At the outset he dogmatically postulates the assumption that "what most we need is the conviction that there _is_ a personal God." From social, commercial, and political considerations this belief in a personal God is what we most need--so says Mr. Wendling. He talks as though, were it not for this theistic belief, everything would go to the dogs; and universal, moral, social and political chaos would come. This, however, is simply assumed without a shadow of proof. He then goes on with his demonstration (?) of the existence of a personal God; but it is the old, old story over again. First he assumes, in the face of the highest authorities to the contrary, that "among every people in every quarter of the habitable globe, there exists, and there has existed from the very furthest reach of history, the idea of one eternal and all-powerful God." He then gives us a rehash of Paley's design argument to prove the existence of a God, which he considers conclusive. And, finally, as if conscious of the weakness of the intellectual argument, he takes refuge in the moral argument,--in conscience in man as showing the existence of a personal God with moral attributes. This is the last refuge of the Theist--the _dernier ressort_ of the theologian. Driven utterly from the realm of reason they fly to _conscience_ and to _consciousness_ to establish subjectively what cannot be proved intellectually. Now, this sort of evidence may do for the Theist and theologian who are determined to believe in Theos; but to those who live in the light of reason, and in the realm of intellect not wholly submerged by the emotions, such inner-consciousness evidence will not be satisfactory; for they experience no such subjective proof in their own minds, and do not care to take the mere _feelings_ of others as evidence of anything further than the existence of nervous ganglion and brain. I will now take up Mr. Wendling's arguments to prove the existence of a personal God, _seriatim_, and briefly consider them. As already remarked, before setting out to prove a God, Mr. W. postulates the necessity of one. For the preservation of moral order, social purity, and commercial integrity, what most we need, it is assumed, "is the conviction that there is a personal God." This assertion certainly has a queer look when we reflect that Theism is at present the prevailing belief among the masses, and has been in the past; and that our prisons are full of persons who believe in a personal God; and that believers in God ascend the gallows almost daily, and are swung off to "mansions in the skies!" Here are some half dozen examples of this kind at hand, the whole of which I quote from one newspaper, a late issue of the Kingston _British Whig_:--