Notes

Notes on the Introduction

“Go back to the living root . . . demands of the time to come,” Lectures on Calvinism, 171; “there is not a square inch,” “Sphere Sovereignty,” 488.

Notes on Chapter 1

Kuyper’s ancestry is helpfully laid out in Kuiper et al., eds., Dolerenden & nageslacht, 284-88, and the family tree attached thereunto. Further explication is given in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper; on Samuel Huber, see 27. Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, passes along much family lore, including the anecdote about the young lad’s head (5), for which see also Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 30-31.

For early modern Dutch history I have relied on the magisterial work of Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall, 1477-1806 (Oxford, 1995). Other outstanding titles in English include J. L. Price, The Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century (New York, 1998); Margaret C. Jacob and Wijnand W. Wijnhardt, eds., The Dutch Republic in the Eighteenth Century: Decline, Enlightenment, and Revolution (Ithaca, 1992); and Herbert H. Rowen, The Princes of Orange: The Stadholders in the Dutch Republic (Cambridge and New York, 1998). Briefer recent surveys include Paul Arblaster, A History of the Low Countries (New York, 2006), and J. C. H. Blom and E. Lamberts, eds., History of the Low Countries (New York and Oxford, 1999). The “notorious” behavior of Maurice and William II is recorded in Israel, Dutch Republic, 461-62, 600; Orangist proto-democratic tones, 1067-77; and its princely side, 1082-85.

Writing on the religious dimensions of the Dutch Revolt is voluminous. I have followed Israel, Dutch Republic, 137-68, 361-72; the statistics cited are on 219 and 365. On the Dutch “later Reformation” see Joel R. Beeke, Assurance of Faith: Calvin, English Puritanism, and the Dutch Second Reformation (New York, 1991); T. Brienen, De Nadere Reformatie en het gereformeerd pietisme (’s Gravenhage, 1989); and F. Ernst Stoeffler, The Rise of Evangelical Pietism (Leiden, 1971). The Patriot Revolt is covered succinctly in Israel, Dutch Republic, 1098-1112 (quotation, 1084); voluminously in Simon Schama, Patriots and Liberators: Revolution in the Netherlands, 1780-1813 (New York, 1977). For the Batavian Revolution and its aftermath, I have relied also on Kossmann, Low Countries, 82-100; quotation, 97.

For an overview of Dutch history in the first half of the nineteenth century I have followed Kossmann, Low Countries, 103-164, 179-95. Wintle supplies valuable information and analysis of his topics in ESHN. The standard treatment of Dutch Protestant history in this era is Rasker, NHK, but see as well the more nuanced and detailed studies in Gerrit J. Schutte and Jasper Vree, eds., Om de toekomst van het protestantse Nederland (Zoetermeer, 1998). A recent survey in English is Karel Blei, The Netherlands Reformed Church, 1571-2005 (Grand Rapids, 2006). Important supplements are Wintle, Pillars of Piety; the topical studies in Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes; and the venerable James H. Mackay, Religious Thought in Holland during the Nineteenth Century (London and New York, 1911). The characterization of William I comes from Kossmann, Low Countries, 115; on the Belgian Revolt, see 124-28, 140-60 (petition statistic, 149). The statistics on the Dutch economy come from Wintle, ESHN, 96 and 74; for larger secular trends, see 48-66, 80-83, 137-44, and 225-34; on the Cultivation System, 214-25 (statistic, 221); on the 1850s as a turning point, 83, 95. William I’s regime is described in Kossmann, Low Countries, 103-8; the reforms under William II, 181-85; the Constitution of 1848, 190-94; Thorbecke’s Liberal policies and constituency, 263-75. Wintle summarizes these changes and gives the statistics regarding franchise in ESHN, 252-55. On Roman Catholic emancipation and the April Movement, see Kossmann, Low Countries, 277-82; and Rasker, NHK, 158-62.

The Algemeen Reglement and its permutations are explained in Rasker, NHK, 26-29, 153-58; quotation on doctrinal supervision, 29. Rasker also gives a fine summary of the Secession, NHK, 55-70; “visible order of a moral society,” Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 78. On the Groningen theology, see Rasker, NHK, 45-54, and Mackay, Religious Thought in Holland, 47-69. Jasper Vree supplies important correctives to those sources in “Petrus Hofstede de Groot and the Christian Education of the Dutch Nation (1833-1861),” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 78 (1998): 70-93. The Réveil is treated in Rasker, NHK, 71-99; explored in great detail in M. Elisabeth Kluit, Het Protestantse reveil in Nederland en daarbuiten 1815-1865 (Amsterdam, 1970); and subjected to close analysis in Kuiper, De Voormannen, 57-66. For its internally diverging views on broader European politics, see also Kuiper, Zelfbeeld en Wereldbeeld, 31-45, 50-75. Quotation regarding doctrinal supervision in the wake of 1842 comes from Rasker, NHK, 156.

Jan Frederik Kuyper’s career is summarized in Kuiper, et al., eds., Dolerenden en nageslacht, 286. His views get further play in M. den Admirant, “De Vader van Dr. Abraham Kuyper,” De Hoeksteen 13/4 (September 1984): 127-31, in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 26-30 (quotation, 28), and in Vree, Kuyper in de kiem, 11-19. The family lore on Abraham Kuyper’s boyhood is collected in Rullmann, Kuyper Levenschets, 5-12, and is treated more critically in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 30-33. Koch sketches Kuyper’s early years in Kuyper biografie, 34-39. The memorials to Dutch heroes are catalogued in Tina Keller, De Abdijkerk te Middelburg (Middelburg, 1988), 6, 10, 13. Kuyper’s characterization of his father’s theology comes from a valedictory he wrote to a long-standing colleague in 1918, quoted in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, III, 453. Kuyper’s gymnasium years are reviewed in W. Bakker, “Kuyper’s Afscheid van het Leidse Gymnasium,” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 81/1 (1981): 1-21, which includes the text of his Ulfilas oration. On Fruin, see Bakker, 3-4; Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 21-23. Kuyper’s memory of the April Movement and his participation therein dates from 1912 and is quoted in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 25, 34.

