# Dabney Discussions Volume 3



## RamistThomist (May 21, 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. (I am working on an essay where Van Til actually agreed with CSR on p. 134 of Survey of Christian Epistemology. He didn't develop this point and his disciples, largely ignorant of CSR, continued along. Dabney's knowing through the "medium of consciousness" is the same as Van Til's using reason as a proximate starting point).

*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. Modern Political Revolutionary Theory is ethically 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). If the public is a steward of the money, then the public has a say in the stewardship of the money. Like Dabney, I am sympathetic to Chalmer's cause, but I don't think he had a legal leg to stand on.

_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. But if everyone is equal with respect to position and privilege, then the Catechism must be wrong. Obviously, the catechism is not wrong. And this isn't a racial thing: I am not equal with respect to a Lee or a Rockefeller.

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. The important point is this: While there is much to reprove in the historical outworkings of slavery, we may not say, and Dabney is very clear on this, that the relation between master and slave (at its essence) is sinful, since the Bible doesn't say it is sinful. To go beyond that, beyond the Bible, is the essence of Phariseeism and Romanism.

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.


----------



## Christusregnat (May 21, 2014)

Excellent summary Jacob!


----------

