gence for its diffusion; that its
chances for success will be diminished, in proportion as sound
education advances, and the ministry becomes intelligent. If this
be so, Arminians are pursuing a suicidal policy; for no Christian
denomination has established as many colleges and academies in
the same length of time as the Methodists. That Arminianism takes
better than Calvinism with _the masses_ is undeniable; but this
may be because it possesses a superior adaptation to the wants of
humanity. Our Saviour gave it as a distinctive mark of the
ushering in of the last dispensation that the poor have the
gospel preached unto them, which implies that the poor, and
consequently the uneducated, may understand it.

Mr. Barnes goes further. He intimates that the different
theological systems are "the result of some _original peculiarity_
in certain classes of minds;" that "there are minds, not a few in
number, or unimportant in character, which, when converted, will
_naturally_ embrace Calvinism." He "will not undertake to say
whether John Wesley _could_ have been a Calvinist, but he can say
that Jonathan Edwards _could never have been anything else_." He
repeats this sentiment three years after, in these words: "There
are minds, indeed, and those in _many respects_ of a high order,
that _will not_ [mark the phraseology!] see the truth of the
Calvinistic system; but there are minds that _can never_ see the
truth of an opposite system. We could not perhaps undertake to
say whether John Wesley could ever have been a Calvinist, but we
_can_ say that Jonathan Edwards could never have been anything
else; and if there be a mind in any community formed like that
of Edwards, we anticipate that it will embrace the same great
system which he defended."

Now it is inconceivable that Mr. Barnes should consider the
Arminian superior or equal to the Calvinistic mind. That must be
the best mental structure which is most in harmony with the best
theory. The tenor of his remarks indicates clearly his opinion
upon this point.

I can hardly express the astonishment which I felt upon reading
this strange sentiment from so justly distinguished a writer. It
appeared to me to be grossly unphilosophical, implying either
that truth is not homogeneous; that contradictory propositions
may be equally true; or that God has constituted some minds
falsely. It is presumable that between truth and mind, in its
original normal condition--mind not perverted