A Goodly Heritage: The Secession of 1834 and Its Impact on Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and North America

By Cornelis Pronk

In A Goodly Heritage , Cornelis Pronk surveys the history of the Secession of 1834, beginning with the events leading up to this important spiritual movement and subsequently following its long journey through the Netherlands and North America until 1892. He then focuses on a small minority that decided to continue as the original Christian Reformed Church, considering its growth and how it formulated theological positions in relation to several other Reformed denominations. Throughout, special attention is given to the doctrines of covenant, baptism, and the Holy Spirit’s ministry in applying salvation. This work not only explains the concerns of De Cock and other fathers of the Secession. It presses beyond the early years of the reform movement to present a larger picture of the developments of Secession theology and the contributions made by its main representatives.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Reformation Heritage Books
• Release date: Aug 20, 2019
• ISBN: 9781601786654

Book preview

A GOODLY

HERITAGE

The Secession of 1834 and Its Impact

on Reformed Churches in the

Netherlands and North America

CORNELIS PRONK

Reformation Heritage Books

Grand Rapids, Michigan

A Goodly Heritage

© 2019 by Cornelis Pronk

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Direct your requests to the publisher at the following addresses:

Reformation Heritage Books

2965 Leonard St. NE

Grand Rapids, MI 49525

616-977-0889

[e-mail]

www.heritagebooks.org

Printed in the United States of America

19 20 21 22 23 24/10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Pronk, Cornelis, author.

Title: A goodly heritage : the Secession of 1834 and its impact on Reformed Churches in the Netherlands and North America / Cornelis Pronk.

Description: Grand Rapids, Michigan : Reformation Heritage Books, 2019. | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019008818 (print) | LCCN 2019018327 (ebook) | ISBN 9781601786654 (epub) | ISBN 9781601786647 (hardcover : alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk—History—Secession, 1834. | Reformed Church—History.

Classification: LCC BX9474.3 (ebook) | LCC BX9474.3 .P725 2019 (print) | DDC 284/.249209034—dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019008818

For additional Reformed literature, request a free book list from Reformation Heritage Books at the above regular or e-mail address.

Contents

Preface

1. The Historical Background and Spiritual Roots of the Secession of 1834

2. The Further Reformation

3. The Further Reformation View of the Church

4. Further Reformation Views on the Doctrine of Salvation

5. The Reveil

6. The Character of the Dutch Reveil

7. The Secession of 1834

8. The Scholte Club, Part 1: Scholte and Brummelkamp

9. The Scholte Club, Part 2: Van Velzen, Gezelle Meerburg, and Van Raalte

10. Early Years of the Secession

11. Doctrinal Differences between De Cock and Scholte, Part 1

12. Doctrinal Differences between De Cock and Scholte, Part 2

13. Preaching in the Secession Churches

14. The Important Amsterdam Synod of 1840

15. Training Ministers

16. The Brummelkamp Issue

17. The Theological School at Kampen

18. Helenius De Cock’s Theological Method

19. Controversy Surrounding the Well-Meant Offer of Grace

20. The Influence of the Marrow Men on the Secession Church

21. Pieters, Kreulen, and the Synod of 1863

22. History of the Reformed Churches under the Cross

23. Ledeboer and the Ledeboerians

24. G. H. Kersten and the Netherlands Reformed Congregations

25. Secession Immigrants in North America

26. The Birth of the Christian Reformed Church

27. Douwe Vander Werp and Other Early Leaders in the CRC

28. Hendrik Pieter Scholte: Founder of Pella

29. Abraham Kuyper, the Doleantie, and the Union of 1892

30. Dutch-American Secession Theologians, Part 1: L. J. Hulst and F. M. Ten Hoor

31. Dutch-American Secession Theologians, Part 2: William W. Heyns

32. Dutch Secession Theology after 1892

33. Leading Dutch Secession Theologians

34. Summary and Conclusions

Appendix: Chart of Denominational Names of Dutch Reformed Churches

Bibliography

Subject Index

Preface

I was born in 1937 in Scheveningen, near The Hague, the Netherlands, and was baptized and raised in the Gereformeerde Gemeenten (known in North America as Netherlands Reformed Congregations). Shortly before our family immigrated to Canada, we began to attend a local congregation of the newly instituted Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk (Free Reformed Church [FRC]), where I heard preaching that made a lasting impression on my life and that greatly helped me understand both the necessity of the new birth and the marvel of God’s love in sending His Son to save sinners like me. Looking back to those early years I remember how my sins greatly troubled me and that I knew I could not die the way I was born but that I had to be born again. This often made me feel distressed and frustrated because despite all my confessions of sin and efforts to change my ways, I could not stop sinning.

Yet there were also moments when I received real encouragements from sermons that stressed the unconditional promises of the gospel and God’s willingness to save. The preaching emphasized that the covenant promises were meant for sinners—all of them, not just for the elect but for the whole congregation. They took seriously what the Canons of Dort teach so clearly—namely, that the promise of the gospel that whosoever believes in Christ crucified, shall not perish but have everlasting life should together with the command to repent and believe…, be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel (2.8).

When during the late 1940s and early 1950s many Reformed people immigrated to North America, members of the Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (CGKN) were among them. They came with little money but big dreams. They were seeking a better country and life for themselves and their children. Yet they were concerned not only with the material well-being of their children but also their spiritual needs. Would they receive the same spiritual care in North America as they had been getting in the Netherlands? That was the question on the minds of many pioneers.

Most of the original immigrants who later formed the Free Reformed churches came from their sister churches in the Netherlands, the CGKN, while a sizable minority had their roots in the conservative wing of the Dutch Reformed (National) Church known as the Reformed Alliance. A handful of families who joined the FRC had been raised in the Gereformeerde Gemeenten (NRC). Despite the variety in backgrounds, it is safe to say that most who eventually became part of the FRC denomination came from churches known for their experiential emphasis in preaching and pastoral care. They had been taught clearly defined views on the covenant, baptism, the congregation, the necessity of the new birth, saving faith, true conversion, and Christian lifestyle: in short, all things that pertain unto life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3).

