0.4. Biography

Wilhelmus à Brakel by Dr. W. Fieret[Note: Dr. Fieret teaches history and sociology at the Van Lodenstein College in Amersfoort, the Netherlands--a school of orthodox Reformed persuasion. He received his doctorate in history from the Rijksuniversiteit (State University) of Utrecht, the Netherlands. He is a professing member of the Oud Gereformeerde Gemeente (Old Reformed Congregation) of Woudenberg, the Netherlands.] His Youth and Education

Wilhelmus à Brakel was born on Jan 2, 1635, in Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. He was the only son born to Theodorus à Brakel and Margaretha Homma -- a marriage blessed with six children. To the great joy, wonder, and gratitude of both parents, it became evident at a very early age that the fear of the

Lord was to be found in the young Wilhelmus. At a later date he was at times compared with Obadiah who, by grace, was able and privileged to say, “I thy servant fear the Lord from my youth.” Later in his life à Brakel said he knew of no change in his life. From his earliest years he remembers having had a great love for His Savior Jesus Christ. A Christmas sermon by his father, Theodorus à Brakel, made a deep impression upon the young Wilhelmus. The commemoration of the fact that Jesus came into the world to save sinners had so affected him that he asked more than once, “Father, when will it be Christmas again?”

He spoke to his mother about spiritual life on numerous occasions. Once it happened that he asked her a very profound question about the life of grace. She did not respond to that question, but replied: “Child, that is beyond your understanding.” This reaction caused him to become somewhat inhibited; no longer did he have the courage to speak as freely about deep spiritual matters. This was no indication, however, that his mother was indifferent toward her child. On the contrary, more than once she would tell him that she prayed so intensely for him that she would forget herself. As Monica, the mother of Augustine, prayed incessantly for the salvation of her son, so did Margaretha Homma. She would earnestly warn him, “Child, how much you will have to answer for if you do not fear God!” In spite of his longing for Christmas and his profound questions which gave evidence of spiritual life, she continued to admonish her son in love. She wanted to impress deeply upon him what it means to “lose life in order to find life,” as well as the necessity of the mortification of the old man and the quickening of the new man.

Following his childhood, Wilhelmus attended the Latin school in Leeuwarden. At that time his father pastored in the village of Beers, southwest of Leeuwarden. Distance made it impossible to travel back and forth each day. Wilhelmus would come home on Saturday and return to school on Monday. His father would accompany him for some distance. As long as possible he would watch his son in the distance while quietly beseeching the Lord to protect him. This concern and dependency upon God made such a deep impression upon Wilhelmus that he would frequently be in prayer himself as he continued his walk to Leeuwarden. At the age of nineteen, in 1654, Wilhelmus matriculated at the academy of Franeker. His education was thorough and comprehensive. He studied languages, philosophy, history, was in some measure acquainted with the study of medicine, and naturally studied his main subject, theology. Later he would write that a minister needs a thorough education. Through philosophy and natural scholarship the intellect and ability to think need to be exercised.

Upon completion of his education the twenty-four-year-old à Brakel was examined by Classis Leeuwarden (the equivalent of a presbytery). This examination included the preaching of a trial sermon. He spoke on Revelation 21:11 : “Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.” The measure of satisfaction with the sermon as well as the answers given (which evidenced thorough study) were such that the brothers decided unanimously to admit him to the sacred ministry.

He was promoted to be a candidate for the ministry with a “general commission”; in addition to which, as was common in Friesland, he was also authorized to administer the sacraments. This general commission subsequently rendered him much freedom and joy in the exercise of this honorable office. Since this commission was not limited to the congregation to which he was united as minister, he deemed himself to be a sent servant wherever he came.

Views Concerning the Office of the Ministry

Having received his credentials as a candidate for the ministry, Wilhelmus à Brakel was privileged to labor in the Lord’s vineyard. He considered his office to be very weighty, for a minister deals with souls created for eternity. He therefore wrote about the office of the ministry with great earnestness and urgency. In his view there is not a “more abominable man than an unregenerate minister, who uses the holy things of God to his own advantage.” He sharply condemned those ministers who performed their task only to gain honor and wealth. They would have been much happier had they become shoemakers.

He deemed the knowledge of Greek and Hebrew to be indispensable for every minister since the Bible was originally written in those languages. He spoke of a “wretched congregation” if the minister of that congregation would be satisfied with a limited knowledge of theology -- a knowledge limited to what had been committed to memory. The searching of the Scriptures is a necessity: the interrelatedness of passages of Scripture needs to be searched out -- such as prophecies and their fulfilment. In short, a minister must daily, while prayerfully looking unto the Lord, engage himself in the study of His Word, as he is the mouth of the Lord to the congregation.

“All this knowledge would be insufficient for a minister, however -- à Brakel even used the phrase “of no avail’ -- if he himself has neither been illuminated nor converted by the Holy Spirit, for the truths which he reads in God’s Word must be found in his own heart. He must know by personal experience what conversion, prayer, believing in Christ, wrestlings of faith, the subtle delusions and assaults of Satan, darkness, the sealing work of the Spirit, selfdenial, and mortification of sin, etc., are.” In addition to these two important prerequisites -- regeneration and learning -- a minister ought to be dignified, lest anyone should despise the minister of the Word of God. Such dignity should, however, not degenerate into affectation, pretending to be different from what he really is, doing so solely to make an impression upon men. As examples of such affectation à Brakel mentions the manner in which some people would wear their hat, hold their heads, or walk. “How abominable is such ludicrous affectation, which has selfaggrandizement as its mother!”

Other traits of a good minister, according to à Brakel, are love toward Christ, His cause, and His sheep; denial of one’s own honor and possessions -- yes, even one’s own life; and being diligent and exemplary in all things. If a called servant possessed these “prerequisite qualities,” he was permitted to commence his ministry.

à Brakel mentions congregational prayer before God as being the first aspect of a minister’s task; while praying he is the mouth of the congregation toward God. He ought to pray with great reverence, realizing that he is addressing the eminent majesty of God Himself. This obligation to be reverent engenders modesty and orderliness in the manner in which he expresses himself. “It is dreadful to babble some words in an unintelligible fashion, jumping from one matter to the next, and to speak on, without any rhyme or reason.” Then the congregation would benefit much more if the minister were to use a form prayer.

Rev. à Brakel did not disapprove at all of a minister quietly contemplating what he would mention in his prayer and lay before the Lord. It could even be beneficial to make some notations for this purpose, as long as one would not always avail himself of them, as this would result in spiritless intercession, since in true prayer the Holy Spirit prays for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

If a minister is not very healthy, he should not dwell upon his weakness in public prayer before the congregation. Often a minister will elaborate upon his weakness when he did not fare too well during the sermon -- for instance, due to lack of study or to solicit admiration for doing so well in view of being so weak. à Brakel evidently had a great measure of common sense.

à Brakel mentions preaching as being the second duty, calling it “a great work.” The realization that he is God’s ambassador who speaks on God’s behalf ought to fill the minister with fear and trembling. The Lord will take careful note of how a minister proclaims His Word. Furthermore, preaching is the means which God uses to translate souls from darkness into light -- from the domain of the prince of darkness into the kingdom of Jesus Christ. It is therefore of the greatest importance how a minister explains the Word of God. A continual prayer for a sanctified heart and the presence of the Lord Himself will then precede every sermon. For indeed, the object of every sermon must be the honor of God and the welfare of the souls entrusted to him. A good minister will not flaunt his scholarship on the pulpit, for then he is seeking to honor himself. Even if someone can preach as an angel, it is nothing more than hypocrisy if personal honor is the objective. Such preaching seeks to solicit the praise of men. Such a minister will be very satisfied if there are many people who appear to be emotionally moved. He prefers to be in the company of those who praise and even idolize him. People ought to be well aware of the fact, however, that the devil can also transform himself into an angel of light. The servants of such angels of light can indeed put on the mantle of either Elijah or John the Baptist, but their exterior deportment will be fundamentally different from their heart.

à Brakel mentions catechizing as being the third task. A minister ought to give much attention to this task. He deemed it to be the best means to instill the fundamentals of truth and godliness.

Rev. à Brakel distinguished between four types of catechism:

(1) There must be instruction for children. They are baptized and therefore belong to the church. They are, “in a manner agreeable to their level of comprehension,” to be instructed in the doctrines of Christ.

(2) There must be instruction for adults who have indicated that they wish to partake of the Lord’s Supper. This initial instruction is insufficient for the partaking of this sacrament. For indeed, such must make confession of their faith and give an account of the hope that is in them. This instruction and examination must be very thorough, for -- thus warns à Brakel -- the well-being of the church is contingent upon granting permission to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

(3) There must be instruction for younger and older men who are called upon to defend the truth against assaults from without and within. From this third group some could be trained to function as “assistants” to visit the sick and read in church. The most capable among them could be trained for the ministry.

(4) The subject for the final catechism class was the practice of godliness. Among the subjects which were dealt with, à Brakel mentions the following: analysis of God’s dealings with souls in conversion; discussion of the present state of the soul; and giving guidance so that believers may steadfastly walk upon the way of godliness. This type of catechism does not so much consist in an address by the minister, as in having open discussions by means of questions and answers.

All these catechetical labors ought to be performed painstakingly and zealously. à Brakel was well aware of this. He wrote: “I cannot see how a minister who does not engage in the task of catechizing can live and die with a good conscience.” The fourth aspect of the work of a minister consists in the visitation of the members of the congregation. Family visitation must not only be conducted prior to the administration of the Lord’s Supper, but the minister ought to visit members of his congregation on a daily basis. These visits, according to à Brakel, require thorough preparation. The minister must be fully aware for what reason he makes the visit, as this will keep him from engaging in frivolous and “worldly” conversation. Fundamental matters concerning eternity ought to be discussed.

