Subsequently, however, Mr. Ingersoll put in an appearance in the Queen City, and gave his lecture on "The Gods," to which his honorable opponent had replied in advance. This eloquent and argumentative lecture was greeted with such obvious favor and vociferous applause that the "Willard Tract Depository and Bible House" of that city deemed it imperative to do something to counteract the "poisonous" influence that had gone forth. They accordingly hastened forthwith to issue Wendling's "Reply to Robert Ingersoll." This Christian politico-religious _brochure_ was heralded by some half dozen Toronto Professors and Doctors of Divinity, and one Vice-Chancellor, to wit: Messrs. McLaren, Rainsford, Potts, Castle, Powis, Antliff and Blake. These gentlemen, in a neat little preface, certify their approval of and admiration for Mr. Wendling's "Reply to the infidelity advocated by Col. Ingersoll," and add the hope that "it may be circulated by thousands." To this no Freethinker has, of course, any objection, so long as he enjoys an equal right to circulate his documents too. Of this right I propose to avail myself, and briefly review the salient points (if there are any) of some of Ingersoll's Canadian critics. Not that I feel called upon to defend Col. Ingersoll. Should defence be necessary, he is amply able to defend himself. But as our Christian friends, like drowning men catching at straws, have, in their alarm for the safety of their creed, desperately clutched a _layman_, and issued with their unqualified endorsation, this "lay" reply of Mr. Wendling, who comes before the public, he tells us, "as a citizen, as a business man, as a lawyer, and as a politician," and withal as a "man of the world," I have thought that for another layman--a materialistic layman--(though no lawyer or politician) to examine some of Mr. Wendling's lay logic and legal sophistry and politico-religious hash would be a move in the right direction in the interests of truth.