In the early years of the Free Reformed churches, these convictions and principles were faithfully preserved, preached from the pulpit, taught in the catechism classes, and upheld in the families. For the first two or three decades, Free Reformed congregations remained more or less religious ghettos, isolated from North American churches and even from other Dutch Reformed denominations, the latter because Free Reformed people remembered them from the Netherlands as churches that taught presumptive regeneration, a doctrine they considered unscriptural and misleading.

As time went on, however, it was discovered that there were also non-Dutch Reformed pastors here and there in North America whose preaching sounded very similar to what Free Reformed people had been used to hearing: preaching that stressed God’s sovereign grace in salvation, the need to be born again by the Holy Spirit, and godly living. These pastors mostly had Presbyterian and Baptist backgrounds, holding to what later was understood to be Puritan theology.

At that time, however, few of us knew anything about the Puritans. This began to change when we heard during the mid-1950s that Puritan books were being reprinted in England by Banner of Truth Trust and in America by Jay Green and others. The first Puritan work I laid my hands on was Thomas Watson’s Body of Divinity, which was given to catechism students by my pastor, Rev. Jetse Hamstra. I also remember as a teenager finding a used copy of J. C. Ryle’s Practical Religion in a local bookstore. When I saw that the author was a bishop, I was ready to put it back on the shelf; after all, what good could come from a bishop? But after reading a few pages I was impressed with the book’s spiritual contents, so I decided to buy it, and as it turned out, the Lord used this book to bring me to understand the gospel in a saving way. Next to the Bible, Ryle’s Practical Religion became the first book to open my eyes to the riches of God’s grace in Jesus Christ so freely offered to sinners, one and all.

As time went on, I and many others who were looking for sound biblical and Reformed literature in English purchased works by Puritan authors. I believe that the Lord blessed the reading of these godly authors to many lives, and not a few can trace their conversion to the Puritans, including in my own church circles. Today not only FRC pastors but also many consistory and ordinary church members have bookshelves graced with the works of Watson, Flavel, and Bunyan as well as their more modern disciples, such as Charles Spurgeon, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Iain Murray, Sinclair Ferguson, and Joel Beeke. Also (and this is very important too), for a number of years FRC theological students have been attending the Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, from which about a dozen FRC pastors have already graduated and who presently serve in this denomination.

The Free Reformed churches have come a long way. From the early 1950s to the present time they have become more and more familiar with the Puritans and their theology. It is a theology that in many respects resembles what the Free Reformed fathers brought with them from the Netherlands. Certainly, when it comes to the doctrine of salvation or soteriology, there are many similarities between the Free Reformed and the Puritan understanding of the way in which God saves sinners and leads and preserves His people from the moment of regeneration to their entrance into glory.

This is not to say, however, that there are no differences at all between Free Reformed and Puritan teachings. To mention only a few areas, Puritans hold different views from Dutch Secession theologians on matters like church membership, the covenant of grace, and baptism. A minority of Puritans also held different views from the Dutch Secession on church government.

None of these differences concern the essentials of the Christian religion, but they are important enough for us to be aware of them as they do have a bearing on how we view the covenant congregation, present the gospel, and deal pastorally with the souls entrusted to our care. While some attention will be paid to these differences in this book, the emphasis is on what unites Dutch Secession and Puritan theology. In fact, the focus is on the more serious differences between the old traditional Calvinism represented by the Dutch Further Reformation, English Puritanism, and Secession theology, on the one hand, and on neo-Calvinism found in several Dutch Reformed denominations, on the other hand.

As I hope to make clear, these differences manifest themselves primarily in the preaching of the gospel and the way in which God saves sinners.1 Broadly speaking, Dutch Calvinistic preaching may be divided into two main categories. First, there are the old school or traditional Calvinists, who emphasize experiential preaching, sometimes to excess, resulting in a form of unhealthy mysticism. Second, there are the neo-Calvinists or Kuyperian Calvinists who, generally speaking, do not appreciate the experiential preaching found in what they consider right wing, traditional churches that trace their roots to the the sixteenth century Reformation and the Further Reformation.

The Dutch Secession of 1834, which is the subject of this book, tried to preserve the heritage of both reformations. As a minister in a denomination that has direct links to the Secession, I feel constrained to tell the story of Hendrik De Cock and other leaders of that great movement of God and the rich spiritual legacy they left. May those of us who are the descendants of the Secession in one degree or another honor and preserve that heritage, saying with David, The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage (Ps. 16:6).

Much of this book was first delivered as lectures at Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and subsequently written as articles in The Messenger, the denominational periodical for the Free Reformed churches of North America. Thus, I have written this material from the perspective of a Free Reformed minister for our denomination’s members so that they would become more aware of the treasure entrusted to them in our rich heritage. Despite having a Free Reformed perspective, however, I trust that many people from all kinds of Reformed backgrounds will be able to glean much interesting material about the Dutch Secession from this volume.

To assist those who do not understand Dutch, I have taken the liberty to translate Dutch book titles into italicized English. If the book has been translated into English, the bibliographical information is recorded in a footnote. Where that is lacking, the reader should assume that the book has not been translated into English.

No one who writes a book can do so without at least some assistance from others, be it only interest shown in the project by loved ones; encouragements offered by friends and colleagues; suggestions from professionals regarding important resources; advice on writing style, proper grammar, diction, or vocabulary; layout; appearance; and so on. To begin with the latter, I wish to thank my editors, Jonathon Beeke, Admissions Director and Registrar at PRTS, and Andrew Buss, who went through the manuscript chapter by chapter with a thoroughness that at times embarrassed and irked me but in the end proved to be of great benefit as the finished product turned out to be a great improvement over its original draft. Now that I have finished going over all thirty-four chapters, usually agreeing with their corrections and suggestions but occasionally arguing in favor of my own preferences, a great sense of relief has come over me. Thank you so much, Jonathon and Andrew!

I also would like to thank my colleagues and others who showed interest in Project 1834, as I called my book at first. Many of you asked me from time to time, How is the book coming? or When will it be published? Well, it is finished now, and I hope you will read A Goodly Heritage and be blessed by it.

Last, but certainly not least, I want to mention my dear wife, Ricky, who has been a tremendous help in writing this book from start to finish. She typed every letter, page, and chapter on her Mac, formatting and preediting before sending it on to others for professional oversight. She checked every footnote and compiled a lengthy bibliography of English and mostly Dutch books and articles.

