The Sun.
London, England, 1838-05-17 00:00:00

SOCIETA ARMONICA.

The Fourth Concert of the series given by the Society designatcd by the
above title, took place on Monday at the splendid room in the Queen's
Theatre. A highly fashionable auditory were present upon the occa-
sion ; the room and end boxes being well filled, without being inconve-
niently crowded. The institution, if we may judge from the quality
of the entertainment of Monday night, is carried on with great spirit,
and on a very liberal scale. A most excellent band, amongst
whom we recognised many of our first-rate musicians, occupied
the orchestra ; and the singers were—Madame Albertazzi, Made-
moiselle Caremoli, and Mr. H. Phillips. Mr. Mori was the leader,
and Mr. Fombes conducted. The concert opened with Beet-
hoven's Symphony in F minor. We will not pretend to say that this
elaborate composition went quite so well as at the Philharmonic;
still considering its difficulty, and from its length the energy required
in every department to carry it successfully through, it was performed
in a vary creditable manner. Rossini's duetto from Semiramide,
" Bella immago," was next sung in a very beautiful style, by Albertazzi
and Phillips. Mademoiselle Caremoli next gave Belloni's aria "Le
Romeo," from the opera of Capuletti. This lady sings with great
po.

,wer, and occasionally with exquisite expression, but her voice
to unequal, and not of the most pleasing quality. 'The next piece
was a manuscript cantata, by Barnett, called "Orpheus," the first
time of its performance. Although aided by an obligate accompani-
ment for the violoncello, played with his accustomed ability, by Mr.
Lindley, it was not, in our opinion, very successful. As a whole, it was
tedious and heavy, and the air itself did not possess any very striking in.
terest in respect to its melody. " Nacque al Affanni," from Rossini's
Cencrentola, better known as Non pin mesh:, exquisitely sung by
Albertazzi, elicited an unanimous and enthusiastic encore. Weber's
spirited overture to Euryanthe, admirably played by the orchestra, con.
eluded the First Part of the Concert, Cherubini's Overture to
Euryanthe, with which the Second Part commenced, was very
well performed. The simple notes of the horn, so effectively
introduced in the opening slow movement, were played with great power
and purity of tone, by Mr. Rae. Mademoiselle Carensoli next gave
Vaccai's " Ah se to dormi," in a beautifully expressive style, and was
encored. A Fantasia on the horn, by Signor Puzzi followed. It was a
piece calculated rather to show off the extraordinary ability of theplayer,
than the beauty of the instrument. The Signor executed some very
difficult and rapid variations with great facility, but the effect was not so
good as usual, from the too frequent repetition ofchromatic intervals, and
artificial intonations. A scena from Balfe's " Maid of Artois," "My
thoughts which forth have wandered" was better sung than it deserved
to be by Madame Albertazzi ; but the trio of Mercadante " Dopes due
lustri," by Albertazzi, Carernoli, and Phillips, was very indifferently
executed. The concert concluded with a very characteristic overture
by Lindpainter, a German composer, which, as usual, was wholly un-
heeded by the audience. The concert upon the whole was very grati-
fying to the audience, and highly creditable to the institution. The
next meeting takes place on Monday, the 9.Bth inst.

LORD BROUGHAM'S DRESS.—Lord Brougham
now dresses rather smartly. Until the commencement of the present
Session, he was seldom to be seen since his return from his Scottish
tour in 1834 without his tartan trousers and waistcoat. He is said to
have bought as much cloth when in Inverness as would make a dozen
pairs of the first, and a dozen of the last. Now he has put them aside,
at least for a tune, and appears in cloth of a more usual kind. At
pres.snt he is partial to having his waistcoats made in such a way as
to button close up to his chin. On his bre-:st is displayed a very hand-
some gold chain. This chain, however, does not, as is usual in such
cases, answer the purposes of a watch-guard, for it has no connection
with his watch. His watch-pocket is in the old-fashioned part of his
wardrobe, not in his waistcoat ; and it its locality is indicated by a rib-
bon about three inches in length, which suspends a trio of the most
massive watch-seals which ever rega!ed the eyes of those who are par-
tial to such articles of jewellery. His Lordship has a most decided an-
tipathy to showing the collar of his shirt ; and not less great is his
aversion to fashionable stocks, or anything which would give him what
is called a stiffneck. His neckerchief is of black silk, and is always put
en loosly and carelessly.—Bandon Recollections of the Lords and Com-
mons; .Y(to Series.

GIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS.

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 17, IKIB.

LECTURES ON NATIONAL RELI

eatencling those heavenly principles, which, even as it respects the laws
themselves, can alone secure order end obedience." In short, it is
this. The Legislature of every country is bound to ettiliilt in all things
the public welfare. Religion is for the public welfare ofa country, and the
legislature of every country is bound to take care of religion. There is
candour in putting the propostion thus generally. Sometimes we hear
of the obligation of Princes and Statesmen. The question, however,
r laves to the objection of Princes and Legislators as such, inasmuch as
it is out of their position as rulers that the alleged right and duty arises.
They must pertain to all rulers or none. The first sentence I have
read contains an important phrase, " The Legislature of every country
i. assuredly bound to consult in all things the public welfare." This we
deny : we limit this phrase, " The Legislature of every country is as-
eitredly hound to consult in all things civil the public welfare," but in no
other thing. " Now," says Dr. Dealtry, " for what reason is this line
drawn so broadly between matters civil and matters religious ?" We
will tell him. First, because religious matters are wholly beyond the
just scope and design of human Governments. There were, Indeed,
times when the theory was maintained as an incontrovertible proposi-
tion, that kings had a divine right to reign; and when it was admitted
they had a right to reign direct from God, it might be pretended per.
haps that the right Divine extended to religious as well as other mat-
ters. But I don't know there arc any politicians who hold the " right
divine of kings to govern wrong" in this clay. The theory of Govern..
meat, apart from the exploded notion of a divine right of kings, excludes
religious matters. Government is a system of restriction on our na-
tural rights. Our right to food and various other natural rights are all
equal; but the rights of property are limitations upon the rights of
nature, and Government is altogether a system of restriction upon our
natural rights, to which every man submits, and surrenders a portion of
his own natural rights for the purpose of securing the rest. We all
agree to surrender such portion of our natural rights and bow ourselves
to such restrictions ; and the State is fully bound to secure us
in the remainder of the rights which we do not surrender.
Government is a state of restriction upon our natural rights, every in-
dividual giving up a part for the sake of securing the rest. It is only
a portion of our civil rights that we thus surrender. None of us mean
to surrender any portion of our moral or religious rights into
the hands of any person whatsoever. None of us mean
to do that, and if we did we could not, because God would not permit
it; nor could it be carried out even if we were to try, because the State
has not anything to give us for such a sacrifice. The Government in
this respect receiving no trust, is under no obligation to exercise care.
Its whole case is to be confined to the civil welfare of the kingdom.
We draw this broad line between civil and religious matters. Secondly,
we say that it is limited to things civil, because religious matters are '
practically beyond the reach of human Governments. Religion is
essentially a matter of opinion, and as such can not be reached by
the machinery of human information. They don't attempt to reach
any other matter of opinion. Would they enact that all men should
be Baconians and Aristotlelians ? It would be quite preposterous to at-
tempt to pass any law that the subjects of the realm should be of one
particular religious persuasion. The actual effect of all such enact.
mews would be, not the protection of opinions, but the protection of
conformity. They may say that such a religion shall be the religion of
the country, but they cannot say that any man must adopt it—that is a
question between himselfand his God. Thirdly, Wedraw the line between
the civil and religious, because the processes of human legislature arc in
religious matters utterly inapplicable and mischievous. Laws are worth
nothing, which have not an executory principle—there are rewards and
punishments in human laws. But would it not be absurd to say that a
man should have a bishopric for becoming a Christian, or a dungeon for
becoming an Atheist ?It is horrid to think of such a thing—it would
bring into operation the worst of mischiefs, and would tend to make us ,
nothing but a nation of hypocrites. We draw the broad line be-
tween civil and religious, fourthly, because, in religious matters, the
authority of God is paramount and exclusive. To no ether are
we responsible for our conduct, in religious matters. To no
other aro we bound to listen, for human authority to interfere is
to supersede his authority, which men ought not to do, and God will
not permit. We owe it to no man to state why we entertain certain
religious opinions : we are bound to render to no matt an account of
our faith ; all we are bound to do is to ask " What saith the Lord ?"
and we arc at liberty to entertain our own opinions till " thus saith the
Lord." No man has any business to ask me what my religion is, no
power has dominion over the consciences of men, but that of the Great
Jehovah. Fifthly, we draw the line between civil and religious, be.
cause our decision in religous matters involves a responsibility which
the State cannot assume. If the Government dictates my
religion it ought to be able to secure me against the consequences of
a wrong choice. I have a soul to be saved ; and if the Government say
I am to be of a certain religion, I ask, arc you sure that it is the true
one ?--are you sure it is the one by the means of which I shall be saved ?
Or, if it turn out to be the one through the operation of which I shall
sColuerlsg2y
you have
take been
care go to hell, I ask, will you go in my stead ? And if they say they won't,
then I say, hold your tongue. This is so true, that you will doubt-
less recollect upon a certain occasion the Church put forth this very
notion; and in order to make people good in your parishes the
foundofthesaying,
Church w hy, tarnodu bwl ee
wilwill yourselves
take
aarboootift yor
o uti
souls. Such professions are most awful and horrible, and it is involved
of necessity in the constitution of a National religious i.stablishment.
Now I sly that such a responsibility cannot in point of fact he
assumed ; no Clergyman or State can insure me against a wrong
choice, and if they cannot, what right have they to dictate to me that I
