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?
Here, the great Jefferson may be quoted with propriety: “It is a common idea that games of chance are immoral. But what is chance? Nothing happens in this world without a cause. If we know the cause, we do not call it chance, but if we do not know it, we say it was produced by chance. If we see a loaded die turn its lightest side up, we know the cause, and that it is not an effect produced by chance; but whatever side an unloaded die turns up, not knowing the cause, we say it is the effect of chance. Yet, the morality of the thing cannot depend on our knowledge or ignorance of its cause. Not knowing why a particular side of an unloaded die turns up, cannot make the act of throwing, or of betting on it, immoral. If we consider games of chance immoral, then every pursuit of human industry is immoral, for there is not a single one that is not subject to chance; not one, wherein you do not risk a loss for the chance of some gain.”
In “Paradise Lost,” Milton declares:
“Next him, high arbiter,
Chance governs all!”
And of mankind we read in Ecclesiastes that “time and chance happeneth to them”—mankind. (9:11). Among the Hebrews, property was divided and disputes were decided, “by lot.” The custom is mentioned by Solomon, Matthew and Luke. (Prov. 16:33; Matt. 27:35; Luke 10.) Furthermore, this mode of appeal to destiny is sanctioned, yea, even prescribed, by the Bible. According to Leviticus, Aaron was commanded “to take the two goats, and present them before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the Lord and the other lot for the scape-goat. And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the Lord’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot fell to be the scape-goat, shall be presented alive before the Lord, to make an atonement with him and to let him go for a scape-goat into the wilderness.” (16:7, 8, 9.)
Thus was chance invested with the sanctity of a religious observance.
Moses was instructed that the “Promised Land” should be divided among the Hebrews “by lot.” The method is described in Numbers: “Notwithstanding, the land shall be divided by lot, according to the names of the tribes of their fathers shall they inherit. According to lot shall the possession thereof be divided between many and few.” This direction was followed to the letter by “Eleazar, the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the children of Israel;” for we are told in Joshua, that “By lot was their inheritance; as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses, for the nine tribes and for the half tribe.” (Josh 14:1, 2; 18:6.)