Of a different character from either of the above productions, is the following extract from "A Lay for the Season," the authorship of which we have a number of times seen attributed to Mr. Gallagher.-Several years ago, Mr. G. and Mr. Dillon clubbed together, and produced a New-Year's Poem between them, which was much admired. The following stanzas constituted the portion furnished by Mr. Dillon; and are, we think, much the most beautiful part of the production. -As the author of "The Penitent" does not stand in need of the assistance of his poetical friends, and has as many literary sins of his own as he can well answer for just now, we have thought proper to set this matter of authorship right—especially, as we know that Mr. Gallagher is desirous this should be done.

EXTRACT FROM A LAY FOR THE SEASON.'

Come to the funeral of the year!

Not with spirits worn by sadness-
Bring no sigh-and shed no tear-

The scoff and jest of tavern brawlers-
And Statesmen's fame will not be weigh'd
Against the rant of daily brawlers.

To Fame's bright temple men have made
In latter days some madden'd rushes,
And wrote names there, o'er which 'tis said

The goddess of the temple blushes! .
No matter-dark'ning years will glide

O'er all which Fame can never cherish,
And whate'er Folly raised in pride,

Like all of Folly's works, will perish.

We wish this were only as good philosophy, as it is beautiful poetry. But we have very little faith in most of the author's predictions. Purer streams of light will flow where superstition now reposes-and the callous 'single band' may turn from waywardness to duty-(as an evidence of this, we understand that Mr. D. is himself about to set the praiseworthy example;) but we fear it will be long before we shall see the poet's other predictions verified-very long, before

"The demagogue shall cease to be,

As he has been, his own extoller;
And Freedom's land be really free-
With none to wear the 'golden collar!'"

The 'signs of the times' speak no such enviable state of things at hand. The 'golden collar' is every day becoming more extensively worn: we see it in every city-we meet it in every street-we encounter it in every crowd-and what is worse, we even behold it worn, not merely without shame, but actually with boasting. And

But surely our Western Poets have nothing to do with it. We recollect several other of Mr. Dillon's productions, scarcely, if at all, inferior to these quoted above; but we know not just now, where to lay our hands upon them. Their author is evidently a man of cultivated intellect, and has certainly the "dangerous gift of song." It is to be regretted, that he does not oftener favor the public with the delightful productions of his leisure hours; and we hope, if this article happen to meet his eye, that it may determine him to do so.

ART. IX.-DOES UNITARIANISM TOUCH THE HEART?

A true religion, say our opponents, must not only convince the understanding, but touch the heart; Unitarianism does not do this; therefore, Unitarianism cannot be the true faith.— The conclusion cannot be done away, if the premises be true; the first premise is true; the second, we think, is false; and to show it to be so, is our present purpose.

What is meant by touching the heart? If by it the antiSocinian means a change, which can be wrought only by faith in his creed, he argues in a circle; proving his creed true by the fact of its being his creed; with him it is not worth while to argue. We can address only him that speaks of religion as influencing the heart in a sense which we can all understand; that means by it a rousing of those feelings which belong to human nature, which lead to good works, and which are in the usual metaphysical and moral speech, called collectively, the heart. Does not Unitarianism touch the heart, taken in this sense? We shall, of course, discuss the question relatively, that is, inquire which tends most to the desired point, our faith or its opposite;-and as any difference in effect must arise from difference of doctrine, we need consider only those points whereon we differ.

First of these is the Nature of God:-We think the Supreme Being to be One Person, manifested in a myriad forms and ways; our opponent thinks this Being in some sense to be also Three, though in what sense, he does not know. The difference between us, on this point, we look upon as wholly unimportant; our feelings are awakened with equal ease to the One or the Tri-une Deity.

The second point of difference is, upon the Character of God: to us the Great Spirit is a Creator, who has given us power to do all that we are bound to do; a Preserver, who guides, assists, and directs us daily and momently; who, by super-natural power addressed to the eye, by words of wisdom addressed to the ear, and by the unceasing aid of which we have spoken-shows a love for us, which is infinitely more enduring than that of any human parent, and infinitely purer and more clear-sighted. We further regard Him as a lawgiver and judge, who wishes our perfection; has made suffering the result of every step which does not tend to perfection; and the inevitable result; because it is, in each instance, just as much as will answer the end of punishment, and no more; God, therefore, forgives him that repents, only in that he has

in man's nature, made a cessation of suffering the necessary result of reform of character; and the continuance and gradual increase of suffering the certain result of a continuance of sin.