must adopt one species of religion, arid reject all others ? Sixthly, We draw
the distinction between civil and religious, because if authority in religious
matters be allowed to Governments it sanctions the establishment of all
false religions. Governors, if they act at all, ought to act honestly.
Ought a Government to establish Christianity which believed Maho.
medanisin ? If such was to be the case, we should have the Sultan
commanding his subjects to be Moslems, and the Emperor of China
adopting the religion of Confucius, none of the rulers exceeding their
rights, bat all fulfilling their obligations. We should have 1,000 false
religions by the adoption of such a principle, while only one or two Go-
vernments would establish the true one, and this is sanctioned by this
principle that Governors have a right to care for the religion of their
subjects. You are not entitled to say to them they are wrong, because
they are all carrying out their devices according to the plan laid down
by the Chancellor of the Diocese of Winchester. Such arc
our reasons for drawing the broad line between civil and religious
matters. Now, what are Doctor Dealtry's reasons for oblite-
rating them ? These are his reasons—first the necessity of oaths
in civil proceedings; this is not only sanctioning an arrangement, but the
principle of it. "It is difficult to imagine," says Dr. Dealtry, " that
those who exclude the magistrates from all concern between man and
his Maker, and require him to abstain entirely from interference in re-
ligion, can have well considered the length to which that principle will
carry them. Without something, for instance, in the nature of an oath—
sonic appeal to Almighty God, as to one who knows the truth, and will
punish falsehood—no man could have the security of a moment, either
for property or for life, and the framework of society would be dissolved.
It is absolutely necessary, therefore, with a view to the welfare of a
nation, that the sanctity of an oath should be respected ; and hence that
all classes of subjects, from the highest to the lowest, should have a just
sense of their accountableness to God." And therefore there must be
an Establishment, a State religion, costing the country upwards of
four millions a year, to support 40,000 clergymen, to teach the
people the sanctity of an oath ! An expensive apparatus, truly,
for such a purpose. Does Dr. Dealtry think that it adds to the security
of truth ? If he does, I think there are some gentlemen of the law who
would tell him the contrary. Will he tell us that he is prepared to say
there is no truth in civil transactions but where oaths are established ?
Or does he believe that all who take oaths have a just sense of their ac.
countableness to God'? or does he think that this sense of accountable-
ness to God, is practically instilled into the people by a National Este.
blishment ? What, I would ask, would be clone by a Pagan Establish-
ment, who insist upon having an Establishment of Idolatry, for the pur-
r.e of leaving
the people the sanctity of oaths for the security of civil
property. The second argument he uses is this—The duty of parents
in relation to their children. He says, "It was doubtless, from the be.
ginning the duty of every master of a family to bring up his children,
and to train his household in the fear of the Lord ;" and then he
goes on to say, that that which was the duty of a private
family, was equally the duty of the King upon the throne.
Now, admitting that it is the duty of parents to bring up their children
in the fear of the Lord, here is no exercise of authority in religious
matters—there is no dictation. The question is whether parents have
a right to dictate the religion of their children ? We say no. Parents
have only to put their children in the best position of judging for them.
selves, and to persuade them to what they think best. What would
follow from allowing such a right to Pagan parents ? They do not do
so, but on the contrary, our Missionaries go forth prohibiting any such
dictation, and calling for a free exercise of the judgment of the children.
All attempts at authority in religious matters on the part of a parent
would be impracticable and unrighteous. The third argument is with
respect to the Jewish National Establishment. lie says--" Here was
a religious establishment most intimately connected, and even incorpo-
rate,' with the State; and unless it can be shown that the adoption of
such a system under the new dispensation contradicts some positive
command, or is opposed to some moral principle, the question has
been here settled by Jehovah himself." This is an instructive
rs.ference, and shows what the friends of the Establishment hanker after.
Even if this were a Church Establishment, we say it was God's own do-
ing. Dr. Dealtry asks triumphantly, did the Almighty forbid the civil
authority to interfere with his Church ? Certainly he did, be limited
them by his express directions ; but he does nothing of that kind now,
There is no alternative in religious matters, between theocracy and ty.
ranny, if there be authority exercised at all. We deny, however, that
the Jewish was a religious establishment. It was typical, and therefore,
necessarily secular. The whole subject has been treated of in Ers.
Line's "Character of the Jewish System." There were no institutions
for instruction—there were no places of worship except the one
at Jerusalem—
there was no use of the. Sabbath for edification—there
were no religious results for obedience or disobedience to the Jewish
law. The Jewish establishment affords therefore no example to our pre.
sent controversy. vlt leaves the subject also to be treated anew, by
Christ and his Apostles. Hence, there is no force in the argument
that the friends of the Establishment have no need to refer to it for
an authority. All that Dr. Dealtry says respecting the obligations of
pious princes is beside the question; and wherever it may be applicable,
it must stop short at the limit between carnal and spiritual weapons. Thus
we endeavour to make out the general principle that human Govern-
ments ought not to meddle with religious affairs, and therefore, not with
Christianity. This seems painful to our brethren—not merely as it might
be painful to a Turk, to argue such a conclusion in Turkey, but as men
deeply concerned for the best interests of their fellow beings. Indeed,
an Establishment might do much good. But it is wrong, and may not
he. We have no need to argue the question of its expediency, yet we
are willing to meet our antagonists even upon this louver ground, and we
will proceed to do so in the next lecture.

