Wilhelmus a Brakel was a seventeenth-century Dutch Reformed pastor, and a leader in the so-called Second Reformation of the Dutch churches. At one blog dedicated to Brakel this development in Dutch Protestantism receives the following description:
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.
In sum, Dutch pietism was an effort fuse the personal piety of experiemental Calvinism with the rigor of the original Reformed movement.
Old Lifers are not known for relishing pietism, as a current discussion points out. And yet, even Dutch Reformed pietists, like Brakel, had enough sense to recognize the insights of post-Constantinian 2 kingdom theology. I hope the Baylys are listening.
The following comes from Brakel’s A Christian’s Reasonable Service, Book 2, chapter 29. (Props go out to our other mid-western correspondent):
Does the civil government have any authority at all with regard to the church? If yes, what does or does this not consist of?
We wish to preface our answer to this question by stating that first, all members of the clergy—ministers, elders, and deacons—are subject to the civil government as individuals , and thus are in one and the same category as other people. I repeat, as individuals. This is not true, however, as far as their ecclesiastical
standing is concerned, for as such, they are subject to consistories, Classes, and Synods, and thus are subject to the only King of the church, Jesus Christ.Secondly, if members of the clergy conduct themselves contrary to civil laws pertaining to all citizens, they, just as other citizens, may and must be punished according to the magnitude of their crime.
Thirdly, since members of the clergy are not servants of the civil government, but as individuals are in the same category as all other citizens, they have the same right to legal defense. Therefore, in the event of an indictment, legal procedures must be initiated against them the same as against other citizens.
Fourthly, members of the clergy and the entire congregation, each in their own position, are obligated to honor and obey the civil government conscientiously—with heart and in deeds. They are to do so not by way of compulsion, but in an affectionate manner, out of love for God, whose supremacy and majesty are reflected in the office of civil government. No one is released from the duty of rendering honor and obedience simply because he is a member of the clergy or of the church. This is true even if the civil government is either pagan, Islamic, heretical or Christian, good or evil, godly or ungodly, compassionate or severe. It is the duty of elders to stir everyone up to render such honor and obedience. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers†(Rom. 13:1)
Old Life 
Dr. Hart,
You may want to be careful claiming A’Brakel in the R2K scheme.
He also said this in Vol. 2, Chapter 29, page 179:
“It is the duty of the civil government to uphold not only the second table of the law, but also the first. It must see to it that God is honored. It may not tolerate any idolatry, worship of images, or any false religion within her jurisdiction, but must rather eradicate these. It must prevent the vain use of God’s Name practiced by cursing, swearing, and blasphemy. It must prevent the desecration of the Sabbath, punish violators of this commandment, and see to it that the gospel is proclaimed everywhere within its jurisdiction. It must see to it that the church as the darling of the Lord Jesus is protected and preserved and that neither internal dissension no any external oppression disturb or destroy the church, but that instead she be safely preserved in the use of the privileges and liberties which her King Jesus has given her.”
See page 178-180 for A’Brakel’s treatment of “The Responsibility of the Civil Government with Regard to the Church”.
Blessings,
LikeLike
Darryl,
First, it is quite interesting that others call A’Brakel a pietist, when he himself writes an entire chapter denouncing the mysticism of pietism, in which he writes (after acknowledging that some of the pietists were after true piety), “I have in view those who stimulate various fictitious notions and errors, such as mystics, quietists, heretics, fanatics, David-Jorists, Boehmists, Quakers and all such individuals who in our day are known as Pietists.” Hmmm. (2:643)
It seems to me that the only transformationalists who might take any issue with the quote above would be the shrinking tribe of Theonomists. Transformationalism does not mean a state church (witness Kuyper –free church in a free state, etc), or enforcement of both tables of the Law. I find it fascinating that R2K types are trying to coopt Reformed fathers to their view. Do we find a’Brakel writing against the state enforcing basic BIblically-derived morality? If so, where? Does he argue against Christians trying to arrive at Christian positions on pressing public issues?
