John Calvin (1509–1564) and Others on the Proper Office of the Gospel and Other Quotes Related to Accidental Causation in Sinful Creatures

Outline:
I. Some Definitions
II. John Calvin’s Comments About Accidental Causation
III. Miscellaneous Quotes by Other Reformed Theologians

IV. Francis Turretin on Accidental Causation

I. Some Definitions:

accidens: accident; viz., an incidental property of a thing, specifically, a secondary form, not essential to a thing, added to it and capable of being removed from it. Thus an accident is a property conjoined to a thing that can be withdrawn from the thing without substantial alteration; or in other words, an accident is a property contingently predicated of a thing. Given, moreover, that accidents are properties that inhere in substances by addition, they do not have an independent existence.

Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic: A Division of Baker Publishing Group, 2017), 4.

per se / per accidens: by or through itself / by or through something added or incidental. Something understood per se is identified as what it is according to its essence or inward essential principle; something understood per accidens is identified according to an incidental property. Thus a horse per se is an animal; per accidens it is brown or spotted. Per se is equivalent to propter se et directe, according to itself and directly understood; per accidens equals propter aliud et indirecte, according to another and indirectly understood. In this sense, theologia per se is concerned with God; per accidens, with God’s works.

Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, 258.

II. John Calvin’s Comments About Accidental Causation:

The relevant sections can be found in his comments on Mark 4:12; Luke 2:33–39; John 3:17; 12:47; 20:23; 2 Cor 2:15; 3:7; Rom 1:16; 1 Pet 2:8; and 2 Pet 2:4–8.

Mark 4.12. That seeing they may not see. Here it is enough to note briefly what I have explained more fully elsewhere. The Gospel (doctrina) is not the cause of blindness properly speaking or in itself or in its nature, but only in the event (per accidens). It is like the dim sighted going out in the sunshine. It only makes their eyes weaker still. Yet the fault lies, not in the sun, but in their eyes. When the Word of God blinds and hardens the reprobate, it is through their own native depravity; so far as the Word is concerned, it is accidental.

Lest haply they should turn again. This clause shows the value of seeing and hearing. Men who are converted to God return to His favour and in His grace live well and happily. And the real reason why God wishes His Word to be proclaimed is to renew men’s minds and hearts and to reconcile them to Himself. But on the other hand Isaiah says that the reprobate remain in their hardness lest they should obtain mercy, and the Word is deprived of any effect on them lest it should soften their hearts to penitence.

John Calvin “A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke—Volume 2,” trans. T. H. L. Parker, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 2:67–68; Mark 4:12.

So Simeon’s prophetic words were well justified, that Christ was set for the fall of many, yes, among the people of Israel. This is the meaning: He was divinely ordained to bring down and tumble many. But we must note that the ruin comes from their turning on Him in unbelief as is said a little later, where Simeon calls Him ‘a Sign which is spoken against’. Thus as unbelievers rebel against Christ, they crash against Him, and their ruin comes from this. ….

By the word falling the Spirit denotes the penalty that comes on the unbelievers, to teach us to keep as far from them as possible, lest any association should involve us in a like disaster. Christ is no less dear, for all that many tumble at His rise, for the savour of the Gospel does not cease to be pleasant and sweet to God, however deadly it may be to the world. If any ask how Christ should be an occasion of falling to unbelievers who have perished out of His time, the answer is simple, that those who rob themselves of the salvation offered divinely to them perish a second time. Thus falling indicates a twofold penalty, which awaits all unbelievers, once they have knowingly and willingly set themselves against the Son of God.

John Calvin, “A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke—Volume 1,” trans. A. W. Morrison, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 1:95–96; Luke 2:34.

When elsewhere Christ says that He is come for judgment, when He is called a stone of stumbling, when He is said to be set for the falling of many, it may be regarded as accidental, or so to say, foreign. For those who reject the grace offered in Him deserve to find Him the judge and avenger of such unworthy and shocking contempt. A striking example of this is to be seen in the Gospel, which, although it is strictly the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, is turned into death by the ingratitude of many. Paul expresses both aspects when he rejoices that he has vengeance at hand by which he will punish all the opponents of his preaching after the obedience of the godly has been fulfilled (II Cor. 10.6). It is as if he had said that the Gospel is especially and in the first place intended for believers, that it may be salvation for them; but that afterwards unbelievers will not escape unpunished when they despise the grace of Christ and would rather have Him as the author of death than of life.

John Calvin, “The Gospel according to St John 1–10,” trans., T. H. L. Parker, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 4:75–76; John 3:17.

The word judge, as is clear from its antithesis save, is here put for ‘condemn’. Now this should be referred to the proper and genuine office of Christ. For that unbelievers are the more severely condemned on account of the Gospel is accidental (accidentale) and does not spring from its nature, as we have said elsewhere.

John Calvin, “The Gospel according to St John 11–12 and The First Epistle of John,” trans., T. H. L. Parker, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 5:53; John 12:47.

Whosesoever sins ye retain. Christ adds this second clause to terrify despisers of His Gospel, that they may know that they will not escape punishment for this pride. Therefore, as the embassy of salvation and eternal life was committed to the apostles, so, on the other hand, they were armed with vengeance against all the ungodly who reject the salvation offered them, as Paul teaches in II Cor, 10.6. But this is put last because the true and genuine aim in preaching the Gospel had to be shown first. That we are reconciled to God is proper to the Gospel: that unbelievers are adjudged to eternal death is accidental (accidentale). This is why Paul, in the verse I have just quoted, where he threatens vengeance against unbelievers, adds, ‘after that your obedience shall have been fulfilled.’ He means that it is proper to the Gospel to invite all to salvation, but that it is accidental (adventicium) that it brings destruction on any.

