time. From 1853 to 1859 he was professor of ecclesiastical history and polity and from 1859 to 1869 adjunct professor of systematic theology in Union Theological Seminary, where he later became full professor of systematics. In 1883, he was appointed professor of mental and moral philosophy in the University of Texas.
By 1894 failing health compelled him to retire from active life, although he still lectured occasionally. He was co-pastor, with his brother-in-law B. M. Smith, of the Hampden-Sydney College Church 1858 to 1874, also serving Hampden-Sydney College in a professorial capacity on occasions of vacancies in its faculty. Dabney, whose wife was a first cousin to Stonewall Jackson's wife, participated in the Civil War: during the summer of 1861 he was chaplain of the 18th Virginia regiment in the Confederate army, and in the following year was chief of staff to Jackson during the Valley Campaign and the Seven Days Battles.
After the Civil War Dabney spoke widely on Jackson and the Confederacy. He continued to hold racial views typical in the South before the Civil War, and his continued support of slavery in speeches and a book published after the war and his strong loyalty to the Confederacy until the 1890s made him a visible figure in the post-war South (Hettle, 2003).
While at the University of Texas he practically founded and maintained the Austin School of Theology (which later became Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary), and in 1870 was Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States.
Major works
Memoir of Rev. Dr. Francis S. Sampson (1855), whose commentary on Hebrews he edited (1857);
Life of General Thomas J. Jackson (1866)
A Defense of Virginia, and Through Her, of the South, in Recent and Pending Contests Against the Sectional Party (1867), an apologia for the Confederacy.
Lectures on Sacred Rhetoric (1870)
Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology (1871; 2nd ed. 1878), later republished as Systematic Theology.
Systematic Theology (1878)
Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Examined (1875; 2nd ed. 1887)
Practical Philosophy (1897)
Penal Character of the Atonement of Christ Discussed in the Light of Recent Popular Heresies (1898, posthumous), on the satisfaction view of the atonement.
Discussions (1890-1897), Four volumes of his shorter essays, edited by C. R. Vaughan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 20, 2014
We remember Dabney as a follower of Common Sense Realism. This volume is best seen as an application of that philosophy. It spans anthropology, theology, social ethics, logic, and philosophy proper.
Anthropology
Calvinists mean by “will” the whole subjective activities. This includes disposition and subjective desires, both of which lead to volition (III: 221). The important point for Dabney is that volition--the act of willing--must be cause or influenced by something. The Calvinist finds the proximate cause in our disposition and subjective desires.
While he doesn’t expand the point, Dabney’s comments show that Calvinists do not believe that the will is corrupt. Rather, “‘corruption of will’...means rather the conative movements preceding volition, rather than volition itself” (281).
Dabney reduces--and clarifies--Edwards’ argument to this: Motives determine volitions. But what are motives? The soul’s subjective desire is spontaneous. As Dabney points out concerning the word “necessity:” if we suppose that the subject motive is present, the volition will not fail to rise (238). Well then, does that mean we believe in “free will” after all? Not quite. The will may indeed act spontaneously, but the intellect directs it (237). This isn’t fatalism because an intellect’s directing the will is another way of saying that the action isn’t random and mindless.
This discussion explains effectual calling and regeneration: In regeneration God efficiently produces the holy disposition which regulates, concurrent with a renewed intellect (acts as proximate cause), man’s volitions (227).
Common Sense Realism
While he doesn’t have a chapter on Common Sense Realism, he does helpfully define its basics in his last chapter. He notes, “We have found that whenever we see properties we must believe in substances to which the mind refers these properties. Wherever we see action going on we must believe in s.ubstantive agents” (575). The strength of CSR is the conclusions one draws from negating it: “If I were to doubt my own consciousness, I should have to doubt everything else, because everything I know is known to me only through the medium of this consciousness” (574-575). Thus, CSR is not a set of neutral principles, pace the Van Tillian, but rather a mode of knowing.
Social Ethics
We are quick to reject Dabney on slavery, but we must be careful that in rejecting his view on slavery, we do not fall prey to Jacobinism (atheistic French Revolution). His larger question: “What is the moral ground of my obligation to obey the magistrate, whom yesterday, before he was inducted to office, I would have scorned to recognize as my master, to whom today I must bow in obedience” (302)? There are several answers to this question: Hobbesianism (I must obey any official simply because he is an official), social contract theory, and biblical theory.
The Hobbesian theory rests on incoherent presuppositions. If “Bob” is my master today, but he is usurped by “Jim” tomorrow (which action most would call sinful, per Romans 13), then Jim is the divinely ordained master. Repeat ad infinitum. While I may have to give Bob-Jim obedience for conscience’s sake, it is obvious that if two contradictory men, both of whom claim post facto legitimacy, neither can claim the moral high ground. There is no moral foundation. Thus, Hobbesianism is morally bankrupt.
Dabney deals likewise with Social Contract Theory. Before we continue with infidel theories, Dabney has an interesting and challenging discussion of church and state. He gives a solid criticism of the 19th century Scottish church: when you accept government money, you have to accept the conditions the government lays down for having the money (325).
Unlimited Rights Incompatible with Scripture
The Jacobin theory of rights (aka modern America) asserts that no one in society may have a right and privilege that the other doesn’t have and you cannot impute the consequences of one to the other (and the reasoning is the same: one man cannot be “above” the other in representing him).
Dabney, following the Larger Catechism (Q. 124), says that we have obligations to inferiors, superiors, and equals. Our functions and privileges differ, but the same law protects our common rights (Dabney 499). We have different relations within society.