Is it not interesting that the Afscheiding (those descended from Father Brakel) and the Doleantie (Kuyper’s later secession) joined together, not without friction, but that the friction was largely caused over objective / subjective tensions and not worldview?
Tell the whole story, please.
LikeLike
Ben, fine. You can find your quotes. But what you don’t acknowledge is that you would not write what I originally quoted Brakel as saying — that is, that pagan governments are legitimate. If they are, then why do Covenanters want a Lordship of Christ amendment to the Constitution? Suggests that some are not comfortable with a secular government, no?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Even a figure like R.J. Rushdoony in his comments on the 5th Commandment in the “Institutes of Biblical Law” says we are required by the 5th Commandment to submit to the civil authorities over us and be obedient to their rule, even if their rule fails to honor God and they fail to rule by His Law. I do not see where R.J. Rushdoony or I would have a problem with what A’ Brakel is saying.
LikeLike
Ken, can you explain to me how a pagan government would enforce both tables of the Law? Can you also explain how a Christian government enforces the Fourth Commandment on Reformed churches that don’t have two services? Maybe you can also explain why Christians today are so upset about a secular government when Brakel seems to say that Christians should be subject to all forms of government, even ones that don’t follow the Bible.
LikeLike
Ben, so you think pagan governments are legitimate?
LikeLike
Darryl,
So is your chief objection to Christ’s lordship over the secular sphere that it appears to you to be unworkable?
Would your chief objection to a Christian government be that it might become overweening in its oversight of the spiritual kingdom? (Incidentally, I would be with Kuyper on the Free Church)
Is your chief argument that the tacky hoi polloi that occupy evangelical pews have so little ability to understand nuance (unlike the educated Reformed elite) that the thought of millions of dead babies gets them a little agitated?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
The question here is not legitimacy or illegitimacy. The question is whether or not I should be obedient to those placed in authority over me in the civil realm even though their rule fails to uphold both tables of the Law. The answer is always yes and as A’Brakel notes that obedience should be done out of love and honor, not just with outward obedience but without evil will in my heart. Anything less is a violation of the 5th Commandment
All the A’Brakel quote is saying is that I as an Ordained Minister have no right to ignore or disobey the civil government because like anyone else in my congregation my place as a Minister does not give me any special privilege in the civil realm. Though I be a Minister in Christ’s Church, in the eyes of God in regard to the civil realm I am just a citizen of the State.
LikeLike
Ben, I actually think he is saying more than that because the Dutch government — alas the magistrate behind the magisterial Reformation — was imposing its selection of ministers on the churches and forcing Brakel out (although I only know his case second hand). Why is it that those who want a Christian government don’t consider that a Christian government might be Methodist?
LikeLike
Ken, you don’t get it. I don’t object to the Lordship of Christ at all. It’s just that I believe in it all the time, no matter what the religious character of the magistrate. You seem to believe in Christ’s Lordship based on who’s your prince. Don’t you think that makes you Lord, you know, determining when Christ is Lord according to who is in office?
LikeLike
Why do you think I do not consider that? Why would that change my mind?
LikeLike
Ben, because that would mean that you see that Christian magistrates have created as much havoc for the church as non-Christian ones. And that might prompt you to back away from the ledge of a Christian magistrate.
LikeLike
I don’t support Christian Magistrates because I think it would create a panacea of perfection, that is absurd. As long as sin is part of the reality of life nothing will be perfect and without serious error (see David, King). I support Christian Magistrates because 1) I believe the Scriptures require it and 2) God’s Law is more just than Man’s Law.
LikeLike
Darryl,
That is an unfair and unfounded assumption. I would be curious to know upon what you base it? Christ is Lord, of course, whether the state acknowledges him or not, and Christians are to live faithfully in every sphere regardless of who is in power.
I bet you and Mike Bauman have interesting discussions.
LikeLike
Ben, So then how can a pagan government be legitimate? God’s word requires holiness. It forbids sin. Sin in my life is not legitimate. So how can you approve of a pagan govt. with Brakel?