Notes on Chapter 2

The indispensable book for this part of Kuyper’s life is Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper. One need not agree with all its interpretations to profit from its voluminous extracts from and commentary upon the Kuyper-Schaay correspondence from the period of their betrothal. A contrary interpretation of some of the same sources, with telling if sometimes reductive contentions, is Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 21-46. Koch, Kuyper biografie, 34-51, strikes a middle course, more briefly.

For descriptions of Leiden University I have relied on W. Otterspeer, De Wiekslag van hun Geest: De Leidse universiteit in de negentiende eeuw (Den Haag, 1992), and the essays by H. Oort and P. J. Blok in Pallas Leidensis, ed. S. C. van Doesburgh (Leiden, 1925). L. D. Frank, Geschiedenis van het Leidsche Studentencorps (Leiden, 1927), gives a close look at student life. The statistics cited come from Otterspeer, Wiekslag, 409, 411, 413-14, and 420. On the ministers’ job market, ibid., 433-35; see also Van Roorden, Religieuze regimes, 179-81. Kuyper’s father’s salary is given in Johannes Stellingwerff, “De bekering van Kuyper volgens zijn ‘Confidentie,’” Jaarboek voor de Geschiedenis van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland 3 (1989): 54. Kuyper’s relations with his father are evident from the Kuyper-Schaay letters cited in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 64-65, 114-15, 132; “old man” quotation, 65. The relationship is cast in a more benign light in Jasper Vree, “‘Aandachtig zelfonderzoek . . .’: Kuypers zelfportret in de Confidentie,” Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 5 (2001): 3-32.

Kuyper’s statements about his religious condition in these years are from Confidentie (1873), translated as “Confidentially,” in Bratt, ed., Kuyper Centennial Reader, 46-47. Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 25, gives the correct date of Kuyper’s confirmation. H. J. de Jonge, “Kuyper en de Disputaties Geleid door Cobet,” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 81/1 (1981): 22-35, is the authority on that subject. On Matthias de Vries, see Blok in Pallas Leidensis, 106-9 (“beloved,” 107); Otterspeer, Wiekslag, 236-38 (“language,” 236); Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 91-94.

Details of the Kuyper-Schaay courtship and betrothal are given in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 47-55; for Jo’s family tree, see 263-65. Kuyper’s epistolary crusade respecting her reading and religion is traced on 41-45, 55-63, 67-73, 83-89, 105-15, 128-32, 145-49; “I’ve always thought,” 118; “a Dominie’s wife,” 129; “never have I so fully,” 61; “by the nature of things,” 108; “not books!,” 62; “a matter of such weight,” 67; “tell me why,” 71; regarding the Canons of Dort, 60; the Virgin Mary, 111; Jo’s testy reply, 72. Kuyper’s own theological sentiments are quoted ibid.: “you don’t believe,” 58-59; “most people put,” 79; “the rational and religious feeling . . . commanded to become,” 59; “I feel that I need,” 108; “to me forgiveness,” 58; “how do you know,” 108; “religion does not consist,” 77-78; “is not yet Religion,” 146; “but that’s a side issue,” 148; “feel God in your inmost parts,” 146-47.

On rational supernaturalism in the Dutch church, see Rasker, NHK, 32-36. Jasper Vree supplies a more positive interpretation in “The Dominating Theology Within the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk after 1815 in its Relation to the Secession of 1834,” in George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam, eds., Breaches and Bridges: Reformed Subcultures in the Netherlands, Germany, and the United States (Amsterdam, 2000), 33-47. On the Réveil, Rasker, NHK, 71-99; on the Groningen theology, ibid., 45-54 (“Spirit of Christ,” 50), and Jasper Vree, “Petrus Hofstede de Groot and the Christian Education of the Dutch Nation (1833-1861),” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 78 (1998): 70-93. The post-Romantic climate at Leiden during Kuyper’s student years is sketched in Otterspeer, Wiekslag, 573-77, and Rasker, NHK, 113-14. J. H. Scholten is profiled ibid., 115-22, in Mackay, Religious Thought in Holland, 88-107; extra attention to his Leiden context is supplied by K. H. Roessingh, “De Theologische Faculteit,” in Doesburgh, ed., Pallas Leidensis, 139-52 (“single great . . . life of all life,” “fascinating charm,” “prophet in the podium,” and “free science . . . psychological variety,” 141-42), and Otterspeer, Wiekslag, 244-48 (“picture of strength” and “character of granite,” 244). Scholten’s “witness of reason” is quoted in Rasker, NHK, 116.

Kuyper’s statements about Idealist philosophy are embedded in several places. See “Modernism”: “people turned their gaze,” 23; “back to the lowest level,” 63, endnote 15; “realism threatens us . . . on our way to it,” 25; “Blurring of the Boundaries” (“not a single element,” 368); “Common Grace in Science” (“whoever neglects,” 456); and Calvinisme en Kunst: “whatever bloody lashings . . . operations from the subject” (19-20). His reveries about “above all the busts of great men . . . my heart is my world,” quoted in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 156.