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

NEWMARKET SECOND SPRING MEETING.

- Newmarket, Wednesday Morning.
The racing to daywill be confined to a Handicap Plate of £Ol.,
which excites little interest.
Handica (Further particulars of Tuesday's racing.)
R.M. Plate.—Tableau made the play to the I'. Y. C. post, where
Paganini took it up, followed by Quo Minus, but had beaten all his
horses at the bushes, and won easy by a length. The tailing was
very distinct.
Abing on
and won cleverly by a
mile11:1oi ter: t.
ioi
eurte Thee Nhv ooir•kse,
wfoeliliotlAa'echleabdy, RI i
,nebdy ,i
nt
for
otlni et
a fewstrides, and then gave up. Riot resumed his lead, El
waiting to the cords, whereshe shot by him, i'
length.
The winners made the running in both the matches, the first
only being well contested.
The weather is fine but cold, the wind being due north. Owing
to the debate in the House of Commons, and the unattractive cha-
racter of the list, the show of company is thin.
The ring is so small as to put the Derby betting out of the
question_.

7 to 2 offered is on the field
17 to 1 agst Lord G. Bentinck's D'Egville—take 18 to 1
20 to 1 agst Lord Stradbroke's Beggarmin
20 to 1 agst Lord Exeter's Alemdar
50 to 1 agst Lord Westminster's Richard Roe
11 to 1 laid agst Berarman and Alemdar
Nothigg done on the Oaks.