Year: 1869

Mr.. Editor,-Allow me to express sur
prise that some of your correspondents have
objected to the discussion of this subject in
the Central Presbyterian. 1t is certainly a
matter in which much interest is felt, and
much anxiety to know what is right, on the
part of many. If it involves, as is thought,
serious question in regard to sound NOR
ais, why not discuss it in our religious pa
pers? l should like to see both sides of the
question presented by able pens in the
SoutAerm Presbyterian Re0iea0 From the
signs of the times, at home and abroad, it is
assuming great Importance. These who are
its advocates are pressing it not only on in
dividuals, but the question is beginning to
be agitated as to the prOpriety of making it
in some sort an ecclesiastical organization
for the good of the Church.


Now it cannot be expected that the many
who have doubts, nay, more than doubts,
strong convictions on the other side, should
hold their peace and lay down their pens.


The question in my mind is not one of
mere expediercy; although think strong
argument against life assurance may be
made on that ground, but is it morally a
lawful mode of acquiring gain? Or, in other
words, does it partake of the principle of
lottery or gambling? By gambling, un-
derstand game of any sort for money or
any other stake, The parties engaged may
play fair, or dishonesty, or it may be a
match of pure skill. The gambling princi-
pie is the same in all. 1t is asserted that
the gambler is actuated by avarice, but this
is not necessarily the case; he is sometimes
noted for acts of generosity with his COM
panions. Are all who resort to life insurance
free from avarice


Let US suppose case; and as write to
elicit truth, hope to make it fair case.
Suppose 20 men, anxious to provide for their
families, enter into the following compact;
They agree to pay into common fund the
sum of $1,000 each, to be loaned at inter
est, at the end of the year, the interest to
be collected, amounting to $1,000. They
agree to add this whole interest to one share,
making ?, 200, and to cast lots for it. Accord
ingly, 10 blanks and prize are drawn for,
and the one who draws the prize, is to take
it and his original stock, and then withdraw
from the company with his $4,000, and his
place is to be supplied by new member join
ing the association with his share of $1,000
for another year; at the end of which there
is another drawing as before, and another
fortunate man retires So the progress goes
on, with any number of men for any length
of time. All is understood, no one is de-
ceived, and there can be no hard feelings.
All act with perfect honesty according to
the agreement. And the one who draws the
prize may publish a certificate of gratitude
to the company tor their prompt payment OF
the prize money. This will hasten the new
conner to take his place. But now l have to
ask, did the one who drew the $1,000 render
an equivalent to the other members? Did he
not receive something for nothing? And so,
we assert, all those do who retire from the
companv before the interest on their shares
amounts to $1,000. Would an association
based upon these principles be consistent
with sound Christian morality? think
not, cannot see the difference between il
and downright gambling, when the gamblers
play the game honestly. Now apply this
case to life assurance. l agree to pay an
ually, say $3.50 for policy of $4,000.
die, and am thus retired by an act of Provi
dence during the 1st or End year, and my