In addition to all the mechanical yeoman’s labor, Ricky’s greatest contribution to my book has been more of an intellectual and spiritual nature. Her interest in and understanding of Secession theology (as well as theology in general) is amazing and has served me well. I may be the sole author of this book, formally speaking, but her input has been considerable, so I am not exaggerating when I say that she deserves to be called my coauthor.

Above all, my gratitude goes out to God, who has drawn me to Himself by the preaching of His Word, using faithful servants past and present who have brought to me the Word of Life and who have instilled in me a deep love for the heritage of the Secession of 1834 and a strong desire to preserve it by making it known to another generation.

Soli Deo gloria.

—Neil (Cornelis) Pronk

---

1. For an excellent explanation of this difference, see Reformed Thought: Selected Writings of William Young, ed. Joel R. Beeke and Ray B. Lanning (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011).

Chapter 1

The Historical Background and Spiritual Roots of the Secession of 1834

At the famous Synod of Dort (1618–1619), some of the foreign delegates expressed the pious hope that the Reformed churches in the Netherlands would persevere in and transmit to succeeding generations their ‘orthodox, godly and simple confession of faith…until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.’1 But by the end of the eighteenth century, it seemed as if that hope would not be realized. Only a few small and scattered churches still cherished the Reformed religion. Churches where the truth was still proclaimed from the pulpit were becoming increasingly rare. Ecclesiastical leadership ridiculed the past and condemned anyone who dared to combat the spirit of enlightenment.

The cold winds of rationalism had been blowing strongly across Europe since the beginning of the eighteenth century; this certainly had its effect in the Netherlands as well. Preachers everywhere were promoting a new faith that aligned with human reason and understanding. The doctrine of the Trinity was rejected as being irrational, and other unbelievable doctrines—such as the atonement of Christ, original sin, and human depravity—were modified to fit this new way of thinking. Although man was considered imperfect, it was thought that he could be perfected through proper education. Preaching was therefore largely moralistic, stressing the need for good works, but the necessity of the new birth was seldom mentioned.

By 1795 the philosophies of Descartes and Spinoza, aided by the writings of English deists, French encyclopedists, and early German critics of the Bible, yielded their evil harvest. It is therefore not surprising that when French troops invaded the Low Countries in 1795, they received a warm welcome. According to Peter De Jong, The revolutionary motto, ‘liberty, equality, and fraternity’ had found fertile soil in the land.2 Members of the so-called Patriot Party forced the Prince of Orange into exile. Immediately a new government was formed and the United Provinces became the Batavian Republic.

One of the first acts of the revolutionary government was to change the position of the Reformed Church. Its privileges were rescinded and its properties nationalized. Religious activities were carefully monitored, and few dared to raise a voice in protest. Toleration in matters of doctrine and discipline was the order of the day. The lines between Reformed and Lutheran were blurred, and differences between Calvinism and Arminianism were regarded as a mere strife over words. A new Psalter with contributions by Mennonites and Arminians, replacing the one by Petrus Dathenus, was introduced in 1773. In 1807 a collection of many unscriptural hymns was added without ecclesiastical approval.

During this dark period the masses seemed quite satisfied with the changes, having lost all sensitivity to the strength and purity of the Reformed faith. This is not to say that true faith was entirely lacking in the Netherlands. Many ordinary believers were still determined to find food for their souls; if this was not be to be found in the established church, then they would look outside its walls.3 As Walter Lagerwey writes, In the absence of orthodox preaching in the pulpit, orthodox believers sought to strengthen their faith in conventicles, religious meetings, held in the homes of Christians and led by lay teachers. The lay exhorter again became an important person in the nurturing of spiritual life.4

These Calvinists who gathered in conventicles adhered to Scripture and the Reformed confessions, particularly the Canons of Dort with its clear emphasis on human depravity, the sovereignty of grace, and divine election. These sincere and godly believers loved the Reformed experiential truth and fed on the writings of the old writers such as Willem Teellinck, Wilhelmus à Brakel, Jodocus van Lodenstein, Jacobus Koelman, and other leaders of the Further Reformation whose ministries extended from the early seventeenth until the late eighteenth centuries. It was primarily through these humble, God-fearing Christians that biblical, confessional, and experiential faith was preserved and handed down to the next generation, culminating in the Secession of 1834.

The Further (Second) Reformation and Its Influence on the Secession of 1834

What was the Further (Second) Reformation, and why did this movement have such a formative influence on those who became the leaders and followers of the Secession of 1834? The Nadere Reformatie, as the Dutch call the movement, derives its name from its own representatives. For instance, in his brochure titled Nadere Reformatie in Leer, Orde en Zeden, Jacobus Koelman summarizes the desire that motivated him and many other concerned pastors in the Dutch Reformed Church to pursue a more thorough and consistent reformation of doctrine, order, and morals. The word nadere may also be related to the English word further as used in the term Further Reformation, referring to the Puritan movement to reform the Anglican Church. While English-speaking scholars referred to this Dutch movement as the Second Reformation for many years, more recent Dutch church historians prefer the designation Further Reformation.

The Historical Context of the Dutch Further Reformation

The Dutch Further Reformation must be seen in the context of a much broader movement that took place in western Europe during the seventeenth century. One could say that the Dutch Further Reformation represents a phase of an international Pietist movement that swept through many Protestant denominations during that period. It has close affinities with German Pietism and even more so with British Puritanism, although there are also significant differences.