Undoubtedly the issue of family worship will then have been raised to ascertain whether this was indeed practiced -- as ought to be the case in every Christian family. Twice a day -- morning and evening, and if possible also at noon -- the father as head of the family ought to read a chapter from the Bible, explain what has been read, provide instruction for the children and the servants, and then conclude this exercise with the singing of a psalm and by offering prayer. Such exercises would bear much fruit: “The Lord will then bless the home; the children and the servants will learn to fear the Lord and thus attain salvation; it will beget mutual love and respect; and this will cause everyone to refrain from sinning. People will thus exemplify godliness to each other and emulate it.”

If the father was absent for some reason, or if he was incapable of either reading or explaining, it would be the mother’s obligation to assume this task. The actual goal which à Brakel pursued, and with him all the representatives of the Dutch Second Reformation, was that the family be a small church. Family visitations were therefore highly important, for ministers were obligated to stimulate people to an understanding of what their task consists.

Every member, whether poor or rich, had to be visited. It would often happen that a minister would tarry long in the residences of the rich where a glass of wine would be offered to him. Consequently, there would hardly be any time left for others. à Brakel lamented, “How wretched are such ministers and how wretched are family visitations which are thus conducted!” The minister ought to administer the sacraments with reverence for the Lord, doing so as an ambassador of Christ. By means of this sacred administration he seals the promise of the gospel: he who believes in the Son has eternal life. This fifth aspect of the ministry would be “a dreadful desecration of the holy things” if it were to be performed in a careless manner.

à Brakel identified the use of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven as the last aspect of the work of a minister. This task is performed while delivering the sermon, whereby the forgiveness of sins by virtue of the merits of Christ is proclaimed to believers, whereas unbelievers are admonished to repent since they continue to live under the wrath of God. Eternal damnation is imminent for them if they remain unconverted. With care and a sense of responsibility the minister ought to make use of the authority entrusted to him. The use of the second key, Christian discipline, is not the jurisdiction of the minister alone, but rests with the entire consistory (i.e. session). In order to stimulate himself and others, à Brakel concludes his description of the office of the ministry with a word of warning concerning the account that will once have to be given before God. The Lord will ask how the congregation has been dealt with: “How did you deal with souls? Are you to be blamed for any of them going lost? Did you tenderly give attention to My lambs and sucklings? Or did you unjustly grieve them, slay them, and take their veil away from them? Where are the souls which by means of your service have been converted, comforted, and built up?”

à Brakel writes that for many ministers this will be a grievous examination. They will wish to have never occupied that office -- yes, never to have been born. How dreadful it will be if you must perish due to your own sin and guilt! It will be a dreadful burden to hear the accusations of misled and neglected souls: “You knew very well that I was ignorant and lived in sin. If you had looked after me, had warned and rebuked me, and instructed and directed me in the way of salvation, I would have been saved. Look, however, you unfaithful minister, you unfaithful elder -- I am now going lost! Let God require my blood from your hand, and deal with you as a wicked and lazy servant.” On the other hand, many faithful ministers will also be found. The Lord will bring their work, prayers, comforts, and admonitions to the foreground and say to them, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.”

Someone who writes so solemnly about the ministerial office which he himself held, will have engaged himself in this task with all his energy -- in spite of the realization of imperfection and sinfulness. This was indeed true for Wilhelmus à Brakel. Also in his magnum opus, De Redelijke Godsdienst [The Christian’s Reasonable Service] -- which occasionally is referred to as the most popular Dutch dogmatics of the eighteenth century -- he continually pointed to the one thing needful, and instructed believers. In his exposition of doctrinal tenets he did not restrict himself to a dry and logical discourse. For example, when dealing with the prophetical office of Christ, after a clear explanation of what this office entails, he addresses the unconverted as follows: “You who are unconverted, reflect upon your case for a moment! How long has this Prophet already been engaged in instructing you? How many servants has He already sent to you? How often has He convinced you of sin, of your unconverted state, and of eternal condemnation? How frequently has He persuaded you to become a Christian, to repent, and to enter into a covenant with Him? ... Tell me, would it not be just if this Prophet were to turn away from you, and let you go your own way, since you do not desire to hear Him anyway? Has He not stretched out His hands long enough to you? If He were to cease doing so at this moment, would not your condemnation be just?”

He reminds the regenerate that they were no better. Instead, the Lord in His great mercy persevered and by His almighty power opened their hard heart. It therefore behooved them to be grateful and astonished, for it was the work of the Lord alone. These words are followed, however, by an admonition and exhortation: “Consider, however, at the same time how disobediently you behave yourself concerning this Prophet. You have but a glimmer of light, and should you be satisfied with that?”

Sermons In the few sermons of à Brakel which have been preserved, we again encounter him as a serious minister. In every sermon he addressed all who were present; no one left the church without being warned. He addressed words of comfort to believers. They are united to Christ and are His property for time and eternity. In this context à Brakel stated, “Only he who is in Christ is a new creature.” The state of the regenerate is much more glorious than that of Adam in the state of rectitude, for their union with Christ is unbreakable. All blessings and benefits issue forth from this gracious gift. That this is indeed a gift of God Himself is continually stressed by à Brakel: “God alone is the One who conceives, begins, and accomplishes salvation. Paul therefore states in Php 1:1-30 that He who has begun this good work shall also finish it. Therefore, the work of salvation must neither be initiated by nor derived from our own strength, but from God alone.” Elsewhere in his sermons he states, “The Lord is the cause of our new nature, and not man -- not in the least measure.”

Regardless of the grace the regenerate had received, à Brakel considered it to be his task to give them further instruction; for indeed, there are children, young men, men, and fathers in grace. “Do whatever you can to please Him and render Him pleasure by always giving heed to and improving His stirrings within; by always being submissive to His leadings; and being opposed to sin and committed to virtue -- so that He may seal you more and more and strengthen your soul.”

Converted people can so easily grieve the Spirit of God when, for example, there is no special comfort subsequent to the administration of the Lord’s Supper. Dissatisfaction with that is an expression of being at odds with God’s leading. “Even though you may have prepared yourself well, He is not obligated to give you your wish.” Others were warned against being excessively concerned about committed sins. Such a concern is not good; he called it “an unprofitable concern.” Isaiah’s words, “in quietness and in confidence shall be your strength,” ought to be observed more. In this manner à Brakel directed the converted to Paul’s example of the spiritual race: “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Php 3:14). The contrast between those who may possess this “most eminent life of grace” and those who still live for their own account is great. They live “a most wretched life.” Unregenerate men are dead in spiritual matters. à Brakel, in one of his sermons, made a comparison between a naturally and spiritually dead person. As a person who is dead in a natural sense is stiff and cold, likewise a spiritually dead person is cold in spiritual matters. In a profound sense he is also insensitive to the Word of God. Even if an unconverted person exerts himself to please God, he finds no delight in it. “O wretched condition -- yes, thrice wretched men! Give ear, you who are spiritually dead; that is, if you are able to hear. Do you not know that you are dead before God, and thus also in all your works? As long as you remain thus, death will be stamped upon all that you do.”

After having addressed the unconverted in such an earnest manner, he calls them to repentance. There are three examples in the Bible of people who have been resurrected: the daughter of Jairus, the young man of Nain, and Lazarus. Therefore, “do not despair, but rather look unto this living Jesus and listen to His Word. For, when He called Lazarus, He also gave him the ability to hear. This Jesus is mighty to make you alive, for He is the resurrection and life itself.” When someone is sick, he will drink a potion, causing him to expel all the corruption in his body in order to regain his health. Thus, the sinner must remove the evil from his soul by means of a true confession of guilt before God. It is essential for every unconverted person to examine his entire life in the light of the law -- from commandment to commandment. Then it will be evident that the entire law has been transgressed. The Lord pronounces judgment -- the curse of the law -- upon everyone who transgresses His commandments. In one’s own strength there is no expectation of deliverance; despair therefore of your own ability. This will be followed by deep humiliation before the Lord, an earnest confession of guilt, and a supplicating for grace. “Persevere in this until you receive it. You will experience that He who has never said to the seed of Jacob ’seek Me in vain,’ will manifest Himself while you are inquiring after Him. ... Even if you had committed the sins of all men in a most dreadful manner, there is a sufficient fullness in Jesus.” The third group addressed by à Brakel were the hypocrites. [Note: The author uses “geveinsden,” “huichelaars,” and “hypocrieten,” all of which are translated as “hypocrites” in English.] Some are conscious of the fact that they are deceiving themselves for eternity. Consciously they convince themselves that they possess true faith. Such blatant hypocrites, as à Brakel called them, are not so dangerous for the church. The sophisticated hypocrites, however, have much in common with true believers. It can be that they have such exceptional insight into the fundamentals of religion that they can even instruct others with profit. This can be accompanied by an aversion for sin, so that they see themselves as sinners who have made themselves worthy of God’s eternal judgments. They confess God to be just in all His punishments. This does not lead them to despair, for by the so-called common operations of the Spirit -- in contrast with the special, saving operations of God the Holy Spirit -- they see the all-sufficiency of Christ as having merited salvation. With urgency, Rev. à Brakel pointed the members of his congregation to the warning examples which are given in the Bible: Herod was pleased to hear John the Baptist; Simon the Sorcerer was a member of the congregation of Samaria, having been baptized and of whom the Christians said that he was a great power of God; Judas Iscariot, in the presence of the Lord Jesus Himself and the other eleven disciples, partook of the Lord’s Supper; and, in the parable, the ten virgins all went to meet the bridegroom -- being similar in so many respects, whereas five of them were nevertheless foolish. In one of his sermons à Brakel made a distinction between the sorrow for sin which many have whose conversion is but counterfeit, and the sorrow which true believers have. The sorrow of the first issues forth from a fear for punishment, whereas with the latter there is a sorrow for sin itself, God’s goodness and justice having been offended thereby. Hypocrites can also hate sin and be desirous to live a holy life. They deem such a life to be a bitter potion, however -- which, alas, is a prerequisite unto salvation. The true believer, even if he could be saved without living a godly life, would not desire this, for it is his wish to live a life acceptable to God and pleasing to Him.

