Motivating Students Who Dont Care Proven

Strategies To Engage All Learners Second Edition

Proven Strategies To Motivate Struggling
Students And Spark An Enthusiasm For Learning
2nd Edition Allen Nmendler download
https://ebookbell.com/product/motivating-students-who-dont-care-
proven-strategies-to-engage-all-learners-second-edition-proven-
strategies-to-motivate-struggling-students-and-spark-an-
enthusiasm-for-learning-2nd-edition-allen-nmendler-56670120

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Motivating Students To Learn 2nd Edition 2nd Edition Jere Brophy

https://ebookbell.com/product/motivating-students-to-learn-2nd-
edition-2nd-edition-jere-brophy-2171748

Motivating Students To Learn 3rd Edition Jere E Brophy

https://ebookbell.com/product/motivating-students-to-learn-3rd-
edition-jere-e-brophy-2211816

Motivating Students 25 Strategies To Light The Fire Of Engagement 1st

Edition Carolyn Chapman Nicole Dimich

https://ebookbell.com/product/motivating-students-25-strategies-to-
light-the-fire-of-engagement-1st-edition-carolyn-chapman-nicole-
dimich-51415744

Understanding The Nature Of Motivation And Motivating Students Through

Teaching And Learning In Higher Education 1st Edition David Kember
Auth

https://ebookbell.com/product/understanding-the-nature-of-motivation-
and-motivating-students-through-teaching-and-learning-in-higher-
education-1st-edition-david-kember-auth-5359360
The Principal As A Learningleader Motivating Students By Emphasizing
Achievement M Scott Norton

https://ebookbell.com/product/the-principal-as-a-learningleader-
motivating-students-by-emphasizing-achievement-m-scott-norton-46401682

Specifications Grading Restoring Rigor Motivating Students And Saving

Faculty Time Linda B Nilson

https://ebookbell.com/product/specifications-grading-restoring-rigor-
motivating-students-and-saving-faculty-time-linda-b-nilson-11974150

Specifications Grading Restoring Rigor Motivating Students And Saving

Faculty Time Linda Nilson

https://ebookbell.com/product/specifications-grading-restoring-rigor-
motivating-students-and-saving-faculty-time-linda-nilson-230927174

Ready To Learn The Frame Model For Optimizing Student Success A

Resultsoriented Approach For Motivating Students To Learn And Achieve
Academic Success 1st Edition Peg Grafwallner

https://ebookbell.com/product/ready-to-learn-the-frame-model-for-
optimizing-student-success-a-resultsoriented-approach-for-motivating-
students-to-learn-and-achieve-academic-success-1st-edition-peg-
grafwallner-51662746

Motivating And Inspiring Students Robert J Marzano Darrell Scott

https://ebookbell.com/product/motivating-and-inspiring-students-
robert-j-marzano-darrell-scott-42765602
 SECOND EDITION

A l l e n N . M e n d l e r
Copyright © 2021 by Solution Tree Press
Materials appearing here are copyrighted. With one exception, all rights are reserved. Readers
may reproduce only those pages marked “Reproducible.” Otherwise, no part of this book may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise) without prior written permission of the publisher.
555 North Morton Street
Bloomington, IN 47404
800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700
FAX: 812.336.7790
email: [email protected]
SolutionTree.com
Visit go.SolutionTree.com/studentengagement to download the free reproducibles in this book.
Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Mendler, Allen N., author.

Title: Motivating students who don’t care : proven strategies to engage all
learners / Allen N. Mendler.
Description: Second edition. | Bloomington, IN : Solution Tree Press, 2021.
| Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020052607 (print) | LCCN 2020052608 (ebook) | ISBN
9781951075439 (paperback) | ISBN 9781951075446 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Motivation in education. | Students--Attitudes.
Classification: LCC LB1065 .M377 2021 (print) | LCC LB1065 (ebook) | DDC
370.15/4--dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020052607
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020052608

Solution Tree
Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO
Edmund M. Ackerman, President
Solution Tree Press
President and Publisher: Douglas M. Rife
Associate Publisher: Sarah Payne-Mills
Art Director: Rian Anderson
Managing Production Editor: Kendra Slayton
Copy Chief: Jessi Finn
Senior Production Editor: Christine Hood
Content Development Specialist: Amy Rubenstein
Proofreader: Kate St. Ives
Text and Cover Designer: Kelsey Hergül
Editorial Assistants: Sarah Ludwig and Elijah Oates
 This book is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Rick Curwin, my
best friend, colleague, frequent coauthor, mentor, and a great educa-
tor. He was a fierce advocate of the idea that school must be for the
benefit of every student, and he leaves a legacy of having passionately
conveyed that in his teachings and writings to the thousands of edu-
cators throughout the world. Our journey continues.
 Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the many dedicated educators who have

contributed to this book. It is the struggles we often share together
that helped shape and refine many of the strategies presented. To the
numerous educators who shared how helpful they found the first edi-
tion, I thank you for providing the impetus to update it. My wife
Barbara, who is one of the best teachers I have ever seen, offered ideas
and support along the way. Your love, and that of our children and
grandchildren, is the most important fulfillment in my life. Thanks to
Christine Hood, my editor at Solution Tree, for her excellent, detailed
feedback. To Shik Love and Kelly Rockhill, thanks for your commit-
ment to making this content as widely available to educators as possi-
ble. Finally, a loud shout-out to Douglas Rife, president and publisher
of Solution Tree Press, for his enthusiasm and support for this project.
Solution Tree Press would like to thank the following reviewers:
Hallie Edgerly Kimberly Freiley
Science Teacher English Language Arts Teacher
Adel DeSoto Minburn Ingersoll Middle School
Middle School Canton, IL
Adel, IA Amy Kochensparger
Alexander Fangman Science Teacher
Principal Eaton High School
Grant’s Lick Elementary School Eaton, OH
Alexandria, KY
v
 Table of Contents

About the Author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Why Some Students Are Unmotivated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Beliefs That Support Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
In This Second Edition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Questions for Reflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

CHAPTER 1

Emphasize Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Why Emphasizing Effort Is Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Strategies to Emphasize Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Use the Language of Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Avoid Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Build on Mistakes or Partially Correct Answers. . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Allow Redos, Retakes, and Revisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Separate Effort From Achievement When Grading. . . . . . . . . . 13
Encourage Little Improvements Every Day . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Show Simple Courtesy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Reframe Unmotivated Behavior to Promote Effort. . . . . . . . . . 18
Ask for Small Things First. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Change Efforts to Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

vii
viii MOTIVATING STUDENTS WHO DON’T CARE

Provide Reasons for Effort. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Celebrate Milestones. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Questions for Reflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

CHAPTER 2

Create Confidence and Hope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Why Creating Confidence and Hope Is Important . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Strategies to Create Confidence and Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Demonstrate the Benefits of Achievement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Make School-Life Connections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Find the Right Level of Challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Acknowledge That Academic Achievement Is Not the Only
Pathway to Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Emphasize the Importance of Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Ensure Proficiency in Foundational Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Own Your Mistakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Develop Goals With Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Help Students Get and Stay Organized. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Focus on Success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Ensure the End Is in Sight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Give Before You Get. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Demand More Than You Expect. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Offer Homework as an Optional Bonus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Encourage and Support Positive Affirmations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Questions for Reflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

CHAPTER 3

Value Involvement and Influence. . . . . . . . . 43

Why Valuing Involvement and Influence Is Important . . . . . . . . 44
Strategies to Value Involvement and Influence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Challenge Refusals Respectfully. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Express Gratitude. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Involve Students in Developing Procedures, Rules,
and Consequences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Defer to Student Power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Ask for Opinions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Invite Students to Teach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
 Table of Contents ix

Delegate Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Collect Supplies From Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Deal Effectively With Power Struggles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Welcome Students Back to Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Problem-Solve With Students by Phone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Make Sure Students Know They Have What It Takes. . . . . . . . 55
Use External Rewards Effectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Offer Choices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Encourage Mindfulness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Questions for Reflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

CHAPTER 4

Build Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Why Building Relationships Is Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Strategies to Build Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Be Authentic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63
Let Students Know They Are More Important Than
Their Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Invite Student Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Send Notes to Students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Offer Genuine Compliments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Use Two-Minute Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Invite Students to Lunch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Encourage Students to Support and Motivate Each Other . . . . 70
Support Students in Times of Crisis or Uncertainty. . . . . . . . . 71
Questions for Reflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