For many people the word pietism has a pejorative connotation. Like Puritanism, with which it has many affinities, pietism is generally associated with asceticism, fanaticism, sanctimoniousness, and self-righteousness. Sadly, this caricature of pietism is still found in certain Reformed circles, although this negative attitude is slowly changing. According to Ernest Stoeffler,

From the days of the apostles we find running through the history of the Church what we might call an experiential tradition…. Pietism manifested itself during the Middle Ages in a mystical approach to life both in the monastic movement and the anti-clerical protest movements of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries…. In the turbulent days of the Reformation this experiential tradition exerted itself with perfectly tremendous force. Neither Luther, nor Calvin were free from its grip…. During the seventeenth century this experiential line of pietism asserted itself throughout Protestantism in the Pietistic movement.5

Whether it was Puritanism in England and Scotland, the Further Reformation in the Netherlands, or Pietism in Germany, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries, and later in North America, its main feature was always the same: a strong emphasis on personal experience and holy living, the so-called praxis pietatis, or practice of godliness. This is not to say that adherence to doctrine was neglected. Rather, it was assumed. Whether it was Lutheranism in Germany or Anglicanism in England or the Reformed faith in Holland, Pietism did not question any doctrines held by these respective churches but saw the need to point out the danger of mere head knowledge of the truth while being a stranger to its saving and transforming power.6

While all pietists shared a strong experiential emphasis, significant differences also existed within this shared commitment. As time went on, Arminian tendencies developed, especially in Anabaptist circles. In Lutheranism, pietism often led to anti-church attitudes, while in England many Puritans ended up leaving the established church and became separatists.

Characteristic of the Dutch Further Reformation, however, was its love for and its loyalty to the Reformed Church despite its many weaknesses and deformities. Certainly in its early stages its leaders were consumed with zeal to reform the church from within; secession was not an option.

Scholarly Interest in the Dutch Further Reformation

As is the case with English Puritanism, the Dutch Further Reformation has become the subject of much scholarly interest in recent years. This was not always so. In fact, church historians did not begin to pay serious attention to this movement until the latter part of the nineteenth century; then it was primarily German scholars (such as Heinrich Heppe, Albrecht Ritschl, and Wilhelm Goeters) who made major contributions to our understanding and appreciation for the Further Reformation in the Netherlands.

While most agree that English Puritanism had considerable influence on its kindred movement in Holland, it was Goeters who pointed out that while the Dutch Reformed were impressed with the Puritan emphasis on personal and societal holiness, they did not imbibe any of the independent and separatist tendencies that surfaced among the Puritans following their failure to reform the Church of England. Goeters believed that the essence of the Further Reformation was her attempt to bring the visible church in line with her invisible character. In other words, her ideal was to make the church’s confession regarding her holiness a visible reality in the lives of her members.7

More recent Dutch students of the Further Reformation tend to view the movement more as a homegrown phenomenon, albeit with considerable input from Great Britain. According to this school of thought, the sad decline in spiritual vitality and morality of the Dutch Reformed Church precipitated the Further Reformation.

When Arminians, Anabaptists, and even Roman Catholics pointed out the glaring inconsistencies between Reformed faith and practice, the more serious among the pastors and lay members acknowledged that much of this criticism was justified, and they resolved with God’s help to work toward change. They believed with all true Christians that sound doctrine must yield the fruit of holy living.

The Problem of Dead Orthodoxy

During the decades following the Synod of Dort, the Reformed Church became doctrinally sound as orthodoxy was restored to its pulpits. But the sad reality was that for many church members religion was more a matter of the head than the heart. They possessed a form of godliness while denying its power; in fact, in too many cases they did not even have much intellectual knowledge of the truth. The goal of the Further Reformation, therefore, was not chiefly to restore the pure doctrines of Scripture to the pulpit but rather to see the objective truths of God’s Word take hold of church members in such a way that the gospel’s transforming power could be seen in both their private and public lives.

To resist this threat of dead orthodoxy, reform-minded pastors found great help in Puritan authors for their sermon preparations as well as family devotions, problems with faith and assurance, marks of grace, prayer, and meditation. Many Puritan books were translated into Dutch and widely read.

Relations between Church and State

By the middle of the sixteenth century the growth of the Reformed faith in the Netherlands posed a serious threat to the established Roman Catholic religion. Since the Low Countries were at that time part of the Spanish empire, the Protestant advance became a real concern to Emperor Charles V and especially his successor, Philip II. This most Catholic of all princes8 was determined to stamp out the Protestant heresy spreading throughout his northern domain. But his concern was not only a religious one; Protestantism also threatened the political stability of his empire. To preempt this potential revolt, Philip II appointed his sister, Margaret of Parma, as regent of the South and North Netherlands territories. The Dutch deeply resented this foreign intervention and resisted it in various ways, led by their champions, the counts of Horn and Egmont and William of Nassau, Prince of Orange.

To quell the rising opposition against Spanish rule, Philip sent the Duke of Alva with a large army to the Netherlands in 1567. The ruthless reign of terror that ensued sparked outright rebellion. Thousands of Dutch Protestants, including many Calvinists, were slaughtered. Large numbers of Dutch Calvinists fled eastward, settling in German territories. In 1571 they organized themselves at Emden into the Synod of the Churches of the Netherlands under the Cross.9 When around 1572 the political situation in the Netherlands showed some signs of clearing, many of these dispersed Calvinists began to return home. Since most of the Protestants killed by Alva’s troops were Lutherans and Anabaptists, the returning Calvinists were in a position to assume the ascendancy of the Reformed faith. In 1578 they were able to hold their first synod on Dutch soil in Dordrecht. They were strong enough to form the so-called Union of Utrecht, comprising the provinces of Utrecht, Gelderland, Zeeland, Holland, Groningen, and Friesland, with Overijssel joining a year later. The union guaranteed freedom of worship to Catholics and Protestants alike. In 1581 the seven provinces formally declared that the king of Spain had forfeited his authority within their bounds.

This union experienced a setback in 1584 when William of Orange was assassinated. While this event gave new hope to Spain and Catholics, it greatly demoralized the Reformed in the United Provinces. This crisis passed, however, without altering the settlement agreed on by the Northern Provinces.10

With Calvinists securing a position of dominance in the Northern Provinces, many Catholics migrated to the south, where the Duke of Parma had succeeded in welding together the political unity that is now Belgium. Protestants living in the south in turn moved north. The result was a predominantly Protestant state with Calvinism in the ascendancy. These United Provinces finally achieved autonomy in 1648 after almost eighty years of intermittent war with Spain.

