Chesebrough had noticed the discrepancies be-
tween the reviewers ; and inasmuch as the leading
attack was headed with the question, " What does
Dr. Bushnell mean ? " Mr. Chesebrough, in a series
of letters to the " Eeligious Herald," raised the
question, " Do they understand him ? " These let-
ters, written under the signature C. C. (Criticus
Criticorum), formed a unique and effective piece of
criticism. His method was that of placing quota-
tions from the critics in parallel columns. It had
been claimed in the " Eeligious Herald " that they
concurred ia their understanding of the book. The
parallel quotations showed violent contradiction,
both by assigning to BushneU different opinions
on the same subject, and by indicating conflict-
ing beliefs and opinions among the writers them-
selves. He is accused not only of aU the heresies
from the Docetse down, but of those that exclude
each other. But this is not more marked than
the disagreement among themselves on the points
under consideration. New Haven and Princeton
and Bangor flatly contradict one another on the
trinity and atonement ; Professor Goodrich con-
tends for a view of the person of Christ which



DAYS OF ACCUSATION 147

Dr. Hodge declares was never heard of, and all
are at sea as to SabeUianism and the Logos. It
was also strange to see Dr. H6dge of Princeton
holding a view of the trinity more nearly in ac-
cord with that of BushneU than that put forth
by such New England divines as Adams, Albro,
Edwards, Beecher, Kirk, McClure, Stearns, and
Thompson in the " Christian Observatory." We
may remark in passing that the close contact of
these ministers with Unitarianism, for aU hved in
or near Boston, is the explanation of their strenu-
ous orthodoxy, which, in turn, is the explanation
of Unitarianism. It is not rash to say that had
these eminent divines tolerated BushneU's semi-
SabeUianism even to the extent to which Dr.
