0.5. The Dutch Second Reformation

The Dutch Second Reformation (“Nadere Reformatie”) by Dr. J. R. Beeke[Note: Dr. Beeke is pastor of the First Netherlands Reformed Congregation of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and editor of two denominational publications: The Banner of Truth and Paul. He received his Ph.D. from Westminster Theological Seminary. This chapter is a slightly revised appendix from his doctoral dissertation, Assurance of Faith: Calvin, English Puritanism, and the Dutch Second Reformation. In addition to editing and translating a number of works, he has authored Jehovah Shepherding His Sheep, Backsliding: Disease and Cure, Bible Doctrine Student Work-book, Student Workbook of the Reformed Faith, and several hundred articles.]

The Dutch Reformation proper may be divided into four periods: the Lutheran period (1517-26), the Sacramentarian phase (1526-31), the Anabaptist movement (1531-45) [Note: Dutch Anabaptists continued to be martyred, however, until the 1570s in the Netherlands, despite the fact that the movement itself lost impetus by 1545.] , and the most influential -- the Calvinist infiltration. [Note: Mention should also be made of the followers of Erasmus who precipitated the Dutch Second Reformation in a negative sense. Cf. W. Robert Godfrey, “The Dutch Reformed Response,” in Discord, Dialogue, and Concord, ed. by Lewis W. Spitz and Wenzel Lohff (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977), pp. 166-67. Godfrey also gives a succinct overview of the Calvinist aspect in “Calvin and Calvinism in the Netherlands,” in John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, ed. by W. Stanford Reid, pp. 95-122. Cf. Walter Lagerwey, “The History of Calvinism in the Netherlands,” in The Rise and Development of Calvinism, ed. by John Bratt, pp. 63-102; Jerry D. van der Veen, “Adoption of Calvinism in the Reformed Church in the Netherlands” (B. S. T. thesis, Biblical Seminary in New York, 1951).] From the outset of the Calvinist penetration into the Netherlands (southern Netherlands, c. 1545; northern, c. 1560), the movement showed greater strength than its persistent numerical inferiority might suggest. Nevertheless, the buds of Dutch Calvinism did not flower profusely until the seventeenth century, initiated by the Synod of Dort in particular (1618-19), and intensified by the Dutch Second Reformation (Nadere Reformatie), a primarily seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century movement, which may be dated from such early representatives as Jean Taffin (1528-1602) [Note: Taffin is often regarded as a precursor of the Dutch Second Reformation, due in part to his being a sixteenth-century Reformer, but S. van der Linde has argued persuasively that he should be regarded as the earliest representative of the Dutch Second Reformation. (’Jean Taffin: eerste pleiter voor Nadere Reformatie’ in Nederland,” Theologia Reforrnata 25 [1982]:6-29; Jean Taffin. Hofprediker en raad-sheer van Willem van Oranje [Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1982]). Cf. C. Vogelaar, “Pioneers of the Second Reformation,” The Banner of Truth 52 (1986):150-51.] and Willem Teellinck (1579-1629), [Note: What William Perkins was to English Puritanism, Willem Teellinck was to the Dutch Second Reformation; hence these divines are often denominated as “the fathers” of these movements (Joel R. Beeke, Assurance of Faith: Calvin, English Puritanism, and the Dutch Second Reformation [New York: Peter Lang, 1991], pp. 105-138).] to its last brilliant lights, Alexander Comrie (1706-74) [Note: Ibid., pp. 281-320.] and Theodorus van der Groe (1705-84). [Note: For a concise introduction to leading Second Reformation divines, see B. Glasius, ed., Godgeleerd Nederland: Biographisch Woordenboek van Nederlandsche Godgeleerden, 3 vols. (’s-Hertogenbosch: Gebr. Muller, 1851-56); Sietse Douwes van Veen, Voor tweehonderd jaren: Schetsen van het leven onzer Gereforrneerde Vaderen, 2nd ed. (Utrecht: Kemink & Zoon, 1905); J. P. de Bie and J. Loosjes, eds., Biographisch Woordenboek der Protestantsche Godgeleerden in Nederland, 5 vols. (’s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1907-1943); Christelijke Encyclopedie, 6 vols., 2nd ed. (Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1959); K. Exalto, Beleefd Geloof: Acht schetsen van gereformeerde theologen uit de 17e Eeuw (Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1974), and De Kracht der Religie: Tien schetsen van Gereforrneerde Dude Schrijvers’ uit de 17e en 18e Eeuw (Urk: De Vuurtoren, 1976); H. Florijn, ed., Hollandse Geloofshelden (Utrecht: De Banier, 1981); W. van Gorsel, De IJver voor Zijn Huis: De Nadere Reformatie en hoar belangrijkste vertegenwoordigers (Groede: Pieters, 1981); C. J. Malan, Die Nadere Reforrnasie (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroomse Universiteit vir CHO, 1981); H. Florijn, 100 Portretten van Godgeleerden in Nederland uit de 16e, 17e, 18e Eeuw (Utrecht: Den Hertog, 1982); D. Nauta, et al., Biografisch Lexicon voor de Geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, 3 vols.(Kampen: Kok, 1978-88); T. Brienen, et al., De Nadere Reformatie. Beschrijving van Naar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers (’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1986); T. Brienen, et al., De Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerd Pietisme (’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1989); J. R. Beeke, “Biographies of Dutch Second Reformation Divines,” Banner of Truth 54, 2 (1988) through 56, 3 (1990), a series of twenty-five articles representing the major divines of the movement. For bibliography of the Dutch Second Reformation, see P. L. Eggermont, “Bibliographic van het Nederlandse Pietisme in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw,” Documentatieblad 18e eeuw 3 (1969):17-31; W. van Gent, Bibliotheek van oude schrijvers (Rotterdam: Lindebergs, 1979); J. van der Haar, Schatkamer van de Gereformeerde Theologie in Nederland (c. 1600-c.1800): BibliograJIsch Onderzoek (Veenendaal: Antiquariaat Kool, 1987). Cf. F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: E J. Brill, 1971), pp. 109-68, covering twelve Second Reformation divines in varying depth and quality; Cornelis Graafland, De Zekerheid van het Geloof. Een onderzoek naar de geloofbeschouwing van enige vertegenwoordigers van reformatie en nadere reforrnatie (Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen, 1961), pp. 138-244, concentrating on the doctrine of faith and assurance in fourteen Second Reformation theologians; Johannes de Boer, De Verzegeling met de Heilige Geest volgens de opvatting van de Nadere Reformatie (Rotterdam: Bronder, 1968), which examines the soteriological thought of fourteen Second Reformation divines.] The Term “Nadere Reformatie” The term Nadere Reformatie poses a problem. [Note: The term was used as early as Jean Taffin (1528-1602). Cf. L. F. Groenendijk, "De Oorsprong van de uitdrukking ’Nadere Reformatie,’" Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie 9 (1985):128-34; S. van der Linde, "Jean Taffin: eerste pleiter voor ’Nadere Reformatie’ in Nederland,” Theologia Reformata 25 (1982):7ff. Cf. W. van ’t Spijker, De Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerd Pietisme, pp. 5ff.] There is no standard English translation of “nadere,” no doubt partly due to its inexactness, and perhaps also because the movement has been unaccountably ignored in Englishspeaking scholarship. Literally, “Nadere Reformatie” means a “nearer,” “more intimate,” or “more precise Reformation.” The intended emphasis lies on working out the initial Reformation more intimately in personal lives, in the church’s worship, and in society as a whole.

Translations of Nadere Reformatie inevitably express judgments of its significance. Consequently, it has been translated on occasion as “Further Reformation.” This is not altogether accurate, since “further” implies that the first Reformation did not proceed far enough. This was not the contention of the Nadere Reformatie. Rather, it sought to apply Reformation truths to daily life and “heart” experience. To avoid this false implication, Cornelis Graafland has suggested the terms “Continuing Reformation” or “Second Reformation.” But the term “continuing” has three disadvantages: It does not sufficiently distinguish the Nadere Reformatie from the Reformation proper; it is of recent usage in English [Note: Jonathan Neil Gerstner, The Thousand Generation Covenant: Dutch Reformed Covenant Theology and Group Identity in Colonial South Africa, 1652-1814 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991), pp. 75ff.] ; furthermore, it sounds awkward. We prefer to use “Dutch Second Reformation” or “Second Reformation.” While this is a weak translation and “misses the Dutch term’s emphasis on continuity,” [Note: Ibid., p. 75n.] it has a long pedigree and appears to be gaining acceptance among scholars, albeit partially by default. [Note: Cornelis Pronk, “The Dutch Puritans,” The Banner of Truth, nos. 154-55 (July-August 1976):1-10; J. W. Hofmeyr, “The Doctrine of Calvin as Transmitted in the South African Context by Among Others the Oude Schrijvers,” in Calvinus Reformator: His contribution to Theology, Church and Society (Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University for Christian Higher Education, 1983), p. 260.] Moreover, “Second Reformation” was a term used by some of the Dutch divines of that era. For example, Jacobus Koelman (1632-1695), who had much contact with Scotland’s Second Reformation, spoke of the Dutch movement as a “second reformation” and a “second purging.” [Note: Christelijke Encyclopedie, 2nd ed. (Kampen: Kok, 1959), 5:128.] Others have dubbed the Nadere Reformatie descriptively as “Dutch Precisianism,” “Dutch Puritanism,” or “Dutch

Pietism.” There are objections to each of these designations. First, “Dutch Precisianism” is a pejorative rather than a constructive expression. It is the least acceptable representation of the Nadere Reformatie, since it attributes to the movement a legalistic (wettisch) tone which caricatures the whole. It is true that most Second Reformation divines promoted a strong negative ethic. Voetius, for example, forbade “such practices as visiting public houses, playing with dice, the wearing of luxurious clothes, dancing, drunkenness, revelry, smoking and the wearing of wigs.” Nevertheless, such “precisianism” was not an end in itself. Rather, it was cultivated “in the face of the alleged worldliness then prevailing” and “as a means of sustaining and developing individual faith and conduct against spiritual shallowness.” [Note: Martin H. Prozesky, “The Emergence of Dutch Pietism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28 (1977):33.]

Secondly, the Nadere Reformatie is in fact the Dutch counterpart to English Puritanism (and in some senses, to the Scottish Covenanters). The link between these movements is strong, historically and especially theologically. [Note: For historical-theological connections between seventeenth-century English and Dutch Calvinism, see especially the writings of Keith Sprunger (Dutch Puritanism: A History of English and Scottish Churches of the Netherlands in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries [Leiden: Brill, 1982] and The Learned Doctor William Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism [Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1972]). Cf. MacMillan, “The Connection between 17th Century British and Dutch Calvinism,” in Not by Might nor by Power, 1988 Westminster Conference papers, pp. 22-31.] Keith Sprunger has documented that during the seventeenth century there was an English-Scottish community of Puritan persuasion numbering tens of thousands in the Netherlands, at one point consisting of more than forty congregations and 350 ministers. The Dutch government allowed them to organize churches and form an English Classis within the Dutch Reformed church. Cornelis Pronk rightly notes: The presence of so many English and Scottish Puritans was bound to have some influence upon the Dutch churches. Many Dutch Reformed ministers were impressed by the practical divinity of the English Puritans. They saw it as a healthy corrective to the dry intellectualistic sermonizing that was becoming the trend in their churches. [Note: “The Dutch Puritans,” Banner of Truth, nos. 154-55 (July-August, 1976):3.] And Douglas MacMillan summarizes:

Both Puritans and Covenanters were to interact very intimately with religious life in the Netherlands. This linking ... helps identify the point at which British and Dutch Calvinism had their closest contact. Both these great spiritual movements were concerned with Second Reformation issues and that concern was to shape the course of the 17th century in England and Scotland. Events there were, in turn, to reach deeply into the Netherlands, influencing its theology, deepening its spirituality, and linking it closely into the traumatic experiences of the British Church. We have to learn to look at the Second Reformation, not as a small, localized, Scottish, or even British, phenomenon but as a movement of international significance. [Note: “The Connection between 17th Century British and Dutch Calvinism,” in Not by Might nor by Power, p. 24. Willem Jan op ’t Hof also points out the influence of Dutch refugee congregations in England, noting that “it can be justifiably concluded that it is chiefly the Dutch congregations in England which are in the background of the Puritanization of spiritual life in the Netherlands” (Engelse pietistische geschriften in het Nederlands, 1598-1622 [Rotterdam: Lindenberg, 1987], p. 639).]

The divines of these groups held each other in high esteem. They influenced and enriched each other through personal contact and especially a vast array of translated writings, particularly from English into Dutch. [Note: “From 1598 to 1622 a total of 114 editions were issued of a total of 60 translations. These 60 translations concern works by ... twenty-two English authors. ... Two authors are numerically preeminent among them: Cowper (18 editions of 10 translations) and Perkins (71 editions of 29 translations). Indeed, Perkins alone eclipses all the others taken together. ... Auction catalogues show that Udemans possessed 20 Puritan books in Latin and 57 in English. Similarly, Voetius possessed 30 works in Latin and 270 in English. ... A rough estimate for the period from 1623-1699 gives 260 new translations, 580 editions and 100 new translators. Compared to the first quarter of a century of translational activity there is a considerable increase. ... The flow of translations continued unabated during the whole of the seventeenth century, which is amazing. For what one would have expected was for translations, after a period of taking firm root and of blossoming in the absence of similar originally Dutch writings, to become decreasingly popular by the middle of the century when the Dutch Pietistic writings began to appear in large numbers” (ibid., pp. 636-37, 640, 645).] More Reformed theological books were printed in seventeenth-century Netherlands than in all other countries combined. [Note: Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism, p. 307.] These movements embraced similar ideals and bore similar roles: to foster biblical and God-glorifying experiential piety and ethical precision in the life of individuals, churches, and the entire nation. Only England, however, had an opportunity to work out these ideals in full, during the Cromwellian years.

Thus, despite similar outlooks, these parallel movements did have and would develop historically and theologically distinctive identities. To call the Nadere Reformatie “Dutch Puritanism” denies the endemic nature of the Dutch movement. Hendrikus Berkhof provides too simplistic an analysis when he states that the Second Reformation resulted merely from “the practical piety of the English Calvinists blowing over to the Netherlands.” [Note: Geschiedenis der Kerk (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1955), p. 228.] Though English Puritanism was of primary influence on the Nadere Reformatie, as Willem Jan op ’t Hof has ably and perhaps exaggeratingly emphasized (particularly in stressing the need for a personal, domestic, and congregational lifestyle of experimental and practical godliness), [Note: Op ’t Hof reaches the following conclusions: “First, the influence of Puritanism was largely embodied in writings, either in English or translated into Dutch. This is not to say that, secondly, the significance of personal contacts is to be underestimated. This applies both to Dutchmen in England and to Puritans in the Netherlands. Thirdly, the impact of Puritanism is nearly exclusively confined to exponents of the Nadere Reforrnatie. Fourthly, these men, Voetius and J. Koelman for instance, were no uncritical recipients of Puritan ideas. In the fifth place, in the course of the seventeenth century Puritan influence began to manifest itself in some new ways. In both Koelman and M. du Bois this is shown in the area of spiritual (auto)biography and in Koelman’s case also in his resistance to fixed formularies. In the sixth place, most exponents of the Nadere Reforrnatie prove to have been substantially and in some cases even very decisively determined by the impact of Puritanism. In the seventh place, it was precisely the chief and the most influential exponents of the Nadere Reformatie who were most imbued with Puritanism. Finally, not only did Dutch devotional writers frankly confess their dependence on and orientation towards Puritans from England and Scotland, they also warmly recommended them and to the best of their ability promoted the reading of Puritan writings, which they also contributed significantly to by either undertaking translational activities themselves or stimulating others to do so. Having been nearly exclusively indebted to Puritanism for its rise and having been largely determined by it in its early period, the Nadere Reformatie during the whole of the seventeenth century remained exceedingly dependent on Puritanism. It is this dependence which explains why the large increase of Nadere Reformatie writings did not detract from the need of and the demand for Puritan works, either in English or translated into Dutch. The dependence was so great that the peak years of the Nadere Reforrnatie, 1650-1670, coincide with those of the Dutch translations of Puritan writings” (Engelse pietistische geschriften in het Nederlands, 1598-1622, pp. 645-46; also, pp. 583-97, 627-35). Cf. Cornelis Graafland, “De Invloed van het Puritanisme op het Ontstaan van het Gereformeerd Pietisme in Nederland,” Docurnentatieblad Nadere Refonnatie 7, 1 (1983):1-19. Graafland also details influences on preaching, the art of meditation, casuistry, covenanting, the administration of the Lord’s Supper, and eschatology.] it was not an exclusive influence, for the Dutch movement was coupled with other non-English factors. [Note: Ibid., pp. 2, 15-16.] In fact, in some respects the Dutch movement was more Puritan-Reformed than English Puritanism itself: In England from an orthodox Reformed perspective, for all but a short period under Cromwell, there were always grossly unbiblical things to fight: the presence of bishops, superstitious rites in the Book of Common Prayer, vestments, etc. In the Netherlands none of these were present, and the task was all the more subtle. Defenders of the status quo were not so clearly unreformed as in England. In this context the true spirit of Puritanism came to the fore. [Note: Gerstner, Thousand Generation Covenant, pp. 77-78.]

Despite similar emphases, English Puritanism and the Nadere Reformatie differed from each other in significant ways. Generally speaking, Dutch Second Reformation divines were less interested in reforming the government and organization of the church (as long as the church was not controlled by the state) than were their English brethren. Theological emphases also varied at times; this work has shown that variations existed between these groups on the doctrine of assurance. [Note: Beeke, Assurance of Faith, pp. 369-370.] The Dutch were more inclined to emphasize theology as a science, whereas the English emphasized the practical aspects of theology. [Note: Pronk, The Banner of Truth, nos. 154-55 (July-August, 1976):6. Gerstner explains: “As orthodox Reformed in their doctrine as the English Puritans were, they were primarily pastors, not formal theologians. Thus one finds a remarkable scarcity of systematic theologies. Dutch Reformed thought while retaining a strong emphasis on the pulpit, produced a remarkable number of theological works, the majority addressed to the average person. Catechism preaching was perhaps part of the reason, but it seems they possessed a greater tendency towards system building. So the Continuing Reformation pastor strove for his parishioner’s conversion, and at the same time to make him a dogmatician” (Thousand Generation Covenant, p. 78). Sprunger notes that Ames found the Dutch somewhat too intellectual and not sufficiently practical, and therefore promoted Puritan piety “in an effort to make Dutchmen into Puritans” (The Learned Doctor Ames: Dutch Backgrounds of English and American Puritanism, p. 260). Cf. Hugo Visscher, Guilielmus Amesius, Zijn Leven en Werken (Haarlem: J. M. Stap, 1894).] These variations are not respected sufficiently when the Dutch movement is collapsed too fully into the English by the use of “Dutch Puritanism.” [Note: This term has been used more accurately to depict English-speaking Puritan churches in the Netherlands (cf. Douglas Campbell, The Puritan in Holland, England and America, 4th ed., 2 vols. [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1892]; Sprunger, Dutch Puritanism; T. Brienen, De prediking van de Nadere Reformatie [Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1974]). Van der Linde prefers “English Puritanism in the Netherlands” to “Dutch Puritanism,” since the English Puritans in the Netherlands confined themselves largely to their own circles (cf. "Jean Taffin: eerste pleiter voor ’Nadere Reformatie’ in Nederland,” Theologia Reformata 25 [1982]: 6ff.). Moreover, the problem of using “English Puritanism” is compounded by the complexities of defining Puritanism itself (Beeke, Assurance of Faith, pp. 129-30n).] As Jonathan Neil Gerstner concludes: To notice a similar role between two movements does not imply that one is dependent on the other. Even if English thought had given the initial impetus to the Continuing Reformation, it does not follow that its success was not due to similar ideas present in the Netherlands. [Note: Thousand Generation Covenant, p. 77.]

“Dutch Pietism” might appear at first to be an acceptable alternative to represent the Nadere Reformatie. Its usage has been the most widespread, [Note: “The word ’Pietist’ originally indicated ’an affected and indeed feigned kind of righteousness.’ So K. D. Schmidt, Grundriss der Kirchengeschichte, 5th ed., Gottingen 1967, p. 416. M. Schmidt reports that the term became established after J. Feller, Professor of Poetry at Leipzig, used it with favourable connotations in two popular verses in 1689. See M. Schmidt, ’Pietismus’ in Die Religion in geschichte and Gegenwart, 3rd ed., Tubingen 1961, v. col. 374” (Prozesky, “The Emergence of Dutch Pietism, “Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28 [1977]:29-37).] underscoring that the Nadere Reformatie was pietistic in many respects. Problems with this term, however, also exist. (1) Calling the Dutch movement Pietism suggests too strongly an intimate German connection. [Note: Stoeffler (The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, which attempts to define “Pietism” as embracing English Puritanism, the Dutch Second Reformation, and German Pietism, pp. 123) and James Tanis (Dutch Calvinistic Pietism in the Middle Colonies: A Study in the Life and Theology of Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen [The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1967] and “The Heidelberg Catechism in the Hands of the Calvinistic Pietists,” Reformed Review 24 [1970-71]:154-61) follow German church historians in using the term, “Dutch Pietism,” notably Heinrich Heppe (Geschichte des Pietismus and der Mystik in der Reforrnierten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande [Leiden: Brill, 1879]) and Albrecht Ritschl (Geschichte des Pietismus, 3 vols. [Bonn: Marcus, 1880-86]). For the influence of German Pietism on the Dutch Second Reformation, see Graafland, “De Gereformeerde Orthodoxie en het Pietisme in Nederland,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 19 (1965):466-79; J. Steven O’Malley, Pilgrimage of Faith: The Legacy of the Otterbeins (Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1973); Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism. Cf. Martin H. Prozesky, “The Emergence of Dutch Pietism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28 (1977):28-37; Willem Balke, “Het Pietisme in Oostfriesland,” Theologia Reformata 21 (1978):308-27.] Moreover, the Nadere Reformatie predates Spener’s initial appeal for reform by nearly half a century and became a more extensive movement than German Pietism. (2) Pietism in German Lutheranism came to be regarded as being largely concerned with the believer’s inner life rather than with transforming society, whereas most Nadere Reformatie divines were dedicated also to the latter. [Note: S. van der Linde, Vromen en Verlichten: Twee eeuwen Protestantse Geloofsbeleving 1650-1850 (Utrecht: Aartsbisschoppelijk Museum Utrecht, 1974), p. 2; Gerstner, Thousand Generation Covenant, p. 76.] (3) Pietism is usually regarded as a protest against rational Protestant scholastic theology and doctrinal precision, whereas many Nadere Reformatie divines were formulators of Reformed orthodoxy and meticulous doctrinal analysts:

Gisbertus Voetius is generally acknowledged as both the greatest Dutch Reformed scholastic theologian and one of the greatest representatives of the Continuing Reformation. Pietism as it would later develop would more and more show marked antipathy for all but the most simple doctrinal concepts. ... Pietism was ready to embrace and work with all other believers who strove after a godly life, regardless of their confession. Zinzendorf tried to bring all churches together ignoring theological differences. The Continuing Reformation, on the contrary, was on the polemical forefront against theological errors, seeing the divisions within Protestantism as far from irrelevant. William Ames, one of the direct links between English Puritanism and the Dutch Continuing Reformation called Lutherans heretics. When Pietism appeared on the continent, leaders of Dutch Continuing Reformation like Wilhelmus à Brakel attacked the movement. [Note: Ibid., p. 76. According to Graafland, Dutch Second Reformation divines were united in emphasizing the importance of doctrine. Many of them (including even the Teellincks and the Brakels) viewed themselves as being free from “scholasticizing” in formulating doctrine, but nevertheless did frequently utilize scholastic terms and methodology, as is abundantly evident in this translation of De Redelijke Godsdienst. Flexibility and variety in terms of scholastic methodology were welcomed. Unlike German Pietists, none of the Second Reformation divines would subscribe to today’s popular charges against Reformed scholasticism as being cold and irrelevant. Even Cocceius, known for his approach of biblical theology in a covenantal matrix, used a substantial amount of scholastic methodology. In fact, Gerstner subtitles the Voetian-Cocceian controversy, “The Battle of Two Scholastic Systems” (ibid, pp. 68-75). Richard Muller’s conclusions relative to Reformed scholasticism (see Beeke, Assurance of Faith, p. 5n) hold true also for the Dutch Second Reformation divines. Cf. Charles McCoy, “The Covenant Theology of Johannes Cocceius” (Ph. D. dissertation, Yale, 1957); H. B. Visser, De Geschiedenis van den Sabbatstrijd onder de Gereforrneerden in de Zeventiende Eeuw (Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon, 1939); T. N. Hanekam, ed., Ons Nederduitse Gereforrneerde Kerk (Kaapstad, 1952), p. 210; Prozesky, “The Emergence of Dutch Pietism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28 (1977):31ff.; H. Faulenbach, Weg and Zell; der Erkenntnis Christi. Eine Untersuchung zur Theologie des Johannes Cocceius (Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973); Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, pp. 113-15; C. Vogelaar, “The ’Unknown’ Voetius Remembered,” The Banner of Truth 55 (1989):182-83.]

Confusing misconceptions arise when the term “Pietism” is used to describe the Second Reformation, for these terms represent distinct movements which vary in a number of important senses. [Note: “Deze termen suggereren een fundamentele eenheid, terwijl in werkelijkheid een zeer gedifferentieerde beweging voor ons staat met fundamentele verschillen in allerlei opzicht” (van der Linde, "Jean Taffin: eerste pleiter voor ’Nadere Reformatie’ in Nederland,” Theologia Reformata 25 [19821:7; see also p. 28n). Cf. C. Vogelaar, “The Second or ’Further’ Reformation,” The Banner of Truth 52 (1986):40-41.] German Pietism, English Puritanism, and the Dutch Second Reformation had much in common. Each was rooted deeply in the sixteenth-century Reformation and longed for more thorough reform; yet each movement retained a distinct historical, theological, and spiritual character. [Note: W. van ’t Spijker, “De Nadere Reformatie,” in De Nadere Reformatie: Beschrijving van Naar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers, pp. 6-16.] The Essence of the Dutch Second Reformation

Several additional factors also served to promote the emergence of the Dutch Second Reformation. After the Reformation in the Netherlands, strenuous efforts were made to replace the Roman Catholic Church with the Reformed Church as an inclusive people’s church (volkskerk). During the Reformation, one-tenth of the population held membership in the Reformed church. By the end of the seventeenth century more than sixty percent of the Dutch population were members of the Reformed Church which possessed a “preferred status” (bevoorrechte) with the government. [Note: “While they were not really state churches, they were folk churches. In such a church the tendency always exists to become so closely identified with the prevailing culture that its message becomes little more than a lifeless reiteration of prevailing values. This was overwhelmingly the case in the Reformed churches of the Netherlands ... during the seventeenth century. Preaching was largely a matter of setting forth correct theological dogmas and generally accepted middle class virtues. ... Any attempt to move in the direction of the spirituality and ethics of the New Testament was decried as ’precisianism’ or worse” (Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, pp. 115-16).] The church’s success in acquiring external growth, however, had dire consequences for spiritual life. Abraham Kuyper claimed that this additional fifty percent of the population which flooded into the church ruined its Reformed distinctiveness: “From that moment on it was impossible to maintain church discipline.” [Note: E Voto Dordraceno (Amsterdam: Hoveker & Wormser, 1905), 3:215.] It became easy to confuse being anti-Catholic with being Reformed. Nominal church membership and loose living became fashionably acceptable. Spiritual and ethical sterility grew rampantly, particularly when combined with newfound prosperity. The United East-India Company, formed in 1602, and other Dutch industry ushered in a period of unparalleled affluence. The majority were inclined to live for this life rather than for the world to come. Moreover, the state increasingly interfered in church matters and church discipline. [Note: Jacobus Koelman, for example, “opposed governmental interference in church life on several fronts. He rejected the government’s right to call ministers and to select elders and deacons. He fought against its low view of Christian living and its lack of maintaining Christian discipline in conjunction with the administration of the sacraments. And he staunchly opposed the use of read forms and the observance of church feast days” U. R. Beeke, “Jacobus Koelman,” The Banner of Truth 55 [1989]:27).] The state controlled the universities where Reformed ministers were being trained under the increasing influence of Rationalism, particularly the philosophy of Descartes and Spinoza.

These spiritual, social, and intellectual conditions existed in sharp tension with historic Dutch Calvinism which was intrinsically oriented toward sound doctrine and piety. The Calvinism of the Canons of Dort stood in marked contrast to the spirit of the age. Moreover, the stipulations the Synod of Dort had laid down with regard to the supervision of pastors, professors, and theological writings were not being followed. All of these circumstances, combined with the influence of English Puritanism, German Pietism, the Genevan reform, [Note: Genevan input came particularly through Jean Taffin, who studied under Calvin and Beza, and whose views are similar to those of the Teellincks, who were primarily influenced by English Puritanism. Balke feels that op ’t Hof minimizes Taffin’s influence in order to emphasize the role of the Teellincks in the Second Reformation (W. J. op ’t Hof, De Bibliografie van Eewout Teellinck [Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 1988]; W. J. op ’t Hof, C. A. de Niet, H. Uil, Eewout Teellinck in handschriften [Kampen: De Groot Goudriaan, 1989]). Cf. Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, p. 116; van der Linde, "Jean Taffin: eerste pleiter voor ’Nadere Reformatie’ in Nederland,” Theologia Reformata 25 (1982):6-29.] and native Dutch influences (e.g., medieval mysticism, [Note: Graafland, “De invloed van het Puritanisme op het ontstaan van het Gereformeerd Pietisme in Nederland,” Document atieblad Nadere Reformatie 7 (1983):11-12; op ’t Hof, Engelse pietistische geschriften in het Nederlands, 1598-1622, pp. 599-600, 640.] the Devotio Moderna, and Anabaptism [Note: Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, pp. 118ff. The Devotio Moderna was “a devotional movement of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries chiefly associated with the Brethren of the Common Life; their founder, Gerard Groote; and their best-known writer, Thomas a Kempis” (P. H. Davids, “Devotio Moderna,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. by Walter Elwell [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984], p. 317). Cf. R. R. Post, The Modern Devotion (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968); T. P. van Zip, Gerard Groote, Ascetic and Reformer (1340-1384) (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of American Press, 1963); Albert Hyma, The Brethren of the Common Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950). With regard to Anabaptism, op ’t Hof concludes that the Second Reformation “was one of the answers to the Anabaptist reproach that Reformed doctrine did not lead to sanctity of life” (Engelse pietist ische geschriften in het Nederlands, 1598-1622, pp. 640-41; cf., pp. 606-607.).] -- each of which emphasized sanctification), gave rise to the Dutch Second Reformation and its protest against the laxity of the age. Reflecting the concern of the Second Reformation, P. de Witte wrote, “Oh times, oh morals! What do parents do but bring up their children to become the prey of all kinds of seductive spirits, such as the papists, Anabaptists, Arminians, and libertines? Yes, even to become the booty of the devil, to be the heirs of eternal damnation and the firewood of hell.” [Note: Dedication of his Catechesatie over den Heidelbergschen Catechismus (which underwent thirty printings in the seventeenth century!), cited in W. Verboom, De Catechese van de Reformatie en de Nadere Reformatie (Amsterdam: Buijten en Schipperheijn, 1986), p. 251.] The Dutch Second Reformation was a movement that arose out of the ashes of the burning expectation which had moved the early Reformers. Also the early Second Reformation divines envisioned a theocratic society and an ideal church in which the bulk of the population would be involved in personal and communal renewal. Reference was frequently made to the unbreakableness of a “three-fold cord,” consisting of God, the Netherlands, and the House of Orange. But the vision that the Netherlands would yet become “the New Israel of the West” in society and church life proved to be an unattainable ideal. The post-Reformers lived to view the failure of that dream. They faced the painful reality that the majority of parishioners had not become more spiritual as a result of the Reformation. To their followers, many of whom found conventicles (gezelschappen) [Note: In the Second Reformation a desire for intimate Christian fellowship led to the development of “gatherings of the godly” in private homes to expound the Scriptures and to speak about spiritual truths in relation to the experimental leadings of God with His people. These became called gezelschappen (literally, “fellowships”) in the Netherlands. “Fellowship,” however, does not fully convey the Dutch meaning of gezelschap. Consequently, gezelschap is usually translated as “conventicle,” the term ascribed to parallel meetings in Scotland. (In English Puritanism such meetings were known as prophesyings and in German Pietism as collegiae pietatis.) Only in Scotland were conventicles more successful as a whole than in the Netherlands due largely to closer supervision by the presbytery on a long-term basis. In the Netherlands gezelschappen were also spiritually beneficial to many and were closely supervised for a time, but on occasion they turned into unsupervised, elitist groups which promoted critical assessment of sermons and highly introspective lifestyles (cf. van’t Spijker, “De Nadere Reformatie,” in De Nadere Reformatie: Beschrijving van Naar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers, p. 14). Stoeffler notes that conventicles were accepted by Second Reformation divines “as legitimate in many places. Voetius had recommended them and various ecclesiastical bodies among the Reformed churches had passed legislation to regulate them. They had started out as private meetings presided over by the pastor and held either on Sunday afternoon or on a weekday evening. The activities included singing, the reading of Scripture, discussion of a portion of Scripture, discussion of the sermon, and prayer. Gradually, however, they came close to being ecclesiolae in ecclesia, or small churches within the territorial church. While membership in the latter was based upon baptism and confirmation, conversion was considered the basic condition for acceptability within the ecclesiolae. Thus the conventicle in Pietistic practice developed into a closely knit religious fellowship” (The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, p. 160). “The use of conventicles is instructive inasmuch as they were necessary adjuncts of the church where people could experience God in small group encounter. In these intimate fellowships discussion and other sharing was possible so that believers felt the presence of the Holy Spirit and were edified. Whereas the history of pietism has portrayed these ’holy clubs’ as more bane than blessing, in the Netherlands, and also in the New World, they were often a creative instrument in the strengthening of personal relationships between God and his people and within the community as a whole. The ’communion of saints’ is a necessity and, if the church in its ordinary ministry does not effect it, extraordinary measures must be taken. The use of conventicles was an extraordinary measure and one which proved its merit. When opened to all who desired to come, they became even more beneficial to the Christian community” (Osterhaven, “The Experiential Theology of Early Dutch Calvinism,” Reformed Review 27 [19741:189).] more spiritually edifying than formal worship, the church was no longer the communion of saints, but at best a very mixed multitude and at worst a “Babylon” or an “Egypt.” Jodocus van Lodenstein’s assessment of the Reformed church in his day is typical of that of later Second Reformation divines: “Babylon of Babylons, a thousand times worse than that of the Papacy because of the light that she had but did not rightly use.” [Note: J. van Lodensteyn’s Negen Predicatien, ed. by Evarardus van der Hooght (Rotterdam: Gebr. Huge, n.d.), p. 197; cf. ibid., pp. 152ff.] The church seems “more deformed than reformed,” he lamented. “There is no practicing of the truth, but a parroting of the words of the catechism is all that one finds among Reformed people.” [Note: Pieter Proost, Jodocus van Lodenstein (Amsterdam: J. Brandt en Zoon, 1880), pp. 133-34.] Another prominent Second Reformation divine, Bernardus Smytegelt complained:

There are few converted preachers. Many of them are lazy idlers, vain fops.... Among external professors you will find much chaff and hardly a grain of wheat. There are heaps of external professors, and are they not indifferent and ungodly? What are they like in the families? Dear man! Do you not know how scarce pious parents are? How rare it is to find a godly mother or grandmother! How unusual to find a pious servant or maid! How unusual to find godliness among children as with Timothy! ... How few are acquainted with the Bible! How few use the Bible regularly in the home! How few pray with each other, teach each other, and seek to lead each other toward heaven! [Note: Des Christens Eenige Troost in Leven en Sterven, of Verklaringe over den Heidelbergschen Catechismus in LII Predicatien; Benevens V Belydenis-Predicatien (Middelburg: Ottho en Pieter van Thol, Den Haag, en A. L. en M. H. Callenfels, 1747), p. 336.]

Consequently, in opposition to sin and complacency, an urgent, zealous call went out for fresh personal, church, [Note: For the ecclesiology of the Second Reformation, see S. van der Linde, Opgang en voortgang der reformatie (Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1976), pp. 189-200.] and societal reform: The scriptural appeal for sanctification must be zealously pursued; Reformation doctrine must be lived.

S. van der Linde, a leading Dutch scholar on the Second Reformation, rightly affirms that the movement must not be equated with “non-dogmatical” (ondogmatisch) Christendom; rather, its goal was to join doctrine (leer) to the whole of daily life (leven): The Second Reformation ... is not at all a-dogmatic or anti-dogmatic. It only desires that dogma be experienced as spirit and life.... [Note: “De Godservaring bij W. Teellinck, D. G. a Brake] en A. Comrie,” Theologia Reformata 16 (1973):205.]

The protest of the Second Reformation is not primarily against dogmatism as engendering a quenching of the Spirit, but much more against a certain vitalism as well as secularism whereby one observes the Spirit as being grieved. [Note: “Het Werk van de Heilige Geest in de Gemeente: Een appreciatie van de Nadere Reformatie,” Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift 10 (1956):3.] Elsewhere van der Linde expands these concerns and notes: The Second Reformation sides entirely with the Reformation and levels criticism not so much against the reformata (the church which is reformed), but rather against the reformanda (the church which needs to be reformed). [Note: “De betekenis van de Nadere Reformatie voor Kerk en Theologie,” Kerk en Theologie 5 (1954):216.]

Moreover, though the Second Reformation is preeminently concerned with spiritual life (geestelijk leven) and experience (bevindelijk), so that a heavy accent falls on the practice of piety (praxis pietatis; praktijk dergodzaligheid) and even on precision (preciesheid), there is notwithstanding an array of emphases: In Voetius we have the church-organizer, in Ames a very original theologian, in Teellinck and Brakel, divines of practical religion, and in Lodensteyn and Saldenus, the men of “mysticism,” cross-bearing, and meditation upon the life to come. [Note: Ibid., p. 218.]

Despite diversity, however, van der Linde concludes that there is an underlying element of “precision” in the Second Reformation which is inseparable from a fervent desire to counteract prevailing impiety with a piety which “consciously consecrates all of life to God.” [Note: Het Gereformerde Protestantisme (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1957), p. 9.]

Several attempts have been made to define the core of the Dutch Second Reformation as a logical development from and application of the Reformation proper. [Note: Gerstner provides the following summary: “The movement viewed itself as a continuation of the first Reformation, indeed not as significant as the first one.... [Its] task was to apply these truths. Worship had to be purified so that only what was prescribed in God’s word would stand. The State was constantly usurping the authority and even the material goods of the church. Above all the gospel must not be only intellectually understood, but people must be converted to saving faith through the preaching of the Word. They must also be instructed in the truths of God’s Word and brought more and more closely in communion with him ethically and devotionally. One’s time must be used for the glory of God. One’s work must be seen as a calling to glorify God and the Roman Catholic idea of ’time-killing’ recreations had to be rejected. Thus this Continuing Reformation was seen as consistently applying the truths of the first” (Thousand Generation Covenant, pp. 75-76). Cf. J. R. Beeke, "’Nadere Reformatie,’" in Making Confession and Then...” by A. Hoogerland (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), pp. 85-88.] Herman Witsius emphasized that the motto, “the Reformed church needs to be ever reforming” (ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda) applies only to the church’s life and not to doctrine since Reformation doctrine was established as foundational truth. Every Second Reformation divine was convinced he was following his Reformed forebears and upholding Reformed orthodoxy, although some pointed out defects in the Reformation era, usually centering around the fact that the Reformation divines were also sons of their time. For example, Teellinck gently chides the Reformers for being more concerned with the reformation of doctrine than of life, with justification than sanctification. [Note: “Cornelis Graafland, “Kernen en contouren van de Nadere Reformatie,” in De Nadere Reformatie: Beschrzjving van Naar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers, al., pp. 351-52.]

Consequently, Heinrich Heppe defines the Second Reformation as “a striving for the completion of the church reformation of the sixteenth century (as being a mere reform of doctrine) by way of a revival of piety or by a reformation of life.” [Note: “Geschichte des Pietismus and der Mystik in der Reformierten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande, p. 6.] Johannes Hofmeyr concludes:

Although this movement also had other spiritual fathers, it can be contended that the central thrust of the Second Reformation (which involves a personal spiritual piety, an articulated ecclesiology and a theocratic outlook on society) is broadly derived from Calvin. It should therefore be regarded not as a correction but as a development of the Reformation. [Note: “The Doctrine of Calvin as Transmitted in the South African Context by Among Others the Oude Schrijvers,” in Calvinus Reformator: His contribution to Theology, Church and Society, p. 260.] J. van Genderen enlarges these concepts: By this term, Nadere Reformatie, we mean a movement in the 17th century which was a reaction against dead orthodoxy and [the] secularization of Christianity in the Church of the Reformation and which insisted on the practise of faith. This may also be called a special form of Pietism, because the central idea is the “praxis pietatis.” The origin of the pietistic trend lies in England and the father of Puritan Pietism [who] was William Perkins. Via Willem Teellinck and Guilielmus Amesius a direct influence on a kindred movement in Holland ensued. To this movement belong the Teellincks, Voetius, Van Lodenstein, Saldenus, the two Brakels, and especially also Witsius. This movement is not meant as a correction of the Reformation but as the consequence of it. The background of the conspicuous preciseness is the desire to serve God fully according to His will. [Note: “Herman Witsius: Bijdrage tot de Kennis der Gereformeerde Theologie (’s-Gravenhage: Guido de Bres, 1953), p. 264; cf. pp. 220-25 for an exposition of this summary.]

Cornelis Graafland, another leading Dutch scholar on the Second Reformation, refers to it as a movement “which turned against the generally poor conditions prevailing in the Reformed church ... to achieve a radical and complete sanctification of all facets of life.”

Graafland describes the movement as a “deepening and broadening of the sixteenth-century Reformation.” [Note: “De Nadere Reformatie en haar culturele context,” in Met het woord in de Tijd, ed. by L. Westland (’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1985), pp. 117-38.]

Another attempt to express the heart of the Second Reformation is that of P. B. van der Watt, [Note: Die Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk, 1652-1824 (Pretoria: N. G. Kerkboekhandel, 1976), 1:83.] which is paraphrased by Hofmeyr as follows:

[The Second Reformation] revolted against the unspiritual state of the nation, ministers, and congregations. They plead also for a personal commitment to Christ. The experienced and tested religion is to them of central importance. Although nothing is done to undermine the church, the office, the sacrament, and the covenant, they regard rebirth as the priority. They also assume a reasonably strong Puritan point of view. They plead for the observance of the Sabbath and the carrying out of the demands of the Lord. The church must be pure and should be cleansed of all that is unholy. Finally, they had a high regard for the Scriptures and for the Heidelberg Catechism. [Note: “The Doctrine of Calvin as Transmitted in the South African Context by Among Others the Oude Schrzjvers,” in Calvinus Reformator: His contribution to Theology, Church and Society, p. 262. Hofmeyr’s own pejorative assessment of the Second Reformation surfaces most strongly when he asserts that the writings of the “old writers” (oude schrijvers) reveal that “subjective experience is stressed ... at the cost of objective truth and the truth of the Holy Spirit” (ibid., p. 263). Derk Visser feels that most scholars of the Second Reformation give too much prominence to a small group of Reformed clergy and to the post-Dort decades: “For if the battle against the ’-isms’ of the 1600s [e.g., Remonstrantism, Cartesianism, Cocceianism, Labadism, JRB] was fought without the aid of the Heidelberg Catechism and Ursinus’s Exposition, the Heidelberg had been the norm of correct doctrine before, though it continued to produce a large catechetical literature” (cf. the bibliography in Verboom, De Catechese van de Reformatie en de Nadere Reformatie, pp. 356-66).]

