there was no attack." Not so. If the language used constituted an attack, then there was an attack, whatever the private design of its author; and the design is to be inferred from the plain meaning of the language, and is to be imputed, unless the author comes forward and disclaims it.

Now as to the meaning of the language in question, if Dr. Cleaveland had put before his readers, in his "Statement," the paragraph of which we complained, so that they could compare it with his explanation, we should have been willing to leave the matter there, so plainly does our interpretation lie upon the face of that paragraph. Here it is:

"These five and twenty years have brought other and more significant changes in their train. The heated atmosphere of the religious community here, which I found so impatient of dissent on my first arrival in the city, has sensibly cooled down and given place to a larger and kindlier spirit. The enthusiasm felt here a quarter of a century ago for the then recent scheme of theology, has greatly abated. New parties have arisen, contending for new issues. The current of theological opinion and speculation is seeking other channels, and assuming other phases. In this process of disintegration and reconstruction, some have fallen back on positions more in sympathy with the older theology, and into a style of preaching less rationalistic and more scriptural ;-while others are pushing their investigations in the opposite direction, farther from the central doctrines of the Gospel, the Trinity, atonement, and justification by faith,-exchanging signals of sympathy with Unitarians, transcendentalists, pantheists, and I know not what besides."

Dr. Cleaveland says, in the language which we have quoted from his Statement: "I speak of changes in the community here." Not so. He speaks of changes in "the religious community here;" and of "the religious community here, which I found so impatient of dissent on my first arrival in the city," -the community which felt so much "enthusiasm for the then recent scheme of theology;" all which confines his meaning to the Congregationalists in New Haven sympathizing with Dr. Taylor. And then he goes on to make specifications, by referring to the ministers in the community so defined, speaking of "the style of preaching;" and of those ministers he says: "Some have fallen back on positions more in sympathy with the older theology, and into a style of preaching less rationalistic and more scriptural; while others are pushing their investigations in the opposite direction, farther from the cen

tral doctrines of the gospel-the Trinity, atonement, and justification by faith." And then he makes a still farther fingerpoint by saying, "exchanging signals of sympathy with Unitarians," &c.; which was sufficiently "explicit" to all persons who knew the fact of Dr. Dutton's exchange with Prof. Huntington, and the manner in which the Boston Recorder, and other papers and persons in sympathy with Dr. Cleaveland, are in the habit of speaking of orthodox men who have in any way fellowshiped Prof. Huntington, insisting, contrary to his express declaration, that he is a Unitarian. Dr. Cleaveland says: "I might have been more explicit." We do not think he could, unless he had called Dr. Dutton by name. We do not see how an interpretation of language could well be more plain and inevitable to all persons acquainted with the facts involved, than that which we gave to this paragraph. Dr. Cleaveland says: "My reviewer dwells at length on the latter clause of this passage, which speaks of 'others pushing their investigations in the opposite direction, farther from the central doctrines of the gospel,' &c., and says, 'if this did not apply to my ministerial brethren in this city, he knew not to whom it could apply.' But the clause next preceding, where I refer to some as having 'fallen back on positions more in sympathy with the older theology,' he passes over in silence. Why is this? Have these words no meaning? Let me ask in turn, If this clause does not apply to my ministerial brethren in New Haven, then to whom does he suppose it applies?" Certainly we suppose it applies to his ministerial brethren in New Haven, as does the other clause. That is just our interpretation of it. And he says that some of them "have fallen back on positions more in sympathy with the older theology, and into a style of preaching less rationalistic, and more scriptural; while others are pushing their investigations in the opposite direction, farther from the central doctrines of the gospel-the Trinity, atonement, and justification by faith—exchanging signals of sympathy with Unitarians, transcendentalists, pantheists, and I know not what besides." Dr. Cleaveland's own interpretation of the complimentary clause of the

sentence confirms and seals our interpretation of its defamatory clause.

He says again, “I speak of 'new parties contending for new issues; an expression that evidently has a wider range than New Haven ministers, or New Haven itself." Not necessarily, or even probably, when taken in connection with other parts of the paragraph. It was naturally supposed to refer to decided and expressed differences of opinion at one time in New Haven respecting Dr. Bushnell, among those who had been well agreed with respect to Dr. Taylor. And even if it had been supposed to have a wider range than New Haven ministers, it manifestly included them, and had a special reference to some of them, as we have already indicated.

