That conscience is _innate_ in man, and a God-given faculty, instead of acquired by development, is another convenient assumption without any substantial foundation. If conscience is a Divine gift to humanity, how is it that consciences differ so widely, not only in _degree_, but in _kind_? If conscience is a Divine "monitor" and "guide" from heaven, why is it that it so often becomes a very blind guide, and leads people into many by-paths? How is it that under the sanction of conscience the most horrid crimes and cruelties against humanity have been committed in the name of God, its alleged author? How is it, if conscience is an "unerring guide" to conduct, implanted by God, that it has guided man, in the name of its author, to let out the life blood of his fellow-creatures in rivers, on account of differences of opinion _conscientiously_ entertained? Does God give one man one sort of conscience and another man another and wholly different sort, leading them in opposite directions, and then prompt the conscience of one to put the other (his fellow) to death for conscience sake and for God's sake? If so, it is very questionable work, surely, for a good (?) God to be engaged in! If God implants the conscience in man, why not be fair and just and give _all_ men consciences? and give them all the same article? and not give one man a tolerably good article of conscience (the Freethinker, for example) and then go and give others (some of our Christian friends, for example) so poor an article, so to speak--so flexible and elastic--that it allows them to murder, cheat, lie, slander, rob widows and orphans, and run away with other people's money and other men's wives without compunction--without any troublesome pangs from this universal "I ought" over which Mr. Wendling grows so eloquent!