CHAPTER 5

Spark Enthusiasm for Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Why Sparking Enthusiasm for Learning Is Important. . . . . . . . . 76
Strategies to Spark Enthusiasm for Learning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Let Students Know You Love Being Their Teacher . . . . . . . . . . 76
Share Your Enthusiasm for Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Demonstrate That You Are a Lifelong Learner. . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Be Lighthearted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Grab Students’ Interest and Attention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Encourage Movement in Your Lessons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
x MOTIVATING STUDENTS WHO DON’T CARE

Integrate Drama and Music. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Connect With Students Through Popular Topics. . . . . . . . . . . 84
Include Special Theme Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Ask Open-Ended Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Implement Digital or Virtual Learning Effectively . . . . . . . . . .87
Embrace Video Games as Learning Tools. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Questions for Reflection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Epilogue: Don’t Give Up! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
 About the Author

Allen N. Mendler, PhD, is an educator and school

psychologist who lives in Rochester, New York. He
has extensive experience working with students of
all ages in regular and special education settings.
Allen’s emphasis is on developing effective frame-
works and strategies for educators, youth profession-
als, and parents to help students with learning and
behavior problems succeed.
Allen has given many workshops and seminars to profession-
als and parents and is highly acclaimed as a motivational speaker
and trainer for numerous educational organizations on topics per-
taining to challenging students. He is the author or coauthor of
many publications, including the fourth edition of Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development’s iconic Discipline With
Dignity. Other publications include best-sellers Connecting With
Students, Power Struggles, When Teaching Gets Tough, and the first
edition of Motivating Students Who Don’t Care. Allen’s books and
articles have been translated into several languages, including
Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, Korean, Spanish, Slovene, and Polish. He
has blogged frequently for Edutopia and other online organiza-
tions. Allen received his bachelor’s degree in psychology at Queens