Our opponent looks upon God as a Creator who has made. him unable to do all that he is required to do-(for, if he does not, he is not, on this point, our opponent;) as a Preserver, who came down from Heaven, took a human form, and caused as much suffering to be endured by that human form, as mankind ought to have borne for their sins; (regarding that suffering as due for the satisfaction of Divine Justice, apart from the welfare of the sufferers:)--and who moreover daily, by Grace, which is aid given without reference to the state of him to whom it is given-keeps certain men from sin and suffering. We say, 'without reference to the state of him to whom given,' because, if it has reference to that state, and is given on the ground of merit, it is the Unitarian doctrine, not its opposite.-Farther, our opponent looks at God as a Judge whose Laws being broken, Justice requires that eternal suffering be the consequence; and if eternal punishment be not the lot of every man, (for no man can fulfil all the Laws of God,) it is because Mercy comes in and redeems them; not, however, because of any act, or change of mind, originating in the Redeemed; for then, at once, comes in the Idea of human merit, and Grace not free; the redemption is given to some, and refused others, without any regard to desert. In other words, the anti-Unitarian regards God as an Almighty Being who has seen fit to make him in such manner that he will suffer eternally, be he good to the extent of his powers or not, unless this same Being sees fit also to say he need not: or, He has made mankind so that all must sin, but does not mean to punish all.

In this statement of the opinion which opposes our own, we wish to be fair and clear; and therefore say further: If our opponent means, by his doctrine of Grace and Salvation, merely this that man will sin; that God, knowing this, grants Grace to those who strive most to be spotless, and makes that striving the certain measure of Grace-his doctrine is, in essence, Unitarian; and if he does not mean this, he then makes God create all damnable, and refuse to save all. His doctrine is, we say, Unitarian; because, whether man does one part and Grace ten, or man ten and Grace one, the principle is the same, the difference is merely of degree; the true distinction is between man's doing anything or nothing.

Looking, then, at the character of God, as set forth by the

two forms of Faith spoken of;-the Unitarian, which makes God create all for perfection, and aid all those that strive to gain perfection; and, on the other hand, its opposite (we do not say the Trinitarian, for many Trinitarians are with us, but its opposite,) which makes God create all with a tendency to damnation, and saves a portion without regarding their characters or efforts-which, we ask, is best fitted to excite the nobler feelings of the human heart-Love, Benevolence, Trust, and Faith?

But, it is said, you have taken no heed of the fact, that God came down and died for man; this fact is better fitted to excite the feelings of man than all others; this is the strong point of the anti-Unitarian view of God's character. And so it is; but wherein lies its strength? In its appeal to the feelings above spoken of, or to Wonder, Fear, Awe-and the Imagination?

It is well known that many men have died for their country or their fellow men; they have given up all they loved on earth, with the prospect before them at the best, but full of Hope. Do these men claim or merit the love of those for whom they died, as does that Being who is with us ever, watching, aiding, and warning us? You say, 'No.? Well, did the Infinite One who came down, as you think, and took a human form, give up as much for you, make as great a sacrifice for you, when by death He put it off again, as does the man who dies for you? God did not die upon the Hill of Calvary: the all-present, all-perfect, all-wise One did but there put off his form of clay, and could have felt none of those natural, human fears that we should have felt: how then was this sacrifice so great? Does it possess that greatness which calls forth Love and Gratitude; or Wonder, Surprise, and Awe?And if these latter be the more desirable feelings, does not the faith of Veeshnoo and Seeva surpass that of Christ? To us, then, the death of Christ, if Christ was God, excites less our love and gratitude than if he had been a man; and calls them out far less than the Fatherly Character of which each day gives us proofs. And if you say the vastness of the sacrifice. was a mystery, we reply, mysteries do not touch the feelings, but the imagination.

Thus much for the influence of Unitarian views of God's character, upon the better feelings of the heart, and the influence of opposite views. That all who do not hold Unitarian views in general, hold the anti-Unitarian views in this matter, we do not suppose; thousands who differ from us, touching the Nature of the Deity, agree with us in our views of His Character. And is not a difference upon this point the only dif