à Brakel identified self-examination as one of the preeminent activities a listener must engage in. He quotes Hebrews 6:1-20, where mention is made of people who have been enlightened, have tasted the heavenly gift, have been made partakers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come (that is, of life after this life), who nevertheless became apostate and thus did not possess true saving faith. “A hypocrite can be a partaker of God in some measure, at least as far as His ordinances and gracious gifts are concerned, being a partaker of some remote operations of the Spirit. They are not -- which, however, is true for every believer -- of one spirit with the Lord.” In his sermons, à Brakel regularly addressed the government and exhorted it to carry out its task properly. Rulers ought to give a good example in all areas -- especially in the realm of justice. By exercising justice indiscriminately toward all men, the government will grow stronger. Moreover, God Himself requires this: “He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God” (2 Samuel 23:3). à Brakel mentions the example of two Roman government officials of whom it was said that it would be easier to pluck the sun from the firmament than to accuse them of injustice. Such was the measure of moral fortitude issuing forth from Roman philosophy. Would then grace not exert a much greater influence? “Oh, that governments and those who govern would find their delight primarily in the exercise of justice.” Regretfully, à Brakel had to conclude that there were many judges in the Republic who were blind to justice. Ungodly lawyers were representing cases which they knew were indefensible. These matters were the cause of God’s displeasure toward the Netherlands.

He denounced other sins, such as frequenting fairs, desecrating God’s Name and day, drunkenness, excess, and proud dress. Even on days of penitence there were people who would come to church dressed according to French fashion -- a nation which suppressed the Netherlands for such a long period. He reminded them of the cruelties which the French committed in 1672 -- a year of great calamity [Note: In Dutch history this year is referred to as “het rampjaar”--the year of disaster.] .

Rather than excess -- also as far as eating and drinking are concerned -- moderation ought to be practiced. Besides a Christian’s duty to be moderate in light of being a stranger in this world -- ”there is but a very minimal partition which separates them from heaven” -- moderation also yields advantages for man’s intellect and memory. à Brakel advised that one should eat “a sober diet, for too much food and drink is harmful to the brain, and this in turn renders the memory weak.” The weakening of the memory would be detrimental to the retention of spiritual knowledge, for the truths of the gospel must be hid and stored in the heart. Indeed, it is the gospel which directs the sinner in the way which he must go to attain eternal life. By nature man has, however, but little room for the things of God’s kingdom. Instead, old songs which one learned at an earlier time, as well as former suffering and sinful deeds, are remembered for many years, whereas a sermon is forgotten after a few hours. Thus, evil is continually retained in man’s thoughts.

Rev. à Brakel, in one of his sermons, compared the memory of a fallen man to a sieve: that which is good falls through it and disappears, and that which is sinful remains. Thus, man forgets what he should primarily be thinking about: God, our Creator and Preserver; His Son Jesus Christ who gave Himself for the sins of His people; religious truths (are there not many people who have heard God’s Word preached and yet are unable to describe faith as it functions in the soul?); the duties prescribed by Christian doctrine, such as visiting prisoners and the observance of the Lord’s Day; hospitality; our committed sins which we ought to hate; our vows which we made in times of danger or during a serious illness (“Do not be deceived; God will not permit Himself to be mocked. He has various ways whereby He will cause you to remember them”); the church of God throughout the entire world; and the end of our life.

Pray for renewal of heart, for in conversion all the faculties of the soul are renewed, and thus also our corrupt memory. “Grace fills the gap (in the memory) which sin has made.” Believers must see to it that their memories are not excessively filled with worldly things, for then there will no longer be room for spiritual matters. Especially young people whose “memories are still vigorous,” must frequently think upon their Creator. Later in life this faculty will be weakened due to sorrow and grief. “Therefore, obtain a Bible, books, a catechism, and a collection of beautiful texts and good instructions. They will not occupy much space.” Parents, for example, ought to stimulate their children in this respect by asking them questions about the sermons they hear. Children must have the doctrine according to godliness impressed upon them from their youth. They so easily depart from the way, often causing their parents great sorrow. “Parents, how grievous it would be to bring forth children who will tear down God’s temple. Therefore, be diligent in giving them a godly education and pray for them.”

à Brakel gave some advice concerning training one’s memory. First of all both temperature and humidity need to be comfortable. “Cold brains engender forgetfulness.” As a second help he mentions a peaceful conscience; then one’s memory is receptive for everything. A third help is repetition. To that end à Brakel advanced the idea that it was useful to take notes of what one heard during the sermon. He called this a good means “to keep you wakeful during the administration of God’s ordinances. One will then neither sleep nor look around, which would be detrimental to our mind, causing our thoughts to wander elsewhere.” It ought to be recognized, however, that the Spirit’s teaching excels this. The truth of the gospel ought to be engraved in our hearts to such an extent that with the Roman, Cassius Severus -- when the Senate ordered that his book be burned -- one could say: “You may as well burn me also, for it is written in my heart.” Forgetfulness can be an impediment to our conversion. “How can we be repentant of or grieve over what we have so readily forgotten?” We must not think that God will forget sin. “Verily, I shall never forget their works.”

Those who were of the opinion, however, that salvation was to be obtained via a good memory and much knowledge, were corrected by à Brakel with the remark that there are indeed people who can repeat everything; however, when it comes to the practice of godliness they are but midgets. Knowledge without love will puff a person up, and will engender high thoughts of self and a looking down upon others. Therefore, strive to obtain that knowledge which is associated with love, for “it has its origin in God.”

Pastorates in Friesland[Note: Friesland is one of the twelve provinces of the Netherlands.] For more than forty-nine years, Wilhelmus à Brakel served various congregations in the national church of the Netherlands. After having completed his studies in Franeker in 1659, he did not immediately receive a call. There were scarcely any vacancies in Friesland at that time. à Brakel, who then was twenty-four years of age, went to Utrecht where, until 1662, he received instruction from the well-known theologians Gisbertus Voetius and Andreas Essenius.

1662-1665: Exmorra In 1662 he received a call from the congregation of Exmorra. This village is located in the province of Friesland, southwest of Leeuwarden [Note: Leeuwarden is the capital of the province of Friesland.] and a short distance from Makkum where his father, Theodorus à Brakel, had been pastor for a period of time. The vacancy in Exmorra was only the third in Friesland since 1659, there evidently being no shortage of ministers. Yet they called a young and inexperienced candidate for the ministry. The reason for this was, according to one of à Brakel’s contemporaries, that his preaching gifts had become known. During the period between 1659 and 1662 he had preached fairly regularly in addition to his studies.

Exmorra was not an easy congregation, as he had to cope with much indifference among its population. He nevertheless labored with great zeal in his congregation and utilized all his talents as he endeavored to cause God’s Word to find entrance. His attention was so strongly focused upon his congregation that he was hardly known outside Exmorra. A contemporary said of him that he buried himself as it were within this village. Approximately a year and one half after his installation in Exmorra, the young minister married Sara Nevius. His tenure in Exmorra would not last long; after three years he received a call from the much larger congregation of Stavoren, a port city at the Zuiderzee [Note: During the days of à Brakel the Zuiderzee was an extension of the North Sea reaching into the very heart of the Netherlands. This sea which has now been severed from the North Sea via a large dam (the “Afsluitdijk”) is presently known as “Het IJselmeer” (the IJsel lake).] . Rev. Abraham Hellenbroek, who delivered the funeral sermon upon à Brakel’s decease in 1711, commented: “The Lord wanted to use him for a greater task.” His departure must have been to the regret of the congregation of Exmorra, there being evidence of a “noticeable stirring and blessing” during his tenure. He nevertheless believed that he had to depart. He considered the call for help from Stavoren, which was without a minister at that time, to be a divine mandate. 1665-1670: Stavoren

Shortly after his installation on December 3, 1665, it became evident that the congregation was too large for one minister. The ministers who had served this congregation prior to à Brakel were evidently not of that opinion; however, the new minister wanted to serve this much larger congregation with the same zeal and faithfulness as he had served the significantly smaller congregation of Exmorra. The congregation of Stavoren, due to the costs involved, was not able -- or perhaps not willing -- to call a second minister.

Rev. à Brakel then turned to princess Albertina Agnes of Orange, a daughter of governor Frederik Hendrik, born to him in 1634. She was governor on behalf of her son -- the Frisian governor Hendrik Casimir II -- who was under age. The request for a contribution towards filling the vacancy for a second ministerial position was honored by her; she gave fl. 800.00 from her own means. This was a considerable amount for that time -- an amount to be paid each year. à Brakel decided to forego his own guaranteed salary from the city and receive the much less secure salary from the governor’s mansion. He made this decision to remove all objections for calling a second minister.

Rev. à Brakel was most grateful toward the princess. When the book De trappen des Geestelijken Levens [The Steps of Spiritual Life] by his late father, Theodorus à Brakel, was published in 1670, Wilhelmus dedicated it to her. He wished her God’s blessing in temporal things, but above all with regard to spiritual life. She was evidently a good example for other government officials -- as evidenced by her care for the congregation of Stavoren.

During his tenure in Stavoren, à Brakel came into contact with the French revival preacher, Jean de Labadie. From a letter written at a later date -- à Brakel already resided in Rotterdam -- it is evident that he initially did not reject this gifted minister and his objectives. (In the section, “Pastorate in Rotterdam,” more attention will be given to the relationship between à Brakel and the Labadists.) Not much is known about à Brakel’s work in Stavoren since both consistorial minutes and records of city resolutions (ordinances of the city government) are lacking. In the previously mentioned funeral sermon, Rev. Hellenbroek said, “The extraordinary fruit which he enjoyed in Stavoren has been very significant and widely recognized.” Thus, also in this city his labors were not in vain in the Lord.