xi
xii MOTIVATING STUDENTS WHO DON’T CARE

College (CUNY), his master’s degree in school psychology at Alfred

University, and his doctoral degree at Union Institute and University.
To learn more about Allen’s work, follow him @allenmendler on Twitter.
To book Allen Mendler for professional development, contact
[email protected].
Random documents with unrelated
content Scribd suggests to you:
pretends that to assign any cause to the divine will is to suppose
something antecedent to, something above God, and therefore
“impious;” as if we might not suppose something IN God to be the
rule of his will, not only without any impiety, but with truth and
piety; as, for instance, his perfect wisdom, holiness, justice, and
goodness; or, in other words, to believe the exercise of his will to
flow from the perfection of his whole nature; a much more
honourable and Scriptural view of the will of God than that which
subjects it to no rule, even though it should arise from the nature of
God himself. 3. When he calls the will of God, “the highest rule of
justice,” beyond which we cannot push our inquiries, he confounds
the will of God, as a rule of justice to us, and as a rule to himself.
This will is our rule; yet even then, because we know that it is the
will of a perfect being: but when Calvin represents mere will as
constituting God’s own rule of justice, he shuts out knowledge,
discrimination of the nature of things, and holiness; which is saying
something very different from that great truth, that God cannot will
any thing but what is perfectly just. It is to say that blind will, will
which has no respect to any thing but itself, is God’s highest rule of
justice; a position which, if presented abstractedly, many Calvinists
themselves would spurn. 4. He determines the question by the
authority of his own metaphysics, and totally forgets that one dictum
of inspiration overturns his whole theory,--God “willeth all men to be
saved;” a declaration, which in no part of the sacred volume is
opposed or limited by any contrary declaration.
4. Calvin was not, however, content thus to leave the matter; but
resorts to an argument, in which he has been generally followed by
those who have adopted his system with some mitigations: “As we
are all corrupted by sin, we must necessarily be odious to God, and
that not from tyrannical cruelty, but in the most equitable estimation
of justice. If all whom the Lord predestinates to death are, in their
natural condition, liable to the sentence of death, what injustice do
they complain of receiving from him?” To this Calvin very fairly states
the obvious rejoinder made in his day; and which the common sense
of mankind will always make,--“They object, Were they not by the
decree of God antecedently predestinated to that corruption which is
now stated as the cause of their condemnation? When they perish in
their corruption, therefore, they only suffer the punishment of that
misery into which, in consequence of his predestination, Adam fell,
and precipitated his posterity with him.” The manner in which Calvin
attempts to meet this objection, shows how truly unanswerable it is
upon his system. “I confess,” says he, “indeed, that all the
descendants of Adam fell, by the Divine will, into that miserable
condition in which they are now involved; and this is what I asserted
from the beginning, that we must always return at last to the
sovereign determination of God’s will; the cause of which is hidden
in himself. But it follows not, therefore, that God is liable to this
reproach; for we will answer them in the language of Paul, ‘O man,
who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to
him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus’” That is, in order
to escape the pinch of the objection, he assumes that St. Paul
affirms that God has “formed” a part of the human race for eternal
misery; and that, by imposing silence upon them, he intended to
declare that this proceeding in God was just. Now the passage may
be proved from its context to have no respect to the eternal state of
men at all; but, if that were less obvious, it gives no answer to the
objection; and we are brought round again, as indeed he confesses,
to his former, and indeed only, argument, that the whole matter as
he states it, is to be referred back to the divine will; which will,
though perfectly arbitrary, is, as he contends, the highest rule of
justice: “I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those whom he
certainly foreknew would fall into destruction; and that this was
actually so, because he willed it; but of his will, it belongs not to us
to demand the reason, which we are incapable of comprehending;
nor is it reasonable, that the divine will should be made the subject
of controversy with us, which is only another name for the highest
rule of justice.” Thus he shuts us out from pursuing the argument.
But the evasion proves the objection unanswerable. For if all is to be
resolved into the mere will of God as to the destruction of the
reprobate; if they were created for this purpose, as Calvin expressly
affirms; if they fell into their corruption in pursuance of God’s
determination; if, as he had said before, “God passes them by, and
reprobates them, from no other cause than his determination to
exclude them from the inheritance of his children,” why refer to their
natural corruption at all, and their being odious to God in that state,
since the same reason is given for their corruption as for their
reprobation?--not any fault of theirs; but the mere will of God, “the
reprobation hidden in his secret counsel,” and that not grounded on
the visible and tangible fact of their demerit. Thus the election
taught by Calvin is not the choice of some persons to peculiar grace
from the whole mass, equally deserving of punishment; (though this
is a sophism;) since, in that case, the decree of reprobation would
rest upon God’s foreknowledge of those passed by as corrupt and
guilty, which notion he rejects: “For since God foresees future events
only in consequence of his decree that they shall happen, it is
useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all
things come to pass rather by ordination and decree.” “It is a
HORRIBLE DECREE, I confess; but no one can deny that God foreknew
the future fate of man before he created him; and that he did
foreknow it, because it was appointed by his own decree.” Agreeably
to this, he repudiates the distinction between will and permission:
“For what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it
is his will? It is not probable, however, that man procured his own
destruction by the mere permission, and without any appointment,
of God.”
5. With this doctrine he again attempts to reconcile the demerit of
men: “Their perdition depends on the divine predestination in such a
manner, that the cause and matter of it are found in themselves. For
the first man fell because the Lord had determined it should so
happen. The reason of this determination is unknown to us.--Man,
therefore, falls according to the appointment of divine providence;
but he falls by his own fault. The Lord had a little before pronounced
every thing that he had made to be ‘very good.’ Whence, then,
comes the depravity of man to revolt from his God? Lest it should be
thought to come from creation, God approved and commended what
had proceeded from himself. By his own wickedness, therefore, man
corrupted the nature he had received pure from the Lord, and by his
fall he drew all his posterity with him to destruction.” It is in this way
that Calvin attempts to avoid the charge of making God the author
of sin. But how God should not merely permit the defection of the
first man, but appoint it, and will it, and that his will should be the
“necessity of things,” (all which he had before asserted,) and yet
that Deity should not be the author of that which he appointed,
willed, and imposed a necessity upon, would be rather a delicate
inquiry. It is enough that Calvin rejects the impious doctrine; and
even though his principles directly lead to it, since he has put in his
disclaimer, he is entitled to be exempted from the charge;--but the
logical conclusion is inevitable.
6. In much the same manner he contends that the necessity of
sinning is laid upon the reprobate by the ordination of God, and yet
denies God to be the author of their sinful acts, since the corruption
of men was derived from Adam, by his own fault, and not from God.
He exhorts us “rather to contemplate the evident cause of
condemnation, which is nearer to us, in the corrupt nature of
mankind, than search after a hidden and altogether
incomprehensible one, in the predestination of God.” “For though, by
the eternal providence of God, man was created to that misery to
which he is subject, yet the ground of it he has derived from himself,
not God; since he is thus ruined, solely in consequence of his having
degenerated from the pure creation of God to vicious and impure
depravity.” Thus, almost in the same breath, he affirms that men
became reprobate from no other cause than “the will of God,” and
his “sovereign determination;” that men have no reason “to
expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal death,
without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will;”--and
then, that the corrupt nature of mankind is the evident and nearer
cause of condemnation; (which cause, however, was still a matter of
“appointment,” and “ordination,” not “permission;”) and that man is
“ruined solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the
pure state in which God created him.” These propositions manifestly
fight with each other; for if the reason of reprobation be laid in
man’s corruption, it cannot be laid in the mere will and sovereign
determination of God, unless we suppose him to be the author of
sin. It is this offensive doctrine only, which can reconcile them. For if
God so wills, and appoints, and necessitates the depravity of man,
as to be the author of it, then there is no inconsistency in saying
that the ruin of the reprobate is both from the mere will of God, and
from the corruption of their nature, which is but the result of that
will. The one is then, as Calvin states, the “evident and nearer
cause,” the other the more remote and hidden one; yet they have
the same source, and are substantially acts of the same will. But if it
be denied that God is, in any sense, the author of evil, and if sin is
from man alone, then is the “corruption of nature” the effect of an
independent will; and if this corruption be the “real source,” as he
says, of men’s condemnation, then the decree of reprobation rests
not upon the sovereign will of God, as its sole cause, which he
affirms; but upon a cause dependent on the will of the first man: but
as this is denied, then the other must follow. Calvin himself, indeed,
contends for the perfect concurrence of these proximate and remote
causes, although in point of fact, to have been perfectly consistent
with himself, he ought rather to have called the mere will of God THE
CAUSE of the decree of reprobation, and the corruption of man THE
MEANS by which it is carried into effect:--language which he
sanctions, and which many of his followers have not scrupled to
adopt.
7. So certainly does this opinion involve in it the consequences,
that in sin man is the instrument, and God the actor, that it cannot
be maintained, as stated by Calvin, without this conclusion. For as
two causes of reprobation are expressly laid down, they must be
either opposed to each other, or be consenting. If they are opposed,
the scheme is given up; if consenting, then are both reprobation and
human corruption the results of the same will, the same decree, and