The Reformed Church Becomes the Public Church of the Netherlands11

Although by 1578 the Reformed faith appeared to have replaced Catholicism as the dominant religion in the realm, this did not mean the populace immediately embraced the new religion with great enthusiasm. The newly organized Reformed congregations grew slowly at first. In many areas active membership remained at under 10 percent of the population. Thus, during the early years of the republic, neither the old church nor the new commanded the allegiance of the populace.12

Although the Reformed Church never became the established or state church in the fullest sense, it did enjoy several advantages over its replaced rival, the Roman Catholic Church.13 It had the support, be it ever so lukewarm, of the majority of the people, which enabled the Reformed party to mobilize popular opposition to Catholic worship and other religious practices. As the officially recognized church, it could also count on government support, which meant not only protection and preferential treatment over other religious entities but also that Reformed ministers’ salaries were now paid by the state.

The disadvantages were also considerable. As the ministers looked to the government for financial support, this inevitably led to government interference with the church’s internal affairs. For instance, the church might see the need to convene a synod to discuss important matters, but the government was able to delay or even cancel such an assembly when it seemed fit to do so. Thus, while the Calvinistic clergy were concerned to maintain the autonomy of the church (and some even wanted to subordinate the state to the interests of the church), the magistrates generally followed the more Zwinglian model of entrusting the rule and discipline of the church to the civil authorities. The latter were afraid that a centralization of the church’s power might exercise too much influence on the state. As Jonathan Israel points out,

There was from the start a wide chasm between the Reformation of the Calvinist preachers and that of the regents…. Whereas the preachers followed Calvin, the regents preferred the Reformation of Erasmus…[and] adhered, in their majority, to a mild, non-dogmatic Protestantism which accepted that there should be only one protected public Church, but not that society, and the individual, should be rigorously ordered theologically to its control.14

We see here remnants of the ancient contest between church and state, a debate that was a major issue throughout the Middle Ages. This contest in the Dutch context resulted ultimately in the strangulation of the church by the state, a factor that was to play a key role in the Further Reformation and later during the time of the Secession.

During the Arminian controversy, adherents of Arminianism were able to ally themselves with magistrates that held to a more Zwinglian (or Erastian) church polity. When the tide at last turned, both this Erastian polity and Arminianism were rejected; this was ultimately because of a coup d’état effected by the Reformed-leaning Prince Maurice. This apparent victory, while sweet, did not alter the fact that the great Synod of Dort (1618–1619) was convened by the authority of the States General, which subjected the synod to its control and approval. The old Zwinglian ideals were weakened but by no means banned; they persisted and the civil authorities continued to exercise extensive control over the church until she was reduced to little more than a department of the state.

Despite formal recognition that both church and state were divine institutions and had to cooperate in obedience to God’s Word, there was an ongoing struggle for control. In this struggle the spirit of the age was on the side of the state, so much so that it was bound to emerge the victor. Symptomatic of this victory is the fact that after the Synod of Dort, no national synod of delegates from the churches was assembled again until after the Secession of 1834. This meant that it was almost impossible for the church to make decisions binding on all the congregations. The only way to seek united action was for provincial synods to communicate with each other and to make concurrent resolutions. As a result, in several doctrinal disputes no universal solution could be reached, and many doctrinal differences remained unresolved, which contributed to the church’s deteriorating orthodoxy.

---

1. Peter Y. De Jong, A Darkness over the Land, in The Reformation of 1834, ed. Peter Y. De Jong and Nelson D. Kloosterman (Orange City, Iowa: Pluim Publishing, 1984), 9.

2. De Jong, Darkness over the Land, 12.

3. De Jong, Darkness over the Land, 12.

4. Walter Lagerwey, The History of Calvinism in the Netherlands, in The Rise and Development of Calvinism, ed. by John H. Bratt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 88.

5. F. Ernest Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden: Brill, 1971), 7.

6. Stoeffler, Rise of Evangelical Pietism, 7–8.

7. W. van ’t Spijker, Bronnen van de Nadere Reformatie, in De Nadere Reformatie en het Gereformeerde Pietisme (’s-Gravenhage: Uitgeverij Boekencentrum, 1989), 7–9.

8. This title for Philip II is used, for example, in Frederik Schiern, Life of James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell (Edinburgh: Thomas and Archibald Constable, 1880), 17.

9. Jonathan I. Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477–1806, Oxford History of Early Modern Europe, ed. R. J. W. Evans (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), 164.

10. Israel, Dutch Republic, 200–204.

11. A public church differs from a state church in that it is protected and promoted by the government but not controlled in every respect, as was the case in other Catholic and Protestant lands at the time.

12. Israel, Dutch Republic, 363.

13. Israel, Dutch Republic, 368.

14. Israel, Dutch Republic, 369.

Chapter 2

The Further Reformation

The Further Reformation is customarily divided into the early, middle, and later stages, each of which is identified with its leading spokesmen.

Spokesmen for Reform in the Early Period

Jean Taffin (1529–1602)

Among the first preachers to promote godliness in the Dutch Reformed Church was Jean Taffin. Born at Doornik in present-day Belgium, Taffin pastored Reformed churches at Antwerp, Metz, and Heidelberg. After these pastorates he was appointed as chaplain to William of Orange, and in 1590 he served a French congregation in Amsterdam until his death in 1602. Within a context charged with polemics during the rise of the Arminian controversy, Taffin’s preaching emphasized the experience of the grace of God and the practice of piety as evidence of that grace.

In his first tract, titled The Marks of the Children of God, and of Their Comforts in Affliction, Taffin distinguishes between outward and inward marks, the former consisting of the willingness to hear the Word of God ‘purely preached’ and to receive the sacraments ‘purely administered.’1 Among the inward marks is the testimony of the Holy Ghost in our hearts, the peace and quietness of our consciences before God, and feeling ourselves justified by faith as well as love toward God and one’s neighbour, a change of life and a constant desire to walk in the fear and obedience of God.2

For Taffin, the main source of assurance of salvation seems to be founded on the experience of what he calls holy affections and desires.3 According to him, those who possess them should not doubt that they have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, and consequently, they should also have assurance in their faith.