Finally, a definition of the Second Reformation was formulated in 1983 by the group of scholars responsible for Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie: This movement within the “Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk,” while opposing generally prevailing abuses and misconceptions and pursuing the broadening and progressive advancement of the sixteenth-century Reformation, urges and strives with prophetic zeal for both the inner experience of Reformed doctrine and personal sanctification, as well as the radical and total sanctification of all spheres of life. [Note: Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie 7 (1983):109.]

Despite these somewhat oversimplified generalizations of the versatile Dutch Second Reformation, its complexity is not to be underestimated. Graafland points out that the Second Reformation had no organizational structure beyond a strong feeling of spiritual kinship existing among its divines. At times this led to small organized circles such as the so-called “Utrecht Circle” under the leadership of Voetius or to programs for action such as those promoted by Willem Teellinck and Jacobus Koelman. For the most part, however, each Second Reformation divine brought the message of the necessity of reform to his own parishioners. The contours of this call to reform naturally took on distinctive shapes in each locality and generation. [Note: Graafland, “Kernen en contouren van de Nadere Reformatie,” in De Nadere Reformatie: Beschrzjving van haar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers, p. 350.]

Due to this lack of organization and an increasing emphasis on internal, experiential life, the Second Reformation’s initial call to action in every sphere of life diminished rapidly. [Note: Balke is of the opinion that this spirit of religious-social activism only applies to the prologue of the Second Reformation. For the Second Reformation on mission work, see van der Linde, “De Nadere Reformatie en de zending,” Theologia Reformata 10 (1967):5-16.] For example, in its earlier, so-called classical period, the Second Reformation strongly opposed a state-dominated church and worked strenuously for the church’s independence. Due to opposition from both the government and citizens, however, the classical Second Reformation could not retain this position. Anabaptist tendencies towards isolation increased with time. Various sub-movements, such as the Labadists, tended to withdraw from civil and church affairs, and became separatists, but continued to bear substantial influence on the larger movement. [Note: The Labadists, followers of Jean de Labadie (1610-1674), promoted a Dutch separatistic sect in an attempt to establish “a congregation of the truly regenerate.” Their decidedly separatist ecclesiology precipitated a deep crisis in the Dutch church. Cf. Heppe, Geschichte des Pietismus and der Mystik in der Reformierten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande, pp. 240-374; Otto Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantisrnus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908), 1:194-268; Goeters, Die Vorbereitung des Pietismus in der reformierten Kirche der Niederlande, pp. 139-286; Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, pp. 162-69; G. Frank, "Jean de Labadie, Labadists,” in The New Schaff-Herzog Encylopedia of Religious Knowledge 6:390-91; C. Graafland, “De Nadere Reformatie en het Labadisme,” in De Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerd Pietisme, pp. 275-346.] Though few Second Reformation pietists condoned separatism, [Note: Brakel issued strong warnings against separatistic pietists and their denigration of the church. The Second Reformation divines were church loyalists, not separatists, who sought to bring the apostate church back to God.] numerous conventicles (gezelschappen) were formed for the nourishing of spiritual life. Gradually the Second Reformation became increasingly reminiscent of the Devotio Modern in its emphasis on thorough separation from the unredeemed world. This is exemplified in a comparison of Willem Teellinck and Wilhelmus Schortinghuis (1700-1750; renowned for his Het Innige Christendom [Inner Christianity]) as typical early and late representatives of the movement: For Teellinck the experience of the heart remained central, but then as a center which penetrated a wide area, including not only the family and the congregation, but also the entire church and nation, politics inclusive. For Schortinghuis subjective experience is the fort to which the believer withdraws himself from the world and even from the congregation around him. [Note: Graafland, “Kernen en contouren van de Nadere Reformatie,” p. 350. Cf. John Bolt, “The Imitation of Christ Theme in the Cultural-Ethical Ideal of Herman Bavinck” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of St. Michael’s College, 1982), p. 55.]

These differences must not be exaggerated, however, for Teellinck also displayed elements of internal withdrawal, as did other early Second Reformation proponents such as Koelman and Lodenstein, [Note: Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, p. 144.] whereas van der Groe, often considered the last representative of the movement, strongly emphasized church and social life as a whole, including the political context. [Note: Graafland, “Kernen en contouren van de Nadere Reformatie,” pp. 350-51.] Van der Linde concludes:

Most of those who can be considered representative of the Second Reformation, being promoters of a theocratic structure as far as the relationship between church and state are concerned, are open for that which is not so purely spiritual, such as the political state. [Note: “De Godservaring bij W. Teellinck, D. G. à Brakel en A. Comrie,” Theologia Reformata 16 (1973):198.]

Generally speaking, the complex Dutch Second Reformation focused on a variety of major themes. In summarizing the movement, Graafland addresses the following contours: election, regeneration, sanctification, the family and the congregation, the church, creation and natural theology, eschatology, and theocracy. [Note: Graafland, “Kernen en contouren van de Nadere Reformatie,” pp. 354-65.] Through promoting a pious lifestyle and a theocratic concept of all social relationships based on family worship, the parish, and the church as a whole, the Second Reformation aimed to establish and enforce moral and spiritual discipline in all spheres of life. Second Reformation sermons addressed all of these mostly active themes, but simultaneously stressed the fall of Adam, the natural man’s inability to aspire to good, the absolute sovereignty of divine predestination and grace, dependence upon God, the necessity of adequate conviction of sin, the experience of conversion, and the simplicity of true worship. [Note: The emphasis on personal experience frequently led to a decrease in communicant members, especially in the latter part of the Second Reformation. (Willem Balke, “Het Pietisme in Oostfriesland,” Theologia Reformata 21 [1978]:324). Cf. Arie Blok, “The Heidelberg Catechism and the Dutch Nadere Reformatie,” pp. 47ff.] C. Vogelaar’s summaries of the content of the preaching of Bernardus Smytegelt (1665-1739) and Johannes Beukelman (1704-1757), are typical particularly of the later period of the Second Reformation: In [Smytegelt’s] sermons much emphasis was laid on the practice of godliness, on the holy duties of Christians, on the life of God’s people and on the frames of their hearts, as well as their experiences of light and darkness, the leading and operation of the Holy Spirit, and giving instructions and directions to the godly. [Note: “Bernardus Smytegelt: Spiritual Advisor of God’s Children,” The Banner of Truth 53 (1987):210. Smytegelt lists 296 marks of the godly life in preaching 145 sermons onMatthew 12:20-21(Het Gekrookte Riet, 2 vols. [’s-Gravenhage: Ottho en Pieter van Thol, 1744]).]

In his sermons [Beukelman] applied the message to his hearers: revealing clearly the false, sandy foundations of the nominal Christians, proclaiming plainly our misery and total depravity, recommending especially the way of reconciliation with God in Christ, bringing the sincere invitations and callings of the gospel, encouraging the concerned souls of true seekers of God, showing unto the godly ones the causes for their little progress in faith and sanctification, and also giving the right means to make their calling and election sure -- and to live in true sanctification in the fear of God’s Name and to His honor. [Note: Johannes Beukelman: A Clear Teacher of the Truth,” The Banner of Truth 53 (1987):264-65.]

Thus, the preaching of the Second Reformation emphasized experiential theology, which M. Eugene Osterhaven has defined as “that broad stream of Reformed teaching which, accepting the creeds of the church, emphasized the new birth, the conversion, and the sanctification of the believer so that he might acquire an experiential or personal knowledge of Christ’s saving grace.” [Note: “The Experiential Theology of Early Dutch Calvinism,” Reformed Review 27 (1974):180.] External religion, orthodox doctrine, sound theological propositions are all insufficient for salvation; feeling, experience, spiritual warfare, and genuine prayer are essential for faith and practice. The “head” knowledge of doctrine, albeit necessary, must be accompanied by the “heart” knowledge of scriptural experience:

There were some, of course, who carried the emphasis on feeling, on intense religious experience of an emotional nature, to dangerous lengths, but most Reformed pietists stopped far short of making that the norm. The norm is Scripture alone but, they held, as the Frisian Catechism put it, that “true faith demands an experiential knowledge, emerging from a conviction and an experiencing of God’s Spirit, and conforming to the word of truth.” [Note: Ibid., pp. 183-84.] For Second Reformation adherents, “formal Christianity, by which they meant a Christianity exhausting itself in externals, was only slightly better than none at all. For that reason they, like the mystics before them, emphasized the primacy of the inward response to God.” [Note: Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, p. 14.] Hence struggles of faith held a central place. [Note: Van der Linde, “De betekenis van de Nadere Reformatie voor Kerk en Theologie,” in Opgang en voortgang der reformatie, p. 146.] With regard to assurance of faith, the Second Reformation as a whole not only emphasized the promises of God and the witness of the Spirit, but also increasingly accentuated the syllogisms, making a transition from the syllogismus practicus in the classical period to the syllogismus mysticus in the later period. [Note: Graafland, “Van syllogismus practices naar syllogismus mysticus,” in Wegen en Gestalten in het Gereformeerd Protestantisme, pp. 105-122.] Graafland and van der Linde are sharply critical of this transition, but the latter fails to note that also the mystical syllogism is inseparable from the enlightening of the Spirit:

Rather than seeking assurance in the Spirit, i.e., in the promise of the gospel and thus not in ourselves, the “marks of grace” have come upon the scene. It is difficult to view them with anything but pity since they yield so much melancholy and uncertainty. It is thus obvious that one believes to honor the Spirit the most by seeking assurance of faith and salvation primarily in the so-called mystical syllogism, i.e., that one endeavors to draw the conclusion that he is indeed a true Christian due to being acquainted with mystical, inner stirrings and emotions of which a worldly person has no knowledge.... Our Heidelberg Catechism does as yet have the courage to state that we can be assured of our sonship by our good works as being fruits of faith. In the course of Reformed tradition this practical syllogism has increasingly fallen into abeyance. This did not only occur in conjunction with a turning away from all that is external in order only to deem “internal” matters as being spiritual and valid (incorrectly in our opinion), but also due to a fear for hypocrisy when considering how our “pious flesh” is capable of adorning itself....