necessity. It would be trifling to say that the decree does not
influence; for if so, it is no decree in Calvin’s sense, who understands
the decree of God, as the foregoing extracts and the whole third
book of his “Institutes” plainly show, as appointing what shall be,
and by that appointment making it necessary. Otherwise, he could
not reject the distinction between will and permission, and avow the
sentiment of St. Augustine, “that the will of God is the necessity of
things; and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass,”
book iii, chap. 23, sec. 8. So, in writing to Castellio, he makes the sin
of Adam the result of an act of God: “You say Adam fell by his free
will. I except against it. That he might not fall, he stood in need of
that strength and constancy with which God armeth all the elect, as
long as he will keep them blameless. Whom God has elected, he
props up with an invincible power unto perseverance. Why did he
not afford this to Adam, if he would have had him stand in his
integrity?” And with this view of necessity, as resulting from the
decree of God, the immediate followers of Calvin coincided; the end
and the means, as to the elect, and as to the reprobate, are equally
fixed by the decree, and are both to be traced to the appointing and
ordaining will of God. On such a scheme it is therefore worse than
trifling to attempt to make out a case of justice in favour of this
assumed divine procedure, by alleging the corruption and guilt of
man: a point which, indeed, Calvin himself, in fact, gives up when he
says, “That the reprobate obey not the word of God, when made
known to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness and depravity of
their hearts, provided it be at the same time stated, that they are
abandoned to this depravity, because they have been raised up by a
just but inscrutable judgment of God, to display his glory in their
condemnation.”
8. It was by availing themselves of the ineffectual struggles of
Calvin to give some colour of justice to his reprobating decree by
fixing upon the corruption of man as a cause of reprobation, that
some of his followers endeavoured, in the very teeth of his own
express words, to reduce his system to sublapsarianism. This was
attempted by Amyraldus; who was answered by Curcellæus, in his
tract “De Jure Dei in Creaturas.” This last writer, partly by several of
the same passages we have given above from Calvin’s Institutes,
and by extracts from his other writings, proves that Calvin did by no
means consider man, as fallen, to be the object of reprobation; but
man not yet created; man as to be created, and so reprobated,
under no consideration in the divine mind of his fall or actual guilt,
except as consequences of an eternal preterition of the persons of
the reprobate, resolvable only into the sovereign pleasure of God.
The references he makes to men as corrupt, and to their corrupt
state as the proximate cause of their rejection, are all manifestly
used to parry off rather than to answer objections, and somewhat to
moderate and soften, as Curcellæus observes, the harsher parts of
his system. And, indeed, for what reason are we so often brought
back to that unfailing refuge of Calvin, “the presumption and
wickedness of replying against God?” For if reprobation be a matter
of human desert, it cannot be a mystery; if it be adequate
punishment for an adequate fault, there is no need to urge it upon
us to bow with submission to an unexplained sovereignty. We may
add, there is no need to speak of a remote or first cause of
reprobation, if the proximate cause will explain the whole case; and
that Calvin’s continual reference to God’s secret counsel, and will,
and inscrutable judgment, could have no aptness to his argument.
Among English divines, Dr. Twisse has sufficiently defended Calvin
from the charge, as he esteems it, of sublapsarianism; and,
whatever merit Twisse’s own supralapsarian creed may have, his
argument on this point is unanswerable.
9. As it is not intended here to enter into this controversy, on
which multitudes of books have been written, and the leading
authors are known almost to every one, the above may be sufficient
to convey a just notion of Calvin’s own opinions. After these subjects
had long agitated the reformed churches, and given rise to several
modifications of Calvin’s original scheme, and to numerous writings
in refutation of it, the synod of Dort digested the whole into five
articles from which arose the celebrated controversy on the five
points. These articles, as being the standard of what is generally
called strict Calvinism, are, in substance, as follows:--
(1.) “Of Predestination. As all men have sinned in Adam, and have
become exposed to the curse and eternal death, God would have
done no injustice to any one, if he had determined to leave the
whole human race under sin and the curse, and to condemn them
on account of sin; according to those words of the Apostle, ‘All the
world is become guilty before God,’ Rom. iii, 19, 23; vi, 23. That
some, in time, have faith given them by God, and others have it not
given, proceeds from his eternal decree; for ‘known unto God are all
his works from the beginning,’ &c, Acts xv, 18; Eph. i, 11. According
to which decree, he graciously softens the hearts of the elect,
however hard, and he bends them to believe; but the non-elect he
leaves, in his judgment, to their own perversity and hardness. And
here, especially, a deep discrimination, at the same time both
merciful and just; a discrimination of men equally lost, opens itself to
us; or that decree of election and reprobation which is revealed in
the word of God; which, as perverse, impure, and unstable persons
do wrest to their own destruction, so it affords ineffable consolation
to holy and pious souls. But election is the immutable purpose of
God; by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, he
chose, out of the whole human race, fallen by their own fault from
their primeval integrity into sin and destruction, according to the
most free good pleasure of his own will, and of mere grace, a certain
number of men, neither better nor worthier than others, but lying in
the same misery with the rest, to salvation in Christ; whom he had,
even from eternity, constituted Mediator and head of all the elect,
and the foundation of salvation; and therefore he decreed to give
them unto him to be saved, and effectually to call and draw them
into communion with him, by his word and Spirit; or he decreed
himself to give unto them true faith, to justify, to sanctify, and at
length powerfully to glorify them, &c, Eph. i, 4–6; Rom. viii, 30. This
same election is not made from any foreseen faith, obedience of
faith, holiness, or any other good quality and disposition, as a pre-
requisite cause or condition in the man who should be elected, &c.
‘He hath chosen us,’ not because we were, but ‘that we might be,
holy,’ &c, Eph. i, 4; Rom. ix, 11–13; Acts xiii, 48. Moreover, Holy
Scripture doth illustrate and commend to us this eternal and free
grace of our election, in this more especially, that it doth testify all
men not to be elected; but that some are non-elect, or passed by, in
the eternal election of God, whom truly God, from most free, just,
irreprehensible, and immutable good pleasure, decreed to leave in
the common misery into which they had, by their own fault, cast
themselves; and not to bestow on them living faith, and the grace of
conversion; but having been left in their own ways, and under just
judgment, at length, not only on account of their unbelief, but also
of all their other sins, to condemn and eternally punish them, to the
manifestation of his own justice. And this is the decree of
reprobation, which determines that God is, in no wise, the author of
sin, (which, to be thought of, is blasphemy,) but a tremendous,
incomprehensible, just judge, and avenger.“
(2.) “Of the Death of Christ.” Passing over, for brevity’s sake, what
is said of the necessity of atonement, in order to pardon, and of
Christ having offered that atonement and satisfaction, it is added,
“This death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect sacrifice
and satisfaction for sins; of infinite value and price, abundantly
sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; but because many
who are called by the Gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ,
but perish in unbelief; this doth not arise from defect or insufficiency
of the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own
fault. God willed that Christ, through the blood of the cross, should,
out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, efficaciously
redeem all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to
salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer on
them the gift of faith,” &c.
(3.) “Of Man’s Corruption, &c. All men are conceived in sin, and
born the children of wrath, indisposed (inepti) to all saving good,
propense to evil, dead in sin, and the slaves of sin; and without the
regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they neither are willing nor
able to return to God, to correct their depraved nature, or to dispose
themselves to the correction of it.“
(4.) “Of Grace and Free will. But in like manner as, by the fall,
man does not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will;
neither hath sin, which hath pervaded the whole human race, taken
away the nature of the human species, but it hath depraved and
spiritually stained it; so that even this divine grace of regeneration
does not act upon men like stocks and trees, nor take away the
properties of his will; or violently compel it, while unwilling; but it
spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and sweetly, and at the same
time powerfully, inclines it; so that whereas before it was wholly
governed by the rebellion and resistance of the flesh, now prompt
and sincere obedience of the Spirit may begin to reign; in which the
renewal of our spiritual will, and our liberty, truly consist; in which
manner, (or for which reason,) unless the admirable Author of all
good should work in us, there could be no hope to man of rising
from the fall by that free will, by which, when standing, he fell into
ruin.”
(5.) “On Perseverance. God, who is rich in mercy, from his
immutable purpose of election, does not wholly take away his Holy
Spirit from his own, even in lamentable falls; nor does he so permit
them to glide down, (prolabi,) that they should fall from the grace of
adoption, and the state of justification; or commit the ‘sin unto
death,’ or against the Holy Spirit; that, being deserted by him, they
should cast themselves headlong into eternal destruction. So that
not by their own merits or strength, but by the gratuitous mercy of
God, they obtain it, that they neither totally fall from faith and grace,
nor finally continue in their falls and perish.”
10. The controversy on these difficult subjects was not decided by
the decrees of the synod of Dort, which, it will be seen under that
article, were purposely drawn up in a politic and wary manner, so as
to quadrate with the opinions, and not to outrage the feelings, of
any grade of Calvinists. Prior to the convention of that celebrated
assembly, the doctrines of Calvin had been refined upon and
incautiously carried out to some of their legitimate consequences, in
a manner almost without precedent, except that of the
Mohammedan doctors on the absolute fate which holds a
distinguished place in the Koran. Several of the brightest and most
acute wits in Europe occupied themselves in sublimating to the
height of extravagance the two kindred branches of predestination,--
the eternal and absolute election of certain men to everlasting glory,
and the reprobation of the rest of mankind to endless punishment,