Considered superficially, this sounds as if Taffin based assurance essentially on feelings. But that would not do justice to his position. As Stoeffler points out, throughout his writings Taffin constantly endeavored to make the Scriptures his guide. The truth of God’s Word was his objective frame of reference by which he sought to support every statement. Furthermore, he accepted the Reformed confessions without reservation. While Taffin saw the necessity of theological formulas, he did disagree with many of his colleagues in that he viewed such formulas as secondary to the evidences of the Christian faith in the believer’s experience.4

Willem Teellinck (1579–1629)

Widely considered to be the father of the Further Reformation, Willem Teellinck was born in 1579 in Zierikzee, located in the province of Zeeland. Although his own preference was to study theology, family pressures compelled him to study law. In 1600, Teellinck visited England for the first time. Four years later he again traveled to England and came in contact with several Puritan preachers, notably John Dodd and Arthur Hildersham. Deeply impressed with the piety of the people with whom he was staying, Teellinck returned to the Netherlands and decided to study theology with a view to entering the ministry. In 1606 he graduated from Leiden University and accepted a call to Haamstede, where he labored for six years. After Haamstede, Teellinck moved to the congregation of Middelburg, where he served until his death in 1629.

Teellinck proved to be a very effective preacher and pastor with an unusual burden for souls. Stoeffler writes, Carrying ‘a hurt in his soul’ and a ‘constant pain in his heart’ as a result of the general spiritual laxity and shallowness which prevailed in the Church, he concentrated his prodigious energies and great gifts upon bringing about a true reformation within the sphere of his influence.5

His models, both for preaching and pastoral work, were the English Puritan divines. Yet his greatest contribution to the Further Reformation came from his own writings. Teellinck was perhaps the most prolific writer of the Pietist movement, producing no fewer than 127 manuscripts, most of them dealing with devotional themes.6

During the Arminian controversy, Teellinck naturally took the Reformed side, but unlike many of his colleagues he repeatedly stressed that soundness of doctrine needs to be accompanied by the power of godliness expressed in truly Christian conduct. This emphasis was not always appreciated by his fellow ministers, with the result that the orthodox party looked upon him with suspicion and the Arminians were set against him as one of the great pillars of orthodoxy.7 Stoeffler summarizes Teellinck’s ministry as follows: His basic endeavour was to call individuals to repentance, to build them up in the faith, and to move the Church toward a reformation of life rather than merely a reformation in doctrine and polity.8

Spokesmen for Reform in the Middle Period

William Ames (1576–1633)

If Teellinck is the father of Reformed Pietism, William Ames should be considered its first systematic theologian.9 Ames’s Medulla Sacrae Theologiae (Marrow of Sacred Theology) provided the theological foundation for the Reformed Pietist movement and became a standard work for generations of seminary students, not only in the Netherlands but also in Great Britain and even New England.

Ames (Latinized as Amesius) was born in Norfolk, England, and studied under William Perkins at Christ’s College, Cambridge. In 1610 Ames was forced to flee to Holland, where he became involved in the Arminian controversy. In 1622 he became professor of theology at Franeker in Friesland, where he stayed for ten years, earning a reputation as a great divine.

Ames was a disciple of Pierre de La Ramée, better known as Ramus. This French Protestant philosopher developed the science of technometria, or the science of defining the arts according to their nature and use. Thus, following Ramist methodology, Ames taught that theology is the art of living well.

Ames believed that theology is the doctrine of living for God. Rejecting the customary distinction between theory and practice, Ames stressed the practical uses of theology (eupraxia) and emphasized the importance of Scripture as the theologian’s main textbook, warning against metaphysical speculation. Ames, says Keith Sprunger, called theology away from questions and controversies, obscure, confused, and not very essential, and introduced it to life and practice, so that students would begin to think seriously of conscience and its concerns.10 Ames found the Dutch context to be overly focused on the intellectual in relation to the experimental; he therefore promoted Puritan piety in an effort to turn Dutchmen into Puritans.11

Jodocus van Lodenstein (1620–1677)

Another well-known Further Reformation leader is Jodocus van Lodenstein. Born in Delft to the local mayor, van Lodenstein studied theology in Utrecht (under Voetius) and at Franeker (under Cocceius).12 In 1644, he became minister of the Reformed church at Zoetermeer, pastoring there for six years before going to Sluis and finally to Utrecht, the Jerusalem of the Reformed churches at that time.

Van Lodenstein was a powerful preacher. A lifelong bachelor, he gave himself wholly to his work from early morning until late at night.13 Although an able theologian, he was not overly interested in theological speculations; instead he focused tirelessly on reforming the life of the church. Van Lodenstein was passionately devoted to the Reformed Church but deeply disturbed by its superficiality and worldliness. Consequently, most of his sermons centered on calling both saints and sinners to repentance. In addition to preaching on the Lord’s Days, he also held services during the week as well as conducting conventicles (gezelschappen) for mature Christians and students. Like Teellinck, van Lodenstein believed that piety should be promoted not only through preaching but also through the printed word. Thus, he wrote many edifying pamphlets to build up the faith of God’s people.

While active within the church, van Lodenstein never lost interest in the broader arena of life; he did not shut himself up with those who were already safe within the fold. As Stoeffler notes, There were few problems in Church or State in the solution of which he was not actively involved.14 Van Lodenstein realized, however, that the piety he sought to promote is by its very nature experienced and manifested in the life of individuals, which is why his preaching and pastoral work focused on conversion and its manifestation in godly living. A person is converted, he taught, if the Lord sheds abroad his light in our hearts. Not that such a person is then fully perfect, but he desires to be perfect and realizes that he cannot excuse himself because of his imperfection. It is the Christian’s highest duty to move continually in the direction of this goal.15

Gijsbertus Voetius (1589–1676)

Perhaps the greatest and most influential theologian of the Further Reformation in the Netherlands is Gijsbertus Voetius. He was born in Heusden and studied theology at Leiden, where he met his lifelong friend, Willem Teellinck. Ordained in 1611, Voetius became involved in the Arminian controversy, siding with the Contra Remonstrants. In 1636 he was appointed to the chair of theology at the University of Utrecht. Voetius was an ardent disciple of Teellinck and Ames, becoming, in a way, the synthesis of the former’s deep piety and the latter’s great learning.