We must observe, however, that whoever hears the voice of the Gospel is liable to judgment and eternal damnation unless he embraces the forgiveness of sins there promised to him. For, as it is a quickening savour to the children of God, so it is the savour of death unto death to those who are perishing. Not that the preaching of the Gospel is needed to condemn the reprobate, for by nature we are all lost, and in addition to the hereditary curse, everyone brings on himself new causes of death; but because the obstinacy of those who knowingly and willingly despise the Son of God deserve far severer punishment.

Ibid., 5:208; John 20:23.

On Romans 1:16, Calvin said:

The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savour of death to the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own wickedness.

The Torrance edition says:

The Gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but its power is not universally manifest. The fact that the Gospel is the taste of death to the ungodly arises not so much from the nature of the Gospel itself, as from their own wickedness.

John Calvin, “The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians,” trans. R. MacKenzie, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994–96), 8:27.

He lays great emphasis on the word savour. It is as if he had said, ‘The power of the Gospel is so great that it either quickens or kills no only by its taste but by its very smell. Whether the outcome be life or death, it is never preached in vain.’ But the question arises how this can be consistent with the nature of the Gospel which he defines a little later as ‘the ministry of life’. The answer is easy: the Gospel is preached unto salvation, for that is its real purpose, but only believers share in this salvation; for unbelievers it is an occasion of condemnation, but it is they who make it so. Thus Christ came not into the world to condemn the world—there was no need for that since we were all condemned already without Him. Yet He sends the apostles not just to loose but also to bind, not just to remit sins but also to retain them. He is the light of the world and yet he blinds unbelievers; He is the foundation stone, yet to many He is the stone of stumbling. But the proper function (proprium officium) of the Gospel is always to be distinguished from what we may call its accidental function (ab accidentali), which must be imputed to the depravity of men by which life is turned into death.

John Calvin, “2 Corinthians and Timothy, Titus and Philemon,” trans. T. A. Smail, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 10:35; 2 Cor 2:15.

Here, however, a question arises: As the gospel is the odour of death unto death to some, (2 Cor. 2:16,) and as Christ is a rock of offence, and a stone of stumbling set for the ruin of many,¹ (Luke 2:34; 1 Peter 2:8,) why does he represent, as belonging exclusively to the law, what is common to both? Should you reply, that it happens accidentally that the gospel is the source of death, and, accordingly, is the occasion of it rather than the cause, inasmuch as it is in its own nature salutary to all, the difficulty will still remain unsolved; for the same answer might be returned with truth in reference to the law. For we hear what Moses called the people to bear witness to—that he had set before them life and death. (Deut. 30:15.) We hear what Paul himself says in Rom. 7:10—that the law has turned out to our ruin, not through any fault attaching to it, but in consequence of our wickedness. Hence, as the entailing of condemnation upon men is a thing that happens alike to the law and the gospel, the difficulty still remains.

My answer is this—that there is, notwithstanding of this, a great difference between them; for although the gospel is an occasion of condemnation to many, it is nevertheless, on good grounds, reckoned the doctrine of life, because it is the instrument of regeneration, and offers to us a free reconciliation with God. The law, on the other hand, as it simply prescribes the rule of a good life, does not renew men’s hearts to the obedience of righteousness, and denounces everlasting death upon transgressors, can do nothing but condemn.¹ Or if you prefer it in another way, the office of the law is to show us the disease, in such a way as to show us, at the same time, no hope of cure: the office of the gospel is, to bring a remedy to those that were past hope. For as the law leaves man to himself, it condemns him, of necessity, to death; while the gospel, bringing him to Christ, opens the gate of life. Thus, in one word, we find that it is an accidental property of the law, that is perpetual and inseparable, that it killeth; for as the Apostle says elsewhere, (Gal. 3:10,) All that remain under the law are subject to the curse. It does, not, on the other hand, invariably happen to the gospel, that it kills, for in it is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith, and therefore it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. (Rom 1:17, 18.)²
_______________
1 The occasion of the ruin of unbelievers is explained by Calvin at considerable length in the Harmony, vol. i. pp. 148, 149.—Ed.
1 “Elle ne nous peut apporter autre chose que condemnation;”—“It can bring us nothing but condemnation.”
2 Turretine, in his Institutes of Controversial Theology, (vol. ii. p. 159,) gives a much similar view of the matter, of which Calvin here treats. “Quando lex vocatur litera occidens, et ministerium mortis et condemnationis, (2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 8, 9,) intelligenda est non per se et naturâ suâ, sed per accidens, ob corruptionem hominis, non absolute et simpliciter, sed secundum, quid quando spectatur ut fœdus operum, opposite ad fœdus gratiæ;”—“When the law is called a killing letter, and the ministry of death and condemnation, (2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 8, 9,) it, must be understood to be so, not in itself and in its own nature, but accidentally, in consequence of man’s corruption—not absolutely and expressly, but relatively, when viewed as a covenant of works, as contrasted with the covenant of grace.”—Ed.

John Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. John Pringle, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1981–84), 20:177–178; 2 Cor 3:7.

The Torrance edition says:

But this raises a question. If the Gospel is ‘a savour of death unto death’ (2.16) to some and Christ is ‘a rock of offence’ and a ‘stone of stumbling set for the ruin of many’ (Luke 2.34, I Peter 2.8) why does he say that only the Law brings death when the Gospel does so as well? If we reply that to be the source of death is only accidental (per accidens) to the Gospel so that it is the occasion (materia) of death rather than the cause, for in its own nature it brings salvation to all, the difficulty is not yet solved since the same can still be said of the Law. For we hear that Moses bore witness to the people that he had set before them life and death (Deut. 30.15) and Paul himself says in Romans 7.10 that the Law has turned out to our ruin not because there was anything wrong with it but because of our sin. Thus since it is accidental (accidentale) to both Law and Gospel to bring men condemnation the difficulty still remains.