without regard in the divine mind to the foreseen faith of one class
or to the foreseen unbelief of the other. This course was commenced
by Beza, the contemporary and successor of Calvin, who possessed
neither his genius nor his caution; and his writings contain several
rash assertions on these points, which, it is probable, would never
have obtained the approbation of his departed friend and instructer.
Zanchius, with true Italian astuteness, carried on this process of
refinement in high style; and his predestinarian improvements were
only equalled by those of Piscator, Pareus, Keckerman, Hommius,
Kimedontius, Polanus, Sturmius, Danæus, Thysius, Donteklock,
Bogerman, Gomar, Smoutius, Triglandius, down to the minor tribe of
Contra-Remonstrants, Damman, Maccovius, and Sibrandus
Lubbertus. Nor were the clever divines of our own country a whit
behind the foreigners in accomplishing this grand object; and the
theological reader, on seeing the names of Perkins, Whitaker, Abbot,
and Twisse, will instantly recognise men whose doctrinal vagaries
were familiar to all the Calvinists in Europe. No one can form an
adequate conception of the injury thus inflicted on the divine
attributes of wisdom, goodness, and mercy, as they have been
revealed in the Scriptures, unless he has read the immense mass of
quotations from the writings of these and other divines, which were
presented to the notice of the synod of Dort by the Remonstrants,
especially in their Rejection of Errors under each of the five points in
dispute; the proofs of which were quoted from their respective
authors, and the accuracy and faithfulness of which were never
called in question. Not only would the minds of all sober Christians in
these days be shocked when perusing the monstrous sentiments
propounded in those extracts, but even the tolerably stiff Calvinists
of Oliver Cromwell’s time felt themselves scandalized by any allusion
to them, and would not admit that their opinions had the least
affinity to such desecrating dogmas. Little more than twenty years
after the synod of Dort, that distinguished polemical divine and
accurate scholar, Dr. Thomas Pierce, published his able and very
interesting pamphlet, entitled, “A Correct Copy of Some Notes
concerning God’s Decrees;” in which, without naming the authors,
he gave ten extracts from celebrated Calvinistic treatises, to prove,
that “there are men of no small name who have told the world, that
all the evil of sin which is in man proceedeth from God only as the
author, and from man only as the instrument.” Four of these extracts
will furnish sufficient matter to every judicious mind for mournful
reflections on the strange obliquities to which the human
understanding is liable:--(1.) “A wicked man, by the just impulse of
God, doeth that which is not lawful for him to do.” (2.) “When God
makes an angel or a man a transgressor, he himself doth not
transgress, because he doth not break a law. The very same sin,
namely, adultery or murder, inasmuch as it is the work of God, the
author, mover, and compeller, is not a crime; but inasmuch as it is of
man, it is a wickedness.” (3.) “God can will that man shall not fall, by
his will which is called voluntas signi; and in the mean while he can
ordain that the same man shall infallibly and efficaciously fall, by his
will which is called voluntas beneplaciti. The former will of God is
improperly called his will, for it only signifieth what man ought to do
by right; but the latter will is properly called a will, because by that
he decreed what should inevitably come to pass.” (4.) “God’s will
doth pass, not only into the permission of the sin, but into the sin
itself which is permitted. The Dominicans,” the high predestinarian
order in the church of Rome, “do imperfectly and obscurely relate
the truth whilst, beside God’s concurrence to the making way for sin,
they require nothing but the negation of efficacious grace, when it is
manifest that there is a farther prostitution of sin required.” Of these
four passages the first is from Calvin himself, the second from
Zuinglius, and the third and fourth from Dr. Twisse. This pamphlet
was the first in a smart controversy, in which Doctor (afterward
Bishop) Reynolds, Baxter, Hickman, and Barlee, took part against Dr.
Pierce, but in which those eminent men virtually disclaimed all
community of sentiment between themselves and such high
predestinarians. In their warmth, however, they accused the Doctor
of having “rifled the well-furnished cabinet of the Batavian
Remonstrant writings,” and of not having hesitated “to be beholden
to very thieves, namely, such roguish pamphlets as Fur
Predestinatus and others are, rather than want materials for
invectives against Calvin, Beza, Twisse,” &c. In his reply, the Doctor
says, “When I published my papers on God’s decrees, I had never so
much as seen that well-furnished cabinet, the ‘Acta Synodalia
Remonstrantium;’” and he proves that he has copied none of his
extracts from Fur Predestinatus. As his opponents were “so
unthankful for the lenity” which he had displayed in giving “so short
a catalogue,” he added other affirmations of a still more revolting
import, if that were possible. The four extracts which follow, will
serve as a correct specimen of the gross and unguarded assertions
of some of those good men who were thus exposed; the first two
are from Zanchius, the other two from Piscator, both of them men of
renown in that age:--(1.) “Reprobates are compelled with a necessity
of sinning, and so of perishing, by this ordination of God; and so
compelled that they cannot choose but sin and perish.” (2.) “God
works all things in all men, not only in the godly, but also in the
ungodly.” (3.) “Judas could not but betray Christ, seeing that God’s
decrees are immutable; and whether a man bless or curse, he
always doth it necessarily in respect of God’s providence, and in so
doing he doeth always according to the will of God.” (4.) “It doth or
at least may appear from the word of God, that we neither can do
more good than we do, nor omit more evil than we omit; because
God from eternity hath precisely decreed that both [the good and
the evil] should so be done. It is fatally constituted when, and how,
and how much, every one of us ought to study and love piety, or not
to love it.” In that newly emancipated age, the ample discussion of
these topics could not fail to produce much good; and the result in
the course of a few years was, that a vast number of those who had
implicitly followed the guidance of Calvin, deserted his standard, and
either went completely over to the ranks of Arminius, or halted
midway under the command of Baxter. From that time to the middle
of the eighteenth century, those dogmas which are usually
designated as ultra-Calvinian or Antinomian, received no support
except from such shallow divines as Dr. Crisp and his immediate
admirers. But when the Rev. John Wesley and his brother, as
Arminians, propounded the doctrines of the Gospel in as evangelical
a manner, and with as marked success, as any Calvinist, a number of
those excellent men, both in the church and among the Dissenters,
who had been early benefited by the ministry of the two brothers,
thought, as many now do, that it was impossible for any thing to be
evangelical that was not Calvinistic; and, apparently with the design
of being at as great a remove as possible from a reputed heresy,
they became in principle real Antinomians. In forming this
conclusion, and in running to a supposed opposite extreme, such
persons seem to have forgotten that those truly evangelical
principles,--which in Germany and the neighbouring states effected
the reformation from Popery, which transformed sinners into
Christians and martyrs, and which, in the perverted state of society
that then obtained, but too painfully reminded the sainted sufferers
of the domestic, municipal, and national grievances and persecutions
to which the earliest confessors of the name of Christ were
subjected,--had been in beneficial operation long before Calvin’s
doctrinal system was brought to maturity, and when he was known
only as the humble and diligent pastor of the church of Geneva. And
even after the publication of his “Institutes,” which contained the
peculiarities of his creed, he had to wait many years, to labour hard,
not always in the most sanctified spirit, both from the pulpit and the
press, and to endure many personal mortifications, before he was
able to obtrude his novel dogmas on his own immediate
connections, or to make any sensible impression on the generally
received theology of his learned contemporaries. Such persons ought
also to recollect, that, as Dr. Watts justly observes, “some of the
most rigid and narrow limitations of grace to men are found chiefly
in Calvin’s Institutions, which were written in his youth. But his
comments on Scripture were the labours of his riper years and
maturer judgment.”
 11. His first tract on predestination was published in 1552; and the
first complete edition of his “Institutes” did not see the light till the
year 1558; but the change in Melancthon’s opinions, from the fatality
of Stoicism, to the universality of the Gospel, occurred at least six
years prior to 1535, when the second edition of his “Common
Places” was published, that contained his amended creed, and
strong cautions against the contrary doctrines. One of the most
eloquent and best informed writers of the present age has, in
reference to this subject, justly observed: “Both Luther and
Melancthon, after their creed became permanently settled at the diet
of Augsburg, (A. D. 1530,) kept one object constantly in view,--to
inculcate only what was plain and practical, and never to attempt
philosophizing. They perceived, that before the reformation the
doctrine of divine foreknowledge had been grossly misconceived and
abused, although guarded by all the logic of the schools; and they
felt, that, after it, they had themselves at first contributed to
increase the evil, by grounding upon the same high argument,
although for a very different purpose, the position of an infallible
necessity. Thenceforward, therefore, they only taught a
predestination which the Christian religion explains, and the
Christian life exemplifies. Thus, while their adversaries philosophized
upon a predestination of individuals, preferred one before another
by divine regard because worthy of such a preference, they taught
only that which has been revealed with certainty,--the predestination
of a peculiar description of persons, of a people zealous of good
works, of the Christian church contemplated as an aggregate, not on
account of its own dignity, but on account of Christ its supreme
Head, and the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him. While
restoring Scriptural simplicity to the doctrine of predestination,
perplexed and disfigured by the vanity of the schools, they
studiously and anxiously preserved every trace of that universal
benevolence by which Christianity is particularly distinguished. ‘Let
us,’ they said, ‘with both our hands, or rather with all our heart, hold
fast the true and pious maxim, that God is not the author of sin, that
he sits not in heaven writing Stoical laws in the volumes of fate; but,
endowed with a perfect freedom himself, he communicates a liberty
of action to his creatures; firmly opposing the position of necessity
as false, and pernicious to morals and religion. God, we may be
assured, is no cruel and merciless tyrant; he does not hate and
reject men, but loves them as a parent loves his children.’ Universal
grace, indeed, was at all times a favourite topic with the Lutherans;
nor would they admit of any predestination except that of a
