To turn a heathen into a Christian is more worthwhile and more useful than to change a Christian into a member of a different sect, even if perhaps of a better one.
That mystery is of a higher order than nature and typical of a supernatural revelation to such an extent that you cannot point to any trace of it in nature nor in natural reasoning.
Johannes Hoornbeeck in De conversione Indorum et gentilium (1669).Footnote 1
Introduction
Orthodoxy can be surprisingly ground-breaking. This is the first thought that comes to mind when reading De conversione Indorum et gentilium by the orthodox Dutch Protestant theologian Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617–1666). This almost forgotten missionary work offers an intriguing guideline for the conversion of the “heathens” of Asia and the New World. It also provides a surprisingly well-informed ethnohistorical study of truly global dimensions, combining the latest information on Europe’s own past with contemporary information on America and Asia.Footnote 2 The intelligent way in which Hoornbeeck engaged with both historical and ethnological discourses demonstrates how an orthodox Protestant theologian was ready to open up his mind to an ever-expanding world and, as we will argue in this essay, how this inquisitiveness about global idolatry gave rise to increasing scholarly criticism of Christian dogmas.
Our initial feeling of surprise about Hoornbeeck’s open-mindedness is explained by a still dominant discourse in which critical scholarship and global curiosity is almost entirely monopolised by the more radical freethinkers like Baruch Spinoza and Isaac La Peyrère. In this teleological narrative, pre-Enlightened thinkers, both Catholics and Protestants, are often reduced to pedantic apologists who despised innovation and espoused orthodox narratives. Recent revisionism, however, criticises this dichotomy between the heterodox/progressive and the orthodox/conservative as being unduly focused on the world of the philosophes. Instead of radical breaks and sudden disenchantment at the philosophical extreme, this revisionism highlights the long-term intellectual roots of a much wider movement of Enlightenment in the orthodox sixteenth-century mainstream of philological and historical scholarship. Even in the case of what seems to be a discipline new to the seventeenth century, i.e. the history of idolatry, it was possible for scholars such as John Selden, Gerardus Vossius and Samuel Bochart to fruitfully build on an already existing critical framework of historical research based on Scaligerian chronology and Maimonidean rationalism. In an illuminating recent survey, Dmitri Levitin has detected a tendency among orthodox thinkers to replace philosophy with history as the handmaiden to theology. Meanwhile, Hoornbeeck’s work too established an institutional and intellectual culture in which historical criticism of one’s own traditions was unavoidable.Footnote 3
Along the lines of this revisionism, we would like to portray Hoornbeeck as a highly inquisitive orthodox scholar, who, in his De conversione, enthusiastically and creatively combined theology, history and ethnography. But before dealing more specifically with Hoornbeeck, it is crucial that we first critically reassess the religious context in which later Protestant historiography has placed him: i.e. the Further Reformation. For this particular Dutch variety of pietism was not primarily motivated by scholarly curiosity or even by the defence of Calvinist orthodoxy, but by the revitalisation of people’s belief in a practical sense. Indeed, we should realise that much of Hoornbeeck’s cosmopolitanism was inspired by a deeply felt urgency to spread Christ’s message among Christians, if possible among Jews and Muslims, but above all, among those whose conversion would reap the greatest profit: the heathens in “those realms that are much greater than the parts of the world we have formerly known.” For Hoornbeeck it was far more rewarding and useful “to turn a heathen into a Christian than to change a Christian into a member of a different sect, even if perhaps of a better one.”Footnote 4 Like the Jesuits, the early conservative (Contra-Remonstrant) Protestant scholars were aware that the conversion of heathens required knowledge of the latter’s language, culture, history and belief-system. In 1622, the very same year that Rome established its new Congregatio de propaganda fide, Leiden University promoted the Protestant mission by establishing the Seminarium Indicum which, although it closed down only ten years later, produced some of the best-trained Dutch missionaries, such as Robertus Junius (1606–1655) and Abraham Rogerius (1609–1649). Their well-informed writings “opened the doors of heathendom” and were eagerly awaited by a western audience immersed in fierce religious debate amongst itself.Footnote 5
Hence, for Hoornbeeck there was a clear sense of urgency to know the world: since God’s message was universal, the entire globe became the missionary’s garden. Of course, there were several possible arguments to account for the fact that most people had moved away from the Truth, although none as far as the heathens. Did all religions, like all languages, stem from one pure original source that was manipulated by the devil and his disciples disguised as priests? Such information was deemed necessary to fight the devil and to be worthy opponents in discussions with the heathens so they could become proper Protestants on the basis of free will and rational arguments, as Hoornbeeck in Summa Controversiarum forcefully argues.Footnote 6 But how were they to process the information about the heathens’ habits and religion? When forcing open the doors of heathendom, something unexpected was liable to come out and compel one to reinvestigate one’s own convictions. Hoornbeeck’s other missionary tract, De conversione Indorum et gentilium, is an interesting case in point: it innovatively combines a theological, historical and ethnographical approach of idolatry, which was also crucial for paving the way for a more sceptical view of religion in general. As far as the Catholic mission is concerned, this was already incisively argued by Joan-Pau Rubiés, but we ask ourselves the question whether the same is true for Protestantism and, more in particular, for the Calvinist group to which Hoornbeeck supposedly belonged and which was by far the most influential missionary movement in the seventeenth-century Dutch Republic.Footnote 7
The Further Reformation
It is not easy to decide whether any given author is a representative of the Further Reformation, as there never was an organisation with that name. Interest in the history of such a movement developed in Dutch Reformed circles from the first half of the nineteenth century onwards, due to conflicts between orthodox and less orthodox factions within the Dutch Reformed Church. The movement they studied came to be called the Further Reformation, aiming at a more thorough reformation of religion and morals.Footnote 8 Theologians from orthodox pietistic circles have dominated the study of the subject. These scholars sometimes seem to have included members on the basis of their own sympathy for a person’s ideas. From the 1980s onwards there have been serious but hardly scholarly efforts to determine membership by fixed criteria, which should not detain us too long here.Footnote 9 What we can do, though, is portray the Further Reformation as a loosely profiled movement on the basis of its more general characteristics.
