Mastricht on Christ's Impersonal Human Nature, Ensoulment & Perpetual Virginity of Mary

[Travis Fentiman]

The late-seventeenth century reformed Dutch theologian Peter van Mastricht wrote Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB). It is in my opinion the best systematic theology existent in English. Volume 4 is out, on Christ’s Person, filled with wonderful material.

Three topics in the volume, however, may occasion some head scratching:

(1) His extended treatment of Christ’s human nature as being impersonal,​

(2) That human life and the soul only start at around 42 days after conception; and so it was with Christ’s personal union of his natures in the Incarnation; and​

(3) That Mary probably remained a perpetual virgin throughout her life.​

I have written a new article introducing and contextualizing these issues. It shows:

(1) Mastricht’s view on Christ’s impersonal human nature was largely representative of Reformed Orthodoxy (in contrast to Romanism and Lutheranism), and I think it is right. Some have thought that he did not affirm, and was even against enhypostasis (that Christ's human nature subsists in his divine Person), but I document where he did affirm this.​

(2) The Scriptural and philosophical coherence and plausibility of life starting at around 42 days after conception, as was the common view of Mastricht’s era and the main view of Reformed Orthodoxy in the second half of the seventeenth century; and it​

(3) Documents that Mary’s de facto perpetual virginity as a historical belief, in contrast to Romanism holding it to be formally of the faith itself, was the near-universal view of Protestantism in that era. The article shows the ethical and Scriptural coherence of this view.​

See what you think and I hope it will whet your taste for reading more of Mastricht! I'll be glad to hear any feedback below.

Fentiman, Travis – ‘An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal, the Time of Ensoulment in the Womb & the Perpetual Virginity of Mary’ (RBO, 2024) 21 pp.​

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks for the summation, Travis — but I will not be reading more of Mastricht.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I have written a new article introducing and contextualizing these issues. It shows:

(1) Mastricht’s view on Christ’s impersonal human nature was largely representative of Reformed Orthodoxy (in contrast to Romanism and Lutheranism), and I think it is right. Some have thought that he did not affirm, and was even against enhypostasis (that Christ's human nature subsists in his divine Person), but I document where he did affirm this.
(2) The Scriptural and philosophical coherence and plausibility of life starting at around 42 days after conception, as was the common view of Mastricht’s era and the main view of Reformed Orthodoxy in the second half of the seventeenth century; and it
(3) Documents that Mary’s de facto perpetual virginity as a historical belief, in contrast to Romanism holding it to be formally of the faith itself, was the near-universal view of Protestantism in that era. The article shows the ethical and Scriptural coherence of this view.
See what you think and I hope it will whet your taste for reading more of Mastricht! I'll be glad to hear any feedback below.

(2) I don't see "the ethical and Scriptural coherence of this view" for several reasons:

"Mastricht received and defended the dominant view of his own day,36 as well as much of Christian antiquity, that human life did not begin at conception, but at around forty-two days thereafter, roughly when the heart begins to beat and limbs and distinctive human features of the embryo begin to appear. At this time God infuses the soul into the prepared body, and for Christ, his personal union was formed, joining the human and divine natures. Mastricht defended this view from Scripture and natural philosophy though he was aware of alternative positions, including that the soul and human life begin at conception." (p.10) This seems to gloss together 2 separate issues - (a.) when life begins, and (b.) when the soul is joined to the body.

"Another text many of the Reformed believed related to this subject was Ex. 21:22-23. They understood and argued, following the precedents of the Septuagint and Augustine, that this Mosaic case law legislated that if a man caused a pregnant lady to miscarry through violence, and “her fruit” was not formed, the man was to be simply fined. If “her fruit” was formed, “then thou shalt give life for life.”45" Is this the best translation? Even the Reformation era Geneva has it: "Also if men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her child depart from her and *death follow not, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband shall appoint him, or he shall pay as the Judges determine. But if death follow, then thou shalt pay life for life." (*"Of the mother or child.") "Her fruit" is not in the text as far as I can see. This text either means (1) If the assault causes an early birth, the guilty party is fined; if it causes either mother or child to die, then it is a capital offense; or (2) if the child dies but the mother survives, the guilty party is fined; if it causes the mother to die, then it is a capital offense. There is no textual support for a third interpretation that I can see.

(3)
"While Mastricht does not clearly affirm the perpetual / virginity of Mary,60 leaving the question open, in that it “cannot be determined with certainty from Scripture”, yet he does find the opposite view “less probable.”61 Mastricht appears to affirm that Mary did not have any children after Jesus.62" (pp.17-18). Again, this seems to gloss together 2 distinct issues: (a.) the possibility that Mary remained a virgin and (b.) the possibility that Mary did not give birth to any other children. Yes, God could have closed her womb so that Jesus was the only child she gave birth to despite sexual relations with Joseph. Also, why bring in Mastricht if he and his teacher, Voetius (p.21) were not fully committed proponents of Mary's perpetual virginity? This seems to run counter to your claim that "most Protestants in the seventeenth century maintained at least a qualified acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity" (p.17)

"In considering these things of the Lord, Mastricht would remind us they must be practically applied. We ought to ponder them in our heart, as Mary did (Lk. 1:19), and as she received, cultivated and bore Christ as a virgin, so let us, being betrothed to the Lord, receive the Spirit’s sanctification, be kept, cleansed and purified from the filthiness of this world, and keep our hearts ever virgin unto the Lord, not defiling ourselves with lusts, but ever washing our hearts with the Word, to be “a garden enclosed… a spring shut up, a fountain sealed” (Song 4:12) unto Him, for it is but a short time till “the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.” (Rev. 19:7)." Is this you or Mastricht? If he, "a lifelong bachelor" (p.20), was really teaching (direct quotes would help) that abstaining from sexual union somehow keeps one from the filthiness of the world, then it calls into question his motivation for maintaining the position of Mary's perpetual virginity and instead hints at a sinking back into the Roman deception regarding celibacy being a higher spiritual calling.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

(2) I don't see "the ethical and Scriptural coherence of this view" for several reasons:

"Mastricht received and defended the dominant view of his own day,36 as well as much of Christian antiquity, that human life did not begin at conception, but at around forty-two days thereafter, roughly when the heart begins to beat and limbs and distinctive human features of the embryo begin to appear. At this time God infuses the soul into the prepared body, and for Christ, his personal union was formed, joining the human and divine natures. Mastricht defended this view from Scripture and natural philosophy though he was aware of alternative positions, including that the soul and human life begin at conception." (p.10) This seems to gloss together 2 separate issues - (a.) when life begins, and (b.) when the soul is joined to the body.

"Another text many of the Reformed believed related to this subject was Ex. 21:22-23. They understood and argued, following the precedents of the Septuagint and Augustine, that this Mosaic case law legislated that if a man caused a pregnant lady to miscarry through violence, and “her fruit” was not formed, the man was to be simply fined. If “her fruit” was formed, “then thou shalt give life for life.”45" Is this the best translation? Even the Reformation era Geneva has it: "Also if men strive and hurt a woman with child, so that her child depart from her and *death follow not, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband shall appoint him, or he shall pay as the Judges determine. But if death follow, then thou shalt pay life for life." (*"Of the mother or child.") "Her fruit" is not in the text as far as I can see. This text either means (1) If the assault causes an early birth, the guilty party is fined; if it causes either mother or child to die, then it is a capital offense; or (2) if the child dies but the mother survives, the guilty party is fined; if it causes the mother to die, then it is a capital offense. There is no textual support for a third interpretation that I can see.

(3)
"While Mastricht does not clearly affirm the perpetual / virginity of Mary,60 leaving the question open, in that it “cannot be determined with certainty from Scripture”, yet he does find the opposite view “less probable.”61 Mastricht appears to affirm that Mary did not have any children after Jesus.62" (pp.17-18). Again, this seems to gloss together 2 distinct issues: (a.) the possibility that Mary remained a virgin and (b.) the possibility that Mary did not give birth to any other children. Yes, God could have closed her womb so that Jesus was the only child she gave birth to despite sexual relations with Joseph. Also, why bring in Mastricht if he and his teacher, Voetius (p.21) were not fully committed proponents of Mary's perpetual virginity? This seems to run counter to your claim that "most Protestants in the seventeenth century maintained at least a qualified acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity" (p.17)

"In considering these things of the Lord, Mastricht would remind us they must be practically applied. We ought to ponder them in our heart, as Mary did (Lk. 1:19), and as she received, cultivated and bore Christ as a virgin, so let us, being betrothed to the Lord, receive the Spirit’s sanctification, be kept, cleansed and purified from the filthiness of this world, and keep our hearts ever virgin unto the Lord, not defiling ourselves with lusts, but ever washing our hearts with the Word, to be “a garden enclosed… a spring shut up, a fountain sealed” (Song 4:12) unto Him, for it is but a short time till “the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.” (Rev. 19:7)." Is this you or Mastricht? If he, "a lifelong bachelor" (p.20), was really teaching (direct quotes would help) that abstaining from sexual union somehow keeps one from the filthiness of the world, then it calls into question his motivation for maintaining the position of Mary's perpetual virginity and instead hints at a sinking back into the Roman deception regarding celibacy being a higher spiritual calling.

Hi Andrew, to address your concerns and questions:

2.1 By "coherence" I did not mean full persuasion that it is certain, only that it is defensible and a tolerable view.

2.2 I don't believe I or Mastricht glossed together the two issues of when life begins and ensoulment. But it is true that human life must begin with ensoulment, whether other lower forms of life may begin before that or exist without a human soul.

2.3 I agree that Ex. 21:22-23 can be variously translated and understood. But you are still missing a major possible view of that verse, namely that it can be speaking not of the formation of the fetus, but of harm to the mother, and still be saying that if there is not harm to the mother, yet due to an unformed fetus being miscarried, the guy should be fined, and if the mother dies, then death for death should be given. This interpretation yet implies the fetus is not of equal human value as the mother, seeing as the death penalty is not given for its unduly caused death.

3.1 I agree Mary and Joseph could have had relations, so to speak, and Mary had a closed womb. This would actually further the point of the Reformed Orthodox and the article that the whole thing is in the realm of a historical opinion, not something formally of the faith. That Mastricht and Voet were "not fully committed proponents of Mary's perpetual virginity" does not "run counter to" my documented "claim that 'most Protestants in the seventeenth century maintained at least a qualified acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity'".

3.2 This was me speaking, though I believe Mastricht says things to a similar effect. But what I said does not imply "that abstaining from sexual union somehow keeps one from the filthiness of the world". I never said that, nor meant it. Regarding "the Roman deception regarding celibacy being a higher spiritual calling", that was also, with qualifications, a significantly held view of Protestants. You can read more about it on the RBO page on Celibacy.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Thanks for the response, Travis. Just a few more questions:

2.2 But it is true that human life must begin with ensoulment, whether other lower forms of life may begin before that or exist without a human soul.

Could you explain further what you mean by this? If you are saying there is no human life before 42 days after conception, it raises the following questions:

• Are you stating that there is a lower form of pre-human life in the womb before "ensoulment"?
• Is there any moral prohibition of terminating a pregnancy prior to 6 weeks if the form of life in the womb is considered some other lower form of life and not yet considered human life?
• Is a human made in the image of God only after "ensoulment"?

2.3 I agree that Ex. 21:22-23 can be variously translated and understood. But you are still missing a major possible view of that verse, namely that it can be speaking not of the formation of the fetus, but of harm to the mother, and still be saying that if there is not harm to the mother, yet due to an unformed fetus being miscarried, the guy should be fined, and if the mother dies, then death for death should be given. This interpretation yet implies the fetus is not of equal human value as the mother, seeing as the death penalty is not given for its unduly caused death.

Could you show where in that passage you (and others as you claim) are getting the idea of a miscarriage? There is a Hebrew word that encompasses a miscarriage: נֶפֶל / nephel. To my knowledge it is only used in Job 3.16, Psalm 58.8, and Ecclesiastes 6.3. If that is what the Exodus passage intended, it would have used that (Job was written prior to and Psalm 58 and Ecclesiastes written after Exodus, so the word was in use at the time the latter was written). A literal translation of the Exodus passage would be something like "If men fight and strike a pregnant woman, and the child ( יֶלֶד / yeled ) comes out, and yet no harm comes to pass..." I can see no justification for an interpretation that this passage is speaking of a woman being struck but the striker being let off with just a fine because the child died and not the woman - that sounds like someone trying to interpret the passage in an attempt to proof-text a position. Note further the use of the יֶלֶד / yeled (child) and not עוֹלֵל / olel/olal (baby/infant) - the latter is used in Job 3.16 as a parallel to נֶפֶל / nephel (miscarriage): "Or why was I not hid, as an untimely birth [נֶפֶל], as infants [עוֹלֵל], which have not seen the light?"

That Mastricht and Voet were "not fully committed proponents of Mary's perpetual virginity" does not "run counter to" my documented "claim that 'most Protestants in the seventeenth century maintained at least a qualified acceptance of Mary’s perpetual virginity'".

The following is more of a literary critique than a biblical-theological concern: why bring the issue of the possibility of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary into it, calling it "An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal, the Time of Ensoulment in the Womb & the Perpetual Virginity of Mary"? I can see clearly how the first two topics are related; I cannot say that of the third. There may be a connection of the latter to the first two, but your article doesn't seem to make that connection while admitting that Mastricht didn't clearly affirm the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. In other words, the third part would seem to be better off/more helpful as a separate article not headlined by Mastricht (but including him) to show the Reformation-era Reformed views of Mary's perpetual virginity.

But what I said does not imply "that abstaining from sexual union somehow keeps one from the filthiness of the world". I never said that, nor meant it.

That's good to hear - thanks for clarifying. But do you see how saying "Mastricht would remind us they must be practically applied" (emphasis added) followed by "We ought to ponder them in our heart, as Mary did (Lk. 1:19), and as she received, cultivated and bore Christ as a virgin, so let us, being betrothed to the Lord, receive the Spirit’s sanctification, be kept, cleansed and purified from the filthiness of this world, and keep our hearts ever virgin unto the Lord, not defiling ourselves with lusts, but ever washing our hearts with the Word, to be “a garden enclosed… a spring shut up, a fountain sealed” (Song 4:12) unto Him, for it is but a short time till “the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready” could be viewed as communicating that? Perhaps "spiritually" would be a better adverb than "practically."

 

[MW]

Thankyou, Travis, for your careful stating of the issues. I have no difficulty with the way you have presented 1 and 3.

On point 2, have you observed any nuances in the teaching of "soul-animation" in the sources you collected? For example, in dealing with original sin, are there any distinctions drawn so as to show there is guilt already present at conception?

On Exod. 21 is there a stream of interpretation that follows Calvin?

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Thankyou, Travis, for your careful stating of the issues. I have no difficulty with the way you have presented 1 and 3.

On point 2, have you observed any nuances in the teaching of "soul-animation" in the sources you collected? For example, in dealing with original sin, are there any distinctions drawn so as to show there is guilt already present at conception?

On Exod. 21 is there a stream of interpretation that follows Calvin?

Hi Matthew,

Regarding "soul-animation", the term fetus was commonly used in that era, and an animated fetus, and like terms or phrases, especially animation, referred to when the fetus palpably began to move and could be felt, or was moving. That was most usually identifed as the point in which it was ensouled, by the very connection of terms and concept, namely of anima and animated or moving.

However there was some diversity of ways and nuance in which the term and related terms about "animation" was used. On my page on Ensoulment, if you look through much of the primary literature, you will see some of the variety.

As far as original sin, whether guilt or inherent, from conception, in relation to this issue, I have not seen anything. Which, thinking about it now, is a bit surprising. It certainly is a very relevant subject for this topic. The most detailed book on the subject, defending creationism from traducianism, that I have found, that likely has such answers, is this, albeit in Latin:

ed. Goclenius, Rudolph – Psychologia, that is, of the Perfection of Man with Respect to the Soul & the Rise of it in the First Parents, Commentaries & Disputations of Some Theologians & Philosophers of our Age (Marburg, 1594) ToC This work is a compilation of 12 tracts from Junius, Gryneus, Colerus, Hunnius, Hospinian, Goclenius, et al.​

Ex. 21 is ambiguous (to us) and capable of numerous understandings and translations, some of which Andrew has mentioned above. I would recommend looking at various commentaries on the passage which will give an idea. As far as Calvin, he appears to be something of an anomaly; I just read according to one article that he was interpreted by some of his immediate successors to be a traducianist (I don't know how accurate this is). But no, I don't have any insight into a stream of interpretation flowing from Calvin on Ex. 21.

Willet, on my page, quotes Calvin on the topic (where Calvin appears to say that a person is a man from conception). A secondary source cited in my paper says that Calvin's view is laid out in his sermons on Job 12, but I could not at the time find the references in his sermons on Job 12. If you are able to, I would be glad to look them over.

 

[MW]

Travis, I don't have time right now to track down sources, but memory of my reading on the subject is that guilt is imputed at conception. I can't really go back over your material right now, but I recall you had an example in Christ's dead body still being Christ. So the body of the man is still a man. That might be an avenue worth exploring to fill out your sources and might help to guard against a misconception with regard to when human life begins.

There is also a current of Calvinian thought in the sources. I wish I had time to explore them with you but this type of research takes hours, which I just don't have. My understanding is that Calvin is creationist and taught that life begins at conception. If there is evidence to the contrary I will take it into consideration.

 

[Northern Crofter]

As far as Calvin, he appears to be something of an anomaly; I just read according to one article that he was interpreted by some of his immediate successors to be a traducianist (I don't know how accurate this is).

Is he really that much of an anomaly in this case? Traducianism traces back to Tertullian who was a major source for Calvin. By the way, Tertullian denied Mary's virginity - he was a major source for Helvidius versus Jerome.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Ex. 21 is ambiguous (to us) and capable of numerous understandings and translations

I don't think it is that ambiguous. Neither did Calvin: "This passage at first sight is ambiguous, for if the word death only applies to the pregnant woman, it would not have been a capital crime to put an end to the foetus, which would be a great absurdity; for the foetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, (homo,) and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a foetus in the womb before it has come to light. On these grounds I am led to conclude, without hesitation, that the words, "if death should follow," must be applied to the foetus as well as to the mother."

 

[RobertPGH1981]

The late-seventeenth century reformed Dutch theologian Peter van Mastricht wrote Theoretical-Practical Theology (RHB). It is in my opinion the best systematic theology existent in English. Volume 4 is out, on Christ’s Person, filled with wonderful material.

Three topics in the volume, however, may occasion some head scratching:

(1) His extended treatment of Christ’s human nature as being impersonal,​

(2) That human life and the soul only start at around 42 days after conception; and so it was with Christ’s personal union of his natures in the Incarnation; and​

(3) That Mary probably remained a perpetual virgin throughout her life.​

I have written a new article introducing and contextualizing these issues. It shows:

(1) Mastricht’s view on Christ’s impersonal human nature was largely representative of Reformed Orthodoxy (in contrast to Romanism and Lutheranism), and I think it is right. Some have thought that he did not affirm, and was even against enhypostasis (that Christ's human nature subsists in his divine Person), but I document where he did affirm this.​

(2) The Scriptural and philosophical coherence and plausibility of life starting at around 42 days after conception, as was the common view of Mastricht’s era and the main view of Reformed Orthodoxy in the second half of the seventeenth century; and it​

(3) Documents that Mary’s de facto perpetual virginity as a historical belief, in contrast to Romanism holding it to be formally of the faith itself, was the near-universal view of Protestantism in that era. The article shows the ethical and Scriptural coherence of this view.​

See what you think and I hope it will whet your taste for reading more of Mastricht! I'll be glad to hear any feedback below.

Fentiman, Travis – ‘An Introduction to Peter van Mastricht on Christ’s Human Nature as Non-Personal, the Time of Ensoulment in the Womb & the Perpetual Virginity of Mary’ (RBO, 2024) 21 pp.​

I haven't been able to really dig into the material but so far I am very pleased with the purchase. I like how he structures his materials.

 

[MW]

That might be an avenue worth exploring to fill out your sources and might help to guard against a misconception with regard to when human life begins.

I had some time last evening to read through Mastricht. He also considers the hypostatic union to have taken place at conception in which Christ was filled with all habitual grace:

The time of the conception
VII. From the first moment of this conception, when the personal union of the two natures was accomplished, Christ obtained the fullness of all habitual grace, that is, with respect to κτῆσις, possession, or οὖσια, substance; although, with respect to χρῆσις, use, and ἐξουσία, power, or with respect to second acts, and through extension to more objects, he made increases day by day (Luke 2:52).

Here is another line of thought which is necessary to properly understand what was being taught.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

I had some time last evening to read through Mastricht. He also considers the hypostatic union to have taken place at conception in which Christ was filled with all habitual grace:



Here is another line of thought which is necessary to properly understand what was being taught.

Matthew,


I had wrestled with that passage of Mastricht when preparing the article, and I reference it in the article on p. 10, fn. 35 at the end. But I do believe that passage is less clear, and open to different interpretations, than a few other passages of his that are more clear, detailed and longer. Hence, Michael Spangler and I came to the opposite conclusion (after I had initially taken yours; assuming Mastricht was not inconsistent, which I don't see necessary evidence for), that Mastricht did intend to teach that Christ's personal union occured at around 42 days after conception.

Here are some of the other relevant passages (namely vol. 4, bk. 5, ch. 10, sections 5 and 28):

"Moreover, the operation of the Holy Spirit signified in coming upon and overshadowing​

had in general the following components, that: (1) he separated some​

particle of the Virgin’s substance, from which the body of Christ was formed​

(Heb. 10:5). (2) He bestowed a molding force upon the separated particle, by​

means of which the Virgin’s seed alone could do in the conception what from the​

order of nature both seeds, the male and female, can do. (3) He as it were cleansed​

the seed of the Virgin, not indeed from moral impurity or sin, inasmuch as a seed​

not yet ensouled is not liable to that, but from physical intemperateness, from​

which, in its own time, sin could have resulted, or at the least he preserved the​

birth from all impurity, to the end that what would be born of her would be​

holy (Luke 1:35). (4) He gradually formed that seed of the Virgin into human​

members, in the way that they are formed in ordinary generation (Heb. 10:5).​

(5) When the body was already formed, he joined to it a rational soul (Zech.​

12:1). (6) In uniting the soul to the body, at one and the same time he inseparably​

joined the divine person to both united parts." - pp. 298-99​

"but they [the Medieval Scholastics] want the formation of his members to have been completed not only after forty-two days, in​

the usual manner, but in a moment, without delay or succession....​

​

The Protestants, with several of the Scholastics, think that it is more agreeable to​

the Scriptures for the formation to have occurred successively, because: (1) in the​

history of the conception, gestation, and birth of John the Baptist the ordinary​