We are without expectation as far as the syllogismus mysticus is concerned. If this is not conjoined to the external practice of faith, there will be nothing to hold on to for the man who is genuinely in need.... His only certainty is definitely not a syllogism, for it is not logic which reigns in the grace of God, but only the witness of the Holy Spirit in and through the gospel. [Note: “De Godservaring bij W. Teellinck, D. G. à Brakel en A. Comrie,” Theologia Reformata 16 (1973):202-203. Cf. van der Linde, Opgang en voortgang der reformatie, p. 146.]

Assessment in Secondary Sources The complexity of the Dutch Second Reformation is compounded by its assessment in secondary sources. The nineteenth-century theologians at Groningen were the first to make an effort to view the Second Reformation as a movement from a historical perspective. W. van ’t Spijker shows, however, that these divines, such as P. Hofstede de Groot, differed little from the view of Ypeij and Dermout in their Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk (History of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands). Neither Ypeij and Dermout nor the Groningen professors researched the movement from its primary sources, but tended to model the movement after their own ideals. In particular, the Groningen theologians viewed Thomas à Kempis, Wessel Gansfort, Willem Teellinck, Jodocus van Lodenstein, and others as their ideal. [Note: “Bronnen van de Nadere Reformatie,” in De Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerd Pietisme, p. 6.]

Later in the nineteenth century (1879), Heinrich Heppe published Geschichte des Pietismus and der Mystik in der reformirten Kirche, namentlich der Niederlande (The History of Pietism and Mysticism in the Reformed Church, particularly in the Netherlands). The following decade Albrecht Ritschl’s three-volume history of Pietism was published (Geschichte des Pietismus, 1880-86). These works helped to establish the seminal issues involved in the Second Reformation and are still being discussed by scholars of the movement. Heppe concludes that the roots of Pietism are found in Puritanism, for he posits that the “second reformation” moved from English Puritanism to the Dutch Second Reformation to German Pietism. Ritschl placed Pietism in a broader framework of movements of reform present in the Western church since the Middle Ages, pointing particularly to Franciscan observances, the mystical theology of Bernard de Clairveaux, and the Anabaptists with regard to the Dutch Second Reformation. [Note: Ibid., p. 7. Ritschl’s conventional caricature of pietism (that it represents an individualistic, ascetic, and anti-cultural Christianity) is not applicable to the Dutch Second Reformation--especially not to its earliest stage.]

Van ’t Spijker views the 1911 work of W. Goeters (Die Vorbereitung des Pietismus in der reformierten Kirche der Niederlande bis zur labadistischen Krisis 1670; The Groundwork for Pietism in the Netherlands until the Labadistic Crisis in 1670) as a significant step forward in research on the Dutch Second Reformation in that he emphasized the need to study the divines of the movement on an individual basis. Goeters detected various streams of thought in the Second Reformation and avoided simplistic assessments as to their origins. Moreover, in addition to theological and practical issues, he pointed to social and historical roots which paved the way for the movement. He also highlighted some important themes of the Second Reformation, such as the striving for an ideal church. In fact, he defined “the essence of this movement to be a striving of the visible church to approximate her essence (which is found in the invisible church) as much as possible.” [Note: Ibid., pp. 7-9.]

Much negative reaction against the Second Reformation can be traced to Abraham Kuyper and his emphasis on the church’s cultural mandate. Early in his ministry Kuyper was profoundly influenced by a simple, God-fearing woman of Second Reformation persuasion, Pietje Baltus, who emphasized the necessity of experimental conversion. Subsequently, however, he became troubled that the Christians among whom he labored had become too pietistic and sheltered due in part to a constant diet of reading the “old writers” (oude schrzjvers), as experimentally oriented laymen were fond of calling Second Reformation authors. At times Kuyper disparagingly called the pietistic elements in the Dutch church, “Methodists,” [Note: The Work of the Holy Spirit, pp. xii, 300.] though he retained a strong element of piety in his devotional writings as well as respect for the Second Reformation divines. [Note: Cf. Het Calvinisme (Amsterdam: Hoveker & Wormser); William Young, “Historic Calvinism and Neo-Calvinism,” Westminster Theological Journal 36 (1973):48ff.] Kuyper’s attempts to teach laymen to apply Christianity to all spheres of life led to a revival of Calvinism in the Netherlands. His followers, however, frequently called neo-Calvinists, went far beyond Kuyper by rejecting nearly all semblances of piety and by “externalizing the gospel” in a flurry of kingdom-activity. Still today “the neo-Calvinists in The Netherlands on the whole are quite antagonistic toward the Second Reformation. They see it as an other-worldly, anti-cultural and scholastic movement which has done the church more harm than good.” [Note: Pronk, The Banner of Truth, nos. 154-55 (July-August 1976):7-10.]

Also reacting negatively to the Second Reformation are Otto Ritschl who views the Second Reformation as a falsification of the Reformation; [Note: Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus 1:180.] Theodorus L. Haitjema who regards it as degeneration (ontaarding); [Note: Cultuurgeschiedenis van het Christendom 3:337; cf. his Prediking des Woords en bevinding (Wageningen: H. Veenman & Zonen, 1950).] and Aart A. van Schelven who esteems it to be overly baptistic, spiritualistic, and influenced by Semi-Pelagianism. [Note: “Het Zeeuwsche Mysticisme,” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrii t 17 (1916):141-62.] E. D. Kraan considers the Second Reformation to be too steeped in subjectivism, [Note: “De Heilige Geest en het na-reformatorische subjectivisme,” in De Heilige Geest, ed. by J. H. Bavinck, et al. (Kampen: Kok, 1949), pp. 228-63.] while Rudolf Boon states that it “inclines to Anabaptism.” [Note: Het probleem der christelijke gemeenschap, Oorsprong en ontruikkeling der congregationalistisch geordende kerken in Massachusetts (Amsterdam: Stichting Universitaire Uitgaven, 1951), p. 164.] Teunis Brienen sets Reformation gospel preaching over against Second Reformation preaching which speaks to various “soul conditions” among the hearers. [Note: De Prediking van de Nadere Reformatie (Amsterdam: Ton Bolland, 1974). Brienen’s study, which exaggerates the weaknesses of Second Reformation preaching, re-mains the most thorough on the subject. Brienen asserts that Second Reformation preaching no longer appeals to God’s promises or takes His covenant seriously; rather, he claims that the stress is on the individual person by dividing and differentiating the listeners into various classifications. Though Calvin does not present the classification method of the Second Reformation divines, the reading of his sermons does not confirm Brienen’s dichotomizing of Calvin and the “old writers.”]

Positively, Hans Emil Weber, [Note: Reformation, Orthodoxie and Rationalismus: Beitzäge zur Forderung christlicher Theologie, 2 vols. (Giitersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1937-51).] Arie Vergunst, [Note: Vergunst, Neem de wacht des Heeren waar (Utrecht: Den Hertog, 1983), pp. 232-36.] James Tanis, [Note: Dutch Calvinistic Pietism in the Middle Colonies, pp. 4ff.] J. H. R. Verboom, [Note: Dr. Alexander Cowie, predikant van Woubrugge (Utrecht: De Banier, 1964), pp. 185ff.] Jonathan Gerstner, [Note: Thousand Generation Covenant, pp. 68-79.] Willem Jan op ’t Hof [Note: “The Second Reformation is to be preferred above the Reformation in a variety of points” (Engelse pietistischegeschriften in het Nederlands, 1598-1622, stellingen no. 6).] and others view it largely as a profitable outgrowth of Calvinism. Also Stoeffler’s assessment is largely positive and a most helpful, needed corrective:

[The Second Reformation] was by and large a thoroughly responsible, evangelical movement. On the personal level it emphasized love for God and man and a type of daily conduct based on what it regarded as the New Testament ethic. Its larger aim was the reformation of the visible Church according to the pattern of apostolic Christianity. Intellectually it was highly respectable in so far as practically all of its leaders had enjoyed the opportunity of excellent theological training. For that reason it had the support of the best minds of the day. Voetius, Essenius, Hoornbeeck, and later such Coccejans as Witsius endorsed it enthusiastically. ... [It] constituted a significant and influential party with the Reformed churches. ... The coming of Pietism [i.e., the Second Reformation], like the rise of any reform movement which tends to challenge the established order of things, caused some strains and difficulties. At the end, ... however, the Reformed churches were the better for having made the necessary adjustments. [Note: The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, pp. 178-79.]