The Further Reformation was perceived as a seventeenth-century puritanical movement within the Dutch Reformed Church, focussed on the reformation of lifestyle and morals.Footnote 10 Although no exact numbers are known, it almost certainly never involved more than a minority. Even so, the movement became quite influential, for example in the province of Zeeland and in the city of Utrecht. Being partly inspired by English Puritanism, its adherents felt that the development towards a broad church, set in motion after the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), was having a negative influence on the quality of devotion and practice. Although they did not wish to leave the Church, they strove for a quantitative as well as qualitative improvement. The qualitative reform aimed at a greater emphasis on personal devotion, with the family as the first target. In this respect there is a similarity with Lutheran pietism, which developed in Germany in the second half of the seventeenth century.Footnote 11 The Further Reformation differs from most pietistic movements in its emphasis on changing society. This quantitative aspect involved striving for a theocracy in which rulers and ruling institutions would participate in the campaign to ban sin and sinful behaviour. To this end the movement made use of the “two keys to Heaven”: on the one hand there was the preaching of the Gospel and on the other hand, a strict monitoring of behaviour and, if necessary, the enforcement of norms.Footnote 12 The pursuit of theocracy showed itself especially in the attitude of church officials towards people in government and civil service: these officials were constantly reminded of their responsibility to create a Christian society.
In the view of clergymen of the Further Reformation this responsibility was not limited to the Republic. It compelled them to introduce the Gospel to the heathens as well in return for the riches that overseas commerce was bringing to the Netherlands. Being remarkably aware of his own history of conversion, Hoornbeeck fits the bill perfectly when he writes:
Those that once gave the Europeans and the people in the North the knowledge of the Gospel, did not receive anything but beatings, persecution and grim slaughter, which habitually accompanies and crowns the first announcement of the truth and its supporters. Will we [the Dutch] then, who owe a very great deal, if not all, of our commerce and wealth to the heathens and Indians, never think about remunerating them with that type of goods that are not ours but only God’s, and are handed over not only without loss, but always with great profit, whereby those people will shortly change from the most miserable to the most fortunate of all, because they will be the best, because they will be Christians?Footnote 13
Although small in number, representatives of the Further Reformation have been very influential in thinking and writing about overseas missionary activity.Footnote 14 Indeed, most of the seventeenth-century Dutch authors on the subject probably had links to the movement. Exceptions were moderate orthodox members of the Dutch Reformed Church such as Antonius Walaeus and Johan Polyander van den Kerckhoven. As far as the Further Reformation is concerned, Walloon Minister Jean Taffin (1529–1602), a one-time chaplain of William of Orange, is said to have influenced early “pietistic” thought on mission work.Footnote 15 He even foresaw an apocalyptic connection between the discovery of America and the Reformation: “At the same time that the New World was discovered, God has also begun the re-erection of his congregation, as though with His finger He would point out to us the full extent of the heathens that still must come in. And, too, that with the Reformation or re-erecting of the churches, the foundations are laid to convert the whole world.”Footnote 16
Apart from such apocalyptic anxieties, two factors may have contributed to the strong missionary involvement of the Further Reformation. For one, their ministers often had important positions in Walcheren in Zeeland, i.e. the church classis that was the most active in sending ministers, school masters and comforters of the sick to the new colonies. A more obvious reason may have been the content of their ideas: did not the thorough reformation at home affirm the need for an active process of conversion elsewhere? Or as Taffin himself wrote: “It was simply not believable that a third of the world should be forever shut-off from the knowledge of Christ.”Footnote 17
Several representatives of the Further Reformation have paid attention to the need for missionary activity. Apart from Hoornbeeck, the most prominent are Willem Teellinck, Godefridus Udemans, Gisbertus Voetius and Justus Heurnius. All of these authors may have inspired Hoornbeeck in writing his De conversione. Their writings are various in character: they range from appeals to engage in missionary activity, sermons and instructive books in Dutch to scholarly works in Latin. In order to understand Hoornbeeck’s unique contribution, let us briefly discuss the missionary approach of his main brothers in arms.