Roy Pascal, The German Sturm und Drang (Manchester, England, 1967), is a cogent and comprehensive treatment of that movement, while Isaiah Berlin features two of its members in Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, Herder (Princeton, 2000). On the operation of realist and Romantic dynamics in the Sturm und Drang, see Pascal, German Sturm und Drang, 269-80, 310-13; on the fateful outworking thereof respecting love interests, 63-66, 141-44; for Kuyper’s identification of that phenomenon, see “Modernism,” 107-8. His allusion to Hamlet comes ibid., 109; “volcanic,” 88; “look around,” 89. Kuyper’s statements about “age of cold Deism,” “I would not be classified,” “enthusiasm and resilience,” and “if I had to choose” are all from “Blurring of the Boundaries,” 368-69.

Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, covers the episode of Kuyper’s prize-essay, 91-107, 119-24; Stellingwerff casts it in a more skeptical light in Kuyper en de VU, 26-30, and “De bekering,” 45-51. Jasper Vree, “The Editions of John à Lasco’s Works, especially the Opera Omnia by Abraham Kuyper, in Their Historical Context,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 80/3 (2000): 309-26, treats its longer-term scholarly aftermath as well. On the Scholten-Groningen rivalry, see Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 98; Vree, “Editions,” 310-11. Kuyper narrates the “miraculous” find of books in “Confidentially,” 47-51 (quotations, 50); Stellingwerff offers correctives in Kuyper en de VU, 26-28, 320-21, and “De bekering,” 48-51. Puchinger tracks Kuyper’s progress during autumn-winter 1859-60 in De jonge Kuyper, 104-6 (quotation, 106). J. Lindeboom, “Het Notulen-Boek der Groninger Theologische Faculteit gedurende de Negentiende Eeuw,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 16 (1921): 32, records the “exceptionally flattering praise” Kuyper’s essay received. On Kuyper’s collapse in early 1861, see Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 125-27, 134-44. For Kuyper’s chiding of Jo, ibid., 127-30; “a girl that can frankly,” 130; “turn away . . . wrath of love,” 129-30; “you will thank me,” 128; “Oh, Bram,” 87-88.

The details on the conclusion of Kuyper’s doctoral process are in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 151-52, 156-58, 160-62; the trials of his candidacy for a pulpit, 154-55, 167-74. His continuing à Lasco research is described in Vree, “Editions,” 316-18. Kuyper narrates his reaction to The Heir of Redclyffe as a radical conversion in “Confidentially,” 51-55; “next to the Bible,” 51; “I was fascinated” and “recognized his own limitations . . . ambitions and character,” 53; “I read how,” 54. Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 176-95, interprets this episode as genuine; Stellingwerff, “De bekering,” 51-57, sees more mercenary motives at work. On the context, audience, and significance of the novel, see Amy Cruse, The Victorians and Their Books (Boston, 1935), 42-64; Margaret Mare and Alicia C. Percival, Victorian Best-seller: The World of Charlotte M. Yonge (London, 1948), especially 121-41; and Elliott Engel, “Heir of the Oxford Movement: Charlotte Mary Yonge’s The Heir of Redclyffe,” Etudes Anglaises 33/2 (1980): 132-41. Kuyper mentions his renewed religious exercises in a letter to Jo Schaay, quoted in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 195; his private confessions appear in other letters: “lascivious thoughts,” 187; “when I think,” “she is a winsome,” and “given me Guy,” 189-90. Barbara Dennis analyzes the character Guy as a reconditioned Byronic hero in “The Two Voices of Charlotte Yonge,” Durham University Journal 34/2 (1973): 183, noting his appeal also to the Gothic-revival taste of the era.

On Kuyper’s candidacy for and call to Beesd, see Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 174-76, 195-96 (“a little jewel,” 174); and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 36-43. Kuyper’s statement about “moving heaven” to get the post is cited in Stellingwerff, “De bekering,” 52, from the same letter in which Kuyper quotes Redclyffe respecting the “want of hateful money” (194 in The World’s Classics paperback edition, Oxford University Press, 1997). Jo’s advice against hiring an assistant is excerpted in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 188, as is his declaration of being “calm and resigned.” Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, recounts their wedding and Kuyper’s installation, 196-98.

Notes on Chapter 3

The indispensable studies for this phase of Kuyper’s life are by Jasper Vree: “Een vingeroefening in kerkreformatie: Beesd, 1863-1867,” and “De dominee van wijk 27, wijk 8, en nog veel meer: Amsterdam 1870-1874,” both in Vree, Kuyper in de Kiem. Much of the Beesd material is condensed in J. Vree, “More Pierson and Mesmer, and Less Pietje Baltus: Kuyper’s Ideas on Church, State, Society, and Culture during the First Years of His Ministry (1863-1866),” in Van der Kooi and De Bruijn, eds., Kuyper Reconsidered, 299-310. Stellingwerff views the same span through a gimlet eye in Kuyper en de VU, 43-75; Puchinger covers the Beesd years more benignly in De jonge Kuyper, 205-56. Kuyper’s acolyte Rullmann provides considerable interesting detail in Kuyper Levensschets, 25-71.

Kuyper’s Beesd inaugural, “Een wandel in ‘t licht de grondslag van alle Gemeenschap in de Kerk van Christus,” is available in manuscript in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. That archive contains over half of his Beesd sermons, all inventoried by date of original delivery. Vree describes Kuyper’s social ministry and his conflict with the local powers in “Een vingeroefening,” 128-32, 135, 142-45, 156-59. For his spiritual labors and initial theological themes, see ibid., 132-37. Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, describes the role of classes in the Dutch Reformed Church at this time, 175. On Kuyper’s à Lasco work, see Jasper Vree, “The Editions of John à Lasco’s Works, especially the Opera Omnia Edition by Abraham Kuyper, in Their Historical Context,” Nederlands archief voor kerkgeschiedenis 80/3 (2000): 318-26. The observation about Kuyper turning from history-writer to history-maker comes from Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 222.

Illuminating sermons from Kuyper’s first years in Beesd are those of Christmastide and Epiphany (27 December 1863–7 February 1864); see also Easter and Pentecost themes in 28 March, 17 April–8 May, and 22 May 1864. Quotation of the “knowledge of God” comes from his sermon title for 24 April 1864. Rasker discusses the foremost Ethical theologians in NHK, 125-52. In English a brief recent treatment is Wintle, Pillars of Piety, 43-44, 50-52, 64-65; older and more discursive is Mackay, Religious Thought in Holland, 107-30. Kuyper’s statements (and all quotations) about his transition from such positions to stricter Calvinism come from “Confidentially.”

Kuyper’s second (step of) conversion has drawn markedly different interpretations. Rullmann, Abraham Kuyper, 25-32, repeats Kuyper’s own account in “Confidentially,” 55-61, emphasizing the influence of the “malcontents.” Puchinger supports this view with comparative connections back to the Redclyffe episode in De jonge Kuyper, 206-13. Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 38-46, argues that not “democracy” but a (misguided) “mysticism” drove the change, together with the influence of Herman Kohlbrügge and the psychodynamics of Kuyper’s relationship with his wife-become-mother. Vree, “Een vingeroefening,” 137-42, draws compelling evidence from sermons and other manuscripts of the time to make Pierson’s defection and the question of Modernism central. On Pierson’s defection, see Rasker, NHK, 120-21. Kuyper registers the impact of Scholten’s change regarding the Gospel of John in “Modernism,” 115, with additional personal commentary in notes 31 and 52 of the original. Quotation about Jesus’ resurrection is from his sermon title for Easter (21 April) 1867.

Kuyper’s three sermons responding to Allard Pierson are of 26 November (“Humanism or Christianity”), 3 December, and 17 December (“definite choice”) 1865. On the Syllabus of Errors, Vree, “Een vingeroefening,” 137-38; on Mesmerism, 139-42, and Vree, “More Pierson and Mesmer,” 308-9. Kuyper’s changed sensibility is particularly evident in his Lenten sermons of 1866 (11 February–25 March); his sermons on sin, death, and conversion (20 April–7 May, 27 May, 1 July, and 14 August 1866; 20 January, 3 February, and 3 March 1867); “proof of the validity” comes from the title of Kuyper’s Easter (21 April) 1867 sermon. “Modernism” was originally delivered at the Odeon theater in Amsterdam on 14 April 1871; Malcolm Bull, “Who Was the First to Make a Pact with the Devil?” London Review of Books, 14 May 1992, 22-23, posits the speech’s originality in the use of the term. “By a fixed law,” 96; “theological dwarves,” 93; “rootless” and “caricature,” 94; “dealers in varnish and plaster,” 90; “bold negations . . . all-killing Conservatism,” 119; “Word became flesh,” 124; “once dreamed the dream,” 121; “poisonous snake . . . I have seen its victims,” 121; “as soon as principles,” 89. J. Gresham Machen published Christianity and Liberalism at New York, 1923. Vree points out Kuyper’s anxiety about his brother Herman’s loss of faith in “Dominee van wijk,” 352.

For Herman Kohlbrügge, see Rasker, NHK, 100-112. Kuyper’s statements about the “malcontents” appear in “Confidentially,” 59, 55, and 58; see 58-59 for his testimony to Pietje Baltus published on 30 March 1914. Vree discusses the circumstances and outcome of the 1867 revision of church polity in “Een vingeroefening,” 146-49, 156-59. The full title of Kuyper’s brochure was Wat moeten wij doen, het stemrecht aan onszelven houden of den kerkeraad machtigen? (Culemborg, 1867); quotations, 6, 8, 13, 18.

The reigning mentality in Utrecht at the time of Kuyper’s arrival there is explained in Kossmann, Low Countries, 277-82; and Kuiper, De Voormannen, 61-77. Frederik Carel Gerretson offers insightful analysis of Kuyper’s development at Utrecht in “Dr. Kuyper’s Utrechtse Periode (1867-1870)” and “Dr. Kuyper’s Utrechtse Tuchtmeester” [1937], in his Verzamelde Werken, vol. 3 (Baarn, 1973), 238-67. Kuyper’s Utrecht inaugural sermon was “Menschwording Gods,” quotation 261. A good trans-Atlantic overview of the high-church phenomenon is Walter H. Conser, Jr., Church and Confession: Conservative Theologians in Germany, England, and America, 1815-1866 (Mercer, Ga., 1984). Elliott Engel, “Heir of the Oxford Movement: Charlotte Mary Yonge’s The Heir of Redclyffe,” Etudes Anglaises 33/2 (1980): 132-41, is the most detailed treatment of that topic. Kuyper’s statements about Redclyffe come from “Confidentially,” 54-55. Kuyper’s correspondence with Jo about the “gift of Guy” is presented in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 190, 192; his Beesd farewell sermon, “Een Band voor God ontknoopt,” was published in his Predicatiën, in de jaren 1867 tot 1873 (Kampen, 1913), 233-52; his autobiographical remarks therein come on 241-42. Quotations from “Confidentially” come from 54, 60, 46; he cites Hamlet in “Modernism,” 108-9. The incidence of Shakespeare and Hamlet citations in Kuyper’s corpus is demonstrated in Johan Zwaan, Prosopographia Kuyperiana, privately held by the author, to whom I am grateful for sharing that resource. Jasper Vree renders the Kuyper father-son relationship in kinder light in “‘Aandachtig zelfonderzoek . . .’: Kuypers zelfportret in de Confidentie,” Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 5 (2001): 3-32.