My answer is, that in spite of this, there still remains a great difference between them. For although the Gospel is an occasion of death to many, it is still rightly called the doctrine of life because it is the means of regeneration and freely offers reconciliation with God. But because the Law only prescribes a rule for good living without reforming men’s hearts into the obedience of righteousness and threatens transgressors with everlasting death, it can do nothing but condemn. Or, to put it another way, it is the function of the Law to show us the disease without offering any hope of a cure, and it is the function of the Gospel to provide a remedy for those in despair. Since the Law abandons a man to himself it consigns him to inevitable death, while the Gospel leads him to Christ and thus opens the gates of life. To kill is thus a perpetual and inevitable accident (accidens) of the Law for, as the apostle says elsewhere, ‘All that remain under the Law are subject to its curse’ (Gal. 3.10), but the Gospel does not always kill for in it ‘is revealed the righteousness of God from faith to faith’ and therefore it is ‘the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth’ (Rom. 1.16–17).

John Calvin, “The Second Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians and the Epistles to Timothy, Titus and Philemon,” trans. T. A. Smail, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 10:44–45; 2 Cor 3:7.

This especially deserves to be noticed in case the blame for our fault should be imputed to Christ, for, as He has been given to us as a foundation, it is incidental that He becomes a rock of offence. In short, His proper office is to fit us to be a spiritual temple to God, but it is the fault of men that they stumble at Him, because unbelief leads men to contend with God. Therefore in order to set forth the character of the conflict, Peter has said that they are the unbelieving.

John Calvin, “The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews and the First and Second Epistles of St Peter,” trans. William B. Johnston, in Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 12 vols., ed. D. W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 12:264; 1 Pet 2:8.

As far as angels are concerned, the argument is from the greater to the less. Although they were far more exalted, yet their dignity did not save them from the hand of God. Much less, therefore, will mortal men who have followed their impiety escape. Since Peter has touched briefly here on the fall of the angels, but does not specify the time or manner of other circumstances, we must speculate carefully on this matter. There are many curious men who never stop probing into these things, but since God has only rarely touched on them in Scripture, and then only in passing, this fact warns us to be content with a modicum of knowledge. Those who inquire further in their overanxiety have no regard to edification but want to feed their minds on empty speculations. God has made known what is useful for us to know, that the devils were originally created to obey God, that they fell from grace through their own fault because they did not submit to God’s rule; and therefore that the wickedness which cleaves to them was accidental and not organic to their nature, so that it cannot be attributed to God.

Ibid., 12:348; 2 Pet 2:4.  

III. Miscellaneous Quotes by Other Reformed Theologians:

James Nalton (c.1600–1662):

...the Gracious pardon of God that is tendered in the Gospel, does not kill, or condemn any in it self, or in its own Nature, but through the contempt of those that do disregard it, in this regard, not simply, but accidentally, through the Corruptions of men’s hearts, and Natures, in this regard, the Gospel may be said to increase a man's curse and condemnation...

Matthias Martinius (1572–1630):

...and the gospel, which in itself is a savor of life unto life, becomes to the unbelieving a savor of death unto death, by accident, through their own fault,...

William Fenner (1600–1640):

It was Christ’s primary purpose, and the first end of his coming, to save the world: it is an accidental end, or rather an event of his coming, that the world is condemned.

And William Strong (d.1654) said:

Every man that is under the curse, is under the Covenant that inflicts the curse: but all Mankind by nature are under the curse; therefore the curse is the curse of the first Covenant; and the Gospel does not make men miserable but leaves them so. He that believes not on the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him; that is, only by accident, as the mercy of it is condemned; so indeed it heightens the sin, and aggravates the condemnation: but the curse is properly the curse of the first Covenant, the Gospel in itself speaks nothing but blessing. As a Physician that is sent to cure a man, if through the malignity of the Disease, and the frowardness of the Patient he cast away the Potion, the Balm that would cure him, he dies of the Disease, not of the Physick.

William Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants [...] (London : J. M. for Francis Tyton, 1678), 2. See also pp. 42 and 43 below.

(2) There is causa per accidens, an accidental cause; when the effect flows not from the nature of the cause, but from something else that does by accident cleave to it; so the Apostle says, knowledg[e] puffs up: all true knowledg[e] is humbling, and there is nothing that a man can know either of God or himself, but it does afford him great ground of abasement and self-denial; but yet through the lusts of men sin takes occasion by the knowledge that should humble him to lift him up: so fountains are hottest in the Winter, and the fire by reason of the circumstant air; not that the Winter does add heat to either by its own nature, but by accident and occasionally it encloses the one and draws forth the other: so the Gospel meeting with the lusts of men, who either reject the Gospel, or else do turn the grace of God into wantonness, thence it becomes the savour of death unto death; not of itself, nor in its own nature, for it forbids it, and curseth it; but yet sin takes occasion by the Law, and through many things that do adhere and cleave to the man by the Law, it does become the more exceeding sinful.

Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants, 42.

2. There is yet a further ground of this irritating power of the Law, and that is from the curse of God that is come upon all men under the fall, which came not only upon man but upon all things else for man’s use; and so though it be the curse of the Law, yet it comes even upon the Law itself, (so far as it concerns man) as well as upon all the Creatures; yea the Lord Christ himself is so far a curse unto men in their sins, that as he is a sanctuary to his people, so a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence, a gin and a snare unto others, for the fall and the rising again of many in Israel, Luke 2:34. For judgment, says he, I am come into this world; and yet he says in John 12:47. I come not to judge and condemn the world but to save the world. This indeed was his intent primarily and per se, but the other falls out through the sinfulness of men, occasionally and by accident; and that which is good in itself does become evil unto the man, and that which is a blessing in itself doth to him become a curse: so it is with the Gospel, and with all the ordinances thereof, ’tis the savour of life to some, but of death unto others; the same meat is wholesome nourishment unto some, to others it seeds the disease in an unsound body; and the same light which is pleasant unto a good and a sound eye, is a pain and a trouble to a weak eye which is sore or bloodshot, &c. And therefore it puts no malignant nor sinful quality into the Law or Gospel, or the Ordinances, but only these meeting with a man of an unsound spirit do occasionally stir up these corruptions and sinful dispositions, which were in the men before, and thereby do increase them; and by this means it becomes a curse to the man, though it be a blessing to the people of God.

Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants, 43.

(2) There is an accidental end, that which follows not from the nature of the thing but from the evil disposition of the subject, and so unto all unregenerate men the Law doth discover their sins, and make them out of measure sinful; doth irritate and stir up their corruptions, and so doth heighten and increase them, and their condemnation for them, as the gospel doth: but yet we may say of the Law as Christ does of himself, That he came not into the world to condemn the world, but that the world by him might be saved: yet by accident he did condemn the world, being despised, and set for the falling as well as the rising of many in Israel; but the proper and principal intent of his coming, was salvation and not damnation…

Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants, 109.

Annesley wrote:

The destruction of unbelievers is not the end of the gospel; but that is through their own fault, eventus adventitius ([Amandus] Polani, Syntagma), “an accidental event.” God abundantly declares in the gospel, that he delights not in the death of sinners; but in the saving translation of them, by faith and repentance…

Samuel Annesley, “Sermon XII: The Covenant of Grace (Heb 8:6),” in Puritan Sermons, 6 vols. (Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1981), 5:194.

The following is likely Annesley’s actual source:  

25. The destruction of unbelievers, however, is not a goal of the Gospel; that is an unconnected outcome from elsewhere, from their sins. For in his Gospel God declares that he takes no delight in the destruction of any sinner, but he delights in transferring everyone to salvation through repentance and faith from the power of darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son, Jesus Christ [XXV. Perditio vero infidelium non est Evangelii finis, sed ex illorum vitio eventus adventitius. Deus enim Evangelio suo declarat, quod nullius peccatoris exitio delectetur, sed salutari cujuslibet per resipiscentiam ac fidem translatione e potestate tenebrarum in regnum Filii sui dilecti Jesu Christi].

Johannes Polyander, “Disputation 22: On the Gospel,” in Synopsis of a Purer Theology, ed. William den Boer and Riemer A. Faber, 2 vols. (Landrum, SC: Davenant Press, 2023), 1:241; Synopsis Purioris Theologiae/Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, ed. Dolf te Velde, trans. Riemer A. Faber, 2 vols. (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2015), 1:564, 565.

the Gospel saves per se, condemns per accidens.

See Peter Martyr Vermigli, Early Writings: Creed Scripture Church, ed. John Patrick Donnelly and Joseph C. McLelland, trans. Mariano Di Gangi and Joseph C. McLelland, vol. 1 of The Peter Martyr Library (Kirksville, MO: The Thomas Jefferson University Press; Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, Inc., 1994), 144n160; cf. Martyr on Rom. 1:16.

13.—In the same way too it cannot be concluded that because the outward calling of the rejected is ineffectual it is therefore not seriously meant by God. Outward calling is always per se a real calling to salvation, since everyone who follows it up thereby gains righteousness in Christ and eternal life: only, in the case of the godless, it is ineffectual because of their hardness of heart. Similarly, the calling from God’s side is always seriously intended, since God promises grace even to the rejected upon condition of faith, and makes faith for them a duty. But of course God omits to give faith to the rejected, because He is not bound to do so in the case of any man.—Polan (VI, 32): “Ineffectual calling is of the reprobate.—It is called ineffectual not per se but per accidens, not in respect of God who calls, but in respect of men who have deaf ears of the heart. In itself calling is always effectual, although it is not so in those who are perishing, as the sun is effective by his light in itself, although it by no means illumines the blind.”—From this it follows that even the calling of the godless is on God’s side “sincere and serious” (Heidegger XXI, 11): “Whether the serious is opposed to a joke, God in no way plays in the business of calling; or to pretence, He likewise does not simulate, because He does not profess one thing outwardly in words, concealing something else inwardly in His mind, but declares to men by calling His plain, open and steadfast will. And since the parts of calling are commands and promises, as often as He calls He commands and orders them seriously to repent and believe. For He wills that they repent and believe by His preceptive and approving will, although He does not will by His decerning will, effectual to the giving of faith and repentance. He has the right to demand both.—Moreover calling promises salvation, but not to anyone promiscuously or without condition, only to the believing and repentant person”.—Similarly Wolleb 91.

Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 517.

We must distinguish betwixt the proper end of a thing, and a consequence following thereupon. Thus these words, ‘I came not to send peace, but a sword,’ Mat. 10:34, intend a consequence which followed upon Christ’s coming into the world. For the gospel of Christ being a light, and professors thereof holding out this light, thereby is discovered the darkness and lewdness of the men of this world, which they can no way endure; but thereupon draw the sword, and raise all manner of persecution against those that hold out this light. By reason of this consequence, Christ is said not to come to send peace, but the sword.

William Gouge, A Commentary on the Whole Epistle to the Hebrews, vol. 2 of Nichol’s Series of Commentaries (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; J. Nisbet & Co.; G. Herbert, 1866), 97.

3. These commands and exhortations are of use to clear the justice of God upon obstinate sinners. God is a judge, and judges by law; commands therefore are necessary, because a rational creature is only governable by law. If God were not a lawgiver, he could not be a judge; his judicial proceedings depend upon his legislative power. Men being to be judged by their works, must have some law as the rule of those works; and his law is no more than the first law in innocency, that is, to return to obedience and righteousness. These commands and exhortations are the whips and scourges of perverse consciences, whereby they are galled while they obey not the motions of them, and render them inexcusable and unworthy of mercy in despising the conditions God requires of them, and make the case of Sodom ‘more tolerable in the day of judgment’ than the condition of such men, Mat. 11:24. We are apt to bring an unreasonable charge against God of cruelty and injustice, as though his punishments did not consist with righteousness. God therefore shews us our duty, and demands it of us, and it is confessed by us to be our duty; man is therefore deservedly punished, because he doth wilfully cherish the old nature in him, the fountain of all sin; he hath the truth, and he holds it in possession, but in unrighteousness, therefore the wrath of God is justly revealed from heaven against that unrighteousness of his, Rom. 1:18. God calls sinners, though he knows they will not renew themselves, as men send servants to demand the possession of a piece of ground, though they know it will not be delivered to them [Cartwright, Harmo. in John 6:43]; but they do it that they may more conveniently bring their action against such a person that will not surrender. So upon God’s command to men to be renewed, his justice is more apparent upon their refusal; as he sent Moses to Pharaoh, though he knew before that Pharaoh would not hearken to him. This punishment is only accidental to the gospel, it becomes the savour of death per accidens, because of the unbelief of those that reject it [Amiraut. Ser. sur Phillip. 2 p. 90, &c.]; the gospel is designed for the salvation of men, not for their condemnation. If the corruption of man produceth condemnation to himself, must God abstain from doing good to the world? There is not a man but abuseth the light of the sun which shines upon him, and the mercies God gives him, and thereby brings wrath upon himself, and God knows they will do so; would we have God, therefore, to put out the light of the sun, and divest the earth of its fruitfulness? Shall God lay aside his right of commanding, and take away the preaching of the gospel, and so excellent a thing as the happy revelation of his gracious promises and exhortations, because many men by their wilfulness bring the just wrath of God upon them for their refusal? Will any man accuse our blessed Lord and Saviour, when he comes to judgment, that he did them wrong to come and die for mankind, and cause the news and ends of his death to be published, and exhort sinners thereupon to believe in him? Surely men’s consciences shall be full of convictions of their own wilfulness, and the equity of God’s justice thereupon.

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of the Efficient of Regeneration (John 1:13),” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock,  5 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert, 1864–1866), 3:230–231.

[5.] It excites all kind of sin in the heart. As the gospel received by faith opposeth all sin, ‘teaching us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts,’ Titus 2:12, so this principle, opposite to the gospel, teacheth us to cherish all sin. As the more faith is exercised, the more other graces traverse the stage (for as they depend upon faith in regard of their being, so they do also in regard of their exercise), so the more unbelief is exercised, the more all kind of sin is stirred up and quickened in the heart. As the gospel is enriched with all motives and directions to what is righteous before God, and comely before man, wherein whatsoever hath moral beauty, or is of honourable esteem among men, that desire to walk according to right reason, is commended and pressed with the highest injunctions, which, if observed by men under the gospel, would make the earth a paradise, restore the honour of God, and the beauty of the creation. So unbelief disgraceth these principles, degrades them from that esteem they deserve in the hearts of men, discountenanceth that which is spiritually noble and worthy, alarms the corrupt nature, brings the force of it into the field against the principles of the gospel. Therefore, where the gospel doth not refine and reform men by the operation of faith, men are rendered worse, more awkward towards God, and spiritually wicked by the operation of unbelief, which is, per accidens, the effect of the gospel; as physic that doth not work and expel the humours, gives them advantage to rage more in the body. As the gospel profits when mixed with faith, so it is wholly unprofitable when mixed with unbelief. Sin thereby draws rather an encouragement from it, and takes occasion from thence to become more furious. Hence is that rage commonly against the gospel, when it comes into any place where before it was not. The devil works by the unbelief of man to excite all the strength of corrupt nature against it, to stop the course of it; and what hath been done in the world in the times of the apostles, and will be done to the end of the world, is a picture of what men do secretly in their own hearts against the principles of it, by the strength of their infidelity, which stirs up all the serpentine principles in the heart against it.

Stephen Charnock, “A Discourse of Unbelief, Proving it is the Greatest Sin (John 16:9),” in The Complete Works of Stephen Charnock, 5 vols. (Edinburgh; London; Dublin: James Nichol; James Nisbet and Co.; W. Robertson; G. Herbert, 1864–1866), 4:280–281.

Nay, the very preaching of the Gospel in the World, tho’ it be the Gospel of Peace, and the Gospel of Salvation too, has been, and is, accidentally, thro’ the Corruption of Mens hearts, and under the Influence of the envious Enemy of Mankind, the Occasion of all this [i.e., feuds, divisions, contentions, sin, and mischief]; according as our Saviour has foretold that it would be, saying as Mat. 10. 34, 35. Think not that I am come to send Peace on Earth: I came not to send Peace but a Sword. For I am come to set a Man at variance against his Father, and the Daughter against her Mother, and the Daughter-in-law against her Mother-in-law. And a Mans foes shall be they of his own house.

Cotton Mather, A Letter to a Friend in the Country, Attempting a Solution of the Scruples and Objections of Conscientious or Religious Nature, Commonly Made against the New Way of Receiving the Small-Pox., Early American Imprints, 1639–1800; No. 2247 (Boston: S. Kneeland, for S. Gerrish, at his shop in Corn-hill, 1721), 9.

IV. Francis Turretin on Accidental Causation:

The relevant sections in Turretin on accidental causation, which are also worth reading, can be found in his Institutes in §2.18.5; 3.23.27; 4.6.8; 4.14.6–7; 6.17.18; 9.9.35; 11.23.12; 12.6.30; 13.2.28; 14.14.28; 15.2.26; 15.4.48; 17.5.33; 18.15.14; 19.1.15.

V. That which of itself and properly brings more injury and loss than advantage should not be permitted. But this does not hold good of that which is such only accidentally (i.e., from the fault of men). If men abuse the Scriptures, this does not happen per se, but accidentally from the perversity of those who wrongfully wrest them to their own destruction. Otherwise (if on account of the abuse the use should be prohibited), the Scriptures ought to be taken away not only from the laity, but also from the teachers who abuse them far more. For heresies usually arise not from the common people and the unlearned, but from ecclesiastics.

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997), 1:148–149; 2.18.5.

XXVII. Those words ought to be avoided which afford matter for strife per se in the church, but not those which only accidentally do so on account of the pertinacity of heretics (who attack the words in order to get rid of the things signified by them).

Turretin, Institutes, 1:260; 3.23.27.

VIII. If some abuse this doctrine [of predestination] either to licentiousness or to desperation, this happens not per se from the doctrine itself, but accidentally, from the vice of men who most wickedly wrest it to their own destruction. Indeed, there is no doctrine from which more powerful incitements to piety can be drawn and richer streams of confidence and consolation flow (as will be seen in the proper place).

Turretin, Institutes, 1:330; 4.6.8.

The negative act includes preterition and desertion.
VI. The negative act includes two: both preterition, by which in the election of some to glory as well as to grace, he neglected and slighted others (which is evident from the event of election); and negative desertion, by which he left them in the corrupt mass and in their misery. However this is so to be understood: (1) that they are not excepted from the laws of common providence, but remain subject to them; nor are they immediately deprived of all God’s favor, but only of the saving and vivifying (which is the fruit of election); (2) that actual sins of all kinds follow that preterition and desertion; not indeed from the nature of preterition and desertion itself and the force of the denied grace itself, but from the nature of the corrupt free will and the force of corruption in it (as he who does not cure the disease of a sick man is not the cause per se of the disease, nor of the results flowing from it; so sins are the consequents, rather than the effects of reprobation; necessarily bringing about the futurition of the event, but yet not infusing or producing the wickedness; not by removing what is present, but by not supplying what would sustain). If the sun does not illuminate the earth, it is not the accidental cause of darkness. Can God abandoning man and not removing his corruption, be straightway called the accidental cause of his sin? For darkness follows by necessity of nature the non-illumination of the sun, but sins voluntarily follow the denial of grace.
VII. Although God by that desertion denies to man that without which sin cannot be avoided, the causality of sin cannot on that account be attributed to him. (1) God denies it justly and is not bound to give that grace to anyone. (2) From that negation does not follow the capability of sinning (which man has from himself), but only the non-curing of that incapability. (3) God denies the grace which they are unwilling to accept (or to retain) and which they of their own accord despise, since they desire nothing less than being governed by the Holy Spirit. (4) He does not deny that grace that they may sin, but that they may be punished on account of sin.

Turretin, Institutes, 1:381; 4.14.6–7.

(3) In the internal operation of God.
XVIII. Third, besides the delivering over to Satan, there is also sometimes a certain internal operation of God in man by which he turns the heart of man to the execution of his counsel. Solomon refers to this when he says, “The king’s heart is in the hand of the Lord: he turneth it whithersoever he will” (Prov. 21:1). Augustine says, “God operates in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever he will, whether to good according to his mercy, or to evil according to their desert, as by his own judgment, now open, then secret, yet always just” (On Grace and Free Will 43 [NPNF1, 5:463]; PL [Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologiae … series Latina. Paris: Garnieri Fratres, 1878] 44.909). However this can be done either by an internal proposition of objects (which can move the mind and will) or by the impression of thoughts (which although good in themselves, are yet accidentally converted into evil by the vice of corrupt man). Thus the brothers of Joseph think that he is loved by his parents and is honored with dreams by God; these are good thoughts which they impiously abused. Wresting them to envy, they take counsel concerning the removal of him. Pharaoh after the death of Joseph thinks he should see to it that the empire suffers no harm; a good thought undoubtedly sent from God, but falling into an evil mind was perverted to the destruction of the people. So what came into the mind of Caiphas, “It is expedient that one man should die for the people” (Jn. 11:50), was good, but was most wickedly abused to the nefarious slaughter of Christ. Again, God internally works in man when he causes objects to move him in a particular direction. For since man is prone to every evil (as containing in himself the seeds of all vices), yet that he inclines to this rather than that arises from no other source than the secret providence of God, inclining him rather in this than in that direction, not otherwise than a stream flowing downwards is turned by the industry of the conduit master in this rather than that direction. Since to men there lie open many ways of injuring, God (shutting others up) leaves one open that they may be moved in that way. Thus the wicked serve to execute his judgments, when he wishes to use them either to punish the wickedness of anyone or to test the faith of the pious or to arouse them from slothfulness. A remarkable instance of this occurs in Nebuchadnezzar drawing out an army against Judea rather than against Egypt (Ezk. 21:21–24). Therefore, since in these and other wonderful and ineffable ways, God can operate in men to execute his own judgments, it is not without reason that their actions are ascribed to the efficacious power of God.

Turretin, Institutes, 1:521; 6.7.18.

XXXV. God is the author of the covenant made with Adam, in accordance with which the sharing and imputation of Adam’s sin follows. On that account, he can or ought not to be regarded as the author of sin. Sin did not arise of itself from that covenant, but only accidentally on account of man’s transgression (anomian). Nor can he be considered the author of that sin more than its cause, on this account—that sin took place or is propagated to us because he willed to permit it and that it should be propagated to us.

Turretin, Institutes, 1:626; 9.9.35.

XII. When the law is called the “letter that killeth, and the ministration of death and condemnation” (2 Cor. 3:6–9), it is to be understood not of itself and in its own nature, but accidentally on account of man’s corruption; not absolutely and simply, but relatively when viewed as a covenant of works, in opposition to the covenant of grace; or in respect to the legal economy and teaching considered precisely in itself, apart from the promises of grace and in contradistinction to the gospel ministration (compared with it there by the apostle). In this sense, it may well be called “the letter” because it indeed shows duty, but does not fulfill it; orders, but does not help; commands, but does not operate and is said to be “made void” (katargeisthai) in respect to that economy, because that old covenant ought to be abrogated. Yet it cannot be called so absolutely (under the relation of a rule and a standard).

Turretin, Institutes, 2:144; 11.23.12.