Even more embarrassing for modern man, “God distributed the franchises unequally in the Hebrew commonwealth” (504). And all of this leads Dabney to his comments on slavery. We might not like them, but we must deal with what the Bible says. Far from being a Jacobin pamphlet, the Bible said while Hebrews could only be enslaved for six years, a foreigner could be enslaved indefinitely (Lev. 25:42-47). Does this verse apply today? Probably not, but it bears some reflection: Was God morally unjust to make this distinction?
Even more, the Hebrew commonwealth has those who are neither domestic slaves nor fully enfranchised citizens. Is that unjust? Dabney continues with a few more reductios.
Conclusion
This is not easy reading, but the essays do follow a logical pattern. While we may not accept all of his conclusions, this is a remarkable snapshot of cultural life in the postbellum South.
Anthropology
Calvinists mean by “will” the whole subjective activities. This includes disposition and subjective desires, both of which lead to volition (III: 221). The important point for Dabney is that volition--the act of willing--must be cause or influenced by something. The Calvinist finds the proximate cause in our disposition and subjective desires.
While he doesn’t expand the point, Dabney’s comments show that Calvinists do not believe that the will is corrupt. Rather, “‘corruption of will’...means rather the conative movements preceding volition, rather than volition itself” (281).
Dabney reduces--and clarifies--Edwards’ argument to this: Motives determine volitions. But what are motives? The soul’s subjective desire is spontaneous. As Dabney points out concerning the word “necessity:” if we suppose that the subject motive is present, the volition will not fail to rise (238). Well then, does that mean we believe in “free will” after all? Not quite. The will may indeed act spontaneously, but the intellect directs it (237). This isn’t fatalism because an intellect’s directing the will is another way of saying that the action isn’t random and mindless.
This discussion explains effectual calling and regeneration: In regeneration God efficiently produces the holy disposition which regulates, concurrent with a renewed intellect (acts as proximate cause), man’s volitions (227).
Common Sense Realism
While he doesn’t have a chapter on Common Sense Realism, he does helpfully define its basics in his last chapter. He notes, “We have found that whenever we see properties we must believe in substances to which the mind refers these properties. Wherever we see action going on we must believe in s.ubstantive agents” (575). The strength of CSR is the conclusions one draws from negating it: “If I were to doubt my own consciousness, I should have to doubt everything else, because everything I know is known to me only through the medium of this consciousness” (574-575). Thus, CSR is not a set of neutral principles, pace the Van Tillian, but rather a mode of knowing.
Social Ethics
We are quick to reject Dabney on slavery, but we must be careful that in rejecting his view on slavery, we do not fall prey to Jacobinism (atheistic French Revolution). His larger question: “What is the moral ground of my obligation to obey the magistrate, whom yesterday, before he was inducted to office, I would have scorned to recognize as my master, to whom today I must bow in obedience” (302)? There are several answers to this question: Hobbesianism (I must obey any official simply because he is an official), social contract theory, and biblical theory.
The Hobbesian theory rests on incoherent presuppositions. If “Bob” is my master today, but he is usurped by “Jim” tomorrow (which action most would call sinful, per Romans 13), then Jim is the divinely ordained master. Repeat ad infinitum. While I may have to give Bob-Jim obedience for conscience’s sake, it is obvious that if two contradictory men, both of whom claim post facto legitimacy, neither can claim the moral high ground. There is no moral foundation. Thus, Hobbesianism is morally bankrupt.
Dabney deals likewise with Social Contract Theory. Before we continue with infidel theories, Dabney has an interesting and challenging discussion of church and state. He gives a solid criticism of the 19th century Scottish church: when you accept government money, you have to accept the conditions the government lays down for having the money (325).
Unlimited Rights Incompatible with Scripture
The Jacobin theory of rights (aka modern America) asserts that no one in society may have a right and privilege that the other doesn’t have and you cannot impute the consequences of one to the other (and the reasoning is the same: one man cannot be “above” the other in representing him).
Dabney, following the Larger Catechism (Q. 124), says that we have obligations to inferiors, superiors, and equals. Our functions and privileges differ, but the same law protects our common rights (Dabney 499). We have different relations within society.
Even more embarrassing for modern man, “God distributed the franchises unequally in the Hebrew commonwealth” (504). And all of this leads Dabney to his comments on slavery. We might not like them, but we must deal with what the Bible says. Far from being a Jacobin pamphlet, the Bible said while Hebrews could only be enslaved for six years, a foreigner could be enslaved indefinitely (Lev. 25:42-47). Does this verse apply today? Probably not, but it bears some reflection: Was God morally unjust to make this distinction?
Even more, the Hebrew commonwealth has those who are neither domestic slaves nor fully enfranchised citizens. Is that unjust? Dabney continues with a few more reductios.
Conclusion
This is not easy reading, but the essays do follow a logical pattern. While we may not accept all of his conclusions, this is a remarkable snapshot of cultural life in the postbellum South.
November 22, 2011
I just read selections out of this one, but Dabney was a principled man, and principled men are far seeing men.
February 23, 2020
Dabney is insightful on so many topics. I do recommend the Sprinkle publications edition as it contains more of his writings.
Read
February 15, 2019The sections I read were:
"Anti-Biblical Theories of Rights"
"Civic Ethics"
"Secularized Education"
"The Influence of False Philosophies Upon Character and Conduct"
"Anti-Biblical Theories of Rights"
"Civic Ethics"
"Secularized Education"
"The Influence of False Philosophies Upon Character and Conduct"
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews