Jacob Koelman On Thomas Hooker’s The Soules Humiliation

By Pieter L. Rouwendal

In 1678, Jacob Koelman (1631-1695) published a Dutch translation of Thomas Hooker’s The Soules Humiliation with the Dutch title Ziels-vernedering en heylzame wanhoop (Humiliation of the Soul and Wholesome Desperation). [1] He added his own preface, praising Hooker and The Soules Humiliation while making extended criticism of “a remarkable error” in this work as well as in two works penned by Hooker’s son-in-law, Thomas Shepard. [2] This article will review Koelman’s remarkable preface. Who was Jacob Koelman? Why did he decide to translate Hooker’s work? What was his criticism of Hooker? And why did he choose to add his own criticism of Hooker to his translation of The Soules Humiliation? [3]

Reformer And Translator

Jacob Koelman was baptized on November 23, 1631, at Utrecht. [4] He began studies at the University of Utrecht in 1649 and, in 1655, received his Master of Arts and Ph.D. degrees. Afterwards, he regretted that there he had interacted too much with “idle and foolish questions” of philosophy. Yet he profited from his philosophical knowledge later in life, when he refuted Wolzogen, Cartesius, and Spinoza. During his student years, Koelman also learned English in order to read Puritan writings. Even as a student, he started to translate Puritan works into Dutch.

Koelman next occupied the post of preacher at the Dutch embassies in Denmark and later in Brussels. In 1662, he was ordained as the third preacher at Sluis in Flanders, a city governed by the Dutch State. [5] It was here that Koelman showed allegiance to the Dutch Further Reformation (“Nadere Reformatie”), a movement in the Dutch Reformed Church aimed at a reformation not only of church and doctrine, but also of individual lives, whole cities, and even the entire nation. [6] Its proponents frequently sought support from the Dutch State or from the local government. On its part, the government exerted substantial influence on the church, as, for instance, in the calling of new pastors. These mutual efforts of church and state to influence each other had disastrous effects in Koelman’s case, as will soon be seen.

Koelman tried to persuade the local government of Sluis to reform the city according to God’s Word and especially to restrain common sins like Sabbath-breaking, cursing, drunkenness, gambling, usury, and worldly songs. Although Koelman failed to garner governmental support for his reform program, around 1671, a remarkable revival among the citizens in Sluis occurred under his ministry. Within a few months, many people began seriously considering the state of their souls. Notorious drunkards, gamblers, and sinners were brought to repentance. Even former adherents to Roman Catholicism became members of the Dutch Reformed Church. Children crowded together to be catechized.

Despite this remarkable season of blessing in Sluis and the love expressed for Koelman by a large part of the citizenry, he remained unpopular with the local government and Dutch State. On the one hand, Koelman tried in vain to secure governmental assistance for his reform program. On the other, he rejected all governmental efforts to influence the church. He refused to accept that civil government had any say in the calling of pastors.

His relationship with the government became more troubled when the consistory decided to discipline certain members of the local government for drunkenness. A number of these men found a way to take revenge on Koelman. In 1672, following Puritan practices, Koelman undertook further reforming of the church by refusing to use the prescribed forms for administration of the sacraments or to observe any “feast days” except the Lord’s Day. Local magistrates rebuked Koelman for his stand, yet the consistory decided not to restrain him. Local magistrates then took the issue to the Classis, but the Classis (though disagreeing with Koelman) followed the lead of the consistory and took no action against him.

Having reached an impasse with church authorities, local magistrates appealed to the Dutch State, which decreed that Koelman had to conform to the use of prescribed sacramental forms and the observance of holy days. While the Classis decided to submit to this decree, Koelman demurred. To make a long story short, the Dutch State finally banished Koelman from his pastorate without obtaining the concurrence, however, of any ecclesiastical authority. From then on, Koelman defiantly called himself “preacher at Sluis,” even though he was destined never to return there. On June 17, 1675, many members of his congregation openly wept as soldiers removed Koelman from the city.

Never again did Koelman receive a call to serve a congregation. No city called him as its pastor. Even in Rotterdam, where several former classmates filled preaching posts, the pulpit was closed to him. The same thing happened in Amsterdam. Koelman now began to organize conventicles, but even though these meetings occurred at times not in conflict with church services, local magistrates forbade him from continuing them. From 1691 until his death on February 6, 1695, Koelman resided in Utrecht, his birthplace.

Though no longer serving a particular church, Koelman still sought to serve the Dutch Reformed Church. Although silenced, he as it were opened the mouths of Puritan-minded English, Scottish, and American divines by translating their theological works into Dutch. Koelman’s biographer, C.J. Meeuse, counted at least forty-three such works translated by Koelman into Dutch, most of them rendered from English. His favorite authors appear to have been Christopher Love (ten titles) and Thomas Goodwin (six titles, including his Opera).

As mentioned previously, in 1678, Koelman published his translation of Hooker’s The Soules Humiliation. This publication represented Koelman’s thirty-second translation, and Hooker became the twelfth author whom he had translated into Dutch. He clearly had become a highly experienced translator of Puritan theological works by the time he began translating The Soules Humiliation.

Koelman On Hooker

Koelman demonstrated his experience as a translator and depth of spiritual knowledge by writing a preface to his translation of Hooker’s work. This preface admonished readers against uncritical acceptance of every theological work translated from English. He warned especially against Richard Baxter’s writings, which, in his view, contained many erroneous and dangerous opinions. [7] Koelman cautioned readers against Baxter’s view that the efficacy of God’s grace in man’s salvation is dependent not on its species (i.e., its essential quality) but rather on its grade (i.e., its degree of intensity). Baxter held that even an ungodly person could rely on Christ, love God, and hate sin as sin. He did not consider these graces to be saving in themselves, but regarded a specific degree of their exercise as necessary for salvation.

At first glance, Koelman’s digression on Baxter in his preface seems out of place in his translation, as he suggested no connection between Baxter and Hooker. Yet his criticism of Baxter does apply in some measure to Hooker, for Hooker “required such a high degree of humiliation of a soul, that the sinner should be content and satisfied to remain lost, stay under the power of sin, and go to hell and be damned, if the Lord refuses His grace.” [8] Koelman denied the necessity of such a high degree of humiliation; it is upright humiliation that prepares a soul for Christ, not a certain degree of humiliation.

Koelman found the same error repeated by Hooker’s son-in-law, Thomas Shepard. [9] This opinion of Hooker and Shepard was refuted by Gilles Firmin in The Real Christian. [10] This work was not translated by Koelman, but he made use of it in his own refutation of Hooker. As arguments against Hooker and Shepard’s opinion are scattered throughout The Real Christian, Koelman compressed Firmin’s arguments into twenty pages. [11]

Before contesting Hooker’s view of humiliation, Koelman showed the nature of true humiliation according to “the best practical theologians” [12] and floated a proposal to reconcile Hooker’s opinion with their understanding. Though permitting “the best practical theologians” to remain anonymous by not mentioning their names or books, he maintained that their view of true humiliation consisted of four elements:

First, enlightenment, concerning the utterly lost and sinful state of the soul by nature. Second, self-damnation, for a humble soul judges himself worthy of death and damnation. Third, justification by God if He would actually do so. Fourth, reverence for Christ, for the soul would love to receive Christ and His grace. [13]

Such souls, according to Koelman, are sufficiently prepared for Christ, and no further satisfaction (or preparation) by those destitute of grace had to intervene between these four elements of humiliation and the exercise of true saving faith. [14]

Attempted Reconciliation

Koelman then attempted to reconcile Hooker and Shepard’s opinion with his own. [15] Both opinions could be reconciled somewhat, he claimed, if Hooker and Shepard—“these pious men”—meant merely that a humble person had to judge himself unworthy of grace, justify God even if condemned by Him, and avoid murmuring against God. This sort of required preparation for grace could be said to represent purely “negative satisfaction,” which seemed to be the way that Shepard explained himself.

Though readily admitting that no one should murmur against God, Koelman pointed out that this prohibition was too stringent a requirement for salvation inasmuch as Job, Jonah, and Jeremiah murmured in cases of lesser moment and yet did not experience God’s rejection. The Lord forgives murmuring in “sick sinners and in His sick children.” [16] Koelman even takes this murmuring to be a sign of grace, on the ground that a person begins to murmur out of fear that he may be denied the Savior he loves so much. It would be hard to say, according to Koelman, that such souls are unprepared for Christ and must face God’s rejection. [17]

Arguments Against Hooker

Leaving his unsuccessful effort to reconcile Hooker’s opinion with his own, Koelman gave several reasons why Hooker erred in requiring such a high degree of humiliation, namely, that a soul should be content to suffer personal damnation. [18] First, if Hooker were right, then a person should temporarily abstain from the duty of coming to Christ, since if unprepared he could not yet believe in or receive Him. Since God commands the soul always to believe in Christ, no one has the right to abstain from this duty, not even temporarily. Therefore, given his ongoing duty to believe in Christ, no one could truly rest content with a sentence of personal damnation. [19]

Second, this requirement does not square with the innate human desire for happiness or the longing of the regenerate Christian for communion with God. A person should pursue happiness and a Christian should long for communion with God. But if anyone were satisfied with his own damnation, he would be willing in effect to live without God. Because a Christian is united with Christ, his contentment to forego Christ forever would contradict the very essence of being a Christian. [20]

Third, the goal of preparation—to show a person how much he needs Christ and make him willing to receive Him—can be attained without imposing this particular condition. Koelman writes: “Thousands have come to Christ without this.” [21] All that is needed is as much humbling work as will drive the soul to Christ, and nothing more. By saying that a man should remain satisfied with his own damnation, a preacher will not draw many people to Christ or even win their favorable opinion of God’s work in man’s soul. [22]

Fourth, neither Christ, as God’s special Servant, nor the apostles, as those commissioned to declare the whole counsel of God, ever proclaimed this condition. Peter did not ask thousands at Pentecost, “Will you submit to God’s will, even if He damns you?” nor did Paul put this question to the Philippian jailer. The story of the prodigal son, as explained by Hooker in The Soules Humiliation, does not prove Hooker’s point; rather, the reverse, for the prodigal son did return home again. Though satisfied merely to serve as his father’s hired hand, he still begged to rejoin his household.

Fifth, if Hooker were correct, this preparatory work would prove to be as pious as any other work of God’s children, and even as great as the exercise of saving faith itself. Yet if this submission were merely preparation for grace, done by someone outside Christ, one would be forced to conclude that even a natural man can do this extremely pious deed. Here Koelman quoted Gilles Firmin, whose father-in-law informed Hooker that he made better Christians before they were in Christ than they would prove to be afterward. [23] At this point, Koelman defended Hooker in part by acknowledging that Hooker and Shepard seemed to admit the exercise of special graces in the work of preparation for Christ. Moreover, he explained Hooker’s self-professed motive for holding this view: his fear that he would not live long made him want to do his preparatory work all at once. [24] Koelman then examined Moses’ prayer in Exodus 32:32 and Paul’s wish for Israel’s salvation in Romans 9:3, texts cited by Hooker and Shepard in support of their view. [25] Koelman showed that these texts do not in any way prove that a man, to be prepared for Christ, should be satisfied with his personal damnation, drawing on the work of such exegetes as Caryl, [26] Rivet, [27] Jackson, [28] Grotius, [29] and Gomarus. [30]

Nearing the end of his preface, Koelman broached a closely related subject: the notion that, in coming to Christ, a humble person should love and seek God’s glory above personal salvation. [31] He had discovered this view in Daniel Roger’s Practical Catechism and She­pard’s The Sincere Convert. Again, Koelman excused Shepard somewhat by noting that this book had been published without Shepard’s consent, but nonetheless disagreed with Shepard. Though conceding that God’s glory is more important than one’s personal salvation, Koelman stated four reasons why no one should have to seek God’s glory above his own salvation.

First, Peter said that the salvation of one’s soul is the end of faith, for believing in Christ means seeking salvation in Him. Every sincere soul seeks by faith relief from the bondage of sin and ability to serve the Lord. If these things are not sought, there is no faith at all. Any person who does not seek these things from Christ, must necessarily lack sense of his misery, fear of God’s wrath, or weariness of his sins. In a word, he cannot possibly be prepared for Christ.

Second, a seeker may aim at what is also Christ’s aim. Christ, by coming into the world, intended to seek and to save what was lost to bring many sons to glory. God’s aim in sending His own Son was to save all those who would believe in Christ. Although God aimed at His own honor, salvation serves as one means to this end. In fleeing to Christ for salvation, a seeker, therefore, also gives glory to both the Father and the Son.

Third, anyone seeking and appreciating salvation actually intends God’s glory, for salvation means enjoying and glorifying God. This principle holds true even though a person might not realize that he intends God’s glory above his own salvation.

Fourth, Christ and His apostles never preached this condition, nor should we.

Finally, we lack the means to determine whether or not we love God’s glory more than our own salvation, since we cannot separate the two. Imposing this condition would unwisely plague people with lifelong doubt regarding the uprightness of their faith.

Appreciation For Hooker

If this article has given the mistaken impression that Koelman was highly critical of Hooker and Shepard, that notion should now be corrected. Koelman greatly appreciated both of their books, as evidenced by his translation of Hooker’s The Soules Humiliation and his wish to see Shepard’s Sound Believer translated into Dutch. Despite pointed criticism regarding certain aspects of its teaching, he extolled Shepard’s Sincere Convert as “very good, soul-searching and moving.” [32]

Koelman, who loved searching experimental works written by Reformed pastors like Hooker, insisted on a believer’s individual appropriation of faith, repentance, and reconciliation with God. He appreciated the stress laid by men like Hooker on humiliation, for a real Christian is a humble Christian. Koelman even embellished the wording of Hooker’s title, by calling his translation True Souls-Humiliation and Wholesome Desperation. By wholesome desperation, Koelman meant despair of being saved by one’s own efforts. As long as a person thinks he can do anything to save himself, he will not go to Christ for all of salvation.

The Context: Koelman And Jean De Labadie

One puzzling question remains unanswered: why did Koelman add twenty pages of criticism in his preface to a book and author he considered worthy of translation? He probably did so to refute the view of the Dutch sect founded by Jean de Labadie. [33] De Labadie (1610-1674), a former Roman Catholic priest, had become a Calvinist. In 1659, he became a preacher at Geneva, where he tried to reform the church. Supporters of the Dutch Further Reformation, notably Voetius and Van Lodensteyn, invited him to the Netherlands, where, in 1666, he became a preacher in the Walloon (French-speaking) congregation at Middelburg, a center of the Dutch Further Reformation.

De Labadie soon developed opinions that departed from confessional Reformed orthodoxy. He tried to confine the church to true believers, rejecting all whom he determined to be chaff. He excluded many people from the sacraments. His dogmatism and uncompromising defense of controversial views caused him to lose the sympathy of the Dutch Reformed, even that of his former supporters. He provoked antipathy, following his dismissal in 1669, attempting to form a “pure church.” Because De Labadie and his sect were not tolerated in most cities in the Netherlands, he moved several times: from Middelburg to Veere, then to Amsterdam, to Herford, Germany, and finally to Altona, Denmark, where he died in 1674.

His followers relocated to Wiewerd, a small village in the northern Dutch province of Friesland. The difficulty with De Labadie’s sect was, of course, that they thought themselves infallible judges in distinguishing between true and false believers. The so-called Labadists relied on the same two criteria—one’s willingness to be damned for God’s glory and valuation of God’s glory above personal salvation—that Koelman had roundly criticized in Hooker and Shepard. [34]

When De Labadie was called to Middelburg in 1666, he found Koelman highly receptive. Koelman expected De Labadie to help reform the Dutch Reformed Church. He had already heard him preach several times. Having visited his conventicles and spoken with him, Koelman thought De Labadie a very godly man.

Yet Koelman later had reason to suspect De Labadie, who often praised himself and did not confer with other theologians before pushing his own dogmatic views. He reacted with anger whenever anyone dared question his opinions. Moreover, he refused to subscribe to the French Confession. After his dismissal from Middleburg, De Labadie exhibited such bad character and poor judgment that it proved difficult for Koelman to regard De Labadie as a true Christian, even under the judgment of charity. [35]

After his banishment from Sluis in 1675, Koelman refrained from attacking De Labadie openly, but gave no serious thought to joining his sect. Although he defended his own opinions as staunchly as De Labadie did and faced the consequences with equal courage, Koelman refused to leave the Dutch Reformed Church. He disapproved of secession from the church and refused to preach to seceders. [36] It probably hurt Koelman to discover that he and De Labadie were considered birds of a feather, in that both propagated conventicles. No one seemed to recognize what Koelman regarded as a critical difference: Koelman’s passion as a loyal son of the church was to seek her reformation, while De Labadie had proven disloyal in promoting secession from the church.

Koelman eventually attacked De Labadie in two books published in 1683 and 1684. [37] The first work surveyed the history of De Labadie and the Labadists. The second work refuted their many errors, with Koelman listing no fewer than forty. Of course, he had already refuted the two positions they shared with Hooker and Shepard: the view that preparation for grace involved a willingness to accept damnation for God’s glory, and the related view that a true Christian valued God’s glory above personal salvation.

After his banishment from Sluis, Koelman lived first in Rotterdam and then in Amsterdam, beginning in 1676. [38] De Labadie’s post-secession ministry at Amsterdam had influenced many. At Amsterdam, Koelman resided for a while with a former Labadist named Hendrik Uilenbroek. [39] Koelman probably learned more from Uilenbroek about the opinions and practices of De Labadie and his sect.

This sentence in Koelman’s preface may well depend on information he received at Uilenbroek’s house: “It appears that Jean de Labadie and his disciples after him, enjoyed making believers, who have long been favored with grace, into Christians for the first time when associating with themselves, and that in a new way, for this brought them glory and praise.” [40]

As Koelman published his translation of Hooker’s Soules Humiliation in 1678, it would seem that he had started to translate this book around the time of his relocation to Amsterdam. The precise connection between Uilenbroek and Koelman’s preface to Hooker may never be known, but the dates of Koelman’s arrival at Uilenbook’s home (1676) and publication of his translation (1678) suggest a link. The most plausible hypothesis seems to be that Koelman loved Hooker’s work, despite the latter’s view that a high degree of humiliation was requisite to salvation. Koelman still decided to translate it, perhaps even before he met Uilenbroek. Koelman learned from him that De Labadie shared at least those two objectionable opinions with Hooker. Because these opinions represented serious errors likely to trouble true Christians, he decided it worthwhile to refute them in his preface.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Jacob Koelman formed an important link between English and New-England Puritanism and the Dutch Further Reformation in the Netherlands, both by translating many Puritan works and by adopting Puritan practices. But Koelman was not merely a translator who uncritically followed all Puritan writers on Christian piety, as his pointed criticism of Baxter makes clear. Even those authors who evoked his admiration he did not follow automatically. Koelman’s extended critique of Hooker’s view requiring a high degree of humiliation to prepare for Christ illustrates Koelman’s independence of thought. Furthermore, Koelman’s preface to Hooker’s The Soules Humiliation serves as a useful reminder that serious criticism of, and great appreciation for, a Christian writer can peacefully coexist. Still, despite his incisive criticism of Hooker and Shepard, Koelman regarded these two pillars of New England Puritanism and experimental Reformed piety with great esteem and probably viewed his translation of Hooker’s The Soules Humiliation as a labor of love and a valuable service to the Dutch Reformed Church.

Notes

1. Thomas Hooker, Zielsvernedering en heylzame wanhoop, beschreven, trans. Jacobus Koelman (Amsterdam: J. Wasteliers, 1678).
2. Though Koelman’s translation of Hooker was reprinted several times (including 1760, 1770, 1878, 1888, 1962, 1964, and 1971), Koelman’s original preface appeared only in the now very rare first printing, until Den Hertog publishers added it to their Thomas Hooker, De ware zielvernedering en heilzame wanhoop (Houten: Den Hertog, 1988). All references in this article will relate to the 1988 edition. Koelman’s preface will hereafter be cited as Koelman, Preface.
3. On Thomas Hooker in English, see Frank Shuffelton, Thomas Hooker 1586-1647 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977); H. Clark Wooley, Thomas Hooker, A Bibliography Together with a Brief Sketch of His Life (Hartford, CT: Center Church Monographs, 1932) and Sargent Bush, Jr., The Writings of Thomas Hooker (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980).
4. All biographical information on Koelman is taken from the most recent biography: C.J. Meeuse, Jacobus Koelman (Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 2008).
5. Staten-Generaal, the Dutch national government. This arrangement was exceptional, for most cities were under regional supervision.
6. An excellent online resource for research on the Nadere Reformatie is found at http://www.ssnr.nl/lib/bibliopac/bin/wxis.exe/lib/bibliopac/ .
7. Koelman, Preface, 13-30.
8. Ibid., 30.
9. On Shepard, see A. Whyte, Thomas Shepard, Pilgrim Father and Founder of Harvard: His spiritual experience and experimental preaching (repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007); J. W. Jones, The Beginnings of American Theology: John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, Thomas Shepard and Peter Bulkeley (Providence: Brown University, 1970); and Thomas Werge, Thomas Shepard (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1987).
10. This book was published in 1670. See A. Gordon, “Gilles Firmin,” in Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. XIX.
11. Koelman, Preface, 30-50.
12. Ibid., ????.
13. Ibid., ????.
14. Ibid., 32-33.
15. Ibid., 33-35.
16. Ibid., ????.
17. Ibid., ????.
18. Ibid., 35-39.
19. Ibid., ????.
20. Ibid., ????.
21. Ibid., ????.
22. Ibid., ????
23. Ibid., ????.
24. Ibid., ????.
25. Ibid., 40-45.
26. Joseph Caryl (1602-1673). Koelman referred to Caryl’s Exposition on the Book of Job.
27. André Rivet (1572-1651). Koelman referred to his Commentarii in librum secundum Mosis.
28. Arthur Jackson (c. 1593-1666). It is not clear from what work Koelman quoted.
29. Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). Koelman referred to his Annotationes on the Old and New Testament.
30. Franciscus Gomarus (1563-1641). His exegetical works were published posthumously in his Opera Omnia.
31. Koelman, Preface, 46-50.
32. Ibid., 46.
33. On de Labadie and the Labadists, see C. Graafland, “De Nadere Reformatie en het labadisme,” in Teunis Brienen e.a., De Nadere Reformatie en het gereformeerd Piëtisme (’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1989), 275-346. This article is also available online at http://www.ssnr.nl/site/pagina.php?pagina_id=13.
34. Wilhelmus á Brakel rejected these same criteria in The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books), 1999), ??:???.
35. Meeuse, Koelman, ??.
36. On Koelman’s anti-separatism, see A. de Reuver, “Koelmans anti-separatisme,” in Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie 20, 1 (1996): 1-42.
37. Jacobus Koelman, Historisch Verhael nopende der Labadisten Scheuringh (Amsterdam: Boekholt, 1683); Jacobus Koelman, Der Labadisten dwalingen Grondig ontdekt (Amsterdam: Boekholt, 1684).
38. Meeuse, Koelman, ???.
39. On Uilenbroek, see L. F. Groenendijk, “De ‘Christelyke gezangen’ van Hendrik Uilenbroek: Enige notities,” Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie 1, 1 (1977): 28-32.
40. Koelman, Preface, 40: “Maar het schijnt ook dat Jean de Labadie en zijn discipelen na hem, de gewoonte hebben gehad dat zij de christenen die al lang voor die tijd begenadigd waren, pas bij hen tot christenen wilden maken, op een nieuwe manier (kwansuis, dat is hun eer en lof).”