The Constitution and Rules of the Ancient and Universal 'Benefit Society' established by Jesus Christ, exhibited, and its advantages and claims maintained, against all Modern and {346} merely Human Institutions of the kind: A Letter very respectfully addressed to the Rev. James Everett,[723] and occasioned by certain remarks made by him, in a speech to the Members of the 'Wesleyan Centenary Institute' Benefit Society. Dated York, Dec. 7, 1840. By Thomas Smith.[724] 12mo, (pp. 8.)
The Wesleyan minister addressed had advocated provision against old age, etc.: the writer declares all _private_ provision un-Christian. After decent maintenance and relief of family claims of indigence, he holds that all the rest is to go to the "Benefit Society," of which he draws up the rules, in technical form, with chapters of "Officers," "Contributors" etc., from the Acts of the Apostles, etc., and some of the early Fathers. He holds that a Christian may not "make a _private_ provision against the contingencies of the future": and that the great "Benefit Society" is the divinely-ordained recipient of all the surplus of his income; capital, beyond what is necessary for business, he is to have none. A real good speculator shuts his eyes by instinct, when opening them would not serve the purpose: he has the vizor of the Irish fairy tale, which fell of itself over the eyes of the wearer the moment he turned them upon the enchanted light which would have destroyed him if he had caught sight of it. "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it (the purchase-money) not in thine own power?" would have been awkward to quote, and accordingly nothing is stated except the well-known result, which is rule 3, cap. 5, "Prevention of Abuses." By putting his principles together, the author can be made, logically, to mean that the successors of the apostles should put to death all contributors who are detected in not paying their full premiums.
{347}
I have known one or two cases in which policy-holders have surrendered their policies through having arrived at a conviction that direct provision is unlawful. So far as I could make it out, these parties did not think it unlawful to lay by out of income, except when this was done in a manner which involved calculation of death-chances. It is singular they did not see that the entrance of chance of death was the entrance of the very principle of the benefit society described in the Acts of the Apostles. The family of the one who died young received more in proportion to _premiums_ paid than the family of one who died old. Every one who understands life assurance sees that--_bonus_ apart--the difference between an assurance office and a savings bank consists in the adoption, _pro tanto_, of the principle of community of goods. In the original constitution of the oldest assurance office, the _Amicable Society_, the plan with which they started was nothing but this: persons of all ages under forty-five paid one common premium, and the proceeds were divided among the representatives of those who died within the year.