Rasker, NHK, 164-66, summarizes the baptismal and visitation controversies at Utrecht; quotations, 166. The “yoke of synodical hierarchy” comes from the title of a brochure Kuyper published (Amsterdam, 1886) at the climax of his church agitation. Kuyper’s active connection to civil politics is evident in the solicitation from voter clubs in Giessendam and Gorkum that he stand for Parliament (Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU, 14 May 1869). His farewell sermon at Utrecht was “Conservatism and Orthodoxy.” On the virtues and theological errors of conservatism, 69-72; on its strategic misconceptions, 73-77 (“circle of friends,” 75); on form-spirit ontology and developmental dynamics, 78-82; on incarnation and resurrection, 79-80; “Christ posits” and “germ of life,” 81.

The church-political and financial circumstances of Kuyper’s call to Amsterdam are detailed in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 56-57, and Vree, “De dominee van wijk,” 325-28. His first two sermons in Amsterdam are “Geworteld en Gegrond” and “De Troost der Eeuwige Verkiezing,” published in Predicatiën, 323-51 and 111-29. Willem van der Schee elucidates the latter point in “Kuyper’s Archimedes’ Point: The Reverend Abraham Kuyper on Election,” in Van der Kooi and De Bruijn, Kuyper Reconsidered, 102-10. On Christian world-engagement in Kuyper’s Beesd rhetoric, see Vree, “Een vingeroefening,” 138-39; Utrecht inaugural quotation, “Menschwording,” 270; farewell sermon quotations, “Conservatism and Orthodoxy,” 82-83. Statistics on the Amsterdam church situation at Kuyper’s arrival are from Vree, “De dominee van wijk,” 328-29, which also details his parish work, 332-34, 345-46, and 353. His popularity, baptismal, and catechizing practices are recalled in Kuyper and Kuyper, Oude Garde, 35-37, and Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, 54-56. His church-council maneuverings, sometimes with Modernist cooperation, are covered in Vree, “De dominee van wijk,” 330-31, 334-37, 347-50; his opposition to Modernists, 338-40, 344; the moderates’ counterattack, 336-37, 348; his liturgical proposals, 330-31, 355-56; his parish reorganization proposal, 348-51, 356-57; “men of standing,” quoted 337; “undermines the very foundation,” 339. The beginnings of Kuyper’s journalistic career are treated in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 54-55, 63, and Vree, “De dominee van wijk,” 330, 343-44.

Details on the Kuyper home, including illnesses, are from a letter of Mrs. C. Q. Herklots to Johanna Schaay Kuyper, 26 July 1870, Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU; and in Vree, “De dominee van wijk,” 330, 337, 341-43, 349-51, 354, 360-61. On his visit with Pierson, see Vree, “More Pierson and Mesmer,” 308-9; on his work habits at Beesd, see Kuyper and Kuyper, Oude Garde, 8-9. Kuyper’s career deliberations in 1871 are recounted in Vree, “De dominee van wijk,” 337-38; letter to Jo quoted, 338; letter from T. Modderman quoted, 337. His transition from pulpit to politics is discussed ibid., 357-59, 361; Hooykaas quotation, 359. Herman’s death and his own children’s births are recorded in Puchinger, De jonge Kuyper, 260-62.

Notes on Chapter 4

Dutch political and economic history in these years is covered well in Kossmann, Low Countries, 206-29, 259-309, and the chronologically appropriate sections in the topical chapters of Wintle, ESHN. On the Rhine trade, see Wintle, 191; on the Dutch Liberal outlook, Kossmann, 207-10, 260-65. Of the many overviews of European history in this era, Eric J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Capital, 1848-1875 (New York, 1979 [1975]), is especially illuminating, not least for its global scope and its integration of material developments and ideology; see especially xvii-xxii, 27-47, 266-306. “Never did Europeans,” 147; “victorious bourgeois order,” xix.

Kuyper’s witnessing of Prussian mobilization is recorded in Jasper Vree, “Een vingeroefening in kerkreformatie: Beesd, 1863-1867,” in Vree, Kuyper in de kiem, 144; and deducible from Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 56-59. On the kulturkampf, see Kalyvas, Rise of Christian Democracy, 170-79, 203-15. Dutch political turbulence in the late 1860s and early 1870s is summarized in Kossmann, Low Countries, 285-89, 295-300, 304-7; on the “school question,” 289-94, 300-302. Johan G. Westra, “Confessional Political Parties in the Netherlands, 1813-1946” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1972), gives further detail on the Catholic side, including their military mobilization on behalf of the Vatican, 123-28.

The controversies over Dutch public education under the 1848 Constitution are summarized in Rasker, NHK, 94-96. Correlations between various Dutch Reformed theological parties and education policy are laid out in Kuiper, De Voormannen, 68-77. Kuyper’s 1869 keynote address was “Het Beroep op het Volksgeweten” (Amsterdam, 1869); “tonic note,” 13; “minority,” 10; other quotations, 17-21. The ensuing polemics are summarized in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 52-54; epithets quoted 53. The Groen-Kuyper correspondence is available with fine critical annotation in BGK. Quotations are from the crucial series of 4 April–24 May 1867: “the warm interest . . . quickened and refreshed,” 11 April, 9; “fulfilled a wish,” 24 May, 9. A political argument between father and son in Beesd is recalled in Kuyper and Kuyper, Oude Garde, 4. Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, makes the “spiritual” father-sonship between Groen and Kuyper a central theme of the chapter on their relationship, 47-82; see especially 49-51.

“Uniformity: The Curse of Modern Life” was originally delivered at the Odeon Theater in Amsterdam, 22 April 1869, and published there that year (Eenvormigheid: De Vloek van het Modern Leven). English translation is available in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 19-44. His ideological analysis runs 21-25; his tour of the contemporary scene, 26-36; his applicatory prescriptions, 36-44. “Multiform diversity,” “wild forest . . . modern life,” “the flourishing of the arts,” and “almost totally devoid,” 36; “no longer,” “the disappearance,” and “do not facilitate,” 33; “uniformity of Caesarism,” 41; “national will . . . struggle for independence,” 43; “I know of no other,” 39; “not to oppose” and “our unremitting intent,” 41; “Anglomania,” “oppose with vigor,” and “Javanese,” 40. Hobsbawn states (Age of Capital, 67-68): “There is no doubt that the bourgeois prophets of the mid-nineteenth century looked forward to a single, more or less standardized, world where all governments would acknowledge the truths of [capitalist] political economy and liberalism . . . , a world reshaped in the image of the bourgeoisie, perhaps even one from which, eventually, national differences would disappear.”

Kuiper, De Voormannen, 57-66, treats the thought of Bilderkijk and his acolytes. For their subsequent internal divergence regarding European politics, see Kuiper, Zelfbeeld en Wereldbeeld, 31-45, 50-75. Kuyper records his political reading in BGK, 10 September 1869, 46, and 7 March 1873, 218; Groen gave his recommendations on 5 November 1869, 59. Harry Van Dyke has compiled an outstanding critical edition of Groen van Prinsterer’s Lectures on Unbelief and Revolution (Jordan Station, Ont., 1989), comprising the 1847 text and a learned 300-page presentation of context, commentary, and critical reflection. The development of Groen’s argument can be readily traced in Van Dyke’s outline and synopsis, 159-70. On social-contract thinking in particular, see Groen’s pages 136-41; on republicanism, including the United States’, 141, 243-44, 253-54, but also 263; on Von Haller, Van Dyke’s pages 118-19; on the late-medieval roots of the problem, Groen’s pages 167, 176. John W. Sap, Paving the Way for Revolution: Calvinism and the Struggle for a Democratic Constitutional State (Amsterdam, 2001), records Groen’s notion of Holland’s “absentee” monarchy, 296.

Groen’s indebtedness to Savigny is noted in Sap, Paving the Way, 297; Van Dyke, Groen van Prinsterer’s Lectures, 40; and the best biography of Groen, Roel Kuiper, ‘Tot een voorbeeld zult gij blijven’: Mr. G. Groen van Prinsterer, 1801-1876 (Amsterdam, 2001), 24-25. The key conceptual role of Lamennais is detailed in Van Dyke, Groen van Prinsterer’s Lectures, 134-36. On Groen and monarchism, see Van Dyke’s pages 217-23; on his response to the 1848 Constitution and subsequent political activities, Van Dyke’s pages 79-81, and Kuiper, ‘Tot een voorbeeld’, 125-41, 157-66, 181-90; on his antislavery work, Dirk Th. Kuiper, “Theory and Practice in Dutch Calvinism on the Racial Issue in the Nineteenth Century,” Calvin Theological Journal 21/1 (April 1986): 53-59. “Tribune” quotation is from Kuiper, ‘Tot een voorbeeld,’ 182.

Kuyper published “Calvinism & Constitutional Liberties” in 1874. Its theological premises are elaborated, 306-11 (“he also knows,” 310; “given a free choice,” 305; “democratic form,” 310). The Huguenot case study runs 299-306; Kuyper shares the assumption of the day that Hubert Languet rather than Du Plessis-Mornay wrote Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos. For the English case, see 292-99; for the American, 286-92. “Calvinism was a petrifaction” and “who had unambiguously,” 293; “circle of free,” 299; “voluntary, not coerced,” 294; “separation of church and state,” “necessarily” and “Calvinistic principle,” 300; “modern liberties,” 286; “the people of the Union,” 289; “core of the nation,” 287; “We are Antirevolutionaries,” 298-99; “what has been refused,” 313; “Calvinistic liberties,” 314; “the moral element,” “heroic faith,” and “lesser magistrates,” 312; “the question is not,” 307; “I hope that at least,” 317.

Huguenot resistance theory is well laid out in Julian H. Franklin, ed., Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1969). Sap, Paving the Way, affirms it as part of a consistent Neo-Calvinist tradition and notes Groen’s aversion to it, 294-95; see also Groen’s letter to Kuyper of 2 September 1872, in BGK, 194-95. The method and mistakes of Kuyper’s appropriation of American history are detailed in James D. Bratt, “Abraham Kuyper, American History, and the Tensions of Neo-Calvinism,” in George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam, eds., Sharing the Reformed Tradition: The Dutch-North American Exchange, 1846-1996 (Amsterdam, 1996). On the French Revolution’s roots in suppressed religion, see Dale Van Kley, The Religious Origins of the French Revolution: From Calvin to the Civil Constitution (New Haven, 1996). On the “culture-forming” activism of Puritanism, see Michael Walzer, The Revolution of the Saints (Cambridge, Mass., 1965).

The early development of the Antirevolutionary Party is explored via comparative local studies in Janssens, Opbouw ARP. Harinck et al., eds., ARP, covers the entire history of the party; essays relevant to this period include Arie van Deursen, “Van antirevolutionaire richting naar antirevolutionarie partij, 1829-1871,” and Janssens, “Antirevolutionaire organisatievorming, 1871-1879.” Hobsbawn, Age of Capital, describes opposition to parties as a common European Liberal position, 269; Fruin’s opinion is recorded in Van Deursen, “Richting naar partij,” 38. Kuyper was solicited to run for Parliament simultaneously with his Utrecht Union address; see letters from voter clubs in Giessendam and Gorkum in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU, 14 May 1869. Kuyper’s notes about potential local leaders can be found in his political papers for 1869 in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. His activities in the 1871 election are covered by Van Deursen, “Richting naar partij,” 50-52; from Groen’s side, by Kuiper, ‘Tot een voorbeeld,’ 206-9; “unnecessary and dangerous” quotation, Groen to Kuyper, 10 January 1871, in BGK, 114; “unbelievable spike . . . eye on the future,” Kuyper to Groen, 22 June 1871, ibid., 146.

The gestation of De Standaard can be traced in BGK: Groen’s cautions to Kuyper, 27 November 1869, 67; false starts and promotions, 6 August 1871, 152; 3 October 1871, 160; 19 December 1871, 171; the title imbroglio, 7 and 8 January 1872, 173-74, and 12 March 1872, 178-79. Kuyper’s inaugural article, “Vrijheid,” is available in English translation as “Freedom” in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 317-22; “there still remain . . . not be smothered,” 321-22. Kuyper’s speech at the Christian school teachers’ convention in Amsterdam, 24 May 1872, entitled “Het Wilhelmus,” is summarized with the extract quoted in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, I, 151-52. The link of early ARP chapters to Christian school locals is given in Janssens, Opbouw ARP, 359. The relationship with the ASWV and the 1873 and 1875 elections is covered in Janssens, “AR organisatievorming,” 55-66. On P. C. Mondriaan, see 64; on the Anti-Corn Law League as the ASWV’s example, 55; on the classic Liberal model it followed, Hobsbawm, Age of Capital, 270.

The acceleration of Kuyper’s conflict with the Ethicals surrounding 1872 is portrayed variously in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 65, and Jasper Vree, “De kraaienplaag: een halve eeuw predikantenverenigingen in de Nederlandse samenleving,” Jaarboek voor de geschiedenis van het Nederlands Protestantisme na 1800 5 (1997): 107-51. Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, I, 162-65, tracks the journalistic fallout. Kuyper’s suspicion of Conservatives’ integrity was well precedented in Groen; see Kuiper, ‘Tot een voorbeeld,’ 165-66. The contretemps over the statues is played out in the Groen-Kuyper exchange of letters of 25-27 February 1874 in BGK, 287-91. Groen’s words to Kuyper about his health and habits are found ibid., 7 July 1869, 38 (“Don’t try too much”), and 27 November 1869, 67 (“I worry about”). Kuyper’s complaints about illness and fatigue can be tracked similarly in the seasons indicated; “my throat distemper,” 1 April 1873, 221; “unholy atmosphere,” 30 January 1874, 276. A housemaid at the time left a vivid picture of the strains caused by the family’s move to The Hague, in Kuyper and Kuyper, Oude Garde, 46-53.

Notes on Chapter 5

The most important sources for the Brighton episode in Kuyper’s life include Hans Krabbendam, “Zielenverbrijzelaars en zondelozen: Reacties in de Nederlandse pers op Moody, Sankey en Pearsall Smith, 1874-1878,” Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse Kerkgeschiedenis na 1800 34 (May 1991): 39-55; and E. J. C. Verbeek, “De Brighton Beweging en Nederland,” Polemios 9/4 (29 January 1954): 21-24. Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, 80-94, and Kuyper-Bibliografie, I, 180-93, give a decorous overview of Kuyper’s participation and its aftermath. The political disputes of the period are covered in great detail in Janssens, Opbouw ARP, 79-130; and McKendree R. Langley, “Emancipation and Apologetics: The Formation of Abraham Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands, 1872-1880” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1995), 169-99.

Kuyper’s first letter of 1875 (5 January) to Groen is reprinted in BGK, 330. He described Brighton as a “Bethel” encounter with “the holy presence of the living God” in the Standaard Zondagsblad, 13 June 1875. Kuyper’s columns on educational policy were collected and published in De Schoolkwestie I-VI (Amsterdam, 1875); his exchange with Kappeyne is covered in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, I, 179; his citation of Ira Sankey’s hymn is noted in both Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, 79-80, and Johannes Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 77. Kuyper’s reception in the Second Chamber is described in Langley, “Emancipation and Apologetics,” 185-90; set against the backdrop of his earlier journalistic combats with the Conservatives, 176-84. See also Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, I, 188-89 (Kuyper’s citation of James 5 and “whitewashed sepulcher,” quoted 189); and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 76-77 (“demagogue . . . enthusiast,” quoted 76; “serious influence . . . orator,” quoted 77). His ecclesiastical frustrations are described in C. H. W. van den Berg, “De ontstaansgeschiedenis van de Doleantie te Amsterdam,” in Bakker et al., eds., De Doleantie van 1886, 90-91; his spiritual diagnosis and remedy of the situation are summarized in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, I, 207-8.

