by Dr. J. R. Beeke1
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),2 and the most influential—the Calvinist infiltration.3 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)4 and Willem Teellinck (1579-1629),5 to its last brilliant lights, Alexander Comrie (1706- 74)6 and Theodorus van der Groe (1705-84).7
The Term “Nadere Reformatie”
The term Nadere Reformatie poses a problem.8 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 English-speaking 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;9 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,”10 it has a long pedigree and appears to be gaining acceptance among scholars, albeit partially by default.11 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.”12
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.”13