While Voetius always stressed the need to combine learning and piety, a comparison of his theological output with Ames’s will show that Voetius’s approach is more theoretical and logical, while Ames’s theology is more practical. Voetius is known for his strong opposition to the growing rationalism of his day. He engaged in vigorous debates with the leading contemporary philosopher, René Descartes. While Voetius quotes from many Scripture passages in his apologetic defense, he frequently appeals to the recta ratio, or the right use of reason.16 In other words, he met his opponent Descartes on his own terms.

By using this approach, however, Voetius and others following him were forced to yield more and more territory to reason, with the result that while he in his own day slowed the spread of new ideas that he regarded to be inimical to the faith, [in the end] he failed to help the church develop tools for effectively understanding and coping with modern systems of thought.17

Herman Witsius (1636–1708)

Another prominent theologian of the Further Reformation is Herman Witsius. Born in 1636, Witsius studied theology under Voetius and was ordained to the ministry in 1657. He soon distinguished himself by speaking out against ecclesiastical and social abuses. One of his first pamphlets, The Controversy of the Lord with His Vineyard, reveals him as a true and able representative of the Further Reformation. In 1675 he was appointed professor at Franeker. Two years later he published his Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, a work that quickly established his reputation as an able theologian. This work became a standard textbook in the Netherlands, Great Britain, and New England for many years.

In 1680 Witsius accepted a professorship at Utrecht, where he taught for eighteen years with great distinction. While his theology was essentially identical with that of Voetius, his approach was less polemical and rigid than his mentor’s; Witsius was a man of an irenic spirit. He shared Richard Baxter’s maxim: In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.

Significantly, it was Witsius who was asked to mediate between the warring factions of the Voetians and Cocceians. He also made several visits to England, where he met many leading Puritan divines; he was so impressed with their writings that he had many of them translated into Dutch. The English in turn held Witsius in high esteem, and they asked him to write a treatise on the Antinomian controversy then raging in Great Britain.18

Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–1711)

Widely considered to be the primary representative of the Further Reformation near the end of the seventeenth century, Wilhelmus à Brakel was born to Theodore à Brakel, also a preacher of note belonging to the same movement. Wilhelmus studied in Franeker and Utrecht, where he sat under the tutelage of Voetius. In his younger years Brakel sympathized with the Labadists, the followers of Jean de Labadie, but later he distanced himself from the movement because of its perfectionist and separatist tendencies.

A champion for the church’s freedom from government interference, Brakel became involved in a long struggle with local and provincial magistrates. He was also a very popular preacher, with sermons characterized by directness and simplicity. His advice to students and colleagues was that a minister must make use of his learning by hiding it from the pulpit.

Brakel wrote many polemical and devotional pamphlets, but his main accomplishment was publishing Redelijke Godsdienst (The Christian’s Reasonable Service). With this dogmatic treatise, Brakel "supplied Reformed Pietism with a theological textbook which, unlike the Marrow of Amesius, came out of a tradition wholly native to the Netherlands."19 First published in 1700, the book ran through twenty editions during the next one hundred years, and it has been reprinted several times, even to the present day.20 The secret of the book’s success is its carefully balanced approach between the objective and subjective elements of the Christian religion, breathing practical sense and evangelical piety. The Christian’s Reasonable Service also reflects the author’s eclectic approach as it combines the insights of Voetius, Cocceius, and Witsius.21

Jacobus Koelman (1632–1695)

The last notable representative of the Further Reformation’s middle period is Jacobus Koelman. If Brakel was the most loved and popular divine of the reform movement during that era, Koelman is widely considered to have been one of the most zealous and controversial of his fellow reformers. Born in 1632, Jacobus Koelman was educated at the University of Utrecht, where he obtained his doctorate at the age of twenty-four. At the same institution he studied theology under Voetius. From 1657 to 1662 he served as chaplain at Dutch embassies in Denmark and Brussels. In 1662 he became minister of the Reformed church in Sluis, which was then part of Flemish Flanders. The congregation of Sluis belonged to the classis Walcheren, which, according to its church order adopted in 1591, assigned considerable authority to the magistrates in ecclesiastical matters. Thus, for example, the congregation of Sluis could call a minister only upon approval of the authorities.

In Koelman’s case this had already given rise to friction. Although the conflict could be resolved, subsequent instances of government interferences in church affairs so troubled Koelman that he decided to oppose the magistrates every time they violated the rights of the church. The relationship between church and state thus became a very important part of his ministry. Throughout his career he never ceased to plead for the absolute kingship of Christ over His church.22 His zeal for this noble cause brought him endless trouble and heartache, eventually resulting in his suspension and ejection from the pulpit.

Koelman’s controversial relationship with the state is not the only thing he is known for; he also demonstrated a great zeal to reform both church and society—a goal that he shared with all Further Reformation divines. While ministering in Sluis, Koelman’s preaching was richly blessed and many conversions took place. After his suspension he continued to teach at various churches, lead conventicles, write books, and translate Puritan works into Dutch.23

At times Koelman’s zeal also brought him unnecessary trouble, even with friends in the ministry. His opposition to Christian feast days, for instance, and his abhorrence of prescribed written prayers and liturgical forms alienated him from many who shared his basic convictions. Despite the many interruptions in his official ministry, Koelman still left an impressive spiritual legacy. By the time he died in 1695 (at age sixty-three) he had written forty-four books and translated twenty-three volumes of English and Scottish divines. Some of his writings were theological and philosophical; others were more practical, such as his treatise on parenting, The Duties of Parents, and a manual for office-bearers, The Office and Duty of Elders and Deacons.24

Spokesmen for Reform in the Later Period

Alexander Comrie (1706–1774)

Alexander Comrie is a representative of the Further Reformation in its later stages. Born in Perth, Scotland, Comrie went to Rotterdam in 1727, studied theology in Groningen and Leiden, earned his doctor’s degree in philosophy in 1734, and entered the ministry in Woubrugge (South Holland) in 1735, where he remained until his death thirty-nine years later. Comrie was an able preacher, excelling in doctrinal exposition and practical applications. Considered to be one of the last defenders of Reformed orthodoxy, he vigorously opposed the ideas of rationalism and toleration that were penetrating into the Reformed churches.