time is noted (Luke 1:38, 56–57), nor is anything different observed concerning​

the conception and birth of Christ (Luke 2:6). Therefore, since from these​

things they admit that the preparation and development of his body occurred​

successively, there is no reason for them to invent something extraordinary in the​

formation. (2) In the assumption of the human nature, which occurred through​

the conception and birth, it is said that he was made like us in all things except​

for sin (Phil. 2:6–7; Heb. 2:14–15, 17; 4:15). (3) The body of Christ when he​

was born grew outside the womb of the blessed Virgin according to the manner​

of others (Luke 2:40, 52). (4) Miracles ought not to be invented rashly beyond​

and outside of the Scriptures.​

​

On the contrary, most of the papists urge for their position: (1) that the Word​

assumed a human nature, not an unformed mass. I respond, We judge that the​

union with the divine person did not occur before there occurred a delineation​

of the organic parts and the union of them with a rational soul. (2) That the​

Holy Spirit could have formed him in a moment. I respond, It is not valid to​

argue from what can be to what is: the Holy Spirit could also have accomplished​

the separation and preparation of matter, and the development after birth, in a​

moment. (3) That the first Adam was formed suddenly, and so then the second​

also was. I respond: (a) Neither was the body of the first Adam formed in a​

moment. (b) In that brief span of time in which the body of the first Adam​

was formed, it achieved its full stature, whereas the body of the second Adam​

achieved the fullness of this stature successively, as even our adversaries confess.​

(4) That if the body of Christ was not formed at one and the same time, the​

Word either was united to a body not yet formed or human (which, as everyone​

acknowledges, is absurd), or, if the Word was not united to it, this body​

existed unformed without the Word. I respond, It existed not yet formed, just as​

it existed when it was being prepared, and even before it was being prepared in​

the conception, that is, in its causes. But it did not subsist, just as it also did not​

subsist after the union with the Word; nor before the formation of the parts, or​

before it was a human body, did it exist personally sustained by the Word, as it​

began to exist when it was united with the Word, which happened at that time​

when the body was at last formed, and made a human body." - pp. 324-25​

As to your quote, the Latin, which is not any different from the English, is here. But how one understands the commas, and what is going on with the understanding of time and the elapsing of it in the verse, and the verbal actions, and what the "first moment" refers to, may be variable.

For instance, it may be that the "first moment" of the broader conception process, when the personal union was accomplished, then Christ was filled with all habitual grace. That is consistent with the rest of what Mastricht says; but holding that it speaks of the absolute first moment of conception would contradict what Mastricht says elsewhere, and I don't even think it would make sense with step one above of the 6 step process that Mastricht outlines.

 

[MW]

Travis, I will try to have a look at the Latin tonight. As I've run out of time for today, I would just ask you to consider the different sections in which these quotations are found. One is elenctic; the other is dogmatic. Answering opponents is one thing; positively formulating the truth is another. That is part of his method. Dividing it up like this has its strengths but also its weaknesses.

From what I have read of your page so far the references have to do with denying the Papist view that the body of Jesus was formed in a moment. The affirmation of the Reformed is that it was successive and by degrees. The problem of "ensoulment" only comes in because it calls into question the hypostatic union at the point of conception. The point is not to teach "ensoulment" at some later stage, but to answer the problem that idea creates. Turretin actually says that physicians differ, which shows he is only answering an objection from the outside.

I wish I had more time to articulate this. Hopefully next week I can make that time.

In the meantime, consider the two statements of the Larger Catechism -- man is conceived and born in sin; Christ humbled Himself in His conception and birth. We can take this as a safe guide as to what reformed theology teaches. I don't think it is safe to call into question something so basic by reference to a side-issue in polemical theology.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Matthew,

I am certainly open to the things you mention, but the issues are much more numerous and broader and indepth than what your comments above take into account. It is not the case that "The problem of "ensoulment" only comes in because it calls into question the hypostatic union at the point of conception,"; the 42 day view was the common view of that era and eras before, both in secular society, so to speak, and amongst theologians (as I document in the article, and could document much more).

The reason for diversity that Turretin and some others speaks of, was due to the influx of Cartesianism and the mechanical philosophy. But Mastricht and the most orthodox of the reformed did not consider Cartesianism to be orthodox or reformed in the proper sense. Calvin's view, that the soul was infused at conception, appears to be such an anomally because it was not the popular view after him amongst the reformed (or I have seen no documentation of this), and because it was exactly the view of Cartesianism which only became more popular in the late-seventeenth century and after. (and that an intellectual, rational and thinking soul is somehow attached to a zygote, Mastricht and much of the reformed considered to be contrary to nature and absurd. Even if it was not thinking, yet if it was a human soul, they still considered this to be absurd because a zygote doesn't have the essence of a human. And they thought this from the light of nature, in addition to what Scripture says)

The many issues between the Romanists and the mainline reformed were complex and deep.

Mastricht as I quoted above did not think moral corruption was proper to a fertilized egg (which is incapable of morality, or even being moral), but only to an animated, ensouled fetus (which has such potential).

It would seem LC 28, "Original sin is conveyed from our first parents unto their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin" can be taken to accommodate this view, namely that persons are conceived, and they are (later) born in sin. That is very consistent with what I have seen much evidence for in the consensus nature of the Westminster assembly and documents.

As far as LC 47 with Christ, it could easily be read by assembly members that "his conception" was in fact peculiarly his, that is, the possession so to speak of his eternal Person.

And I don't believe the whole thing was merely a polemical angle against Lutherans and Romanists, which the Reformed didn't really believe. I believe ch. 10, section 5 (which I quoted above) is in Mastricht's Dogmatic section, and most of the other reformed guys on my webpage teach the same sort of thing in many various contexts that don't have to do with polemics.

There is variety in the Reformed tradition on these things, as almost everything, which I hope you are able to see and may grant.

 

[MW]

There is variety in the Reformed tradition on these things, as almost everything, which I hope you are able to see and may grant.

I acknowledge this, Travis, but I think the idea of "ensoulment" is tangential. Nor is it the only view in the reformed tradition. It is a scientific theory being discussed in relation to a specific doctrine; it is not a doctrine in and of itself.

Do you not find it strange that this is not discussed in its proper place, under anthropology? Instead it comes in under Christology. Turretin is a good example. In his discussion of creation and propagation of souls he omits it. But then introduces it in relation to Christ because he deals with the question of successive development. And he is clearly ambivalent to it.

On Mastricht, his words under dogmatics are very clear and to the point. I find the English a faithful rendering of the Latin. Nor is this the only place he refers to the subject. Under the point of Christ's humiliation he says,

This humiliation is apparent: 1. In his conception.
V. This humiliation is apparent, first, in his conception, insofar as: (1) in assuming the human nature into the unity of the same person with him, the eternal Son of God, the Creator of all things, was as it were made in time, and of a woman, whose Creator he himself was (Gal. 4:4 with 1 Tim. 3:16), and in that way he was as it were hidden in the flesh (John 1:14). (2) He assumed this human nature from the substance of a virgin, and indeed one descended from the royal blood of David, but yet one of an especially poor, humble, and abject condition (Luke 1:48; Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3).

Again, this is under the dogmatic part.

I find your explanation of the relative answers in the Larger Catechism to be problematic, to say the least. Here it is apparent that you are allowing something tangential to shape the doctrine, even to the point of denying an essential part of it. On original sin you are rejecting the idea that we are conceived in sin; and on the humiliation of Christ you are wavering on the fact that the flesh was sustained in the Person of the Mediator from conception, and that this was part of His state of humiliation.

 

[MW]

Thomas Goodwin, Works 10:338, discussing Ps. 51:5, "in sin did my mother conceive me."

it doth most properly and more especially respect that part of original sin, corruption of nature inherent (as that which was the sin he was conceived in, and thus warmed), which word imports not only how, at the first moment of conception, that small tare or seed, that had the reasonable soul shot then into it, became the seat of corruption from that instant; but, as Calvin indigitates it, was nourished and fostered whilst we lay in the womb; that is, that corruption was still extended, and did go on to leaven and ferment that mass or bulk still as the child did grow bigger and bigger in the womb. And look as the soul diffuseth itself more and more, as the bulk of the members do increase, so withal original corruption. And this interpretation brings forth this notion with it, that look as the body and soul, by conception united together, grow more ripe and mature, and the members, organs, and faculties of the soul more fitted to bring forth actual sin, so together with that growth (though the growth itself is natural) this inherent corruption was, whilst in the womb, diffused and enlarged, and grew up with it towards a ripeness and ability for actual sin, against the time of the buddings and springings forth thereof.

James Ussher, Body of Divinity, 1677, p. 116.

What is Original Sin?
It is a Sin, wherewith all that naturally descend from Adam are defiled, even from their first Conception: infecting all the Powers of their Souls and Bodies and thereby making them drudges and slaves of Sin. For it is the immediate Effect of Adam's first Sin; and the principal Cause of all other Sins.

 

[MW]

William Perkins, A Golden Chain.

Chapter 12 – Of Original Sin | Reformed Theology at A Puritan's Mind

Out of the former transgression ariseth another, namely Original sin, which is corruption engendered in our first conception, whereby every faculty of the soul and body is prone and disposed to evil. Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Matthew,

I disagree with some of your statements above (respecting me, taking what I believe is yet clearly Mastricht's view, and many or most of the Reformed in his era, including Rutherford one of the Westminster divines, not to mention others), but have no desire to further pursue them on the PB.

It would be interesting to further look into Goodwin and Ussher on the issue, if they address it further, but as for Perkins, per his quotes on my webpage, it is likely he took the Medieval view, of a miraculously formed and animated human nature from conception (that is, of a fetus of 42 days maturity at conception), contra the regular course in men, as some of the early Reformed did, following in the medieval inheritance.

There are only two worked out theories (that I am aware of) for how a human soul can be joined at conception with an embryo, (1) the Medieval View, and (2) the Cartesian view. The first I take to be superstition, the second to be contrary to nature. If one declines both those paradigms, and yet holds to the same principle, one likely has little to offer by way of explanation, or for how these things even consist together.

 

[MW]

Travis, This is an outdated, crude medical speculation. It belongs with humours and blood-letting. If you want to believe it that is up to you. The medical field now accepts that human life begins at fertilisation and can see the "animation" of the fetus without having recourse to the theory of ensoulment. It doesn't require a philosophical theory to account for the fact that the body without the spirit is dead but the fetus is alive and growing.

My concern is not with your medical beliefs, but in your reworking of more common teachings about original sin and the hypostatic union, especially the latter. Your own sources contradict you.

Samuel Rutherford: "Christ's mother's womb was grace: it was grace that the Son should be conceived and born, and by this he had law to us." Trial and Triumph.

 

[Travis Fentiman]

Travis, This is an outdated, crude medical speculation. It belongs with humours and blood-letting. If you want to believe it that is up to you. The medical field now accepts that human life begins at fertilisation and can see the "animation" of the fetus without having recourse to the theory of ensoulment. It doesn't require a philosophical theory to account for the fact that the body without the spirit is dead but the fetus is alive and growing.

My concern is not with your medical beliefs, but in your reworking of more common teachings about original sin and the hypostatic union, especially the latter. Your own sources contradict you.

Samuel Rutherford: "Christ's mother's womb was grace: it was grace that the Son should be conceived and born, and by this he had law to us." Trial and Triumph.

Matthew,

This is not an outdated, crude medical speculation, as my article thoroughly shows; in fact it has great contemporary relevance, cogency and precision, being fully consistent with all modern medical evidence. However no amount of medical evidence will ever do away with the philosophical issues, for one reason, because medical data can never observe an immaterial soul.

The sources contradict you, and I have not reworked such doctrines, but have learned them from the reformed theologians of that era (over a few hundred hours) who were more knowledgable, careful and precise in these matters than you.

You cherry pick sources and pit them against the authors who spoke them, just like you have now done with Rutherford. The very clear Rutherford quote I provide in my article and on my webpage treats of the issue in significantly more depth and detail than your passing reference (and it is not surprising as his education was Aristotelian).

But none of this is really the issue. I pray you will lose your domineering censorious spirit, before the Lord may so kindly remove it from you. Mt. 7:1-2.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Samuel Rutherford: "Christ's mother's womb was grace: it was grace that the Son should be conceived and born, and by this he had law to us." Trial and Triumph.

I don't think these quotes will convince Travis because from what I can tell he believes Mastricht's view of conception is that conception happens 42 days after fertilization:

...conception (that is, of a fetus of 42 days maturity at conception)...

I'm sure @Travis Fentiman will correct this if I am misrepresenting him. I am curious if he holds the view personally. I am also interested how someone who holds this view answers the questions I posted in #5 above that remain unanswered:

"If you are saying there is no human life before 42 days after conception, it raises the following questions:

• Are you stating that there is a lower form of pre-human life in the womb before "ensoulment"?
• Is there any moral prohibition of terminating a pregnancy prior to 6 weeks if the form of life in the womb is considered some other lower form of life and not yet considered human life?
• Is a human made in the image of God only after "ensoulment"?"
  

 

[MW]

But none of this is really the issue. I pray you will lose your censorious spirit, before the Lord may so kindly remove it from you. Mt. 7:1-2.

There is nothing censorious in what I have said. If you are going to make material publicly available you should be open to have it critiqued. Thinking your work is above criticism is not good. The sources speak for themselves. They teach the Son of God was conceived. Yes, they know better than me; they also know better than you.

I don't think these quotes will convince Travis because from what I can tell he believes Mastricht's view of conception is that conception happens 42 days after fertilization:

That would be a mistake as his "sources" clearly date conception from the announcement, or more technically from the time Mary believed it.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I think it's incorrect to assert that the standard Reformed view was ensoulment after 42 days.
Hoornbeeck, who represents Voetian orthodoxy and was very anti-Cartesian and anti-Cocceian, cites Maccovius as the best expression on this point:

"It is asked, Is our soul truly breathed into us in the same manner in which the soul of Adam was created from nothing, or is it propagated from our parents’ seed, or by being passed down?
We state that the rational soul is infused in the embryo, not indeed entering in after and from without, as Aristotle thinks, Generat. animal. bk. 2, ch. 3; but we consider it to be formed by God in the very zygote, and the earliest stage of the human body."

 

[Travis Fentiman]

I think it's incorrect to assert that the standard Reformed view was ensoulment after 42 days.
Hoornbeeck, who represents Voetian orthodoxy and was very anti-Cartesian and anti-Cocceian, cites Maccovius as the best expression on this point:

"It is asked, Is our soul truly breathed into us in the same manner in which the soul of Adam was created from nothing, or is it propagated from our parents’ seed, or by being passed down?
We state that the rational soul is infused in the embryo, not indeed entering in after and from without, as Aristotle thinks, Generat. animal. bk. 2, ch. 3; but we consider it to be formed by God in the very zygote, and the earliest stage of the human body."

Thank you Charles for your modest response.

As far as Voet (Mastricht's professor), he definitely was for the 42 day view. References are given in my paper in footnotes 35, 37, 47, 49, 53 and in the text on pages 12 & 13. That is not just my take, but Aza Goudriaan's in Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 234–59.

Note Dr. Goudriaan also understands Mastricht, from more sources than what is in Mastricht's Theoretical Practical Theology, in fact from sources not otherwise available, to be of the 42 day view, contrary to Matthew Winzer.

Do you have the Latin for Hoornbeeck? If "zygote" means something like fetus, Maccovius and him could very well be taking the 42 day view.

 

[Charles Johnson]

As far as Voet (Mastricht's professor), he definitely was for the 42 day view. References are given in my paper in footnotes 35, 37, 47, 49, 53 and in the text on pages 12 & 13. That is not just my take, but Aza Goudriaan's in Reformed Orthodoxy and Philosophy, 1625-1750: Gisbertus Voetius, Petrus van Mastricht, and Anthonius Driessen (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 234–59.

Note Dr. Goudriaan also understands Mastricht, from more sources than what is in Mastricht's Theoretical Practical Theology, in fact from sources not otherwise available, to be of the 42 day view, contrary to Matthew Winzer.

I don't doubt that some authors held to ensoulment at 42 days. It's not my own view, but I don't find it unlikely in a 17th century author.

Do you have the Latin for Hoornbeeck? If "zygote" means something like fetus, Maccovius and him could very well be taking the 42 day view.

Yes, the word I translated "zygote" is foetus. The reference is §5.14 of Institutiones Theologicae. But I strongly believe he is taking the position that ensoulment occurs at day zero, because Aristotle's view which he opposes, "that the soul comes later and from without," is essentially the 42 day. So if that were Hoornbeeck's or Maccovius's own view it's not clear to me what, if anything, would distinguish their view from Aristotle's.
Compare p. 165-173 of Aristotle's Generation of Animals.

 

[MW]

Note Dr. Goudriaan also understands Mastricht, from more sources than what is in Mastricht's Theoretical Practical Theology, in fact from sources not otherwise available, to be of the 42 day view, contrary to Matthew Winzer.

A note of clarification -- I haven't said anything to the contrary regarding Mastricht's statement on 42 days. The issue is with His assumption of human nature at conception, which Mastricht also maintains as I do.

Also, Voet doesn't literally and exactly take the 42 day view. He tosses around various theories. His stated position is, "Sufficiat dixisse, litem hanc Medicorum & physicorum nostram non esse: modo cautum sit genuinæ explicationi dictorum scripturæ, & Theologicis veritatibus de incarnatione Christi."

This is the very point I was making earlier about not allowing a medical opinion to dictate terms with respect to the doctrine of Christ. Leave it to medical professionals, and exercise caution with respect to the incarnation of Christ.

 

[Theoretical]

Is there not over-fitting and over-proving of the 42 day mark for ensoulment based on a judicial law within the Exodus 21:22-23 passage? Menstruation can be anything but regular in some women, regularly shifts and changes if a different woman is staying for an extended period (this would include hiring a new female live-in servant, and so on. 42 days is basically two weeks margin on either side of the normal 28-29 day cycle. Given the extreme difference in penalty between the two situations, with a judicial law, there's a big difference between a situation where someone reasonably could or should know she's pregnant and when she's not. Even to this day, it's pretty common for the situation to be "huh, I missed a period, better take a pregnancy test." "Stop, don't hurt my baby!" is a scream that makes no sense if the woman is not pregnant and knows it.

Caution and modesty in a judicial provision law that provides some undeserved mercy to a category of perpetrator is something very different than a passage one would use to establish a critical doctrine

I am certainly not versed enough in the theology to know these debates. As a lawyer, a 42 day time period being the actual ensoulment would at least arguably mean that IVF and abortive contraception like IUDs, Plan B, many Birth Control Pills, and the like only have ethical issues insofar as reproduction is taken out of sexual activity, but don't involve murder or potential murder. That would simplify some of the bioethical issues of our day and mean there's only an abortion holocaust and not an IVF one too, but that's not how I think it works.

and that an intellectual, rational and thinking soul is somehow attached to a zygote, Mastricht and much of the reformed considered to be contrary to nature and absurd. Even if it was not thinking, yet if it was a human soul, they still considered this to be absurd because a zygote doesn't have the essence of a human. And they thought this from the light of nature, in addition to what Scripture says...Mastricht as I quoted above did not think moral corruption was proper to a fertilized egg (which is incapable of morality, or even being moral), but only to an animated, ensouled fetus (which has such potential).

This strikes me as incredibly rationalistic in a very bad way, and in exactly the ways the Reformed can end up in Rationalism. A human soul being in a zygote (which is not another creature but is developing into a human body) is far less absurd than the idea of a the sun going backwards, conception way, way after menopause, a virgin conceiving, Jesus telling a storm to just stop, a 3-day-dead brutally executed man being raised from the dead, or countless other extraordinary miracles recorded in the Scriptures.

---
I echo Andrew's unanswered questions as well:

"If you are saying there is no human life before 42 days after conception, it raises the following questions:

• Are you stating that there is a lower form of pre-human life in the womb before "ensoulment"?
• Is there any moral prohibition of terminating a pregnancy prior to 6 weeks if the form of life in the womb is considered some other lower form of life and not yet considered human life?
• Is a human made in the image of God only after "ensoulment"?"

 

[Travis Fentiman]

I don't doubt that some authors held to ensoulment at 42 days. It's not my own view, but I don't find it unlikely in a 17th century author.

Yes, the word I translated "zygote" is foetus. The reference is §5.14 of Institutiones Theologicae. But I strongly believe he is taking the position that ensoulment occurs at day zero, because Aristotle's view which he opposes, "that the soul comes later and from without," is essentially the 42 day. So if that were Hoornbeeck's or Maccovius's own view it's not clear to me what, if anything, would distinguish their view from Aristotle's.
Compare p. 165-173 of Aristotle's Generation of Animals.

I think Hoornbeek and Maccovius (and what was being taught under Hoornbeek's systematic) are rather clearly taking the 42 day view (Theological Institutes, 5.14, pp. 190-91), though they don't mention that number.

Maccovius is arguing for creationism against traducianism. Per Logeion (and my own readings), embryo and fetus in the Latin commonly translate to what we mean by the terms.

Maccovius disagrees with Aristotle with respect to a rational soul coming into an embryo, but then says God himself forms the rational soul in the fetus, having the rudiments of the human body. Maccovius uses the term "form" which was a long-held technical term on the topic, referring to the human form, or essence, and explicitly speaks of the human body (not simply a embryo).

Why does Maccovius disagree with Aristotle? It seems he is making the same point Mastricht did in my article:

The Lord forms the spirit of man within him (Zech. 12:5), "Nor outside the body, but within the body already formed organically, such that by creating, it is infused into it, and by infusing, it is created in it.” My article, p. 12​

It seems that Maccovius agrees with Mastricht, contra Aristotle, that the rational spirit does not enter the formed fetus afterwards and from existing on the outside of it, coming into it, but it arises simultaneously from within it by the Lord's work.

Hoornbeek then quotes Voet at length confirming this with further argumentation. Voet takes Gen. 2 as the paradigm, where Adam's body is formed before the spirit is infused into him. He references Zech. 12:5 (which Mastricht argued from) and other creationist Scriptures. He says the conception of Christ was similar to ours. He argues against Traducianism and mentions that the intellective soul does not arise from the body, so far as it exceeds the whole genus, or kind, of the substance of the body. Something by its nature cannot produce something higher than its nature.

And the whole thing in Hoornbeeck is under ch. 5, on Creation, or Anthropology if you will (not under the Incarnation or Christology), and it is not polemical, but positive instruction for seminary students.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Maccovius disagrees with Aristotle with respect to a rational soul coming into an embryo, but then says God himself forms the rational soul in the fetus, having the rudiments of the human body.

He doesn't say "in the rudiments of the human body," but in humani corporis rudimento.

Rudimentum, according to Lewis, means "beginning, commencement."
According to DMLBS, it means "beginning" or "early, undeveloped stage."

So Aristotle says that the soul is infused after, while Maccovius disagrees, saying it is infused "at the beginning of the human body."