1670-1673: Harlingen

After having labored in Stavoren as a minister of God’s Word for five years, a call was extended to à Brakel by Harlingen which, after Leeuwarden, was the largest and wealthiest city of Friesland. Business flourished in Harlingen, an old fortified city. Due to its favorable location, being a port city at the Zuiderzee, there was intense shipping traffic. The increased prominence of the city was evident, among other things, from the transfer of the naval headquarters of Friesland and Groningen [Note: Groningen is the province adjacent to the province of Friesland.] from Dokkum to Harlingen in 1645. Rev. à Brakel accepted the call which had been extended to him in January, 1670 after the death of one of the four ministers in the city, Rev. M. B. Brugbon. He labored in Harlingen for three years with much blessing. Rev. Hellenbroek testified, “The shining forth of the countenance of God upon his ministry was also so evident for him there, that the blessing which he enjoyed and the love of the congregation for him can hardly be expressed. A wondrous change took place under his ministry. He has begotten a multitude of spiritual children there.” In The Christian’s Reasonable Service à Brakel himself makes mention of the extraordinary blessing he experienced in Harlingen. When dealing with the prophetical office of the Lord Jesus and the duty of believers to conduct themselves as prophets toward their fellowmen in explaining the hidden matters of Scripture, he writes that there were six or eight young women in Harlingen who “gave themselves to be prophetesses in the service of the Lord.” They traversed the congregation and stirred people up to acquire knowledge and to repent. The Lord richly blessed those labors and many people were converted.

After à Brakel had resided in Harlingen for more than a year, there was much unrest in the Republic of the Netherlands. The events which took place at that time (1672) were of such a far-reaching nature that this year is referred to as the year of disaster. Much also transpired in Friesland. Although there was not much fighting in this region, tensions were high. The aristocratic “grietmannen” who on the basis of old charters had great influence, formed a clique of regents and gradually gained power in the Frisian states. There was dissatisfaction concerning this among the population, which was further aggravated by the heavy tax burden. There was even the threat of rebellion. Added to this were the panic and fright caused by the unexpected attack upon the Republic from four sides: France, England, Munster, and Cologne.

Stirred by the threatening danger, the ministers of Classis Franeker (to which also Harlingen belonged) resolved “that they would unitedly join hands before God’s countenance, and not without tears” exert themselves with new zeal for the interests of the church. They confessed that due to numerous offenses they had become “largely abhorrent and unprofitable.” At the same time, probably at the request of the government, the resolution was made to convene all the ministers from the region of Friesland in Leeuwarden. From all the classes of Friesland the ministers traveled to the capital. Most of them probably arrived by canal barge. This assembly of 156 ministers took place in July, 1672. It appointed a committee, consisting of six ministers from its midst, to address the parliament of the commonwealth of Friesland, requesting that the proposals for the liberation of this region and the removal of dissatisfaction be implemented. The most significant request -- the promotion of Hendrik Casimir II, who was but fifteen years old, as governor and commander-in-chief of Friesland -- was already granted a day later. A short time later the ministers again visited the state parliament to “admonish the honorable gentlemen, yes, to beseech them in Christ’s Name that they be inclined to investigate and purify all those unhealthy conditions which had also polluted them and brought disarray among them.” By taking measures it was hoped that God would be merciful and that thus the land be spared and the church be blessed more abundantly.

It seems that the forceful action of the ministers encouraged the Frisian commonwealth which, due to the rapid succession of both war and dissatisfaction, was in a state of despair. The bishop of Munster met with resistance when he invaded the southeastern part of Friesland. In addition to this, several dikes in this region had been slashed. The Frisians were safe behind their water barrier and the advance of the army from Munster stagnated. Later this army withdrew itself from southeastern Friesland and the siege of Groningen had to be discontinued as well. Bishop Barend van Galen attributed the valiant stance of Friesland to the ministers, whom he furiously cursed with the words: “der Teufel hole die Pfaffen” (May the devil get those popes). The action of the ministers probably prevented excessive manifestations of popular wrath as occurred in the province of Holland. There Johan and Cornelis de Witt were murdered in a most abominable manner in August, 1672.

After stability had in some measure returned, a general Frisian Synod was held. This assembly decided to proceed with the work of reformation. All ministers were under obligation to preach from the Heidelberg Catechism on Sunday afternoon. Those who failed to do so were resolutely excluded from all synodical and classical assemblies. More attention also had to be given to the exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. In short, some measures needed to be taken, the objective being to promote a further reformation of society at large.

These and other measures undoubtedly met with Wilhelmus à Brakel’s approval. The fact that the government also exerted pressure to have these resolutions implemented must have caused him and others to rejoice. To have the government function as a wall surrounding the church was an ideal which many espoused as far as the relationship between church and state was concerned.

1673-1683: Leeuwarden

Shortly after this turbulent period, à Brakel received a fourth call -- this time from the Frisian capital, Leeuwarden. In the case of Leeuwarden we are well-informed as to the manner in which a call was extended. It was the consistory rather than the congregation which cast the deciding vote as far as selecting a minister to be called. It was not true, however, that the consistory could act entirely on its own in extending a call. The government also had some jurisdiction in this matter. The first thing a consistory was obligated to do was to ask the local government (i.e., the magistrate) for permission to extend a call. When this was granted, the consistory would establish a list of twelve candidates. During a subsequent meeting, six would be selected from this list, from which in turn three would be selected. After this a delegation of the consistory would go to the magistrate to inform him about the names of the three remaining candidates. The commissioners would then decide whether a minister could be called from this trio.

After the consistory had made its final decision, the magistrate would be informed of this as well. Concurrently, the call letter would be delivered to the minister -- usually by the caretaker of the church. A consistory committee would then visit the consistory of the congregation which the called minister was presently serving, as well as the Classis to which that congregation belonged. In taking all these steps they would beseech the Lord that the decisions about to be made, and those already made, would be in His favor. The calling procedure was not the same in all congregations. In some cases the government would make up a gross list from which the consistory could make a choice. In rural areas it was frequently a requirement to obtain permission from gentlemen or ladies belonging to the nobility, based on ancient privileges. The government’s involvement was logical since it paid the salaries. There was the danger, however, that the civil government would involve itself in matters which were purely ecclesiastical in nature. We shall observe subsequently that it was particularly à Brakel who recognized this danger and would resolutely correct the government when it would overstep its boundaries.

After the foregoing procedure had been followed, Rev. Wilhelmus à Brakel could be installed in the city of his birth in 1673, it being the largest city of Friesland with a population fluctuating between 15,000 and 20,000. The provincial government was located in this city, and it was especially the presence of the governor’s residence, along with its resident nobility, which gave Leeuwarden the appearance of a distinguished city.

There was much work for the six ministers who resided in Leeuwarden. Three services were conducted on Sunday in the “Groote” or “Jacobijnerkerk,” two in the “Galileerkerk,” and also two in the “Westerkerk.” On Monday, catechism instruction for the public was provided in the “Groote Kerk,” and there was a morning service on Wednesday. In the “Westerkerk” there was a morning service on Friday, and “kapittelpreken” (literally, chapter sermons) were delivered on Thursday in the “Galileerkerk.” There was a temporary intermission in this sequence during the passion weeks, since attention was then given to passion material. In addition to these services, there were also the various catechism classes and family visitations. Every minister was obligated to visit every family in his parish at least prior to the administration of the Lord’s Supper. This sacrament was administered five times annually. The other pastoral labors -- such as visitation of the sick and attendance at consistory, classical, and synodical meetings -- must have also demanded much time.

Discord Concerning the “Conventicles”

Rev. à Brakel was even busier than that, for in addition to his official labors, he organized church gatherings for godly persons who desired more depth in their spiritual life. These house services or “conventicles” were referred to earlier already when mention was made of the various catechism classes (p. xxxvii). In his previous congregations, Stavoren and Harlingen, à Brakel had also led similar services. In addition to hearing expositions about portions of the Bible and the explanation of doctrine, there was a desire among members of the congregation to speak about the inner, experiential life of faith -- the practice of godliness. These services were held in private homes.

à Brakel saw many advantages in these services. They could result in the revival of the life of faith as well as of the entire church; and thus they most suitably complemented his endeavor to bring about a further reformation. The consistory was not in favor of this, however, being fearful that this would give rise to a church within a church as well as the possible danger of schism.

Precisely during that time the Labadists had returned from Germany, and settled in Wiewerd, Friesland. These followers of Jean de Labadie had separated themselves from the church and formed an exclusive group to which only believers could join themselves. From his later writings it is evident, that à Brakel was vehemently opposed to the Labadists. The consistory decided that it would take measures to forbid the conducting of private services. In October, 1676, à Brakel was accused by Classis Leeuwarden of continuing to conduct “his inappropriate and unauthorized catechism classes which were held in secret” in spite of the resolution made by the parliament of Friesland that “coventicles” could only be held with the knowledge and approbation of the consistory. This ordinance of the Frisian government was probably intended for the Labadists, but was now used by the opponents of à Brakel. After Classis Sneek also had issued a prohibition concerning “conventicles,” the consistory of Leeuwarden drafted a resolution which determined that every minister could instruct individuals in his own parish who were not sufficiently educated but who had expressed their desire to partake of the Lord’s Supper. For those who were more advanced, a public catechism class would be held, which would be conducted by all the ministers, each taking his turn. à Brakel acquiesced in this decision, but not with his whole heart. It must seriously be asked whether this decision of the consistory issued from a true concern for the welfare of the church or whether it was motivated by envy. The Koelman Controversy

There was another issue which brought à Brakel into conflict with the consistory -- the fact that he allowed Rev. Jacobus Koelman to preach. This forthright minister, who in addition to his theological study also received a doctorate in philosophy, had particularly become renowned for his serious endeavor to bring about a further reformation. He, along with à Brakel, detected serious spiritual lukewarmness, aggravated by the laxness of many ministers in preaching and of consistories in exercising ecclesiastical discipline. A variety of sins, such as frequenting fairs, public drunkenness, desecration of the Sunday, abuse of the sacraments, etc., were committed by many members of the church. The government, whose duty it was to make ordinances to restrain the sins of its subjects, was also lax in opposing public sin. When Koelman was installed in Sluis, Zeeuwsvlaanderen, [Note: This is the southern portion of the province Zeeland.] in 1662, he made it his objective to warn the population incessantly against sin and to exercise discipline vigorously if necessary. That he did this without having respect of persons was evident in his action taken against two government officials, Commissioner Brienen and Mayor Sluymer. Both men were guilty of drunkenness, and Sluymer had even fought in public. The fact that he did not spare these men earned him their wrath as well as that of a number of magistrates. The government hardly cooperated in carrying out those resolutions which called for reformation. Nevertheless, a certain measure of spiritual prosperity became evident in the congregation -- especially due to impressions left by the plague in 1666 and the events in 1672, “the year of disaster.” In striving for spiritual revival, Koelman also objected to the forms read at the administration of Baptism and the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, as well as all form prayers. It was his view that these forms caused deadness and a lack of zeal whereby “godliness is greatly inhibited; they greatly suppress, limit, and quench the Spirit. They greatly increase a lack of self-knowledge and it entrenches people in laziness, carnal sloth, and ignorance.” In opposition to this “routine religion” [Note: The Dutch reads: “Sleur-en slenterdienst.”] engendered by forms and form prayers, he proposed that speaking and praying should occur extemporaneously.