Willem Teellinck (1579–1629) can be seen as the first representative or the “father” of the Further Reformation. During a stay in England as a young man, Teellinck had been influenced by pious Puritans. Contact with foreign nations played an important role in his life and preaching. This was only natural, as Teellinck was living in Zeeland, the province strongly involved in privateering and overseas commerce. In the first ten years after the founding of the West Indian Company (WIC) in 1621, the brothers Willem and Ewout Teellinck in Middelburg and Dionysius Spranckhuysen in Delft wrote a number of pamphlets about the missionary task of the WIC and its personnel. Willem Teellinck’s Davids danckbaerheyt voor Gods weldadicheyt (David’s gratitude for God’s benevolence) was another early plea for missionary responsibility. It is the text of a sermon held in celebration of the capture of San Salvador in Brazil by a fleet sent from Middelburg in 1623. The reverend Enoch Sterthemius, who took part in this expedition, had delivered a sermon in Brazil in honour of the occasion. Upon hearing the news, Teellinck preached on the same scriptural passage. He urged his hearers to express their thanks for God’s benevolence by donating a large part of their income for the propagation of the Gospel. In his view a donation of half one’s income would not be excessive, even if he would be satisfied for at least the first profits of the WIC to be reserved for the purpose. The sermon is followed by a letter with a similar appeal, which gives an indication of Teellinck’s attitude towards heathens and negligent Christians. Heathens may seem primitive and lacking in culture, even so we should use the knowledge about their habits to look critically at our own behaviour: “If you notice on these travels that some nations are so fond of rusted nails and broken glasses, you tend to make fun of it. The true Christian with a still higher mind also laments your childishness, for you to be so fond of those trinkets of gold and silver and in the meantime to forget the service of the highest God and the enormous importance of eternal bliss.”Footnote 18 This kind of moral self-criticism is found in Hoornbeeck’s work as well. In his case, self-reflection was not inspired by the primitive heathens but by more sophisticated Chinese intellectuals like Confucius whose behaviour “could make Christians blush with shame.”Footnote 19
Godefridus Cornelisz Udemans (1581/82–1649) was another clergyman from Zeeland. After studying theology at Leiden University, Udemans became a pastor at a very young age: he was appointed in Haamstede on the island of Schouwen in 1599. In 1604 he moved to the city of Zierikzee, where he remained pastor until his death. In 1638 he published ‘t Geestelijkck roer van het coopmans schip (The spiritual helm of the merchant vessel). Although the book may be regarded as a sailor’s manual (zeemansvademecum), its format makes it impractical to take along on a journey. It deals with a wide variety of topics of interest to people trading in the East and West Indies: what people they may expect to encounter, how they should behave towards the people they meet, whether they can marry their women, whether they are allowed to take them as slaves, and what to do about their religion? Udemans’ treatment is very thorough, and sometimes long-winded. He also treats questions that do not strike us as completely relevant for his purpose, such as the attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church and its use of the images of saints. Not unexpectedly he regards these practices as scandalous idolatry.
Udemans begins by describing the riches Dutch merchants may encounter in foreign countries. He makes a convincing case for the appeal of these far-away countries. He then gives historical information about their discovery, but his interest in historical issues is not great. Udemans is more interested in the benefits these discoveries may have for the Christians in the Netherlands. First of all, it was possible for Dutch Christians to learn about God’s goodness and about the nature of true Christian religion. As a result “we should be cordially moved by the poor Indians who have dwelt in darkness and shadow for many thousands of years.”Footnote 20 Udemans gives a number of reasons why heathens should be converted: all people have been created by the same God, our own ancestors have been heathens as well and, thirdly, the Indians let us share in their material goods. In return we should let them share in our spiritual goods. As we have already seen, the latter argument also appears in the works of Teellinck and Hoornbeeck.
Like Hoornbeeck, Udemans reserves considerable space for ethnographical information. Being less of a scholar than Hoornbeeck, Udemans provides much less information about his sources. Interestingly, he approaches Hoornbeeck’s self-reflective mood in saying that the example of the heathens may teach us about human nature: “Thus we can notice in the Indians, as if in a mirror, what people are by nature, without the knowledge of Christ and the light of the resurrection, that is to say, as stupid and as silly as a wild ass’s colt (Job 11:12).”Footnote 21
Udemans’ ethnographic information gives no details about religion. He emphasises the (bad) habits of the various inhabitants of the East and West Indies and thus underlines the necessity of their conversion. Five pages of ethnological information are followed by twelve lessons for his readers. To give a few examples: the first lesson is that hearing about these foreign people helps us acquire knowledge about the omnipotence, the wisdom and goodness of God. The third lesson is that people who do not know God are generally most strongly blessed with worldly goods!
Although the heathens may be stupid and unknowing in godly matters, Udemans has to admit that they are extremely ingenious in cultural matters, which can be gleaned from their beautiful handicrafts such as Chinese porcelain.Footnote 22 Their Chinese form of government is also of high quality, and the country is very well organised. According to Udemans the same can be said about Indian (i.e. South Asian) society: it is arranged in seven fixed orders: people are content with their position and make no attempt to practise an occupation that does not fit their station in life. The political talent of the “Indians” is something for which to be thankful: “This remark serves to makes us know God’s goodness, because in natural people he has left some power of reason concerning natural and political matters so that they would not totally change into animals.”Footnote 23
Udemans contrasts these politically talented “Indians” with the free-thinkers (Libertijnen) in his own country, who boast about their political insight but are no better than the blind heathens.Footnote 24 Once again, the accomplishments of the heathen people should prepare us for a critical inspection of our own moral behaviour and our own love of God.Footnote 25
Gisbertus Voetius (1589–Reference Voetius1676) was also a theologian and pastor, but, unlike the former two authors, he was a university professor as well. He had been Hoornbeeck’s teacher and colleague at the University of Utrecht. Being a scholar Voetius naturally wrote in Latin. Voetius’s thoughts about missiology have been expressed in two disputations held with students, later included in his collected works, and in the treatise “De Missionibus Ecclesiasticis.”Footnote 26 The first public discussion or disputatio in three parts, “De gentilismo et vocatione gentium,” was held in December 1638 and published by Voetius in 1655. The second relevant disputation is “De plantatione ecclesiarum.”Footnote 27 Voetius clearly edited the text of the disputations prior to publication. To give one example: the book by Rogerius, first presented at the church council in Leiden in 1649, is mentioned in the published text of “De gentilismo,” held in 1638.
Voetius was clearly interested in a correct classification of heathens and to this end “De gentilismo” uses several criteria. The first distinction is between heathens living before and after the Flood. Regrettably, little can be said about the first group.Footnote 28 A distinction with respect to culture results in the formation of two groups: the obviously barbarian and those educated in language, literature and civil law. Examples of the second group are the Japanese, Chinese, Indians and Brahmans.Footnote 29 The distinctions are not completely consistent: elsewhere Brahmans are named as heathens of the worst grade with reference to Rogerius, because of their devil worship.Footnote 30 Although their belief is classified in this manner, information about the content of their ideas is not given. In “De Missionibus Ecclesiasticis” Voetius mentions a new distinction adopted from Hoornbeeck, namely between heathens living under a Christian government and those who are not.Footnote 31 Notwithstanding the encyclopaedic approach of De missionibus, it hardly provides any ethnographical information either. It deals with practical aspects of missions, such as how to send people and the kind of people that should be sent.Footnote 32 For advice about procedural aspects of conversion Voetius refers to the recently published De conversione by Hoornbeeck.
Heurnius (1587–1652) is not seen as a prominent representative of the Further Reformation.Footnote 33 His father was Johannes Heurnius, one of the first professors of medicine at Leiden University.Footnote 34 He himself studied medicine in Leiden and became a doctor of medicine in 1611. After a long journey through England and France, he decided to study theology. Having completed this study at the University of Groningen he published his De legatione evangelica ad Indos capessenda adminitio in 1618.Footnote 35 The book was dedicated to the States General of the Republic, to Prince Maurice of Orange and to the curators of the East India Company. The book contains an urgent appeal to send out people to convert the “Indians.” At his request Heurnius was sent to the region that is present day Indonesia where he worked as a pastor from 1624 to 1638. Like the Jesuits and Hoornbeeck, Heurnius was strongly in favour of preaching in the native tongue of the heathens.Footnote 36 An important missionary motive in De legatione is eschatological: the conversion of the heathens and the Jews is a prerequisite for the foundation of Christ’s reign on earth. Another motive is the threat posed by Islam: Heurnius thought it was important to present the heathens with the light of Christianity before they were taken in by the dreams of Mohammed.Footnote 37 Another force that, according to Heurnius, took away the light of truth was Papistry.Footnote 38
Heurnius appears to be a man with a burning passion for ethical and more practical matters, but his writings do not provide historical or ethnographical information about the people who he proposes to convert. The picture he paints is of people who are utterly miserable because they lack the knowledge of God and Christ.Footnote 39 The book as a whole reads as an ardent plea and not as a source of information about heathen people or as a coherent, systematic plan for action.
Teellinck, Udemans, Voetius and Heurnius resemble each other in their zeal to convert the heathens to the right religion and a better way of life. Their works differ in their intended audience and in the breadth of their content. It is only Hoornbeeck who offers a methodology for conversion involving a fictional debate as an instrument for conversion. This approach leads him to pay attention to the opinions of ancient and contemporary authorities on heathenism, but also to compare the views of ancient and contemporary heathens themselves, thereby placing the whole issue in a historical context. He incorporates advice from a wide range of authors, from the Classics to the Church Fathers, from Thomas Aquinas to contemporary writers, relying on Roman Catholics like Possevino and Rovenius and Protestants such as Du Plessis-Mornay, Grotius and Heurnius. Interestingly, he seems to be particularly fond of the Jesuit José de Acosta. Indeed, Hoornbeeck’s De conversione echoes the latter’s approach of comparative ethnology and, as far as method is concerned, Hoornbeeck would have fully agreed with Acosta’s motto that is was absolutely necessary for missionaries to understand the heathens’ cultures before converting them.Footnote 40 Apart from Acosta, it was another Jesuit, Francis Xavier, whose experience as a missionary in Asia provided Hoornbeeck with some of his best practices: “With their example and their method,” Protestant missionaries could “try to do the same and far better” since “it is fitting that as those to whom God had given the greatest purity of religion … also add a more burning zeal to promote these things.”Footnote 41 Without the faintest embarrassment Hoornbeeck thus gratefully built on the ethnographical, historical and methodological endeavours of his Classical and Roman Catholic predecessors, relying on their theory as well as their practice. Hence, if at all we believe that Hoornbeeck should be perceived as one of the most inquisitive and learned representatives of the Further Reformation. At the same time, his case shows that an orthodox, puritanical background is not at all incompatible with open cosmopolitan curiosity and critical scholarship. On the basis of the wider missionary agenda of the Further Reformation, one may even agree with Levitin and other revisionists that orthodoxy actually gave rise to increasing scholarly debates about the history of other cultures and in idolatry in particular.Footnote 42
Hoornbeeck and De conversione
Johannes Hoornbeeck was born in Haarlem in 1617. His ancestors were merchants from the Flemish Low Countries. His grandfather had fled to the northern part in 1548 for religious reasons. Johannes’s father was a merchant as well. At the age of 15 Johannes enrolled at the theological faculty of Leiden University. When the plague broke out in Leiden in 1635, Johannes moved to the University of Utrecht, where he studied with Voetius. Once safety had returned, Hoornbeeck resumed his studies in Leiden. In 1638 he sat for the preparatory exam required for a position as minister in the Dutch Reformed Church. After a brief spell as a pastor in Mülheim am Rhein, now part of Cologne, Hoornbeeck received a doctorate in theology in 1643. In 1644 he became a professor of theology in Utrecht as a colleague of his former teacher Voetius. He held a second chair at Leiden University from 1654 until his death in 1666. The many references in De conversione indicate that he was well acquainted with the work of many of the scholars who were his colleagues. Moreover, in Leiden he was a member of a closely knit group of professors who were connected by kinship and marriage.Footnote 43 In addition to his work at the university, Hoornbeeck served as a clergyman in local churches. The portrait that Frans Hals painted of him during his mid-thirties conveys more the image of a young, self-confident scholar than that of a stern purist predikant or Protestant minister. Both aspects show up in his work.
During his lifetime Hoornbeeck published 18 works in Latin and 12 in Dutch. Among the Latin works are several impressive tomes. All of his works were theological and most have a polemical character. Part of the works in Dutch are also polemical, sometimes involving a debate with individual Roman Catholics, but we also notice a strong emphasis on pastoral issues, such as the correct observance of the Sabbath and the way a Christian should prepare for death.Footnote 45 At the time the custom in Leiden was to maintain a balance in the appointment of professors with different points of view. By accepting this appointment, Hoornbeeck became a colleague of Coccejus, whose view on theology involved an emphasis on the covenant rather than on predestination. As a result a great deal of Hoornbeeck’s energy went into debates with Coccejus.Footnote 46 The main issue, the observance of the Sabbath, is the subject of seven of Hoornbeeck’s works: one in Latin and six in Dutch. His best known work is probably Summa controversiarum.Footnote 47 This book gives a summary of the points of view of various religious movements and of the orthodox reformed position. Each chapter ends with a summary of the main statements in the form of questions and Hoornbeeck’s answers (affirmative/negative).
The manuscript of De conversione was found among Hoornbeeck’s papers after his death. A plan for a separate work on the subject is already mentioned in Summa controversiarum religionis. This had caused him to treat the heathens very succinctly in Summa compared with all other heretics. All the important points of discussion found in De conversione are already announced in Summa controversiarum. De conversione was published in 1669 by David Stuart, a Leiden colleague of Scottish origin. Stuart had succeeded his father Adam Stuart as a professor of Aristotelian philosophy. Stuart added a biography of Hoornbeeck to the manuscript. The book also contains the original word to the reader by Hoornbeeck and a postscript by Matthias Nethenus.Footnote 48 Stuart mentions that he published the manuscript as he found it. Some passages in the book support the view that Hoornbeeck did not manage to correct the whole manuscript. Hoornbeeck tells us that the contents were presented by a group of students of Leiden University in public disputations under his direction. Unfortunately, he does not inform us about the individual contributions of students or of himself: “De conversione consists of two parts, numbers 259 pages, and has three objectives: First, to give a brief history and synopsis, of the ancient as well as of the present-day heathens, as far as their religion is concerned, which we generally call catachrestice (anti-Christian). Next the Debate, in which we will review the main controversies with them. Finally, the Advice to take care of and promote their conversion, which should always be the goal of the debate.”Footnote 49
The elements mentioned here are easily identified in the book. The words history and synopsis refer to the presentation of the information, in this case a combination of theological, historical and ethnographical aspects, which comprises most of the first part (“book”). The second part contains the application of the first part to a debate with the heathens and an advice how to convert them. A discussion of the various kinds of information will lead us to an examination of the question how Hoornbeeck dealt with the combination of these perspectives.Footnote 50
The theology in the first part of the book revolves around the definition of gentilismus (heathendom). In this definition the notion of idolatry occupies an important place: heathendom is regarded as “the total defection from God and his true worship towards idolatry and every kind of irreverence and injustice.”Footnote 51 Hoornbeeck proceeds to explain that he does not mean just any defection, but the total defection from God to the devil and to his worship, or to idolatry of any kind. Here we see an application of the classical Judeo-Christian view of idolatry as worship of the devil. Theological information is more prominent in the second part and takes the form of an exposition of the Reformed view on important theological issues. The information is presented in the context of a debate with the heathens. The approach is didactical: the focus is on convincing other people of the correct point of view.
It is time to prepare ourselves for the discussions with the heathens and Indians, whose history we told before. This happens in two ways, either extempore, when the occasion presents itself, or with the help of a complete work that has been destined for this purpose, according to the order and method in which we will now treat these questions. When we have reached this point we should begin by primarily ensuring that they are brought to a civilized way of life from which they are rather far removed, living in error, such as the wild people and the most barbarian, and that next they are brought to the faith. This was also observed by Acosta or mentioned by him on the basis of someone else’s observations, in Book 3, chapter 19 of De procuranda Indorum salute. Footnote 52
The historical information contained in the book derives from ancient views on heathendom as well as historical ethnographical information. The concepts of heathendom and idolatry are illustrated by many citations, mainly from various Church Fathers. Contemporary scholars make their appearance mostly in discussions about topical issues, for example the authenticity of the Sibylline Oracles or the origin of the Americans. The ancient ethnographical information derives from numerous authors from the past, such as Tacitus, Caesar, Clemens of Alexandria and Augustine, to name just a few. Hoornbeeck seems to follow the antiquarian works on idolatry of the previous generation of scholars such as Samuel Bochart’s Geographica sacra (1646) and in particular Vossius De theologia gentili (1641).Footnote 53
Ethnographical information about the inhabitants of the West and East Indies takes up most of the first part of the volume. It derives mainly from Jesuit sources, and Hoornbeeck generally does not only borrow factual content but also the Jesuit interpretation of these facts, for example their enthusiasm about China. The second group of sources consists of ethnographical descriptions by Dutchmen, most of them connected to the VOC and the WIC. Numerous groups and nations from Africa, Asia and the Americas make their appearance. The information about Africa is limited to a few lines about the inhabitants of Guinea. When it comes to Asia we meet the inhabitants of numerous parts of the Indian subcontinent, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, the people of Pegu (Myanmar), Siam, Malacca and the Tatars. Hoornbeeck also tells us about the inhabitants of several regions of North and South America, such as the French part of North America, people from Virginia, Florida, Venezuela, and Chile.Footnote 54 Remarkably enough, the people of present-day Indonesia do not merit attention. Hoornbeeck briefly mentions the existence of Sumatra, Java and Borneo, but argues that a special description of these people is not necessary, as the situation there resembles what has already been said about India, China and Japan.Footnote 55
The description of foreign people gives evidence of Hoornbeeck’s keen interest in their beliefs and habits. At various points colourful details are introduced, not directly relevant for practical use by missionaries, for example the story of the Portuguese annihilation of the Buddha’s sacred tooth from Ceylon. Although there is ample room for digressions and storytelling, the overall approach is fairly sober and to the point. Hoornbeeck stays away from unfounded generalisations and speculation. From the very beginning, he makes a distinction between old and contemporary heathenism and even within these two categories pays astonishing attention “to age as well as to location.”Footnote 56 Vossius, an important source, is equally careful in distinguishing between the various forms and origins of heathenism, but Hoornbeeck’s ordering according to region is his own. The information on India is not only very extensive but also very specific as Hoornbeeck distinguishes not only between classic and contemporary authorities but also between the various regions within the subcontinent.Footnote 57 Another striking aspect of the section with ethnographical information is his acquaintance with recent travel accounts. De conversione was based on disputations held in the beginning of the 1660s and was finished in 1662.Footnote 58 Books published in the preceding decade were an important source of information for Hoornbeeck, such as the Novus atlas Sinensis and De bello Tartarico by Martini, Descriptio regni Japoniae by Varenius and the Open deure by Rogerius. In this way Hoornbeeck eagerly processed the latest—often Dutch—information, in particular on India, China and Japan, and integrated this into the existing canon of Roman-Catholic ethnographical works.Footnote 59
The promised debate takes place in the second part of the book. The discussion centres on the question how to teach the most important doctrines from the Reformed tradition to the heathens. In this debate the views of the Christians are set against the views of the heathens. Christian opinion is represented by Reformed theological thought. The heathens form a mixed group, as the term includes everyone who is not a Christian, a Jew or a Muslim. The contemporary Chinese and Americans thus find themselves in the company of the Greeks and Romans of the classical era. Sometimes it seems as if the heathens speak to us directly through the ethnographical and historical writings from all ages. Hoornbeeck is impressed by the behaviour and wisdom of some of the heathens, in particular by the Chinese who “do not yield anything to the philosophers of the Greeks and Romans.”Footnote 60
For Hoornbeeck, one of the prime issues when facing the heathens was the existence and nature of God. Adopting a comparative approach, Hoornbeeck undertakes a systematic study of various religious positions. Most nations acknowledge the existence of a god. The heathens seem to have more varied ideas about the nature of this god: in many cases they have created their own gods, for example by awarding a god-like status to heroes and other people of merit. In addition to all these people with mistaken ideas, there are also several groups of heathens who do acknowledge the one true God, although they call him by different names.Footnote 61 The discussion is rather one-sided with a majority of the arguments originating from Christians in favour of the Christian God. Sometimes the heathens are reported as having ideas compatible with Christian doctrine: for example, there are people who admit that an invariable God is more powerful than a God who is subject to change. On the authority of Rogerius, Hoornbeeck cites the Brahman Bhartrhari as an example of a heathen in favour of an unchanging God. A final possible heathen view is to worship the devil himself in various guises. Hoornbeeck clearly considers this the worst possible scenario, excluding any room for discussion. He mentions Brazilians, people from Guinea and people from China and Japan and Brahmans as contemporary representatives of this practice. He cites Rogerius as saying that Brahmans “worship a highest god, lower gods and the devil.”Footnote 62
With regard to the belief in one God Christians should be prepared for heathen attacks on their own beliefs: Hoornbeeck warns that the heathens may view the three persons of God as three separate Gods. This situation should of course be avoided. After discussing the nature of God, Hoornbeeck turns towards creation, the Creator and the immortality of the soul. In his opinion people should worship the Creator, not the elements of creation. The heathens tend to make many mistakes here. Numerous nations worship parts of creation, such as the stars and the moon instead of the Creator himself. This may be explained from the fact that these celestial bodies are so easily visible. The ideas about the origin of the universe are varied, but some of the heathens, for example the people from Ceylon, Calicut and Gujarat, express a more or less correct view:
And to omit other testimonies, collected by others, written by ancient heathen authors in favour of creation of the world, this is what Megasthenes said about the Indians in Strabo Book 15: “They agree with the Greeks in many things, such as that the world was born and will die and that it is round and that God, its creator pervades it all.” Today you will hardly find the same opinion among them, for the people of Ceylon and of Calicut and of Gujarat state that there was one god, who created heaven and earth. The Siamese believe that the world was created by God and will last for eight thousand years and will then be destroyed by fire, but that under the ashes there remain two eggs from which a man and woman will come who will return people and inhabitants to the world.Footnote 63
These people agree that the world is the product of creation, although they differ with respect to the view whether it is eternal or will perish in the future. Some of the nations also have explanatory stories about the creation of the world. In Hoornbeeck’s view these stories, like that of the Chinese about Amida, tend to be ridiculous. On the positive side, a small group of nations recognises providence, such as the people of Gujarat and a sect of philosophers in China. In all these discussions Hoornbeeck keeps searching for similarities with his own religion that can serve as a starting point for the missionary at work.
Hoornbeeck next discusses the nature and immortality of the soul. The first question is whether man has a rational soul. This fact is generally acknowledged. The immortality of the soul can be proven to the heathens by a number of Christian arguments. The prospect of immortality may in some cases help the acceptance of Christianity. Ethnographical information may be of help: the fact that the Chinese attach such great value to a long life may be used to promote Christianity with its prospect of eternal life. In Hoornbeeck’s opinion the heathens tend to come up with nonsense arguments about the mortality of the soul. The heathen idea of the transmigration of the soul could also be regarded as a kind of immortality, but Hoornbeeck finds the idea ridiculous, especially if the soul is thought to move into animals or even plants. Some of the heathens do indeed have a concept of immortality but unfortunately they paint a childish picture of this immortal life as filled with all kinds of pleasure. Hoornbeeck regards this superficial: the heathens think too lightly about judgment and God’s punishment.
Hoornbeeck devotes two chapters to a review of the various sins practised by the heathens in violation of the proper worship of God and in violation of a proper way of life. These chapters serve as a source of arguments to effect a change in people’s way of life. Hoornbeeck states that fortunately the Christians can operate from an advantageous position, because they are in the right with respect to their own way of life. Knowledge of beliefs and habits may also help the process of conversion in a more direct way. For example: magic is bad in itself, but belief in magic can be used as an instrument to acquaint the heathens with the nature of the spirit and angels.
At the end of this section, Hoornbeeck is remarkably frank about possible hindrances to Christian belief. Here a direct conflict emerges between Christian doctrine and the Bible and the holy books of some of the heathens. The crucial question is: how do we know that our Bible is more trustworthy and holier than the other holy books? Hoornbeeck gives an extended defence of Christian religion in the scholastic manner of academic disputations. His arguments can be summarised as follows: the holy books of various nations, such as the Indian Vedas and the Shastras, do not offer the same wisdom as the Bible. On the one hand, they are not as rational as the Bible and, on the other hand, they do not show divinity. On closer inspection it is clear that they cannot provide the necessary ingredients for man’s salvation. One argument for the truth and divinity of Christian religion is that God’s word was never kept a secret but was always out in the open for everyone to hear. If this message had struck people as doubtful, it would not have attracted so many believers. Another argument in favour of the Bible is that its writers were saintly, reliable people. Thirdly, old writings are more credible than new ones, and there does not in fact exist a book that is older than the Bible. Finally, the material of the Scripture and its way of reasoning are thought to show its divinity. Hoornbeeck regards the Bible as a very effective tool for influencing the mind. The testimonies of the martyrs and the accurate predictions found in the Bible provide further proof. Finally Hoornbeeck points to the consistency found throughout the Bible and to its divine internal harmony. The heathens in their turn have tried to discredit the Bible by pointing to its stylistic simplicity. According to Hoornbeeck, these objections completely lack validity: the divine truth has no need for empty eloquence—something the missionaries clearly lacked when preaching to the heathens in their local languages.
According to Hoornbeeck, a compelling argument for the truth of Christian religion can be found in its age: it is extremely old and has survived great adversity. In other instances Hoornbeeck refers to contemporary scholarly debates, such as those about the authenticity of the Sibylline Oracles and the origin of the Americans, but at this point he fails to mention the contemporary discussion about the status of the Hebrew bible, the Septuagint and biblical chronology.Footnote 64 Instead, he relies on the authority of Lactantius and other Church Fathers.
The last part of the book is devoted to practical advice about the procedure of conversion. First of all Hoornbeeck discusses practical matters like the organisation of overseas missions, the role of the Church, its funding and the education of Reformed missionaries. The choice of the right type of person also receives considerable attention. The final chapter is devoted to examples of successful and less successful missions. There is ample room for stories about the success of Jesuit missions, although negative examples of behaviour of the Spanish in the Americas are also described with great disapproval. Hoornbeeck’s opinion about the way forward is illustrated by extensive stories about the practices of devoted and successful missionaries. The main part is derived from Jesuit sources, but an extra chapter, possibly not by Hoornbeeck, relates the successful experiences of Protestant theologians in the Americas.Footnote 65
Repercussions
In De conversione we can witness at a fascinating personal level how the archetypical Renaissance experience of discovering the world and the self is repeated in the mind of a seventeenth-century orthodox, highly inquisitive clergyman-cum-scholar. Not surprisingly for someone associated with the Further Reformation, who is always eager to connect public morals with the purity of life, the discovery of the heathens and their religions could not leave Hoornbeeck’s own religious convictions untouched. Hoornbeeck may be upset by the nakedness, the superstitions and the demonic practices of the heathens, but at the same time, he feels continuously compelled to defend his own position. At the end of his disputation with the heathens, the word shame is used several times when he quite rigorously compares his own breed and creed with the Chinese Confucianists and the Indian Brahmans.
Joan-Pau Rubiés convincingly showed that there is always a danger lurking when scholars combine ethnographic, historical and theological information.Footnote 66 Reviewing historical and ethnographic information in isolation does not create problems. Neither does the exposition of a theological view, for example that idolatry is the work of the devil. The reason this does not threaten a person’s own beliefs is because it does not ask for an examination of one’s own concepts. The situation changes, however, when one attempts to enter in a discussion with people who hold other religious views. Of course, one can and should not argue with the devil, but in De conversione Hoornbeeck demonstrates what happens when one does enter into a conversation with the heathens. Especially in the debate section he tries to engage seriously with their beliefs and opinions, even though he seems totally convinced of the correctness of his own position. However, this rational defence of his position is only as strong as his arguments. When these arguments can be proven wrong on the basis of historical and philological reasoning, the way opens up for doubt with respect to more aspects of Christian religion. This scenario compromises the comfortable situation in which Christian religion is unconditionally accepted because of divine revelation and the idea that other beliefs can be wholeheartedly ascribed to the work of the devil. Obviously all this opened the door to an increasing number of academic polemics and growing scepticism.Footnote 67
Interestingly, at Hoornbeeck’s own university in Leiden in the late 1650s, the explosive mixture of historical ethnography and theology gave rise to an enforced disciplinary division between theology and philosophy, a division that lasts today. This was against Hoornbeeck’s wishes as he insisted that only Aristotelian philosophy and science should be taught at Leiden. The Pensionary of Holland, Johan de Witt, tried to appease him by stressing that the division would actually “prevent abuse of freedom to philosophise to the detriment of true theology and Holy Scripture.” Eventually De Witt proclaimed in the edict that philosophy and theology each had their proper sphere, and should be kept separate. However, in the case of unavoidable overlap and apparent disparity between theological and philosophical truth, philosophy professors had to defer to the theologians and refrain from interpreting the Scripture contentiously “according to their principles.” As Jonathan Israel rightly observes, although philosophy apparently bowed to theology, the edict actually freed philosophy from its tutelage to theology and gave free rein to Cartesian scholarship.Footnote 68 Although Hoornbeeck disagreed with the edict, his own work was much less, if at all, an engagement with the latest in philosophy than with the already existing historical and ethnographical scholarship represented at his own university in the tradition of Scaliger, Vossius and Hornius.
[Portrait of Hoornbeeck by Frans Hals (1645), Courtesy: Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium]Footnote 44
Jonathan Sheehan has recently argued that seventeenth-century Calvinist English scholars produced another but similar split: that between the sacred and the profane. He refers to the obsessive zeal of biblical scholars to define the nature and boundaries of true religion through systematic comparison with idolatry. Sheehan demonstrates that as ethnography and history assimilated idolatry into the heart of religion, the traditional opposition between religious truth and error broke down. As monotheism and idolatry moved into the same conceptual frame of theology, this not only paved the way for increasing scepticism, but also for a new distinction between the sacred and the profane.Footnote 69 Translating this into the realm of Hoornbeeck, such a split emerges most emphatically when he needs to defend the Trinity, which he considered a “mystery of a higher order than nature and typical of supernatural revelation to such an extent that you cannot point to any trace of it in nature or in natural reason.” In other words, you can argue with the heathens about some things, but others are simply true and beyond dispute, or at least, “not contrary to reason.”Footnote 70 Here we see how Hoornbeeck willy-nilly builds an orthodox defence against his own scholarly curiosity. Although not rigidly defined, it is this inner shield that actually makes possible Hoornbeeck’s otherwise astonishingly open and embarrassingly revealing argument with the heathens, in which he continuously finds himself looking in a mirror. It is by creating a division between “true principle” and “natural reason” that Hoornbeeck, precisely by being a representative of the Further Reformation, contributes by accident to the long-lasting fideist divergence between the sacred and the profane, between personal faith and natural reason. In one of his earlier works, Hoornbeeck had already created a threefold categorisation of truths in which something was considered necessary either for salvation, religion or church membership.Footnote 71 His engagement with the heathens must have confirmed such a flexible approach. For more radical minds, though, such delicate distinctions failed to remove the growing anxiety about the essence of Christianity that Manfred Svensson has recently called “doctrinal minimalism” and which is arguably the first step towards both modern fundamentalism and liberalism.Footnote 72 It remains to be seen to what extent this development was a Calvinist, Christian or a much wider, global phenomenon.Footnote 73
