Archdeacon Paley, again, ridiculed as worthless a “moral sense” which man may disregard if he chooses. What is an _authority_, said Paley, merely felt in the individual consciousness: a personal whim, the mere accident of individuality. What, he asks, is the authority of another’s conscience to me? What, indeed, _is_ my conscience, and _why_ is it an authority to myself? We can never know whether it is “a real angel with flaming sword, or a scare-crow dressed up by the moral philosophers.” Did the “moral sense” exist, should we not see a universal evidence of its influence? Would not men exhibit a more manifest obedience to its supposed dictates than they do? Would there not be a greater uniformity of opinion, as to the rightness or wrongness of opinions, as to the rightness or wrongness of actions? “We should, not, as now, find one man or nation considering as a virtue what another regards as a vice--Malays glorying in the piracy abhorred by civilized races--a Thug regarding as a religious act that assassination at which a European shudders--a Russian piquing himself on his successful trickery--a red Indian in his undying revenge--things which with us would hardly be boasted of. “Again, if this moral sense exist and possess no fixity, gives no uniform response, says one thing in Europe and another in Asia--originates different notions of duty in each age, each race, each individual, how can it afford a safe foundation for a systematic morality? What can be more absurd than to seek a definite rule of right in the answers of so uncertain an authority?” Can it be fairly said, my reader, that such men are in a position to judge the gambler, or to denounce his vocation? May not the gamester ask of this sect: By what authority do you pronounce judgment, “out of hand,” upon me and mine? Where is your standard--authentic, determinative, undeniable, irrefutable? Am I subject to the dominion of your conscience? In my opinion, gaming is not a sin. In what is your judgment superior to mine? Moreover, I defy you to demonstrate a wager is wrong, _per se_. If you find this impossible, I am free to repudiate your dogmatism. To know, also, that gaming is not _prima facie_ sinful, we have but to define it. The lexicographers define a gamester as “one who plays for money or other stake;” and gaming “to be the use of cards, dice, or other implement, with a view to win money, or other thing, wagered upon the issue of the contest.” Is this a description of anything forbidden by the decalogue? Where, in the old or new testament, is a similar transaction denounced as a sin? But, it may be said, perhaps, the foregoing definition does not suffice for moral consideration: it ignores the element of chance, which enters more or less into all games. This would imply that it is immoral to invoke a fortuity. Is it?