“[Post- Civil War] The issues at home were pressing and demanded Dabney’s energies. While the North had gained the upper hand politically through the force of arms, Dabney sought to maintain a distinctive Southern civilization . . . by strengthening the Southern institutions that remained. . . . It was primarily in the PCUS [Presbyterian Church in the United States, i.e. the Southern Presbyterian Church], not in monuments or Confederate Day speeches, that Dabney sought to preserve Southern identity” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 134-135).

“While before the war [Dabney] had been Virginian first, American second, after the war Dabney was Virginian first, Southerner second, and American maybe” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 130).

“Because he had already memorialized Stonewall Jackson in a powerful sermon after the general’s death in 1863, and because he was both a relative and a former member of Jackson’s staff, Mary Anna Jackson asked Dabney to write a biography of the Confederate chieftain. Dabney spent the rest of the war on his Life of Jackson — researching the battles, visiting Mrs. Jackson, securing Jackson’s remaining papers, and writing the manuscript. The resulting biography was Dabney’s longest-standing literary monument and one of his chief glories” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 128).

“Dabney was interested in seeking another tour in the army as a chaplain and had been old by General D.H. Hill, a fellow Presbyterian, that he could have a position in his division. In the meantime, Stonewall Jackson had sent his wife away from Winchester to stay with her cousin, Dabney’s wife, Lavinia, at Farmville. Jackson, as a result of his wife’s intercession, offered Dabney the position of chief of staff of the Second Corps in the Army of Northern Virginia” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 115).

“It is important to notice themes of honor and patriotism in Dabney’s declaration of war [i.e. the Civil War]. He had advocated peace until it was no longer a ‘virtue,’ until the edge of ‘dishonor’ was reached” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 109).

“Dabney believed that this “penal substitutionary theory” of the atonement was the keystone of Christianity. ‘There is scarcely a leading head of divinity which is not changed or perverted as a logical consequence of this denial of penal substitution consistently carried out,’ Dabney taught. Forsake the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement and other key doctrines were sure to go: God’s distributive justice; God’s immutability; the doctrines of adoption and perseverance; and the church’s teaching on the eternal punishment of the reprobate. Most important, however, was what the denial of the penal theory of the atonement would do to the doctrine of providence. If there was no special providence in Christ’s sufferings, then the problem of evil would forever remain an ‘insoluble mystery.’ Such an idea was unthinkable to Dabney. The scoffers against Christianity would have his objections answered in ‘our doctrine of redemption through Christ’s substitution, and nowhere else.’ God permitted evil in the world and suffered with that world in order to demonstrate his glory through the cross-work of Jesus. Dabney exclaimed exultantly, ‘The Messiah is our complete theodicy!’ Divine providence was saved through the penal substitutionary atonement of Jesus” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 91-92).

“[Dabney] thought that seminary training should be instructed to intellectual labor and “thorough mental culture.” If ministers were to gain pastoral skills, such training would have to occur “under the pressure of pastoral responsibilities,” not in the seminary classroom” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 77).

“Dabney believed that Union Seminary was a necessary bulwark against the concentration of power in a single institution, such as Princeton Theological Seminary. “Suppose that such an institution [were] training all or nearly all the ministers of our church, and consequently becoming the fountain of literary and theological opinion for the whole church,” Dabney wrote. “The result would be most un-Presbyterian and dangerous, even while this school remained orthodox.” And if this school were to begin to teach heresy, such an institution “might spread its poison unresisted through the whole body.” Hence, Union Seminary was vitally necessary and deserved the support of the Synods of Virginia and North Carolina” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 64).

“The common threads in all of these contemporary appraisals of Dabney’s preaching were his pulpit intensity, his lack of polished oratory, and his didacticism. And an examination of the extant sermons demonstrates that these appraisals were fair and accurate. These sermons indicate that the majority of Dabney’s preaching generally shifted back and forth between passionate and direct evangelistic appeals to unrepentant sinners to come to Christ, and doctrinal sermons on points related to soteriology” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 51).

“Dabney suffered from camp fever once again, a sickness ‘which brought me to death’s door.’ The illness forced him to resign his commission, which Jackson accepted with ‘great reluctance’ . . . In summary, Dabney’s career as a Civil War chaplain and soldier is difficult to assess with accuracy because he did not participate long enough in either office to be noticed” (Sean Michael Lucas, Robert Lewis Dabney, 117).