1854.] M. Grandpierre on American Unitarianism.

397

and a living power in the permanent literature of the world. For, through their often meagre brevity, and dense obscurity, and wearisome perplexity, there still shines the light which guided the desert-march of Israel, and sounds that "voice crying in the wilderness," which, from remote ages, yet heralds to our heart the latest and purest hope of humanity.

J. H. A.

ART. VI. M. GRANDPIERRE ON AMERICAN UNITARIANISM.*

We have placed at the foot of this page the titles of two works, mainly on account of the diametrically opposite views which they give of the strength and progress of Unitarianism in the United States.

The book by the Rev. M. Grandpierre is, with the single exception that it gives an incorrect statement on this point, written in an exceedingly liberal and candid spirit. It praises our country, more than does any book of travels that we have seen. The abundant provision made for education; the vast scale on which the benevolent enterprises of the day are prosecuted; the clergy, "the best in the world"; the manner in which the Sabbath is observed; the absence of poverty; the comforts, and even luxuries, which the masses enjoy;- these make a profound and most favorable impression on his mind. He regards the form of government under which we live as "perfectly adapted to the genius of the people." Our prosperity, he thinks, is to be traced principally to the religious spirit which is everywhere prevalent. He cannot help exclaiming, "Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord!"

In intimating that his remarks upon our own faith are

1. Quelques Mois de Séjour aux États-Unis d'Amérique, par J. H. GRANDPIERRE, D. T. Pasteur-suffragant de l'Église Reformée de Paris, et Directeur des Missions Évangeliques. Paris: Chez Grassart. 1854. 12mo. pp. 207.

2. A Presbyterian Clergyman looking for the Church. By One of Three Hundred. New York: General Protestant Episcopal Sunday School Union. 1853. 12mo. pp. 580.

not altogether just, we by no means imply that he did not intend to state the exact truth. No one would entertain such an idea who knew M. Grandpierre, or who has had the privilege, frequently enjoyed by the writer of these pages, of listening to him as a preacher.

We will go further; and grant, that, though some of his statements are exaggerated or incomplete, as we shall attempt to show, the error to which we have referred has respect, in most cases, rather to the conclusions which he draws, than to the facts which he adduces.

The statements to which this latter remark applies are these: "The Unitarians in the United States are in a very small minority. They have only a few churches, at Cambridge, Boston, and in one or two other cities. They scarcely exist at all as a church." "The negative principle which runs through Unitarianism is not more fruitful (fécond) in the United States than it is upon the Continent of Europe." "The Unitarians have no missionary societies, foreign or domestic; no tract society, or other like institutions. Even in the Bible Society they take but little interest. It was not founded by them, and if they contribute at all to its funds, their subscriptions are very small indeed." He says, "They have but one theological school," and "that is far from being prosperous, and it shows more than one sign of decline." In fine, though M. Grandpierre devotes but little space to this branch of his subject, he gives to his readers the impression that Unitarianism, especially when compared with Orthodoxy, is, as a principle, inefficient and powerless; that it has accomplished and is accomplishing very little, and is evidently, if not already dead, rapidly dying

out.

The work entitled "A Presbyterian Clergyman looking for the Church" is a fitting pendant to that by the French clergyman. It is such, because, while apparently perfectly cognizant of facts showing that the Unitarian body is small, numerically considered, and that their denominational activity is not so manifest as is that of other sects, its author represents Unitarianism as rapidly increasing, and exerting a mighty influence. The number of chapters mainly devoted to this point nearly corresponds to the number of pages in the other work which take the opposite view.

The work which bears this rather singular title is "by one of three hundred Presbyterian ministers who have become Episcopalians." The Rev. Flavel S. Mines, now deceased, wrote his book in a popular style; its unusually large sale, and its publication by "the Episcopal Sunday School Union" of New York, show that it is estimated highly by members of the Church to which he belongs. We do not propose, however, to speak of it, except in a single connec tion. Our reason for referring to it now is the prominence which the writer, in all his argument, gives to the history of the spread of Unitarian opinions.

Unitarianism he represents "as the protest of the human mind against Calvinistic doctrines at which it revolts." "No wonder," he says, "New England falls back into Unitarianism, or any other ism that will cling to the Creator as the Universal Father." (p. 481.) The Calvinistic churches of New England, he thinks, are becoming Unitarian everywhere. Quoting a Presbyterian divine, he remarks: "The Unitarians may lie on their arms without striking a blow, and confidently await the issue." (p. 163.) He speaks of the Church of the Puritans, after as fair an experiment as it was possible to make, "as eaten up to its very heart with Socinianism, a Socinianism not imported,.... but springing up by the natural law of gravitation." (p. 161.)