One would then be in need of and ask for God’s help, and it would be beneficial for spiritual life. He also condemned ecclesiastical feast days. Their institution was not commanded in the Bible and was a human invention reminiscent of the Roman Catholic Church with all her anniversaries and holy days. The Lord instituted the Sabbath so that the salvific events of Jesus’ birth, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension could repeatedly be commemorated.

Due to his consistent stand -- he refused to read the forms and preach about the salvific event related to a given Christian feast day -- charges were filed against Koelman by his opponents. The parliament of Zeeland (the civil government) involved itself and gave Koelman a choice: yield or leave Sluis. He neither could nor was willing to subject himself, and while a mourning congregation bade him farewell, the minister departed from Sluis on Jun 17, 1675. After sometime he arrived in Amsterdam. Wherever he came he was informed that he could not preach. Nevertheless, he deemed it to be his calling and therefore organized “house services.”

Rev. à Brakel made the situation of Koelman his concern. When the exiled minister came to Leeuwarden -- the two men evidently knew each other -- à Brakel permitted him to preach in his place. During the classical meetings of 1676 and 1677 it was pointed out to à Brakel that he was not permitted to allow Koelman to preach. The Classis did not wish to impose a prohibition upon him, but he was advised to conduct himself with caution. At the Synod of Friesland, over which à Brakel presided, the proposal was made by a delegate from Zuid-Holland [Note: One of the coastal provinces of the Netherlands.] to impose upon Koelman a general prohibition to preach. à Brakel vehemently opposed this. The most significant argument he advanced was that Koelman had never been subjected to ecclesiastical discipline, nor had been deposed as a minister, but rather that this had been initiated by the government. He was of the opinion that “no political body had the authority to depose a minister.” The delegates of the parliament of Friesland, who were always present at such meetings, were offended since in their opinion à Brakel had spoken of the government in an insulting manner. At this meeting they announced that they would inform the parliament of this discourse. In July of that year à Brakel received an invitation to appear before the parliament of Friesland. Before the “offended” government officials he stated that the accusation of insult was unfounded. Furthermore, there was no need for him to be present, for a minister is not accountable to the civil government about ecclesiastical matters. The fact that Koelman was no longer permitted to preach was unlawful, for he had not been deposed by an ecclesiastical assembly. He expressed his view in two “remonstrances” (grievances) which he forwarded to the parliament. However, the parliament was not convinced. Retribution had to be meted out for having offended “his majesty.” The penalty was a four-week suspension of ministerial duties. Both the consistory and the Classis would be informed about this decision.

Rev. à Brakel declared boldly before the parliament that he would not subject himself to this penalty, “and that he would be obliged to continue preaching, even if he would shortly have to lay down his life.” On Friday, July 21, it was à Brakel’s turn to preach again. Tension was mounting. From various quarters he received advice to let someone else take his turn, and a delegation of the consistory would then go to the parliament with the request that any penalty to be meted out to à Brakel be imposed by ecclesiastical assemblies. Thus they were of the opinion that the government had overstepped its bounds; however, many delegates thought it too precarious to oppose them directly in this matter.

Rev. à Brakel, however, ignored this well-intended advice. On Thursday, July 20, late in the evening, a sheriffs officer arrived to inform him that he had received written orders from the parliament to prevent the suspended minister from preaching. He asked à Brakel not to go to church for the purpose of administering the Word. à Brakel replied that he would not oppose the use of force, but he was neither desirous nor able to stay away voluntarily. The following day à Brakel went to church at the usual time. There must undoubtedly have been more churchgoers than would normally have been the case. Those who were anticipating a riot were disappointed, however, for there was neither a sheriff’s officer nor anyone else who prevented him from preaching. Without any disturbance he was privileged to proclaim the Word of his Master. He perceived this to be an answer to prayer.

After the service several consistory members visited him to ask on behalf of the parliament whether he would be willing to make confession of guilt for those expressions which were difficult to accept. They would then leave the matter of discipline to the church. This was precisely à Brakel’s objective and he was certainly prepared to offer his apologies if he had unintentionally offended the government. A statement was drafted in which he promised to render the government the respect to which it was entitled and to exhort others to do likewise. Hereby the matter became a closed case. The government had acknowledged that in this matter of principle the church had the right to govern its own territory. The government indeed had a task in support of the church, but not a task within the church. By virtue of this courageous conduct, à Brakel became known everywhere. Particularly after the publication of Waarachtig Verhaal van de rekenschap gegeven van D. Wilhelmus à Brakel wegens zijn E. verdediging van ’t Becht der kerke [True Account of the Explanation given by Rev. Wilhelmus à Brakel in Defense of the Rights of the Church] -- in which in all probability a colleague of à Brakel gives an accurate account of the events -- this controversy and its outcome became known everywhere. It is made clear in this publication that à Brakel could not have conducted himself differently. On the title page it is stated that it was published “to the conviction of ministers given to flattery and to the encouragement of fearful ministers in the Netherlands.” The Frisian government will probably have regretted this publication even more than being forced to yield in the à Brakel controversy. The Van Giffen Controversy The first book authored by Wilhelmus à Brakel was published during these years. The reason for writing was a difference of opinion with Cocceian minister, David Flud van Giffen. A characteristic of the followers of Cocceius was that they believed that prophetical types of the Lord Jesus could be found throughout the Old Testament. If a given prophecy was not that clear, the text would be exegeted in an unnatural manner. One would then read things into the text which were not to be found in it. One of the ministers of Leeuwarden, during the winter of 1679-1680, had denounced the prophetical exposition of Psalms 8:1-9. He viewed this psalm as a doxology of the majesty of God and His government in nature over all men. “O Lord our Lord, how excellent is Thy Name in all the earth! who hast set Thy glory above the heavens. ... When I consider Thy heavens, the work of Thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which Thou hast ordained; what is man, that Thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that Thou visitest him?” (Psalms 8:1-4). When Rev. van Giffen, who served the neighboring village of De Knijp, led a service for one of à Brakel’s colleagues, he preached about the same psalm and stated with great emphasis that this psalm was a prophecy about the anticipated advent of Christ. It was so obvious that the sermon was a defense of the Cocceian position, that it engendered dissatisfaction among churchgoers and consistory members. That same day Rev. van Giffen was informed that “the correct exposition” would be given on the next Sunday. Rev. à Brakel took this task upon himself. He explained clearly that one could not explain this psalm to be a prophecy about the condition of the church in the time of the New Testament. Rather, this psalm expresses the holy amazement of a child of God about the glory of God as revealed in the preservation and government of the entire earth -- and particularly in God’s care for His children. This sermon was published under the title Davids Hallelujah, ofte lof des Heeren in den achste Psalm, verklaert, tot navolginge voorgestelt, en de verdedicht [David’s Hallelujah, or the Praises of the Lord in the Eighth Psalm Expounded, the Practice Thereof Advocated and Defended]. It was soon sold out. Since reconciliation between the two ministers fortunately came about afterwards, à Brakel rightfully deemed it incorrect to republish this sermon in unaltered form. Instead of that portion in which the Cocceian view was denounced, à Brakel wrote an extensive treatise on the covenant of grace. The title of this new book (reprinted as recently as 1979) was: Halleluja of Lof des Heeren over het genadeverbond opgesteld naar aanleiding van de verklaring vanPsalms 8:1-9 [Hallelujah, or the Praises of the Lord Relative to the Covenant of Grace, Composed as a Result of the Exposition of Psalms 8:1-9]. In spite of all the stir surrounding these three controversies -- the “conventicler,” giving Koelman permission to preach, and the discord with Rev. van Giffen -- à Brakel’s primary task remained caring for the congregation. As in his three previous pastorates, he pastored painstakingly. His great gifts as a preacher and his forthright conduct caused him to be highly respected in Leeuwarden. It has been suggested that the parliament did not dare to force the issue with à Brakel in view of the love he enjoyed from the population.

It is not surprising that à Brakel received several calls. In 1678 the congregation of Middelburg extended a call to him, which he declined. In 1683, a call from Rotterdam followed, one of the largest cities in the republic with a population of approximately 55,000. In January of that year a minister of Rotterdam, Franciscus Ridderus, had died. The consistory regretted the departure of this renowned minister and was desirous to have an equally capable minister as a replacement. Rev. Hellenbroek noted, “No one was more qualified than à Brakel, the great light of the Frisians. It had shone long enough in Friesland and now the time had come that Holland was to share in this light.” After à Brakel had served Leeuwarden for ten years, the call from Rotterdam arrived in July or August, 1683. He declined this call. The consistory of Leeuwarden had acquiesced in a wish which à Brakel had cherished for some time, that is, to be the only one to catechize in the “Westerkerk” on Sunday and Wednesday, and thus not have to share this assignment with others. This wish was undoubtedly related to the “conventicles” in and around Leeuwarden. The fact that the consistory acquiesced in this wish (the opinions as to why vary) indicates that they were desirous to keep à Brakel as a minister.

There was disappointment in Rotterdam about à Brakel’s decision, and it was decided to extend a second call to him. A special emissary, carrying with him letters of the magistrate and consistory of Rotterdam for à Brakel himself and the consistory and government of Leeuwarden, traveled to the north. On this journey he was accompanied by “many prayers of the godly.” à Brakel had no freedom to decline this second call, and to the disappointment of the consistory of Leeuwarden he bade them farewell. For twenty-one years à Brakel had administered the Word of His Master in Friesland.

Pastorate in Rotterdam The journey from Leeuwarden to Rotterdam was made by ship -- from Harlingen they sailed onto the “Zuiderzee.”

During this journey a fierce windstorm arose accompanied by a thunderstorm. The crew members and the passengers feared the worst and prepared themselves for the approaching end. During this storm à Brakel must undoubtedly have asked himself whether the acceptance of this call was indeed in God’s favor. Did the Lord perhaps cause this fierce storm to arise to send him back as it were, or to chastise him? It is true, is it not, that nothing happens by chance? It became evident, however, that à Brakel’s work in the vineyard of His Master had not been completed. The Lord spared the ship and all its passengers. After the storm had subsided, it became evident that the ship was considerably off course. This caused the journey to be prolonged, and the sorrowful news already spread through Rotterdam that the ship had perished. The alarm and consternation which this news triggered in the city were great. When the minister who had been presumed dead finally appeared, joy and astonishment were that much greater.

à Brakel was installed on November 21 by his local fellow servant, Petrus Tilenus, from Isaiah 52:7, “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!” A week later he preached his first sermon in Rotterdam. His text was 2 Corinthians 5:20, “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.” With these penetrating words à Brakel began his ministry in Holland. In this sermon he only allowed God’s Word to speak for itself; he shared nothing concerning himself. He did not mention where he came from, where he had served, what he had done, and what labors he anticipated to perform, etc. He stood as one who had been commissioned to pass on the words of His Master, or as he himself wrote later: to be the mouth of God to the congregation. This certainly is indicative of the seriousness with which he commenced this new episode in his life. The Struggle against the Labadists

During his tenure in Friesland, only one book authored by à Brakel was published; however, during his tenure in Rotterdam many would follow. A year and one half after his installation in Rotterdam, à Brakel “went to battle” against the Labadists. In two elaborate letters to a circle of friends in Harlingen he delineated his objections against this sect. It is probable that these friends had asked him for advice. In all honesty he wrote that during his tenure in Stavoren he had been sympathetic towards the Labadists and had seriously considered joining them. Yet he had wanted to know more of de Labadie and his views and therefore had traveled to Amsterdam where the Labadists had settled at that time.

He had various conversations with Anna Maria van Schurman, a very gifted woman who prior to her transfer to the Labadists had many contacts with the ministers of the Second Reformation -- among others with Voetius. à Brakel also had extensive conversations with de Labadie himself. In spite of the attractive things he had heard, he was not convinced. De Labadie then gave him the advice to lay this matter before the Lord Himself and to pray for wisdom, doing so in the greatest possible solitude. à Brakel, according to this letter, had followed his advice. “Very early in the morning I went into my garden and remained there all day until late in the evening. I fasted, prayed, and supplicated to understand the will of God. I also read, and after considerable time had passed, the Lord showed me very clearly from His Word and gave a clear impression in my heart that I was in the right way, and that their way (that is, of the Labadists) was a departure from the truth.” Nevertheless, it so much appealed to à Brakel that he continually prayed, asking the Lord as it were for permission to join this group. The result was that the Lord showed him with increasing clarity the error of the Labadists while rebuking à Brakel at the same time. It was as if the Lord said: “Did I not reveal this to you? Why then do you persevere?” Subsequent to this à Brakel firmly resolved to remain in the Reformed Church. He continued to thank the Lord for having prevented him from taking a wrong step. In what did the attraction of Jean de Labadie and his followers consist, so that even a staunch Reformed man as Wilhelmus à Brakel was strongly attracted by it? If he, as he said himself, vacillated to such a degree, people with much less education and experience must have had strife to a far greater degree. In his second letter à Brakel primarily addressed the regenerate and advised them in the strongest possible terms not to join the Labadists. It must indeed be evident that the conduct of Jean de Labadie and his followers caused much agitation in the church. However, à Brakel was not the only minister who felt attracted toward this revivalist. Who was de Labadie and what did he teach? This Frenchman, who had been trained as a Jesuit, left the monastery in 1639; he was twenty-nine years old at that time and until 1650 traveled around as an itinerant preacher. In that year he joined the Reformed Church of Montauban, one of the Huguenot cities. He became the minister of this church and also taught at the Academy. From 1659 to 1666 Geneva was his residence. With great zeal he preached for hours about the great ideal that had to be transformed into reality: a pure church in which the Christian religion would be practiced as strictly as possible. This engendered the idea that only true believers, that is, only those who were partakers of the Spirit of Christ, constituted the pure church. Thus, within the confines of the visible church as institution, a church of the regenerate came into existence. De Labadie organized “conventicles” of true believers and thus attempted to lead the church back to the original manifestation of the Christian church in the first century -- that is, as he perceived it to be. The ideas which de Labadie proclaimed in a captivating and convincing manner -- he could preach for four hours at a stretch without his hearers losing interest -- met with both approbation and resistance. The proponents of these ideas were so convinced of their correctness that many could no longer be convinced to change their minds. Opponents, however, saw so much danger in these ideas that they opposed them with all their might. Therefore, there came unrest wherever de Labadie resided for some time. De Labadie’s acceptance of a call to the French congregation in Middelburg signaled the termination of a period of great agitation for the Reformed Church in Geneva. When he came to the Republic in 1666, he traveled on to Utrecht. The Friends of Utrecht-- to which belonged, among others, Voetius and van Lodenstein -- gave him a friendly reception. After having been installed in Middelburg, Koelman from Sluis went to hear him. de Labadie had a tremendous reputation. The same matters which the representatives of the Second Reformation were pursuing were also his objectives. He warned strongly against the laxness of many Christians, the desecration of the Sabbath, the lack of spirituality and morality displayed by many ministers, the non-Reformed and often coarse lifestyle of many church members, etc. His calls to prayer and fasting had effect; and especially due to his many family visitations the results of his activity were noticeable everywhere. Nevertheless, there came discord also in Middelburg, and after many difficulties de Labadie, with a group of followers, moved to nearby Veere. Many supporters from Middelburg went to hear the deposed minister. The parliament of Zeeland intervened at last and expelled de Labadie. When the use of force was imminent, the exiled minister took refuge in Amsterdam. In the meantime, sympathy for him among the Reformed had waned, for he had severed himself from the Reformed Church. He viewed the circle of his followers as a community of the regenerate who had left the worldly national church and had joined the new “house church” of de Labadie. Elsewhere in the Republic similar house churches came into existence as well. Amsterdam evidently was not the terminus for this group; they crossed the border into Germany, and, after roaming about, settled in Wiewerd, a village south of Leeuwarden. The influential Cornelis van Aerssen had made the castle “Walta Estate” available. De Labadie himself had died in the meantime. Peter Yvon, due to his organizational talent, had succeeded in giving the congregation a solid footing. Around 1680 his following in Wiewerd consisted of about three hundred people. The Labadists were all dressed in the same handmade, modest clothing. As a community they farmed the soil surrounding the castle. Dairy farming was also a means whereby they supported themselves. During meals there was singing and prayer and one or more persons would speak a word. Worldly conversation was held to a minimum; they preferred to share their spiritual experiences. These experiences, according to the Labadists, could occur outside the context of the Word of God. Especially during and after communion services members of the congregation would come into a state of ecstasy, believing the Holy Spirit to be working in them. They would embrace each other, skip and dance, and mutually entertain themselves in spiritual Christian love.

After Voetius and Koelman had recognized the dangers of Labadism, they warned the Reformed against this error. Koelman did this in his work Historisch verhaal der Labadisten [Historical Account of the Labadists]. At the end of this work he printed the two letters of à Brakel. Yvon reacted to the contents of these letters by way of a brochure. In this manner à Brakel also became involved in the battle against the Labadists. His best known work, in which these letters were included again, was Leer en Leydinge der Labadisten [Doctrine and Government of the Labadists].

Rev. à Brakel, with the Labadists, confessed the corruption (“de verdorvenheyt”) of the church; she was corrupt from the head to the sole of the foot. The field of the Lord was filled with weeds and His threshing floor was filled with chaff. The vineyard of the Lord had become a wilderness; thorns and thistles were growing in it. After having enumerated a variety of sins which were committed by members of the church, giving a description of the government as not manifesting itself as the guardian of the church, and deploring the fact that so many ministers proved to be unfaithful shepherds, à Brakel writes: “Who would not weep when he thinks upon Zion and perceives that the Lord is departing from her?” Yet, departure from a church which is that corrupt is not permitted! “May we say that she is no longer the church of Christ due to her corruption? Shall we despise her? Shall we walk away from her? No, that is foolishness. It is certain that a corrupt church is nevertheless a church and that from the beginning until the present God has always permitted His church to be filled with many corruptions. Therefore, he who despises a church for its corruption acts contrary to God’s Word and all experience, thereby denying her to be a church.”

Using examples from the Bible, à Brakel demonstrated that sin, corruption, and a lack of spirituality were to be found in many congregations. Consider the confusion in the congregation of Corinth and the exhortations of John to the congregations in Asia Minor. How could someone have the courage to sever himself from her and thereby despise God and Christ Himself? Thus, à Brakel was strongly opposed to the Labadistic spirit of separatism (or schismatic spirit). In addition to this objection, he identifies three theological differences. The first concerned the doctrine of justification, particularly as it relates to the leading of souls unto Christ. Yvon detained the souls of penitent persons too long. First the soul had to see clearly the sins of the old man and diligently strive against sin, the devil, and one’s own flesh and thus in an alternate way seek to escape the dominion of sin. This would then be followed by a holy life, and a life in which one would quietly wait upon the Holy Ghost. This quiet separation would have to go sufficiently far that there would no longer be any striving between the flesh and the spirit -- so much so that one would no longer pray for a new life. All this, according to Yvon, “precedes faith in Christ; God unites the soul to Christ subsequent to that.”