LikeLike
Ken, so if Christ is Lord no matter what, why do you object to a secular government? And why do oppose those who say a secular government is legitimate (or hang out with anti-2kers who say 2k is antinomian)?
LikeLike
Okay, now I am curious how you know with whom I hang out. At Hillsdale I hung out with John Willson, Mark Kalthoff, Mike Bauman, Don Westblade, Tom Burke and Tom Conner –what theological commitment do you divine from that sordid band?
I don’t recall objecting to a secular government. I object to the idea that Christians, when they have the ability, refusing to seek to influence that government towards what is good, true and right, which we know, not from nature (merely) but only from God’s Word.
LikeLike
Daryl,
See my response at 9:29am yesterday. David’s sin and the sins of his sons and other Kings did not make the Law of God illegitimate nor did it make the form of government itself illegitimate.
LikeLike
Ken, so that would mean that Brakel should not have written about pagan governments as legitimate? And would that mean that Paul should have written Romans 13 differently? I mean, if you’re going to appeal to God’s word . . . Did Paul tell Christians to tell Nero to submit to God’s word?
LikeLike
Ken, so you object to Paul not writing more in Romans? He should have told them to go to Nero and have him enforce God’s word?
LikeLike
Ben, I’m not talking about Israel. I’m talking about a secular government today. Is there something wrong with it so that Christians should try to change it? And where would you get the idea from Paul or Peter, who knew a thing or two about a bad government, that the apostle’s believed Christians should change the government?
LikeLike
Firstly before we get any further I see you are now willing to admit you have incorrectly quoted A’ Brakel for your purposes.
Secondly, John Calvin in his exposition of John 8 explains this more clearly than I can:
“11. Neither do I condemn thee. We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He bad been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Matthew 10:6) and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luke 12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law, if adultery be not punished; for then the door will be thrown open for any kind of treachery, and for poisoning, and murder, and robbery. Besides, the adulteress, when she bears an unlawful child, not only robs the name of the family, but violently takes away the right of inheritance from the lawful offspring, and conveys it to strangers. But what is worst of all, the wife not only dishonors the husband to whom she had been united, but prostitutes herself to shameful wickedness, and likewise violates the sacred covenant of God, without which no holiness can continue to exist in the world.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom34.xiv.i.html
LikeLike
Darryl,
Was Romans the only Bible the Romans had? Or did they have Genesis-Malachi, as well?
LikeLike
Ben,
Fine, Calvin thought adulterers should be punished.
Nero didn’t punish adulterers.
Paul didn’t tell Nero to punish adulterers.
Paul didn’t tell Christians to punish Nero for not punishing adulterers.
When will you submit to what the Bible says?
LikeLike
Ken,
Yes, the Christians had the OT. So did Jesus and Paul. So don’t you see that your position leads you to think that Jesus and Paul were wrong not to condemn the pagan government or to rally Christians to change it.
LikeLike
Darryl,
You need to rephrase the following:
The first two are statements are indicative of Paul’s silence (“didn’t tell”, “didn’t tell”). Then in the last one you demand Ben to submit to what the Bible says, but all you pointed out it what the NT scriptures don’t say. Since your motto is liberty where the scriptures are silent how do you square that with demanding Ben to submit to what the NT scriptures don’t say. Why must he submit where you grant yourself liberty?
LikeLike
Andrew, I am asking Ben to be silent about faulty governments the way that Paul was. What you don’t seem to acknowledge is that critics of 2k fault us for not saying what they — as opposed to Christ and the apostles — said. If I say the Bible outlaws designated hitters and the Bible is silent about baseball, then someone telling me to limit my remarks about what the Bible says to what the Bible says is not an infringement of liberty.
LikeLike
Man — lots of 2k bashers on here. Who knows why?
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Is it legitimate to use the Old Testament? ?As far as Paul goes is silence ever an argument? What about the numerous other things Paul is “silent” about?
LikeLike
Ben, but if you think that I need to appeal to the OT in judging the magistrate, doesn’t that apply to Paul also? But if Paul is not just an example but an authority in using the OT, then why aren’t you bound to follow him?