Together with his colleague, Nicolaas Holtius, Comrie wrote a series of tracts under the title Examination of the Concept of Toleration, in which he warned against a departure from the Three Forms of Unity of the Reformed churches. The government put a stop to these publications in 1761, while liberalism was allowed to spread and eventually prevail. Discouraged and disillusioned by these setbacks, Comrie decided to concentrate on teaching his people from the pulpit as well as by the printed page.

Comrie’s main contribution to the development of doctrine concerns the origin of faith and justification. Reacting to the popular Arminian notion that the will of man precedes the will of God in accepting Christ, Comrie distinguished between the faculty and the act of faith. According to him, answer 20 of the Heidelberg Catechism speaks of the faculty of faith (being ingrafted into Christ), while answer 21 speaks of the act of faith (having sure knowledge and firm confidence). For Comrie, the act of faith (i.e., the knowledge and confidence of faith) is implicitly included in the faculty of faith. As for justification, the question at issue was whether faith precedes or follows justification.

The Arminian view—which was making inroads into the Reformed community—held that man first has to believe and repent, and that God as Judge rewards that act of man by declaring him righteous in His sight. Comrie rejected this reasoning as a form of nomism (living by the law and not by grace). Nevertheless he rejected the notion that the believing soul is entirely passive in justification. He writes, My beloved, be on guard against such misconceptions and errors, since you have discerned that faith is an extrinsic act of the soul whereby the Surety is embraced. This is how the Bible describes it, and it is best to adhere to this biblical description.25 Comrie thus fundamentally agreed with Brakel and most other Reformed theologians, rejecting the notion that faith is an intrinsic act of the soul whereby she perceives that she already has been justified.26

Wilhelmus Schortinghuis (1700–1750)

Wilhelmus Schortinghuis is another representative of the later phase of the Further Reformation movement. Born in 1700 in Winschoten, a small town in Groningen, Schortinghuis was born of God-fearing parents. After studying theology at the University of Groningen, he became a candidate in 1722 and accepted a call from Weener, a city in East Friesland that was part of Germany but closely connected theologically to the Netherlands. The young preacher was converted soon after his ordination and came to full assurance of salvation. The youthful pastor became an experimental divine. In 1734 he was called to Midwolda, where he remained until his death in 1750. Schortinghuis drew enormous crowds from all over the district.

Schortinghuis’s greatest fame, however, stems from his book Het Innige Christendom (Intimate Christendom), published in 1740. This book deals with experimental religion, and it immediately became very controversial as well as popular.27 It did not receive the required ecclesiastical approbation, and even some of his friends had reservations about what they regarded as an unbalanced approach to spiritual matters. Some feared that too much emphasis was placed on experience at the expense of Scripture. Many felt that the book smacked of mysticism and encouraged false passivity.

At the heart of the controversy was Schortinghuis’s treatment of the so-called five precious nots (I will not, I cannot, I know not, I have not, and I behave not). Schortinghuis maintained, however, that he was not guilty of mysticism, and he affirmed his wholehearted agreement with the precious doctrines of the Reformed Church.28

An examination of his treatise shows that while he frequently appeals to Scripture, he almost exclusively quotes from writers of the Pietist-Puritan school and rarely mentions the likes of Luther, Calvin, and Bucer. This suggests that the theology of the early Reformers did not interest him very much, and this attitude became characteristic of some of the later representatives of the Further Reformation.

It should be noted that men like Schortinghuis (and his contemporaries Eduard Meinders and Johannes Verschuir) did not disagree with the early Reformers; rather, they more or less ignored them. Another thing that characterized these men is that whereas their predecessors were concerned about the church, spending much time and energy trying to reform her as well as society in general, some later representatives of the Further Reformation gave up on both and turned inward. More and more the preaching focused on marks of grace whereby the hearers could know whether they were truly converted or not.

The result of this changing emphasis was that people started to depend more on subjective feelings and experiences than the objective promises of the gospel. Authentic self-examination in some cases became unhealthy introspection; this, combined with a strong world-flight mentality and an overly ascetic lifestyle, led to what we might today call the ghettoization of the church.

Theodorus van der Groe (1705–1784)

Like Comrie and Schortinghuis, Theodorus van der Groe represents the final stages of the movement that began with Taffin and Teellinck. He was born in 1705 in Zwammerdam, South Holland, in a parsonage of the Reformed Church. His father was a minister and his mother was a preacher’s daughter; his younger brother also became a minister. In 1724 van der Groe entered Leiden University. After graduating five years later, he was ordained to the ministry in Rijnsaterswoude, South Holland.

Like Schortinghuis, van der Groe began his ministry as an unconverted man. As one biographer writes, Despite his great faithfulness he stood on the pulpit of the old church in Rijnsaterswoude as a dead signpost.29 Although he preached Christ as the only way of salvation, he did not know Christ himself and was ignorant of the ways in which the Lord leads His people. It was through the witness of a God-fearing woman from a neighboring village that he came to know the Lord in a saving way. Later he wrote about his conversion experience:

I know from my own experience how far a person can come in Christendom with the aid of the intellect and the common illumination of the Spirit. I had the name and reputation of being a true Christian and even thought so myself, while in reality I walked in the way of deception having only an imaginary Christ in my head. I would surely have perished forever in that state had not the Lord in His infinite free grace been pleased to rescue me out of it by His almighty hand.30

This life-changing crisis shaped both his preaching and pastoral labors. His conversion, which took place in 1735, marked the beginning of van der Groe’s quest for what he believed to be essential to the Reformed faith: spritual experience. His most productive years were spent in Rotterdam-Kralingen. In 1754 he married Johanna Cornelia Bichon, daughter of a wealthy merchant; they did not have any children together.

Like most Further Reformation divines, van der Groe became embroiled in the ecclesiastical controversies of his day. He was particularly interested in discussions regarding the essence of faith. A hotly debated question at the time was whether assurance belongs to the essence and being of faith or to the well-being of faith. Closely related to this issue was the debate concerning justification. Some argued that justification precedes faith and is from eternity, while others held that justification follows faith in time. Van der Groe defended the latter position—a position held by Comrie as well. Van der Groe wrote extensively on this subject, but he was reluctant to publish his views, partly because he was not exactly sure where his colleague stood on this issue. He apparently