Still others provide mixed assessment, noting the evolving changes within the movement itself. This is particularly true of several Reformed scholars in the Netherlands (such as J. G. Woelderink, Arnold A. van Ruler, S. van der Linde, Cornelis Graafland, Willem Balke, [Note: Balke feels that the Second Reformation’s theology was more irenic prior to the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), but that it became too rigid in “post-Dort” years. The Second Reformation depended too much on medieval philosophy and mysticism. This movement was in a different theological climate from Calvin, as can be evidenced by their promoting the syllogisms. Balke concludes: “Calvin would not permit himself to rigidly adhere to certain formulas, as is evident in his controversy with Caroli as well as in his contacts with Bullinger. His objective was to convey the message of Scripture as faithfully as possible. In doing so the actus tradendi is the actus formulandi. Time and again we must formulate anew and search to remain as close to the meaning of the Holy Scriptures as possible. Calvin did not want to be subordinate in any form or shape to any type of philosophy. Every attempt to find traces of Plato, Seneca, or Duns Scotus in his writings are to be rejected as incorrect interpretations. Calvin only desired to be a student of the Holy Scriptures” (personal correspondence; cf. “Calvin and the Theological Trends of His Time,” in Calvinus Refonnator His Contribution to Theology, Church and Society, pp. 48-68; “Calvijn en Luther,” in Luther en het Gereformeerd Protestantisme [’s-Gravenhage: Boekencentrum, 1983]).] K. Exalto, W. van ’t Spijker, J. van Genderen, and others [Note: Cf. bibliography of Beeke, Assurance of Faith, for pertinent writings of each of these authors.] ) who have done considerable pioneer work on the Second Reformation. Generally speaking, these Dutch scholars have varying degrees of appreciation for the Dutch Second Reformation (particularly its classical period) though they feel that it was not as theologically rich as the Reformation proper. S. van der Linde and Cornelis Graafland affirm the early Dutch Second Reformation as embracing some positive characteristics, but see decay setting in largely through excessive introspection such that the movement failed in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries “to combine breadth with depth.” [Note: Van der Linde, Vromen en Verlichten (Utrecht: Aartsbisschoppelijk Museum Utrecht, 1974), p. 2; cf. Graafland, “Het eigene van het Gereformeerd Pietisme in de 18e eeuw in onderscheid van de 17e eeuw,” Documentatieblad Nadere Reformatie 11 (1987):37-53.] Similarly, Hofmeyr asserts that “the classical phase of the Second Reformation shows definite links with Calvin, while the distance between Calvin and the stricter pietism of the later phase of the Second Reformation is much greater.” [Note: “The Doctrine of Calvin as Transmitted in the South African Context by Among Others the Oude Schrijvers,” in Calvinus Reformator: His contribution to Theology, Church and Society, p. 260.] In a different vein, Prozesky concludes that “the movement as a whole underwent gradual change with its early precisianism losing ground to devotional and on occasion mystical pursuits, besides also evolving or adapting its own typical institutions, such as conventicles, edificatory sermons and Pietistic literature.” [Note: Martin H. Prozesky, “The Emergence of Dutch Pietism,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 28 (1977):37.] Osterhaven discerns two streams in the Second Reformation: The one stream emphasized mysticism, inwardness, felicity, prayer, spiritual elation, and joy in the Lord. Overworked words among these folk were gelukzaligheid and godzaligheid.... Involving the whole person, his intellect, feeling, and will, it is the ultimate blessing that God can give one in this life and the greatest proof that God is a gracious father to his children. The other stream was activistic and laid stress on doing the will of the Lord. Here the law as an expression of God’s will was much to the fore and the practice of piety was conceived largely in thinking, saying, and doing what is right before the Lord. This latter emphasis ...came to be know as Preciesen in Dutch, or, as they were sometimes called by their opponents, Fijnen, sanctimonians, we might say.

Whatever the emphasis, all pietists believed heartily in experiential theology and were known as de ernstige, the earnest, zealous Christians of their place and time. ... In its better representatives, like Wilhelmus à Brakel, the experiential theology sought a healthy balance between mysticism and precisionism. [Note: “The Experiential Theology of Early Dutch Calvinism,” Reformed Review 27 (1974):182.]

Van Ruler calls the movement as a whole a “legitimate experiment.” [Note: “Licht-en schaduwzijden in de bevindelijkheid,” in Theologisch Werk (Nijkerk: G. F. Callenbach, 1971), 3:43-60.] The wide divergence of these opinions calls for further studies in the Dutch Second Reformation as a movement in its own generations. In future studies the Second Reformation should be evaluated in its distinct spiritual, theological, and political milieu. Too often the Second Reformation is judged by the Reformation proper, the latter being regarded as normative. Calvin is presented by A. Ritschl and others as an ideal and all differences from him (even in areas where his thinking is largely embryonic, such as covenant theology) [Note: Cf. Peter Lillback, “The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology” (Ph. D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1985).] are prone to be considered in a negative light. The unfair conclusion is then reached that the Second Reformation is not a “further reformation” (nadere reformatie), but a “further deformation” (verdere deformatie). [Note: Graafland, “Kernen en contouren van de Nadere Reformatie,” in De Nadere Reformatie: Beschrzjving van haar voornaamste vertegenwoordigers, pp. 352,366.] It is our conviction that a more careful, objective study of the Second Reformation will yield the conclusion that these Dutch divines as a whole did not misread Calvin and the Reformers, but simply adapted the teaching of the early Reformers in a practical way to their own day.

Additional work also needs to be done on the influence of Phillipp Jakob Spener, August Hermann Francke, Friedrich Adolph Lampe, Gerhard Tersteegen, and other German Pietists on the Dutch Second Reformation. Monographs need to be written on several important Second Reformation divines who are either the subjects of outdated studies or who, as yet, have not been thoroughly studied. [Note: E.g., Theodorus G. A Brakel, Theodorus van der Groe, Adrianus Hasius, Abraham Hellenbroek, Nicolaas Holtius, David Knibbe, Johannes a Marck, Petrus van Mastricht, Gregorius Mees, Franciscus Ridderus, and Rippertus Sixtus.] Caricatures against the movement and the influence of Reformed scholastic orthodoxy need to be unveiled for what they are. Particularly needed are both primary [Note: We trust that this English translation of Brakel’s theological-devotional classic, Redelijke Godsdienst, which is representative of the Second Reformation as a whole, will open a major stream of the theological thought of this Dutch movement to English readers.] and secondary sources published in English on the Dutch Second Reformation.

English and American Puritanism have received considerably more attention from Dutch writers than the Dutch Second Reformation has received from English writers. The Dutch Second Reformation divines deserve to be treated with the same scholarly care devoted to their Puritan counterparts. Such treatment will recognize that the long-term influence of the Second Reformation has been seriously underestimated. An amplification of Stoeffler’s reassessment is needed:

While the [Second Reformation] dream of reforming the Reformed never succeeded it could hardly be doubted that the perfectionistic ideals of this reform party brought about significant changes in the life of the Church. It was responsible for an emphasis upon effective, religiously significant preaching such as is seldom found in territorial churches, together with a similar emphasis upon pastoral work which is equally unusual under such surroundings. Many of the classes and synods began to stress catechization to a degree unknown since the early days of the Genevan reformation. Church discipline, which had been exercised almost solely with regard to faith and order, was oriented to include the daily conduct of church members. A devotional literature was created such as continental Protestantism had never known because its need had not been recognized. Family worship was encouraged and free prayer found a place along with printed prayers. In fact prayer was encouraged as perhaps never before within the Reformed churches. Even conventicles ... were authorized by various ecclesiastical bodies. For the first time since the days of Geneva the Reformed churches knew of genuine religious awakenings such as the one at Friesland in 1672, where a group of pastors entered together upon an evangelistic venture with noticeable results. Last but not least the matter of training an effective ministry, interested in piety as well as doctrine and polity, was given serious attention. The result was the later development of theological seminaries. [Note: The Rise of Evangelical Pietism, pp. 178-79.]

Further, the influence of Second Reformation devotional writings and sermons in the eighteenth and nineteenth (and even twentieth) centuries remained great among the conservative, experimental Reformed in the Netherlands, South Africa, [Note: Hofmeyr, “The Doctrine of Calvin as Transmitted in the South African Context by Among Others the Oude Schrijvers,” in Calvinus Reformator: His contribution to Theology, Church and Society, pp. 261-62; cf. Gerstner, Thousand Generation Covenant.] and North America. Today their writings are being reprinted as rapidly as the Puritans are in the Englishspeaking world. It is our hope and prayer that the translation of Wilhelmus à Brakel’s classic, De Redelijke Godsdienst, may serve to arouse interest in the history and theology of the Dutch Second Reformation.