As far as silence goes, that’s at the heart of the Reformed doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. If Scripture is silent, the church may not speak. Now you may think the Bible is not silent on the magistrate because of the OT. But Paul treats the OT as silent in what he tells to believers about the state.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
What do you do with Paul’s interaction with Felix?
LikeLike
Andrew said: “Since your motto is liberty where the scriptures are silent how do you square that with demanding Ben to submit to what the NT scriptures don’t say. Why must he submit where you grant yourself liberty?”
I respond: Because for R2k, liberty of conscience means liberty from the Word. Ben may present any reason he likes, unless he cites Biblical reason…Where there is liberty, Ben must be silent.
The promise of God’s Holy Spirit was to put the law upon our minds and hearts…way, way, way deep down into the subconscious portions…and that’s where it must stay. Evidence of God’s indwelling by His Spirit must be measured by how little of our brains we use. The greater the work of the Spirit, the greater the portion our hearts and minds must be devoted to the subconscious rule of the Spirit and law. According to scientists (not Christian ones, real ones), the most sanctified R2k advocates are functioning on about .005% of their actual mental powers.
LikeLike
Ben, why do you think Paul is talking about politics or the duties of a magistrate? I’ve looked at Spurgeon and Calvin both on this passage and they think it is a model of preaching for repentance. Neither one says a word about the duties of a magistrate. Here’s part of what Calvin says:
“Again, we must note, that although the reprobate be stricken with the judgment of God, yet are they not renewed unto repentance by that terror alone. Felix is touched indeed, when he heareth that God shall be the Judge of the world; yet he fleeth therewithal from his judgment-seat, (whereof he is afraid) so that this is feigned sorrow, which doth not work salvation. Therefore, repentance requireth such fear as may both engender a voluntary hatred of sin, and may also present a man before God, that he may willingly suffer himself to be judged by his word. And this is a token of true profiting when the sinner seeketh for medicine there, from whence he received his wound. Furthermore, this place doth teach that men are then examined and tried to the quick, when their vices, wherewith they are infected, are brought to light, and their consciences are called back unto the judgment to come. For when Paul disputeth of righteousness and temperance, he did rub Felix sore upon the gall; forasmuch as he was both a man given to filthy pleasure, and also to dissolute riot, and given over unto iniquity.”
LikeLike
Craig, for 2k Christian liberty does not mean freedom from the word. It means exactly what Ch. 20 of the Confession says it means.
If you assert such falsehoods again here I will delete your comments.
LikeLike
“For some Protestants, the goal of applying the faith to all areas of life misconstrues the essence of the Christian message, which has far more to do with eternal rather than temporal realities. The application of Christianity to social and personal problems can hurt religion by leading believers to forget what makes their faith holy or sacred…In sum, the application of religion to practical affairs sacralizes things that are common (e.g., exercise, eating, politics) and trivializes things that are sacred (e.g., creed, sacraments, and pastoral ministry).” -D.G. Hart
Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. -1 Corinthians 10:31 (God’s Word)
COMMENTS DELETED.
I stand by what I said. I also stand by the Word, and with WCF chapter XX.
LikeLike
Craig, here is also what I wrote in the next paragraph:
I stand by that.
LikeLike
Darryl,
some might say your deletion of those comments is bearing false witness given that it is predicated on the assumption what I wrote was a lie. Not many can say that the deletion is bearing false witness, however, since they can’t actually read it…so most are left with the impression that I did lie.
You are free to delete comments, but when a deletion is predicated upon the assertion that what is written is a lie, that is not in keeping with the ninth commandment nor instruction from Q145 of the Larger Catechism.
LikeLike
Craig, if you are going to come here and put into my mouth matters that I clearly do not affirm — and I have repeatedly denied your accusations, then I’d say the burden of charity falls with you. If you want to come here and point out what “seems” or “appears” to follow from my arguments, fine. Have at it. But you cannot say that I affirm the implications of my views if I deny those implications and try to explain otherwise. Them’s the rules here. What the Baylys do is their business.
LikeLike