XXX. Nor can it be said that the promises are universal of themselves and from the intention of God, inasmuch as God seriously wishes all to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; but that all do not obtain it, is accidental on account of the wickedness and unbelief of men, who obstinately resist the Holy Spirit and hinder his operation. For it is falsely supposed that God seriously intends the salvation of all; this cannot be said of those whom he reprobated from eternity and to whom he wishes to give neither the gospel nor faith, without which the promise can neither be known nor received. (2) Although it is true that men resist the Holy Spirit and hinder his work, it is no less true that God does not furnish to all that grace by which the resistance of the heart may be taken away; that this is the special gift of God (Mt. 13:11; Rom. 11:7), which destroys the universality of the promise.

Turretin, Institutes, 2:215; 12.6.30.

XXVIII. When Christ says that he came not to send peace to the earth, but a sword (Mt. 10:34), the meaning is not that Christ would be the efficient cause of war per se, but the accidental cause (on account of the wickedness of the world, which, not enduring the gospel, would resist him, and excite wars against his professors). This is not opposed to the peace which the Messiah was to bring into the world according to the prophetic oracles (Is. 2:4; 11:6, 7; Mic. 4:3): (1) because it is not an earthly, but a mystical and heavenly peace; (2) not with the world of the wicked and the seed of the serpent (with whom an irreconcilable [aspondon] war should be, Gen. 3:15), but with believers among themselves, who laying aside hatred and enmity ought in Christ to be reconciled and to become one. (3) If wars are seen among Christians, this does not arise from the doctrine of Christ, but from the depravity of men.

Turretin, Institutes, 2:298; 13.2.28.

Nor if the defect of its application does not happen by the fault of Christ, but accidentally (viz., by the wickedness and unbelief of men), does it cease to be less injurious to the honor of Christ; as if he either could not foreknow or could not remove those impediments which obstruct the application of the salvation he obtained and thus make it fruitless

Turretin, Institutes, 2:467; 14.14.28.

XXVI. Although God offers the word to the reprobate for this end—that by their obstinacy they may be rendered inexcusable—he does not therefore offer it that they may reject it, for this is a sin which God neither intends nor does. Rather he offers it that the latent perversity of their hearts may be manifest (Lk. 2:35) and that by this rejection of the word (arising from man himself), he may have the occasion of displaying his justice in the infliction of punishment. Now although man could not receive the word without grace (which God does not will to bestow upon him), he must not therefore be considered as calling in order that he may reject him. Rejection does not follow of itself from the nature of calling, but accidentally from the depravity of the man himself. For although he could not receive the word without grace, still the rejection springs from no other source than his stubborn wickedness.

Turretin, Institutes, 2:510; 15.2.26.

XLVIII. Although the word is not sufficient for conversion without immediate grace, God cannot be therefore charged with employing insufficient means for producing the effect he intends, nor can sinners offer any pretext of an excuse. The word does not cease to be sufficient in its own order (to wit, on the part of the object). And if it remains inefficacious in the reprobate, that does not happen by itself from a defect in the word, but accidentally from the fault of man (which so far from excusing him, only aggravates his guilt the more).

Turretin, Institutes, 2:540; 15.4.48.

XXXIII. The word katergazesthai (used by Paul in 2 Cor. 4:17, speaking of the relation of afflictions to glory) does not properly denote efficiency and merit, but the way and the means, inasmuch as glory follows and obtains momentary affliction; as with the Greeks it is often the same as kratēsai (“to possess and to obtain”). The law is said “to work wrath” (katergazesthai, Rom. 4:15), not because it deserves or properly effects it, but because it follows the law accidentally on account of man’s transgression of it (Phil. 2:12). The same word denotes the desire to promote sanctification and by it to receive and obtain, but not to deserve salvation.

Turretin, Institutes, 2:720; 17.5.33.

7. Confusion.
XIV. (7) It is a calumny concerning the confusion and manifold disorders (ataxia) which are said to have sprung up in the world out of the Reformation. But neither ought this most false accusation to move us. Thus Elijah of old was accused of being a disturber of Israel (1 K. 18:17). And to the first Christians were imputed all the evils and calamities which happened to the Roman Empire. But as Elijah did not disturb Israel, nor was Christianity the cause of the miseries of the Empire, so neither can our religion (which agrees with that purer Christianity) be called the cause of the confusion which reigns in the world. It breathes nothing but peace and concord; believes that nothing is more dangerous and more to be avoided than confusion and anarchy; commends nothing more efficaciously than good order (eutaxian) and good laws. And if any confusion has arisen by its cause, it does not follow per se from its doctrine, but accidentally only on account of the contumacy and rebellion of men who, not able to bear that light, have endeavored to extinguish it in every way. Just as Christ professes, “I came not to send peace on earth, but a sword and fire” (Mt. 10:34).

Turretin, Institutes, 3:145; 18.15.14.

XV. The end of the sacraments is either proper or accidental. The proper is either principal or primary, or secondary and less principal. The principal is the confirmation of the covenant of grace and the sealing on the part of God of our union with Christ (promised in the covenant) and of all his benefits; and on our part the testification of our deep gratitude to God and of love towards our neighbor. The less principal is that they may be badges of a public profession and of divine worship by which they who belong to the visible church are distinguished from other assemblies. Hence it is evident how great is the philanthropy (philanthrōpia) of God, who, letting himself down as it were to us creeping upon the ground, wishes to seize not only our minds but also our external senses with the haste and admiration of his grace, inasmuch as he subjects it to the bodily senses, to the hearing in the spoken word, to the touch and sight in the sacraments. However, signs are wont to be employed in weightier things. For trivialities are not confirmed by signs, but when they are of great importance; as when princes are inaugurated, when marriages are entered into, when donations are made or other agreements, signs are wont to be employed to confirm these things which we wish to be best attested, that they may be known not only by reason, but also by sense. The accidental end is the just condemnation of the wicked and hypocrites abusing the sacraments, which end (accidental through the fault of men) does not overthrow the proper end. For Christ does not cease to be by himself the author of life and the bestower of it with respect to believers, although (by accident on account of the unbelief of men) he is the savor of death unto death and a stone of stumbling and of destruction with respect to hypocrites and unbelievers.