He argues from the history of Unitarianism in Germany, Switzerland, and France, countries which for the most part have cast off the old orthodoxy, "where Presbyterianism was, but where Socinianism now is," that the churches of the United States will soon follow their example. "As to New England, we regard the last experiment of Calvinism as made."

The same tendency he sees in England. "Of the two hundred and fifty-eight Presbyterian chapels in England remaining after the times of Cromwell, two hundred and thirty-five are Unitarian." Milton and Watts are referred to as showing the tendencies of the individual mind, "the latter of whom labored anxiously and painfully on the question of our Lord's divinity."

Without quoting all that we might from this book, suffice it to say, that whereas M. Grandpierre finds little but a mere remnant of Unitarianism, Mr. Mines (out of

his own Church) can scarcely see anything else. It is spreading so fast, and ingulfing one after the other the orthodox Presbyterianism and Congregationalism, that he cannot refrain from warning his "dissenting brethren." The moral of his book, to a Calvinist who had just perused M. Grandpierre's sketches, would be something like this: Very well, my orthodox brother, you see what you are coming to. Behold the rod, not only that which, for the love of you, I, a humble disciple of the only true Church, have laid over the shoulders of Congregationalism and Presbyterianism, but also that other rod whose name is Unitarianism, destined, if they "will not hear the Church," to swallow up all the other sects.

Indeed, if there are any of our readers who are in the least staggered by what they read either in M. Grandpierre's or in others' writings about the decline of Unitarianism, and if they attach great importance to what a Trinitarian says about the present position and strength of Unitarianism, we cannot recommend to them a book better fitted to rebuke discouragement than that by the Rev. Mr. Mines. We are rejoiced that he has made his statements with such boldness. Our view of their weight is not affected by criticisms which we might pass upon the work on other grounds. We are sure that some at least of his readers will draw quite a different conclusion from his ninth, twelfth, and fifteenth chapters, than that which he so strenuously endeavors to enforce; namely, "that in Episcopacy is the only safety."

These opposite views of the spread of Unitarianism, given by two writers of a different faith from ours, have suggested to us the consideration of the following question: Is Unitarianism gradually dying out, or is it making really no inconsiderable degree of progress? Are the present aspects of our cause encouraging or discouraging? In attempting, as we propose to do, to show that a favorable answer can be given to this inquiry, we are not unaware of the delicacy of our task. Defence against unwarrantable accusation may seem to some like arrogant boasting, and an attempt to nourish that undue denominational self-complacency which is fatal to all progress.

We can only say, that we are as sensible of the short

f

comings of Unitarians as are any of our friends. In desiring to show that Unitarianism has accomplished very much more than its opponents admit, we by no means assert that its friends are justified in being vainglorious or supine. In endeavoring to prove that we, as a denomination, are not quite dead or dying out, we are far from affirming that we are fully alive to our responsibilities. In arguing with a French Bonapartist, few of our countrymen would grant that American republicanism has turned out a failure, even though they had a vivid sense of some of our national faults. A similar denial is not inconsistent with the same admissions, when a French Calvinist pronounces American Unitarianism a failure.

We propose to treat our general subject under three

I. In connection with some of the causes affecting our growth as a religious body.

II. Some statistical and other information in respect to its influence and actual condition; and

III. The bearing upon our prospects of certain opinions and movements of other sects.

I. Some of the causes modifying the progress of our distinctive views lie among those subtile agencies and influences which are not always susceptible of explanation or analysis, and to the power of which all opinions are more or less subject. The difficulties involved in the inquiry, Why, if it be true, does it not make more progress? are such as the history of all great intellectual movements presents. The problem how or why this or that form of religious opinion gained the ascendency, and kept it in a particular age or country, constantly perplexes the student of religious history. To say nothing of the almost undisputed sway of Roman Catholicism for centuries preceding the advent of Luther, what a marvel is it that, even now, Roman Catholicism in Europe is less strong relatively than it was towards the close of the life of the German Reformer! Who would then have prophesied, that, in the nineteenth century, more than one half of what was then the Netherlands would be Roman Catholic; that in Bohemia, where Protestantism then promised to be the prevalent religion, it should become extinct; and that in Germany itself it should on