When Dr. Cleaveland, after denying, to our astonishment, that he referred to New Haven, or to New Haven ministers, in the clause complained of, comes to remark, "Who then, it may be asked, were meant by those who are pushing their investigations in the opposite direction, farther from the central doctrines of the gospel, sympathizing with Unitarians, and the like?"—we thought, surely now he will tell us. But no. He declines. And we are left, as to his intention, completely at sea. In our review of the sermon we said that, "in looking around for the possible meanings of this paragraph, we have thought that it might refer to fellowship with Dr. Bushnell.” But this Dr. Cleaveland decisively excludes by the language of this Statement. He says: "In regard to Dr. Dutton's act of fellowship with Prof. Huntington, I would say that it occurred a long time ago; while I was speaking of a period, and of developments, more recent. My mind was upon facts nearer to the present, and far more startling." Now Dr. Bushnell's views, which Dr. Cleaveland, and others in sympathy with him, have opposed and denounced as heretical, were published in the volume entitled "God in Christ," in 1849, three years before "the act of fellowship with Prof. Huntington," which was in 1852. He cannot then mean Dr. Bushnell. Whom, then, does he mean? What are these developments more recent-these "facts nearer to the present, and far more startling?" We cannot even imagine. If our readers can tell, or guess, they

can do more than we can. We say then, in concluding this question as to the interpretation of this unlucky sentence, that while we give full credence to Dr. Cleaveland's testimony that he did not mean the New Haven ministers, or any one of them, we must express the hope, that whenever again he fires off a paragraph of this kind, he will be more successful in hitting those whom he meant to hit, and especially in not hitting those whom he did not mean to hit. If he is not, his friends, much more than his opponents, will have occasion to protest against the operation.*

But Dr. Cleaveland claims that the persons aggrieved should have come to him, and inquired what his language meant! This is a very extraordinary claim. They had no occasion to inquire. His published language they well understood. It was plain. They were confirmed in their understanding of it by many intelligent and candid persons, who both heard and read the discourse, and had no doubt about its meaning, and also by some intimate with Dr. Cleaveland, and supposed to be in his confidence, who said that it did mean what they under

One of these said But he did not know

*That persons unacquainted with the facts in the case, should not have given the interpretation which we gave, is no more than we should expect. Dr. Cleaveland says, (p. 14,) "Certainly these words are capable of other, and more significant applications. And on particular inquiry, I find that they were not 'generally understood' by the congregation that heard the sermon as the reviewer understands them. And that some of my hearers did not see any reference to Dr. Dutton in the discourse, he has learned from their own lips." The "some of my hearers," here referred to, were two. that he had no idea at all to whom the preacher did refer. of Dr. Dutton's act of fellowship with Dr. Huntington. The other, so far from making the "other and more significant applications" of which Dr. Cleaveland thinks the words are capable, (viz. to "facts more recent and startling,") said that they applied to facts which occurred in connection with the Theologica Seminary in New Haven, more than fifteen years ago !-facts, in which some persons were concerned who were at the Seminary, but not of it, and in no sympathy with its professors. Doubtless, many of the congregation that heard the sermon were unacquainted with the facts which gave that paragraph its meaning, and fixed its interpretation; and they of course could not be expected to understand it as the reviewer did. And we venture to say that they did not understand it at all, and could do no more than blindly guess at the intended reference. But by those who were acquainted with those facts, viz. the facts connected with the fellowship with Dr. Huntington, it was generally understood as the reviewer understood it. Of this we have abundant proof.

stood it to mean. To have gone to Dr. Cleaveland in such a case to inquire what his language meant would have been ridiculous impertinence, and not very promising of pleasant results. The attack was before the public; and they felt, painfully, that they must meet it; and they judged that they had a right to choose their own way of meeting it—such a way as would give them the amplest vindication.* Dr. Cleaveland asks whether if we had inquired of him, we should have "treated his sermon as a designed attack," after "he had disclaimed any such design," and should have "charged him with bearing false witness against his neighbor." We treated it as an attack before the public. And such it was, and would

have been, and as such must have been met, even had the design been disowned. Nor is it exactly correct to say that we charged the author of the sermon with bearing false witness against his neighbor. We asked him if he had forgotten the commandment, which says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor:" which, considering the interpretation that we were compelled to give to his language,

* On this point the following sentences of the Statement call for such attention as we can give more appropriately in a note. "Since Dr. Dutton published his review, I have learned that on the suggestion of a friend he signified his intention, before putting anything to press, to inquire of me whether I did allude to him, in my sermon, or not; thus conceding the obvious propriety of such a course."

"Now what I claim is, that as Dr. Dutton did make inquiry of some of my hearers, whether he had correctly understood my language, so he might have inquired of me, the only person who had absolute knowledge on the subject." Here is a mistake, as there is very apt to be in reported conversations. Dr. Dutton said to the friend referred to, that he had thought of calling on Dr. Cleaveland with reference to the subject. But he did not express an intention of calling; for he had not gone so far as that in his own mind. Much less did he express the intention of calling on Dr. Cleaveland to inquire what his language meant; for he knew already, and told this friend; who, not knowing of the act of fellowship with Dr. Huntington, had before no idea what the meaning was. The facts on this point, which may as well be told, now that Dr. Cleaveland has alluded to them before the public, are these. Those ministers who felt that they were implicated by the offensive paragraph, consulted respecting the proper course to be pursued. Dr. Dutton suggested calling on Dr. Cleaveland, and also writing to him a joint note, not to inquire what his language meant, but to present their griev ance and complaint. But on full consideration, and for reasons which have already been expressed, the course actually taken was decided to be the right one.