beneficent Deity, who was in Christ reconciling the world to himself;
except a predestination conformable with that order of things which
he has established, and with the use or abuse of the means which
he has ordained. ‘The Almighty,’ they said, ‘has seriously willed and
decreed, from eternity, all men to be saved and to enjoy everlasting
felicity; let us not therefore indulge in evil suggestions, and separate
ourselves from his grace, which is as expanded as the space
between heaven and earth; let us not restrain the general promise,
in which he offers his favour to all without discrimination, nor
confine it to those who, affecting a peculiar garb, wish to be alone
esteemed pious and sanctified. If many perish, the fault is not to be
imputed to the divine will, but to human obstinacy, which despises
that will, and disregards a salvation destined for all men.’ ‘And
because many are called, but few are chosen, let us not,’ they
added, ‘entertain an opinion highly impious,--that God tenders his
grace to many, but communicates it only to a few; for should we not
in the greatest degree detest a Deity by whose arbitrary will we
believed ourselves to be excluded from salvation?’ Upon the
important point likewise of the conditional acceptance of the
individual, their ideas were not more distinct than their language
was explicit. ‘If God chose,’ they argued, ‘certain persons only in
order to unite them to himself, and rejected the remainder in all
respects alike, would not such AN ELECTION WITHOUT CAUSES seem
tyrannical? Let us therefore be persuaded, that some cause exists in
us, as some difference is to be found between those who are, and
those who are not, accepted.’ Thus they conceived that,
predestinating his elect in Christ, or the Christian church, to eternal
salvation, he excludes none from that number by a partial adoption
of favourites, but calls all equally, and accepts of all who obey his
calling, or, in other words, who become true Christians by possessing
the qualifications which Christianity requires.--'He,' they stated, who
‘falls from grace, cannot but perish, completely losing remission of
sin, with the other benefits which Christ has purchased for him, and
acquiring in their stead divine wrath and death eternal.’ Melancthon,
who in his private correspondence expressly termed Calvin the Zeno
of his day, says, ‘Let us execrate the Stoical disputations which some
introduce, who imagine that the elect always retain the Holy Spirit,
even when they commit atrocious crimes,--a manifest and highly
reprehensible error; and let us not confirm in fools security and
blindness.’”
These quotations might be augmented by others from the earliest
Lutheran authors, more Arminian in their import than any which
Arminius ever wrote: but the preceding are sufficient to show, that,
during upward of thirty years, the Protestant church in Germany was
nourished by doctrines most manifestly at variance with the
refinements afterward promulgated by Calvin. Real conversions of
sinners were never more abundant than in that golden age; yet
these were produced by the blessing of God upon an evangelical
agency that had scarcely any thing in common with the Genevan
dogmas. With these and similar facts before him, therefore, no
Calvinist can in common honesty claim for the peculiarities of his
creed, for those doctrines which distinguish it from the
Melancthonism of the Protestant churches of England and Germany,
the exclusive title of Evangelical. Equally fallacious is the ground on
which he can prefer any such claim on account of the alleged
counsel and advice given by Calvin to our reformers while they were
engaged in the formation of our Articles and Liturgy. On no fact in
the ecclesiastical history of this country are our annalists more
completely at agreement than on this,--that Calvin’s name and
writings were scarcely known in England till the time when the
persecution under Queen Mary forced many of our best divines into
banishment; and that, to the great future disquietude of the church,
several of these exiles on their return imported a personal bias either
in favour of his discipline or of his dogmas. Anterior to that period he
had received no such pressing invitations from our reformers, and
from the king himself, as Melancthon had done, for his friendly
theological aid in drawing up the doctrinal and disciplinary formulæ
of our national church. The man who asserts the contrary to this,
and who has the hardihood to deny the Melancthonian origin of the
Articles and Liturgy, discovers at once his want of correct information
on these subjects, and has never read the convincing documents
appended to the Archbishop of Cashel’s (Dr. Laurence’s) “Eight
Sermons,” being the Bampton Lectures for 1804, and entitled, “An
Attempt to Illustrate those Articles of the Church of England which
the Calvinists improperly consider as Calvinistical;” Todd’s treatise
“On Original Sin, Free Will, &c, as maintained by certain Declarations
of our Reformers;” Plaifere’s “Appello Evangelium;” nor even the
portable yet convincing pamphlets of Kipling and Winchester, the
former entitled “The Articles not Calvinistic;” the latter, “A
Dissertation on the Seventeenth Article of the Church.”
12. There is one fact connected with these assumed yet
unfounded claims, which has never yet been placed in its proper
light, but which it may be well briefly to notice in this place. Calvin
himself, in 1535, wrote the following truly Melancthonian paragraphs
as part of his preface to the New Testament in French: “This
Mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, was the only, true, and eternal Son
of God, whom the Father was about to send into the world, that he
might collect all men together from this horrid dispersion and
devastation. When, at length, that fulness of time arrived, that day
preordained by the Lord, he openly showed himself as that Messiah
who had for so many ages been the desire of all nations, and hath
most abundantly performed all those things which were necessary
for the redemption of all men. But this great blessing was not
confined solely within the boundaries of the land of Israel, since, on
the contrary, it was intended [porrigendum] to be held out for the
acceptance of the whole human race; because through Christ alone
the entire family of man was to be reconciled to God, as will be
seen, and most amply demonstrated, in these pages of the New
Testament.” “To this inheritance of our heavenly Father’s kingdom we
are all called without respect of persons,--whether we be men or
women, high or low, masters or servants, teachers or disciples,
[doctores] divines or laics, Jews or Greeks, Frenchmen or [Romani]
Italians. From this inheritance no one is excluded, if he only so
receive Christ as he is offered by the Father for the salvation of all
men, and embrace him when received.” Great research has been
displayed by the Calvinists at different periods, in endeavouring to
discover, in the public formularies of the church, or in the private
productions of our reformers, some trace of affinity between them
and the writings of Calvin. Only two cases of such affinity have yet
been found; and, unfortunately for the validity of all pretensions of
this kind, neither of them contains a single peculiarity of Calvinism,
but, on the contrary, both are of the moderate and evangelical class
of the Melancthonian school. One of the passages thus discovered is
here subjoined from Cranmer’s “Defence of the True and Catholic
Doctrine of the Sacrament,” &c; and bears all the marks of
verisimilitude to the second of the preceding paragraphs from Calvin,
though written fifteen years after it:--“Almighty God, without respect
of person, accepteth the oblation and sacrifice of priest and lay
person, of king and subject, of master and servant, of man and
woman, of young and old, yea, of English, French, Scot, Greek,
Latin, Jew, and Gentile; of every man according to his faithful and
obedient heart unto him, and that through the sacrifice propitiatory
of Jesus Christ.” Had either this or the other passage contained the
least tinge of what is now considered as belonging exclusively to the
system of Calvin, the English admirers of that great man would have
had some grounds for the assertions which have been too
confidently made, because so easily refuted.
13. Having given this summary of the sentiments of Calvin himself,
and of the ancient or strict Calvinists, it is proper to observe, that
there are, and always have been, many who generally embrace the
Calvinistic system, but object to some particular parts, and to the
strong language in which some of the propositions are expressed.
These are called moderate or modern Calvinists, who differ from
Calvin, and the synod of Dort, chiefly on two points,--the doctrine of
reprobation, and the extent of the death of Christ. The theory of
Baxter has already been noticed. This and all other mitigated
schemes rest on two principles, the sufficiency of the atonement for
all mankind, and the sufficiency of grace for those who do not
believe. Still something more is held to be necessary than this
sufficiency of grace in order to actual salvation; namely, an
acceptance by man, which can only be made under that degree of
effectual supernatural aid which is dispensed only to a certain
number of persons, who are thus distinguished as the “elect of God.”
The main characteristic of all these theories, from the first to the
last, from the highest to the lowest, is, that a part of mankind are
shut out from the mercies of God, on some ground irrespective of
their refusal of a sincere offer to them of salvation through Christ,
made with a communicated power of embracing it. Some power
they allow to the reprobate, as natural power, and degrees of
superadded moral power; but in no case the power to believe unto
salvation; and thus, as one well observes, “When they have cut
some fair trenches, as if they would bring the water of life unto the
dwellings of the reprobate, on a sudden they open a sluice which
carries it off again.” The whole labour of these theories is to find out
some plausible reason for the infliction of punishment on them that
perish, independent of the only cause assigned by the word of God--
their rejection of a mercy free for all, and made attainable by all. See
Baxterianism.
14. After all, however, it is pleasant to find these indications of a
growing consciousness, on the part of modern predestinarians, that
the common notions and common language of mankind on these
deep subjects are not far from the truth. And though some too
fastidious Arminians may complain, that, in this desire to enlist the
views and words of common sense on the side of Calvinism, many of
those by whom they are employed attach to them a meaning very
different from that which ordinary usage warrants; yet even this
tendency to approximate to right views should be regarded as
favourable to the progress of truth, and the evidently improved
feeling which has suggested such approximation ought to be met in
a conciliating spirit. But this is a fault which must always be an
appendage to such a system, however it may be modified; and does
not exclusively apply to its modern supporters. The following
remarks by Archbishop Laurence on the ambiguity of language not
unfrequently discernible in the writings of Calvin himself, are worthy
of consideration:--“In whatsoever sense he wished these words to
be understood, it must be admitted that he sometimes adapted the
style of others, who had a very different object in view, to his own
peculiar opinions. And hence, from the want of a due discrimination,
the sentiments of his contemporaries, opposite in their natural
tendency, are often improperly forced into the vortex of Calvinism.
