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 by erroneous education, or prejudice, or passion, or depravity in any form-- there will be a strict congeniality, so that truth will be preferred to error. But this doctrine implies that one set of minds will, under the same circumstances, from their peculiar natural constitution, prefer the truth, and another set reject it. It is obviously of very dangerous practical tendency. While the Calvinist may refer to it to account for his being a Calvinist, and the Arminian to account for his being an Arminian, the infidel may claim that it is from the same cause that he is an infidel. His rejecting the Bible is the natural inevitable result of the peculiar mental constitution which God gave him.