Rev. à Brakel taught something different. It seemed as if Yvon established conditions which the sinner would first have to meet. This is incorrect, for the sinner may “at once ... as sinful as he is, receive Jesus by a true, justifying faith.” Having received the satisfaction and righteousness of Christ, the sinner can and may go to God, “in order to be reconciled with God and be justified by Him.”

It seems that, relative to this point, à Brakel and Yvon have parted ways more than was necessary. Yvon made no difference between fathers and children in grace, whereas à Brakel seemed to reject the idea that convicted souls must see themselves so worthy of punishment that they will be prepared to accept God’s eternal judgment. However, reference is made to this also in Leviticus 26:1-46 : “If then their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the punishment of their iniquity: then will I remember My covenant.” The second point related to pure and impure love. Yvon called fear for damnation a love for the preservation of self and thus impure since it did not proceed from love toward God. Therefore, this love -- this concern for one’s own salvation -- could not be the immediate cause of regeneration. In contrast to this, à Brakel affirms pointedly that no one would then be converted, for no one possesses this eminent love for God prior to conversion. The Lord Himself has caused promises and threatenings to be recorded in His Word in order to induce people to seek their own salvation. Fear for punishment and death are innate and this cannot be designated as impure love. The Lord Jesus Himself was also fearful of death.

à Brakel perceived a different and more dangerous error in Yvon’s proposition. This pure love would already be a work of God, and thus spiritual life would already be present prior to one’s believing in Christ. “How can anyone be a child in Christ and yet neither be born again, believe in Christ, nor be in Him? What strange error is this? We posit as an irrefutable fact that man neither has life nor can do anything that is pleasing before God prior to believing in Christ.”

Finally, à Brakel opposed Yvon’s notion that people can have an absolute knowledge about the regeneration of their neighbor. The Labadists would only admit someone to their fellowship when they were certain that he or she was regenerate. à Brakel taught that only God knows the heart, whereas man only sees what is before his eyes. Furthermore, there are great similarities between true believers on the one hand and hypocrites and temporal believers on the other hand. A minister neither may nor is capable of saying to someone in God’s Name and with absolute certainty that he is regenerate. That judgment is reserved for the Lord alone. The conditions upon which persons are to be admitted as members of the congregation are knowledge and confession of the truth. The apostles baptized upon confession of sin. This also included people of whom it later became known that they were not regenerate. Think of Ananias and Sapphira, Hymenaeus, Alexander, and Simon the Sorcerer. Confession was the basis upon which the apostles baptized -- not being cognizant of someone’s regeneration.

à Brakel earnestly warned Yvon and those who sympathized with him against Labadism. When Yvon subsequently reacted to à Brakel’s book, he used rather radical statements. à Brakel, who defended himself, wrote in the introduction that he had besought the Lord not to hold Yvon accountable for this. Also elsewhere it was evident that à Brakel did not fight for the sake of fighting itself. He wrote that Yvon had said to him during a conversation that he (Yvon) would testify against him in the day of judgment. This statement had such an impact upon à Brakel that he was obligated to respond in love to Yvon with a subdued and solemn voice: “... or I against you.” A matter closely related to the generally perceived decay of the church was the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. In 1690 à Brakel published a brochure in which he contested the idea that believers, due to the corruption of the church, ought not to partake. The fact that many attended without having a right to do so did not mean that believers should therefore remain seated. The Lord Jesus said: “Do this in remembrance of Me.” Who would dare to ignore such an express command of Christ? For true believers the Lord’s Supper is a means to make their calling and election sure. Many blessings may be enjoyed prior, during, and subsequent to partaking of the Lord’s Supper. It is the duty of every true Christian to confess his Savior by means of the sacrament. In à Brakel’s view the communicant makes the following confession: “I deem and confess the Lord Jesus to be the only true Savior. In Him I seek my salvation and with Him I enter into a covenant. He is my reliance and for Him I wish to live and die.” Such a confession cannot be made by church attendance only. Therefore, true believers, do not abstain, for by your abstinence unrest and confusion will only increase in the church. Consider that your own advantage, honor, and opinion may not have precedence over the honor of Christ and the welfare of the church. God will secretly send judgment upon those who are absent. They frequently will fall into error and become ensnared. Sometimes they will return embracing a different doctrine and will then be as loose as they were strict before. à Brakel exhorted believers who did not attend anymore to humble themselves before God, beseeching Him for forgiveness. A Proponent of the Independence of the Church

à Brakel’s conflict with the government in 1688 was a noteworthy experience during his tenure in Rotterdam. In describing the calling procedure in Leeuwarden, it already became evident that the government was capable of exercising great influence in ecclesiastical matters. This was also the case in Rotterdam. This great influence became very evident after the death of a minister of Rotterdam, Johannes Ursinus. The consistory followed the usual procedure in calling a successor. The final choice was David Cornbrugge, a minister from Utrecht and a man whose walk was beyond reproach. A delegation of the consistory informed the government of this decision and did not expect anything but approbation from city hall. To the amazement and indignation of the brothers this was not granted. The magistrate had decided to disapprove of the call without giving any reason for doing so. Rev. à Brakel, who at that time was president of the consistory -- together with a fellow minister, an elder, and a deacon -- was delegated to visit city hall to request that the call still be extended. The consistory minutes convey, however, that this committee, for reasons not given, did not carry out its task. It is not mere conjecture to think that the consistory upon further consideration decided not to pursue this matter which displeased the government. By renewal, the calling procedure was implemented. The consistory again composed a list of twelve candidates and it seems as if the consistory would yield to the government having gone beyond the bounds of its authority. However, à Brakel would not acquiesce in this. Several Sundays later he preached in the “Grote Kerk” from Psalms 2:6 : “Yet have I set My King upon My holy hill of Zion.” In this sermon he dealt with the question of whether the government has the authority to rescind the call of a lawfully called minister and to compel the church to call someone else. In an elaborate exposition he based his negative answer upon the Bible, the Belgic Confession of Faith, and the opinions of the best known theologians of that time. The Arminians had also been proponents of the government’s involvement in ecclesiastical matters, this being one of the additional reasons why they had been condemned at the Synod of Dordt. This sermon caused the magistrate to be agitated. à Brakel was asked to deliver the sermon in written form at city hall. He did this and seemed to be rather at ease as to the outcome of this matter. The consistory, however, was less at ease. It appointed a committee consisting of four ministers to discuss the difficulties that had arisen with the government. The members of city hall had observed in the meantime that à Brakel had turned against the government, and in their view he had, in doing so, undermined the respect and authority of the magistrates. They took strong measures: à Brakel was temporarily prohibited from preaching and his salary from the city was withheld. In spite of the mediation efforts of the consistory which agreed with the tenor of à Brakel’s sermon, the government upheld the penalty which had been levied. On Wednesday, July 28, à Brakel simply continued -- not due to stubbornness, as he said, but in obedience to the commandment of his King.

Upon the urgent advice of friends, à Brakel decided to make a house outside of the city his temporary residence. He continued, however, to fulfil his preaching engagement. Three weeks later à Brakel visited the mayor of the city to discuss how the conflict might be resolved. One of the demands which the government made was that à Brakel would make amends. Understandably, à Brakel wanted to know what the city fathers meant by this. They did not give a satisfactory answer; however, they did request him emphatically not to preach any longer. With strong determination he indicated that he would not comply with this request. He would rather be exiled, yes, lose his life than not preach. The two positions were diametrically opposed to each other. The government asked the consistory to mediate and it made an urgent request to à Brakel “to be silent tomorrow, and to allow someone else to take his turn this time.” à Brakel did not ignore this request but complied with it, for it originated with the church. As negotiations continued, the consistory advanced this proof as fact that à Brakel was not a revolutionary, but as minister was willing to submit himself to ecclesiastical institutions. After the government had twice declared the explanation of à Brakel to be unsatisfactory, a peace accord was signed at last. In reality à Brakel was able to maintain his position that the government has no right to forbid the extension of a call.

Nevertheless, this controversy had additional consequences. The sermon in question had been recorded during the church service and had been published in such a mutilated fashion that à Brakel, in order to remove all defamation and slander, published the actual sermon. He added an extensive description of his contacts with the government. The title was pregnant with meaning: De HeereJezus Christus Voor de Alleene ende Souveraine Koninck Over sijne Kercke uytgeroepen [The Lord Jesus Declared to be the Only Sovereign King of His Church]. This title and the appendix to the sermon, in which à Brakel made known that he neither could nor was permitted to abandon his position, engendered the wrath of the magistrate. à Brakel had to be punished to set an example. His exile appeared to be imminent.

It was then that an influential protector acted on his behalf: Governor William III requested the mayor of the city by letter to allow the matter concerning à Brakel to rest until he had discussed it with the magistrate himself. Shortly afterwards, however, the prince departed for England, where, after a change of government, he was crowned king. The magistrate decided at last to let the matter rest. In this final conflict the consistory had unquestionably chosen sides with à Brakel. It is possible that the magistrate yielded due to this position. When another magistrate came into office, the city salary was paid again. The relationship between church and government had become so poor, however, that several times subsequent to this the government rejected a call, even giving the consistory orders to cease with the work of calling temporarily. Not until Jan, 1690 could the vacancy of Ursinus be filled.