Systematizing was his darling propensity, and the ambition of being
distinguished as a leader in reform his predominant passion: in the
arrangements of the former, he never felt a doubt, or found a
difficulty; and in the pursuits of the latter he displayed an equal
degree of perseverance and ardour. Thus, in the doctrine of the
eucharist, it is well known that he laboured to acquire celebrity, and
conciliate followers, by maintaining a kind of middle sacramental
presence between the corporeal of the Lutherans, and the mere
spiritual of the Zuinglians; expressing himself in language which,
partly derived from one, and partly from the other, verged toward
neither extreme; but which, by his singular talent at perspicuous
combination, he applied, and not without success, to his own
particular purpose. Nor was he less solicitous to press into his
service a foreign phraseology upon the subject more immediately
before me; a subject on his theory of which he not a little prided
himself, and seemed contented to stake his reputation. He perceived
that the Lutherans, strongly reprobating every discussion upon the
decrees of a Deity unrevealed to us, founded predestination solely
on a Scriptural basis; contending for a divine will which is seriously,
not fictitiously, disposed to save all men, and predetermined to save
all who become and continue sincere Christians. Zuingle, indeed,
had reasoned from a different principle; and, although persuaded
that God’s mercies in Christ were liberally bestowed on all without
distinction, on infants who commit not actual crime, and on the
Heathen as well as the Christian world, he nevertheless was a
necessitarian in the strictest sense of the expression; referring
events of every kind to an uncontrollable and absolute
predetermination. Zuingle, however, died in 1531, before the youth
of Calvin permitted him to assume the character of a reformer; who
found Bullinger then at the head of the Zuinglian church, not only
applauding, but adopting, the moderation of the Lutherans; and, to
use the phrase of Turretin, plainly Melancthonizing. But the doctrine
alluded to, it may be imagined, was of a species too limited and
unphilosophical for one of his enterprising turn of mind, who never
met with an obstacle which he attempted not instantly to surmount.
Disregarding, therefore, the sober restrictions of the times, he gave
loose to the most unbounded speculation: yet, anxious by all means
to win over all to his opinion, he studiously laboured to preserve, on
some popular points, a verbal conformity with the Lutherans. With
them, in words, he taught the universality of God’s good will; but it
was a universality which he extended only to the offer of salvation;
conceiving the reprobate to be precluded from the reception of that
offer by the secret decree of an immutable Deity. The striking
feature of their system was an election in Christ, by which they
meant an election as Christians. This also, in words, he inculcated:
his idea, however, of an election in Christ was totally different from
theirs; for he held it to be the previous election of certain favourites
by an irrespective will of God, whom, and whom alone, Christ was
subsequently appointed to save. But his ingenuity was such, in
adapting the terms borrowed from another source to his own theory,
that some erroneously conceive them to have been thus originally
used by the Lutherans themselves. Hence, therefore, much
confusion has arisen in the attempt of properly discriminating
between the various sentiments of Protestants upon this question, at
the period under consideration: all have been regarded as formed
upon the model which Calvin exhibited; at least by writers who have
contemplated him as the greatest reformer of his age, but who have
forgotten that, although they chose to esteem him the greatest, they
could not represent him as the first in point of time; and that his title
to preëminence, in the common estimation of his contemporaries,
was then far from being acknowledged.”
15. On one topic, however, Calvin and the older divines of that
school were very explicit. They tell us plainly, that they found all the
Christian fathers, both of the Greek and the Latin church down to
the age of St. Augustine, quite unmanageable for their purpose; and
therefore occasionally bestow upon them and their productions
epithets not the most courteous. Yet some modern writers, not
possessing half the splendid qualifications of those veterans in
learning, make a gorgeous display of the little that they know
concerning antiquity; and wish to lead their readers to suppose, that
the whole stream of early Christianity has flowed down only in their
channel. Every one must have remarked how much like Calvin all
those fathers speak whose works are quoted by Toplady in his
“Historic Defence.” Nor can the two Milners, in their “History of the
Church,” entirely escape censure on this account,--though both were
excellent men, and better scholars than Toplady. But from the
manner in which they “show up” only those ancient Christian
authors, some of whose sentiments seem to be nearly in unison with
their own, they induce the unlearned or half informed to draw the
erroneous conclusion,--that the peculiarities of Calvinism are not the
inventions of a comparatively recent æra, and that they have always
formed a prominent part of the profession of faith of every Christian
community since the days of the Apostles.
All men must admire the candid and liberal spirit which breathes in
the subjoined high but just eulogium on Calvin, from the pen of the
same amiable Archbishop: “Calvin himself was both a wise and a
good man; inferior to none of his contemporaries in general ability,
and superior to almost all in the art, as well as elegance, of
composition, in the perspicuity and arrangement of his ideas, the
structure of his periods, and the Latinity of his diction. Although
attached to a theory, which he found it difficult in the extreme to
free from the suspicion of blasphemy against God, as the author of
sin, he certainly was no blasphemer; but, on the contrary, adopted
that very theory from an anxiety not to commit, but, as he
conceived, to avoid blasphemy,--that of ascribing to human, what he
deemed alone imputable to divine, agency.”
CAMBYSES, the son of Cyrus, king of Persia. He succeeded his
father, A. M. 3475, and is the Ahasuerus mentioned in Ezra iv, 6, to
whom, as soon as he came to the crown, the Samaritans applied by
petition, desiring that the rebuilding of Jerusalem might be stopped.
What the motives were which they made use of to prevail upon this
prince, we are ignorant; but it is certain, that though he was not
persuaded to revoke his father’s decree, yet he put a stop to the
works, so that for the remaining seven years and five months which
he reigned, the building of the city and temple was suspended. See
Ahasuerus.
CAMEL, ‫גמל‬. This animal is called in ancient Arabic, gimel; and in
modern, diammel; in Greek, κάμηλος. With very little variation, the
name is retained in modern languages. The camel is very common in
Arabia, Judea, and the neighbouring countries; and is often
mentioned in Scripture, and reckoned among the most valuable
property, 1 Chron. v, 21; Job i, 3, &c. “No creature,” says Volney,
“seems so peculiarly fitted to the climate in which he exists as the
camel. Designing this animal to dwell in a country where he can find
little nourishment, nature has been sparing of her materials in the
whole of his formation. She has not bestowed upon him the
fleshiness of the ox, horse, or elephant; but limiting herself to what
is strictly necessary, has given him a long head, without ears, at the
end of a long neck without flesh; has taken from his legs and thighs
every muscle not immediately requisite for motion; and, in short,
bestowed upon his withered body only the vessels and tendons
necessary to connect its frame together. She has furnished him with
a strong jaw, that he may grind the hardest aliments; but, lest he
should consume too much, has straitened his stomach, and obliged
him to chew the cud; has lined his foot with a lump of flesh, which
sliding in the mud, and being no way adapted to climbing, fits him
only for a dry, level, and sandy soil, like that of Arabia. So great, in
short, is the importance of the camel to the desert, that, were it
deprived of that useful animal, it must infallibly lose every
inhabitant.” The chief use of the camel has always been as a beast
of burden, and for performing journeys across the deserts. They
have sometimes been used in war, to carry the baggage of an
oriented army, and mingle in the tumult of the battle. Many of the
Amalekite warriors, who burnt Ziklag in the time of David, were
mounted on camels; for the sacred historian remarks, that of the
whole army not a man escaped the furious onset of that heroic and
exasperated leader, “save four hundred young men, which rode upon
camels, and fled,” 1 Sam. xxx, 17.
 The passage of Scripture in which our Lord says, “It is easier for a
camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to
enter into the kingdom of heaven,” Matt. xix, 24, has been the
occasion of much criticism. Some assert that near Jerusalem was a
low gate called “the needle’s eye,” through which a camel could not
pass unless his load was taken off. Others conjecture that κάμιλος
should be read κάβιλος, a cable. But there are no ancient
manuscripts to support the reading. In the Jewish Talmud, there is,
however, a similar proverb respecting an elephant: “Rabbi Shesheth
answered Rabbi Amram, who had advanced an absurdity, ‘Perhaps
thou art one of the Pambidithians, who can make an elephant pass
through the eye of a needle;’” that is, says the Aruch, “who speak
things impossible.” There is also a saying of the same kind in the
Koran: “The impious, who in his arrogancy shall accuse our doctrine
of falsity, shall find the gates of heaven shut; nor shall he enter
there, till a camel shall pass through the eye of a needle. It is thus
that we shall recompense the wicked,” Surat. vii, 37. Indeed, Grotius,
Lightfoot, Wetstein, and Michaëlis join in opinion, that the
comparison is so much in the figurative style of the oriental nations
and of the rabbins, that the text is sufficiently authentic.
CAMEL’s HAIR, mentioned Matt. iii, 4; Mark i, 6. John the Baptist,
we are told, was habited in a raiment of camel’s hair; and Chardin
assures us, that the modern dervises wear such garments; as they
do also great leathern girdles. Camel’s hair is also made into those
beautiful stuffs, called shawls; but certainly the coarser manufacture
of this material was adopted by John, and we may receive a good
idea of its texture, from what Braithwaite says of the Arabian tents:
“They are made of camel’s hair, somewhat like our coarse hair cloths
to lay over goods.” By this coarse vesture the Baptist was not merely
distinguished, but contrasted with those in royal palaces, who wore
“soft raiment,” such as shawls or other superfine manufactures,
whether of the same material or not.
CAMERONIANS, a sect in Scotland, who separated from the
Presbyterians in 1666, and continued to hold their religious
assemblies in the fields. The Cameronians took their denomination
from Richard Cameron, a famous field preacher, who, refusing to
accept the indulgence to tender consciences granted by King Charles
II, as such an acceptance seemed an acknowledgment of the king’s
supremacy, and that he had before a right to silence them,
separated from his brethren, and even headed a rebellion in which
he was killed. His followers were never entirely reduced till the
Revolution, when they voluntarily submitted to King William. The
Cameronians adhered rigidly to the form of government established
in 1648.
