The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-04-28
FoR THE CENTRAL PEEsBYrERIAN.
OBJECTIONS TO LIFE ASSURANCE.

Mr.. Editor,-I confess to being one of
the many in our Church who have serious
doubts as to the moral propriety of life as
surance, and ask space in your paper, to set
forth the grounds on which they rest, and to
notice some things that have been said on
the other side of this question. These
doubts l have long entertained. They may
be only prejudice arising from principles i'm
bibed in my earlier days. I claim, at least,
that they are of no mean origin. l was
trained in the principles of moral science
under the late DIR. George Junkin, who held
the views of his old preceptor, DR.. John M.
Mason, in reference to the use of the lot,
and applied them with all the powers of his
severely logical mind to the subject of life
assurance. The same doctrine of the lot
was held, and I think the same application
of it made, by at least one of my instructors
in theology, DR.. F. S. Sampson, whose eau
tious and thoroughly discriminating mind
caused me always to examine my position
well before dissenting from him in opinion.
If then my doubts are only the results of
early prejudice, you will at least consider
them pardonable. But have been taught
to call no man master; and, finding that
great and good men differ from my old in
structors, and that life assurance is advocated
by most of our religious papers, l have en-
deavored, since this subject has been excit-
ing so much interest, and has assumed such
momentous Importance, to occupy the posi-
tion of an inquirer, and to hold my mind
open to conviction. Hence, it was with no
little pleasure that learned that this SUBJ
ject was to be discussed through the columns
of your paper by DIR. S. J. Baird, whose
pen in other days did good work for our
church.
In its discussion he has given us much in
teresting information, and such as will be
valuable, if the moral objections to life as
surance are fairly and fully met. But has
he done this He must pardon me for say
ing that l think he has not. In all the dis
cussions of this subject that I have seen in
the papers, | have not met with what con-
ceive to be fair and clear statement of these
objections, either from those who have
brought them, or from those who have re-
piled to them. DR., B. says: "Two objec-
tions are urged to the moral propriety of
life assurance, it is inconsistent with
becoming trust in Providence; and that it
is species of gambling" Now, these are
the objections, it is true; but they are not
here stated as held by thinking minds. The
first of these objections is held as growing
out of the second; and hence must stand or
fall with it. The difficulty in the minds of
many is that they regard life assurance as a
resort to unlawful means to provide for our
families, and that, therefore, it shows want
of trust in Providence. They do not object
to the provision made for the future, but to
the means employed; and contend that to
resort to any unlawful means in such case
shows want of trust in Providence just as
it would in the man who under the pinchings
of poverty, should resort to theft, or any
dishonesty, in order to provide bread for his
family. Hence We think the comparison to
mans securing his hay against the rain,
or providing himself with lightning rod,
umbrella, &C., is altogether irrelevant
This we think is fair statement of this OBJ
lection, and if so, the whole difficulty hinges
upon the other.
SIS there no gambling in this business?"
els it not an unlawful casting Of the dice
into the lap of chance?" These two ques-
tions state the objection with sufficient accu-
racy, if we interpret the Doctors language
in no sense that is inconsistent with the
declaration of the Bible, that "the lot is
cast into the lap, but the whole disposing
thereof is of the Lord" prov. xvi: 49,
Now, we do not assert that the objection
that the principle of gambling underlies
this subject, cannot be fully answered, but
it has long been a difficulty in the mind of
the writer, and we wish to look calmly and
dispassionately at the principles involved in
life assurance, and see if the objection has
been fairly met. We should guard against
enveloping this subject in cloud of benev-
olent feelings and motives that will obscure