Turretin, Institutes, 3:341–342; 19.1.15.

Bio:  
Wiki

___________________________________

Notes:

1. Some have quoted the following part of Calvin’s Institutes to maintain that he denied the well-meant offer, or to argue that God, in sending the gospel to the non-elect or reprobates, only does so to harden them, or to increase their condemnation.

8. General and special calling [Matt. 22:2 ff.]
The statement of Christ “Many are called but few are chosen” [Matt. 22:14] is, in this manner, very badly understood. Nothing will be ambiguous if we hold fast to what ought to be clear from the foregoing: that there are two kinds of call. There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to himself through the outward preaching of the word—even those to whom he holds it out as a savor of death [cf. 2 Cor. 2:16], and as the occasion for severer condemnation.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 of The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 974 (3.24.8).

Here is the fuller context:

8. General and special calling [Matt. 22:2 ff.] The statement of Christ “Many are called but few are chosen” [Matt. 22:14] is, in this manner, very badly understood. Nothing will be ambiguous if we hold fast to what ought to be clear from the foregoing: that there are two kinds of call. There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to himself through the outward preaching of the word—even those to whom he holds it out as a savor of death [cf. 2 Cor. 2:16], and as the occasion for severer condemnation. The other kind of call is special, which he deigns for the most part to give to the believers alone, while by the inward illumination of his Spirit he causes the preached Word to dwell in their hearts. Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1 of The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 974 (3.24.8).

Here is the Latin and French:

8. Illa Christi sententia (Matth. 22:14.) de multis vocatis, paucis autem electis, pessime in eum modum accipitur [vid. lib. 3. c. 2. s. 11. et 12.]. Nihil erit ambiguum si tenemus, quod debet ex superioribus liquere, duplicem esse vocationis speciem. Est enim universalis vocatio, qua per externam verbi praedicationem omnes pariter ad se invitat Deus: etiam quibus eam in mortis odorem, et gravioris condemnationis materiam proponit. Est altera specialis, qua utplurimum solos fideles dignatur: dum interiori sui Spiritus illuminatione efficit, ut verbum praedicatum eorum cordibus insideat. Interdum tamen eos quoque facit participes, quos ad tempus duntaxat illuminat: deinde suae ingratitudinis merito deserit, et maiori percutit coecitate.

John Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Berolini: Gustavum Eichler, 1834), 163.

8. Touchant de la sentence de Christ, que plusieurs sont appellez, et peu d’esleus (Matth. 22:14): il n’y aura nulle ambiguité, s’il nous souvient de ce qui nous doit estre assez liquide, assavoir qu’il y a double espece de vocation. Car il y a la vocation universelle, qui gist en la predication exterieure de l’Evangile, par laquelle le Seigneur invite à soy tous hommes indifferemment: voire mesme ceux ausquels il la propose en odeur de mort, et pour matiere de plus grieve condamnation. Il y en a une autre speciale, de laquelle il ne fait quasi que les fideles participans, quand par la lumiere interieure de son Esprit il fait que la doctrine soit enracinée en leurs cœurs; combien qu’aucunesfois il use aussi d’une telle vocation envers ceux qu’il illumine pour un temps: et puis apres, à cause de leur ingratitude, il les delaisse et jette en plus grand aveuglement.

Jean Calvin, Institution de La Religion Chrétienne (Genève: E. Beroud & C., 1888), 451.

Here is a textual parallel:

Here are my comments with respect to this particular passage and its coherence with the rest of what Calvin said in the main part of this post:

Explanation:

The crucial thing to observe in this portion from Calvin’s Institutes here (3.24.8) is the line “even those to whom he holds it out as a savor of death [cf. 2 Cor. 2:16], and as the occasion for severer condemnation” (Latin: etiam quibus eam in mortis odorem, et gravioris condemnationis materiam proponit; French: mesme ceux ausquels il la propose en odeur de mort, et pour matiere de plus grieve condamnation). The word “occasion” (L. materiam; F. matiere) in both the Allen and Battles versions,  and also translated as “matter of more grievous condemnation” (Norton; McKee). “ground of a severer condemnation” (Beveridge), and “justification for heavier condemnation” (White), should clue the reader to investigate Calvin’s usage of that word, as well as the usage of that word and idea among Calvin’s contemporaries and successors in Reformed thought (see the quotes above). When one does that, they will see that it refers to the per accidens idea. One example is when Calvin wrote: “The Gospel is preached for salvation: this is what properly belongs to it; but believers alone are partakers of that salvation. In the mean time, its being an occasion of condemnation to unbelievers—that arises from their own fault” (John Calvin, “Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,” in Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. J. Pringle, 22 vol. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 20:161; 2 Cor. 2:15; emphasis mine). Trail’s translation in the Torrance edition (Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 10:35), like Pringle, also has “occasion.” A few lines later Calvin tells us to keep his distinction in mind: “We must always, therefore, distinguish between the proper office [proprium officium] of the Gospel, and the accidental one (so to speak) which must be imputed to the depravity of mankind, to which it is owing, that life to them is turned into death” (ibid.; emphasis mine). Calvin explicitly linked “occasion” with “accidental” causes (ab accidenti). Many other examples of this connection could be given of his usage of the terms this way (which, again, see the quotations above). But, returning to the immediate context of Institutes 3.24.8, Calvin went on to say, “Yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness.” This was part is usually omitted, as in the original quote given, yet it is important. God is holding “it out as a savor of death” to this group this way “on account of their ungratefulness,” but that is not the gospel’s “proper office,” as Calvin described it elsewhere. That the gospel is consequently used by God as an “occasion” for the greater condemnation of the “ungrateful” does not undermine the “proper office of the gospel,” or that it is “preached for salvation” and for the good of all those that hear it. There is no contradiction, according to Calvin’s view, so long as one engages in the per accidens “distinction” Calvin advised people to make.