CAMERONISTS, or CAMERONITES, is the denomination of a party
of Calvinists in France, who asserted, that the cause of men’s doing
good or evil proceeds from the knowledge which God infuses into
them; and that God does not move the will physically, but only
morally, in virtue of its dependence on the judgment of the mind.
They had this name from John Cameron, one of the most famous
divines among the Protestants of France, in the seventeenth century,
who was born at Glasgow, in Scotland, about the year 1580, and
taught Greek there till he removed to Bourdeaux in 1600. Here he
acquired such celebrity by the fluency with which he spoke Greek,
that he was appointed to teach the learned languages at Bergerac.
He afterward became professor of philosophy at Sedan; but
returning to Bourdeaux in 1604, he devoted himself to the study of
divinity. Upon being appointed tutor to the sons of the chancellor of
Navarre, he accompanied them to Paris, Geneva, and Heidelberg.
After having discharged the office of a minister at Bourdeaux, which
he assumed in 1608, for ten years, he accepted the professorship of
divinity at Saumur. Upon the dispersion of that academy by the
public commotions in 1621, he removed to England, and taught
divinity at his own house in London. King James inclined to favour
him on account of his supposed attachment to the hierarchy, made
him master of the college, and professor of divinity, at Glasgow; but
after holding this office, which he found to be unpleasant to him, for
a year, he returned to Saumur, where he read private lectures. From
thence he removed, in 1624, to Montauban; where the disturbances
excited by the emissaries of the duke de Rohan led him to
remonstrate against the principles which produced them, with more
zeal than prudence. This occasioned his being insulted by a private
person in the streets, and severely beaten: and this treatment so
much affected him, that he soon after died, in 1625, at the early age
of forty-six years. Bayle represents him as “a man of great parts and
judgment, of an excellent memory, very learned, a good philosopher,
good humoured, liberal not only of his knowledge but his purse, a
great talker, a long-winded preacher, little versed in the fathers,
inflexible in his opinions, and inclined to turbulence.” He was one of
those who attempted to reconcile the doctrine of predestination, as
it had been taught at Geneva, and confirmed at Dort, with the
sentiments of those who believe that God offers salvation to all
mankind. His opinion was maintained and propagated by Moses
Amyraut, and several others of the most learned among the
reformed ministers, who thought Calvin’s doctrine too harsh. They
were called Hypothetical Universalists. Cameron likewise maintained
the possibility of salvation in the church of Rome. See Amyraut and
Baxterianism.
CAMP, or ENCAMPMENT, of the Israelites. The whole body of the
people, consisting of six hundred thousand fighting men, beside
women and children, was disposed under four battalions, so placed
as to enclose the tabernacle, in the form of a square, and each
under one general standard. (See Armies.) There were forty-one
encampments, from their first in the month of March, at Rameses, in
the land of Goshen, in Egypt, and in the wilderness, until they
reached the land of Canaan. They are thus enumerated in Numbers
xxxiii:--
 1. Rameses 22. Makheloth
2. Succoth 23. Tahath
3. Etham, on the edge of 24. Tarah
the wilderness 25. Mithcah
4. Pihahiroth 26. Hashmonah
5. Marah 27. Moseroth
6. Elim 28. Bene-jaakan
7. By the Red Sea 29. Hor-hagidgad
8. Wilderness of Sin 30. Jotbathah
9. Dophkah 31. Ebronah
10. Alush 32. Ebion-gaber
11. Rephidim 33. Kadesh
12. Wilderness of Sinai 34. Mount Hor
13. Kibroth-hattaavah 35. Zalmonah
14. Hazeroth 36. Punon
15. Rithmah 37. Oboth
16. Rimmon-parez 38. Ije-abarim
17. Libnah 39. Dibon-gad
18. Rissah 40. Almon-diblathaim
19. Kehelatha 41. Mountains of Abarim
20. Shapher
21. Haradah
In the second year after their exodus from Egypt they were
numbered; and upon an exact poll, the number of their males
amounted to six hundred and three thousand, five hundred and fifty,
from twenty years old and upward, Num. i, ii. This vast mass of
people, encamped in beautiful order, must have presented a most
impressive spectacle. That it failed not to produce effect upon the
richly endowed and poetic mind of Balaam, appears from Num. xxiv,
2; “And Balaam lifted up his eyes and he saw Israel abiding in his
tents according to their tribes; and the Spirit of God came upon him,
and he took up his parable and said, How goodly are thy tents, O
Jacob, and thy tabernacles, O Israel! As the valleys are they spread
forth, as gardens by the river side, as the trees of lign aloes which
the Lord hath planted, and as cedar trees beside waters.” Grandeur,
order, beauty, and freshness, were the ideas at once suggested to
the mind of this unfaithful prophet, and called forth his unwilling
admiration. Perhaps we may consider this spectacle as a type of the
order, beauty, and glory of the true “church in the wilderness,” in
those happy days when God “shall not behold iniquity in Jacob, nor
perverseness in Israel;” when it shall be said, “The Lord his God is
with him, and the shout of a king is among them.”
CAMPHIRE. ‫כפר‬. Greek, κύπρος. Latin cyprus. Canticles i, 14; iv,
13. Sir T. Browne supposes that the plant mentioned in the
Canticles, rendered κύπρος in the Septuagint, and cyprus in the
Vulgate, is that described by Dioscorides and Pliny, which grows in
Egypt, and near to Ascalon, producing an odorate bush of flowers,
and yielding the celebrated oleum cyprinum. [A sweet oil made of
the flowers of the privet tree.] This is one of the plants which is
most grateful to the eye and the smell. The deep colour of its bark,
the light green of its foliage, the softened mixture of white and
yellow with which the flowers, collected into long clusters like the
lilac, are coloured; the red tint of the ramifications which support
them, form an agreeable combination. The flowers, whose shades
are so delicate, diffuse around the sweetest odours, and embalm the
gardens and apartments which they embellish. The women take
pleasure in decking themselves with them. With the powder of the
dried leaves they give an orange tincture to their nails, to the inside
of their hands, and to the soles of their feet. The expression, ‫עשתה‬
‫את־צפרניה‬, rendered “pare their nails,” Deut. xxi, 12, may perhaps
rather mean, “adorn their nails;” and imply the antiquity of this
practice. This is a universal custom in Egypt, and not to conform to it
would be considered indecent. It seems to have been practised by
the ancient Egyptians, for the nails of the mummies are most
commonly of a reddish hue.
In the Song of Solomon, the bride is described as saying, “My
beloved is unto me as a cluster of camphire in the vineyards of
Engedi,” chap. i, 24; and again, “Thy plants are an orchard of
pomegranates, with pleasant fruits, camphire with spikenard,” chap.
iv, 13.
 CANA, a town of Galilee, where Jesus performed his first miracle,
John ii, 1, 2, &c. It lay in the tribe of Zebulun, not far from Nazareth.
Cana was visited by Dr. E. D. Clarke, who says, “It is worthy of note,
that, walking among the ruins of a church, we saw large massy
stone pots, answering the description given of the ancient vessels of
the country; these were not preserved nor exhibited as reliques, but
lying about, disregarded by the present inhabitants, as antiquities
with whose original use they were unacquainted. From their
appearance, and the number of them, it was quite evident that a
practice of keeping water in large stone pots, each holding from
eighteen to twenty-seven gallons, was once common in the country.”
CANAAN, the son of Ham. The Hebrews believe that Canaan,
having first discovered Noah’s nakedness, told his father Ham; and
that Noah, when he awoke, having understood what had passed,
cursed Canaan, the first author of the offence. Others are of opinion
that Ham was punished in his son Canaan, Gen. ix, 25. For though
Canaan is mentioned, Ham is not exempted from the malediction; on
the contrary, he suffers more from it, since parents are more
affected with their children’s misfortunes than with their own;
especially if the evils have been inflicted through some fault or folly
of theirs. Some have thought that Canaan may be put elliptically for
the father of Canaan, that is, Ham, as it is rendered in the Arabic
and Septuagint translations.
The posterity of Canaan was numerous. His eldest son, Sidon,
founded the city of Sidon, and was father of the Sidonians and
Phenicians. Canaan had ten other sons, who were fathers of as
many tribes, dwelling in Palestine and Syria; namely, the Hittites, the
Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgasites, the Hivites, the Arkites, the
Sinites, the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hemathites. It is
believed that Canaan lived and died in Palestine, which from him
was called the land of Canaan. Notwithstanding the curse is directed
against Canaan the son, and not against Ham the father, it is often
supposed that all the posterity of Ham were placed under the
malediction, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be
unto his brethren.” But the true reason why Canaan only was
mentioned probably is, that the curse was in fact restricted to the
posterity of Canaan. It is true that many Africans, descendants of
other branches of Ham’s family, have been largely and cruelly
enslaved; but so have other tribes in different parts of the world.
There is certainly no proof that the negro race were ever placed
under this malediction. Had they been included in it, this would
neither have justified their oppressors, nor proved that Christianity is
not designed to remove the evil of slavery. But Canaan alone in his
descendants, is cursed, and Ham only in that branch of his posterity.
It follows that the subjugation of the Canaanitish races to Israel
fulfils the prophecy. To them it was limited, and with them it expired.
Part of the seven nations of the Canaanites were made slaves to the
Israelites, when they took possession of their land; and the
remainder by Solomon.
Canaan, Land of. In the map it presents the appearance of a narrow
slip of country, extending along the eastern coast of the
Mediterranean; from which, to the river Jordan, the utmost width
does not exceed fifty miles. This river was the eastern boundary of
the land of Canaan, or Palestine, properly so called, which derived its
name from the Philistines or Palestines originally inhabiting the
coast. To three of the twelve tribes, however, Reuben, Gad, and
Manasseh, portions of territory were assigned on the eastern side of
the river, which were afterward extended by the subjugation of the
neighbouring nations. The territory of Tyre and Sidon was its ancient
border on the north-west; the range of the Libanus and Antilibanus
forms a natural boundary on the north and north-east; while in the
south it is pressed upon by the Syrian and Arabian deserts. Within
this circumscribed district, such were the physical advantages of the
soil and climate, there existed, in the happiest periods of the Jewish
nation, an immense population. The kingdom of David and Solomon,
however, extended far beyond these narrow limits. In a north-
eastern direction, it was bounded only by the river Euphrates, and
included a considerable part of Syria. It is stated that Solomon had
dominion over all the region on the western side of the Euphrates,
from Thiphsah, or Thapsacus, on that river, in latitude 25° 20´, to
Azzah, or Gaza. “Tadmore in the wilderness,” (Palmyra,) which the
Jewish monarch is stated to have built, (that is, either founded or
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com