The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1869-04-14
For THE CENTRAL PRESBYTERIAN.
Scotch-Irish against "Life Assurance. y"

Mr.. Edtor,-Allow lifelong friend of the
Central Presbyterian, through its various names
and changes, beginning with the Wdtchman OF
the South, in 1884, and also lifelong friend OF
the present editor to enter kind remonstrance
against the further publication of articles like
those recently written for your paper by DIR. s. d.
Baird. | have read them with good deal OF at
tention, and with some interest; and have delber-
ately come to the same conclusion with your
Scotch Irish friend from the top OF House
Mountain" that if the subject of life assurance
has religious aspect, making it proper and prof.
table one for discussion in religious paper, ne
hare failed to see It, You undoubtedly have a
right to your individual opinion about it, and SO
has DIR. Baird, but ought you to make religious
paper the medium of communicating your views
to the public especially when you have reason to
know, that the advocacy of such views Is distaste.
ful if not offensive to large number OF your
readers?
do not wish to be understood as objecting an toto
to the matter of ''life assurance on the ground
generally urged against it by very worthy and In
telligent Christians; viz: that 1t rs species OF
Granddaughter | do not think this objection is a
fair and legitimate one. The essence of gambling,
and that which makes it vice, is that the winner
gets something for nothing; that is, the man who
wins $40 or 500 at any game of chance, is getting
the $40 or 800 for the mere chance or hazard of
losing the same. There is no equivalent given,
and hence it is essentially gambling. Now, while
think it can be fairly maintained that the princi.
pie upon which life assurance is based, is not ne
cessarily or even generally dishonest, yet it is
equally true that great many of the most pious
and best informed people in the land believe it to
be; and it is with'them often matter OF conscl-
ence and duty to oppose the whole thing.
Let me say further, that DR.. Bard being the
,ottness, | think it can be shown that some of the
forms or "systems" of lite assurance are not only
of doubtful propriety, but really deceptive, and
therefore dishonest In his last article, Dr. B., in
comparing and illustrating the different systems OF
life insurance." distinctly states that the mote
system" is deceptive in its character" that un
der that system the families Of parties insured land
for whose benefit the insurance is effected Sin
stead of bread will receive stone, which, in
plain English, means that the thing is delusion
and a cheat
But again, DIR. Baird, in the last sentence Of the
same article uses this language: "The recommen
dation of the other system is that it is jSt." This
is another form of comparing different systems Of
distributing the dir;dends If one of these systems
is recommended because it is just is not the con
clusion inevitable that the one he does not recon-
mend is unjust? 1t seems to me that these ad
missions of DR.. Baird are fatal to his general
advocacy of life assurance; and therefore your
comments upon the communication of Scotch
Irish" are not only not ananswer at ALL but betray
the weakness of your cause by your rather awk
ward attempt to do as lawyers are said sometimes
to do-laugh case out Of court, especially when
the shoe piaches his client
Now, in the present case of Scotch Irish
against 'life assurance, feel bound to take side;
with the former, not only because it seems hardly
to be fair play for teoo doctors of divinity to be
against one lone man, but because DR.. B. being tn
,oitness, Scotch Irish" makes out pretty strong
case. | venture the suggestion, that if Dr. B.
,orites teao more articles, your unknown frienC
from the top of House Mountain" is likely t.
have the best of the argument. +. j.