"De Redelijke Godsdienst”--The Christian’s Reasonable Service

After this tumultuous period -- the battle with the Labadists and his conflict with the government -- circumstances surrounding à Brakel became more tranquil. He was now able to devote himself to the book which would become his main work: De Redelijke Godsdienst [The Christian’s Reasonable Service]. à Brakel derived this title from Romans 12:1 : “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” This book was not, as was customary at that time, dedicated to people who had a high position in church or state. à Brakel dedicated it to “the Congregation of God in the Netherlands,” [Note: In the subsequent translation of à Brakel’s preface (p. cxiii) all references to the Netherlands have been dropped, this translation being intended for the English-speaking world.] thereby having particularly in view his congregation of Rotterdam, his former congregation of Leeuwarden, and Middelburg (where he had been called twice). He exhorted readers to form small groups of acquaintances to read this work chapter by chapter and then have discussions about what had been read. Its contents could perhaps also be useful to instruct theological students, candidates for the ministry, and young ministers -- to “enable them to comprehend the unique, distinct nature of divine truths so that they might safeguard and practice these truths in deed, presenting them to the congregation in such a manner that it results in the conversion and strengthening of souls and the edification of the church of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The first edition was sold out after a year, and the second edition was published in 1701. The third edition was enlarged significantly by à Brakel, as various portions were added to his work. In his foreword he told those who possessed a first and second edition that they ought not to be dissatisfied. Instead, he advised them to give their book to someone who could not pay for a book, and to purchase a third edition themselves!

He considered it to be a miracle that the art of printing had been invented shortly before the Reformation. Prior to this a preacher could only reach a small number of hearers during his lifetime. By virtue of the art of printing, however, he could preach throughout the land, even throughout the entire world -- also after his death. “With joyful readiness I avail myself of this opportunity to preach to the Netherlands [Note: See previous footnote.] long after my death, according to the measure of the gifts the Lord has bestowed upon me -- whatever they may be.” This work, which has more than two thousand pages, is divided into three volumes. The first volume is a dogmatic exposition. In forty-two chapters the doctrines of faith are discussed in a practical, experiential manner. In the second volume a description is given of how believers are to live a holy life before God. The ten commandments, prayer, patience, sincerity, and other important subjects are dealt with here. The third volume contains, among other things, an exposition of the Revelation of John [Note: This division of volumes does not coincide with the division of volumes of this translation, which consists of four volumes.] . At the same time à Brakel gives here an elaborate explanation of his view concerning the Jews. It was his view that, relative to the Jews, there are as yet many promises which need to be fulfilled. He believed firmly that the Jews would return from all parts of the world to the land of Canaan and establish a new Jewish state there, which of course occurred in 1948.

à Brakel’s views concerning the Jews are related to his views concerning the millennium as described in Revelation 20:1-15. He views this as relating entirely to the future. During this kingdom of peace in which the antichrist will have been annihilated and the devil will have been bound, “the entire Jewish nation will acknowledge our Lord Jesus to be the only and promised Messiah, will turn to Him in repentance, will love Him in an extraordinary manner, and honor and glorify Him.” Not all Reformed theologians are of this opinion. Therefore, this third volume -- only 350 pages of the more than two thousand pages -- is the most controversial volume.

Nevertheless, De Redelijke Godsdienst has become a standard reference work for the heirs of the Second Reformation. There have been more than twenty editions, and it was also translated into German. Death As à Brakel advanced in years, bodily ailments and weakness increased. He had difficulty in walking and also his memory decreased. Nevertheless, he continued to preach and exhort as long as he was able. Particularly his exhortations in a chapel in Rotterdam had considerable attendance. Many people from the city itself, but also from Bleiswijk and Zevenhuizen, attended these services. Upon conclusion of the service, the people would gather near the exit of the chapel and wait until “Father Brakel” would come outside. He would address them and pronounce a benediction upon them as they embarked on their homeward journey. Thus, through the dark night, they would “go on their way rejoicing.” On Sunday, Aug 30, 1711, à Brakel preached for the last time. In the afternoon he had been driven to the church with a coach and the custodian assisted him in ascending the pulpit. During his sickness, which lasted two months, he suffered much -- especially due to chest congestion. He prayed continually for the welfare of the church, particularly for the congregation of Rotterdam. It was his prayer that the Lord would preserve her in the truth. During the night prior to his death, one of the bystanders asked him how his condition was. “Very well,” was his response, “I may rest in my Jesus. I am united to Him and I am awaiting His coming for me; however, I submit myself in all quietness.” Shortly after this he died peacefully and with full assurance at the age of seventy-six. His industrious life had come to an end. He departed to inherit eternal life -- not due to his merit, but by virtue of the finished work of His Master, the Lord Jesus Christ. The epitaph reads as follows:

Hier rust hij, die niet rusten kon,Here rests one who could not rest,Voor hij aan Jezus zielen won.Ere to winning souls for Jesus he could attest. Een bidder voor zijn vaderland,A supplicant for the land of his nativity, Maar nu is hij aan d’ anderen kant:Who on the other side now may be: In “t vaderland van Abraham,In the native land of Abraham, Alwaar hij volgt het zalig Lam.Where he may follow that blessed Lamb. Volgt dan zijn leer en leven na,May your doctrine and life be like his, Zoo zingt g’ook eens Halleluja! Then Hallelujah will be your song in eternal bliss.

BIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY For this biography the following sources were consulted: The Works of Wilhelmus à Brakel De Redelijke Godsdienst. Utrecht, 1985.

De scrupuleuse omtrent de Commissie des Heilg Avondmaal in een verdorvene Kerke onderrechtet. Rotterdam, 1690.

De ware christen of opregte geloovige hebbende deel aan God in Christus. Rotterdam, n.d.

Een godvruchtige brief tot raadgeving en besturing aan kinderen in Jezus Christus. Middelburg, n.d. Hallelujah of Lof des Heeren over het genade verbond opgesteld naar aanleiding van de verklaring vanPsalms 8:1-9.

Utrecht, 1979. Het afsterven of laatste uren van Theodorus à Brakel in leven predikant to Mackum. Volgens zijn bevel na zijnen dood aan het ligt gebragt. Rotterdam, n.d. Leere en Leydinge der Labadisten, ontdeckt en wederleyt in een Antwoort op P. Yvons Examens over onse

Trouwhertige Waerschouwige. Rotterdam, 1685. Stichtelijke oefeningen over de voorbereiding, betrachting en nabetrachting van het sacrament van het Heilig Avondmaal. Houten, 1985. Waerachtich Verhaal van de rekenschap gegeven van D. Wilhelmus à Brakel Wegens zijn E. verdediging van ’t Rechtder Kerke. Utrecht, 1682.

Other Sources

Aa, A J. van der, “Brakel, Dirk Gerrits of Theodorus Gerardi à” en “Brakel, Willem a.” In Biographisch Woordenboek der Nederlanden, vol. 1. Haarlem, 1852.

Biographisch Woordenboek van Protestantse Godgeleerden in Nederland, J.P. de Bie, J. Loosjes, et al., editors, vol. 1, “Brakel, Dirk Gerryts of Theodori a” en “Brakel, Wilhelmus a,” vol. 1, pp. 560-571. ’s-Gravenhage, 1903.

Boot, I., De allegorische uitlegging van het Hooglied, voornamelijk in Nederland, pp. 163-172. Woerden, 1971. Brienen, T., De prediking van de Nadere Reformatie. Amsterdam, 1974. Dijk, D. van, “Van een oude Makkumer dominee, Dirck Gerrits of Theodorus à Brakel.” In Makkum, sier en sied fan Wunseradiel. Boalsert, n.d. Evenhuis, R.B., Ook dat was Amsterdam III. De kerk der Hervorming in de tweede helft van de zeventiende eeuw: nabloei en inzinking. Amsterdam, 1971. Genderen, J. van, Herman Witsius. Bzjdrage tot de kennis der gereformeerde theologie. ’s-Gravenhage, 1953. Groenhuis, G., De predikanten. De sociale positie van de gereformeerde predikanten in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden voor ±1700. Groningen, 1977. Haar, J. van der, “Theodorus à Brakel.” In Het blijvende Woord. Plaatsen waar en predikanten door wie dit Word verkondigd is, pp. 39-41. Dordrecht, 1985. Hellenbroek, Abr., Algemeene rouklagt in de straaten van Rotterdam over den zeer eerwaarden, godvrugtigen en geleerden heere Wilhelmus à Brakel, Seventh Edition, pp. 135-174. Amsterdam, 1737. Hollandse Geloofshelden. Levensbeschrijvingen van tien bekende Nederlandse oudvaders door henzelf of door hun tijdgenoten geschreven. Compiled and amplified by H. Florijn. Houten, 1981. Selections used: Theodorus à Brakel, pp. 9-33, and Wilhelmus à Brakel, pp. 135-174.

Kalma, J J., Mensen in en om de Grote Kerk. Beelden uit de Leeuwarder kerkgeschiedenis. Drachten/Leeuwarden, 1987.

Krull, J J., Jacobus Koelman. Amsterdam, 1972. Leurdijk, G. H., “Theodorus à Brakel.” In T. Brienen, et al., Figuren en thema’s van de Nadere Reformatie I, pp. 52-63. Kampen, 1987.

Los, FT, Wilhelmus à Brakel. Leiden, 1892.

Los, FT, “Theodorus à Brakel.” In Troffel en zwaard VII, pp. 16-39. 1904.

Nauta, D., "Jean de Labadie," from: Biographisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlandse Protestantisme, vol. 2, pp. 396-399. Kampen, 1983.

Schurman, Anna Maria van, Eukleria of uitkiezing van het Beste Deel, with an introduction by S. van der Linde. Leeuwarden, 1978.

Smit, G., De Makkumer kerk van 1660 tot 1910. De stichting en bijzonderheden, pp. 4-10. Bolsward(?), n.d.

Steenbeek, B. W., “Theodorus (of Dirck Gerrits) à Brakel.” In Biographisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands Protestantisme, vol. 1, pp. 55-56. Kampen, 1978.

Witteveen, K. M., “Anna Maria van Schurman.” In Biographisch Lexicon voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands Protestantisme, vol. 2, pp. 396-399. Kampen, 1983.

Ysseling, P.C., “Een gereformeerd mysticus.” In Troffel en Zwaard II, pp. 249-288. 1908.