Melvin E. Dieter, The Holiness Revival of the Nineteenth Century, 2nd ed. (Lanham, Md., and London, 1996), is the most thorough treatment of the subject. Good analytic surveys are available in George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York, 1980), 72-101; and David Bundy, “Keswick and the Evangelical Spirit of Piety,” in Modern Christian Revivals, ed. Edith L. Blumhofer and Randall Balmer (Urbana and Chicago, 1993), 118-44. On Robert Pearsall and Hannah Whitall Smith, see Dieter, 132-57, and Bundy, 123-27; but also the reminiscences of their son, Logan Pearsall Smith, Unforgotten Years (Boston, 1939), 3-77 (“magnificent salesman,” 33), and granddaughter Barbara Strachey, Remarkable Relations: The Story of the Pearsall Smith Women (New York, 1982), 19-60. Krabbendam, “Zielenverbrijzelaars,” details Smith’s Dutch contacts in 1874-75, 47-49.

The proceedings of the Brighton meetings were published in Record of the Convention for the Promotion of Scriptural Holiness: Brighton, May 29th–June 7th, 1875 (Brighton and London, 1875; reprint New York, 1985). The volume also discloses the organizers’ sequential management of mass emotion and records the titles of the hymns sung. Two of Hannah Whitall Smith’s “Bible Readings,” “‘I Can’ and ‘I Cannot’” (Thursday, 3 June, 157-67) and “The Rest of Faith” (Saturday, 5 June, 246-54), exemplify her substance and style. The text of “Love of Jesus, All Divine” can be found at http://www.ccel.org/a/anonymous/eh1916/htm/h230.html; of “Simply Trusting Every Day” at http://www.opc.org/books/TH/old/Blue682.html, 27 September 2004. Willem Hovy copied out the lyrics of “Jesus Saves Me Now” in his letter to Kuyper, 26 October 1876, Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. The communion service of Sunday, 6 June, is recorded in Record of the Convention, 390. Kuyper’s part was witnessed by F. Lion Cachet, Tien dagen te Brighton (Utrecht, 1875), as noted in Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, 80; Kuyper himself alluded to it in a subsequent address paraphrased ibid., 88, the source also of his “my cup overfloweth” testimony, 81. Bundy notes the political dimensions behind Brighton in “Keswick and Piety,” 127-28.

Kuyper reported on Brighton in Standaard Zondagsblad, 6-13 June, 1875; defended and extrapolated its teachings and proceedings, 11 July–22 August 1875; and under its inspiration ran series on “Sealing,” 5 September–31 October 1875, and “Reformed Fasting,” 14 November–12 December 1875. The 3 October 1875 issue excerpted Hannah Whitall Smith, The Christian’s Secret to a Happy Life (195-99 of Chapter 15: “Practical Results,” in the 1885 edition). His mission-festival tour is recorded, with a close paraphrase of his speech at the first (at ’s Heer-Arendskerke, 23 June 1875) in Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, 81-91; “I felt something” and “an open acknowledgement,” 86, 87; “making all the promises” and “tangible presence” are quoted from his Standaard Zondagsblad report on the event, 11 July 1875. Rullmann records Kuyper’s complaints of fatigue in Kuyper Levensschets, 92. Smith’s letter to him (13 September 1875) is in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU.

The results of the 1875 elections are detailed, with Kuyper’s optimistic interpretation, in Langley, “Emancipation and Apologetics,” 228-30. On the recurrence of his rheumatism, see his letters to Groen, 24 and 28 September 1875, in BGK, 344-45; “my inmost state,” 345. The harsh exchange between Kuyper and Minister of Finance H. J. van der Heim is recounted ibid., 346-47; quotations 347. Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, I, 188, describes his cold-water and compress treatments. Kuyper’s series on “A Christian’s Vows” began in Standaard Zondagsblad, 23 January 1876, breaking off after the 6 February issue. Hovy’s letter of 7 January 1876 (Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU) repeated the official explanation that the Holiness leadership gave of Smith’s behavior; see, e.g., Dieter, Holiness Revival, 154-55. But see Smith, Unforgotten Years, 60-65, and Strachey, Remarkable Relations, 33-53, for the fuller private history and family documentation regarding Pearsall Smith’s practices.

Stellingwerff treats Kuyper’s collapse and recuperation briefly in Kuyper en de VU, 79-82; Rullmann, in rich if somewhat hagiographic detail in Kuyper Levensschets, 94-103. Citations from Kuyper and Groen’s correspondence (BGK): “the situation with my head,” 24 February 1876 (355); “now, with your eye,” 29 February 1876 (357); “bow beneath . . . of your children,” 8 March 1876 (358). Kuyper’s telegram to Jo on 24 October 1876 is found in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. His mountain-climbing experience and “wandering in the great mass” citation are recorded in Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, 97; see also the photo section in the present volume for a studio-shot of him in mountain-climbing gear. Kuyper’s dream of Groen’s death is recorded in Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, 101, and compared to Nietzsche’s vision in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 80-81. Groen’s last letter to Kuyper was 8 March 1876, BGK, 358. Two letters from Elizabeth M. M. (Betsy) Groen van Prinsterer to Kuyper (18 July and 24 October 1876) are in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU, as are the cited letters from Alexander F. de Savornin Lohman (15 October 1876), J. H. Gunning (25 October 1876), Jo Kuyper-Schaay (24 October 1876), Isaac Hooykaas (28 December 1876), and Willem Hovy (26 October 1876). Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 80-82, traces Kuyper’s residences and travels in this period; “nerves all in a tumble,” quoted 82. J. Kappeyne van de Coppello notified Kuyper of the 1877 parliamentary schedule by a letter of 18 October 1876; P. Huet recommended renewed Holiness work, 13 April 1877; William Cowper Temple sent an invitation to same, 6 July 1877; and Isaac Hooykaas enthused about a parish position, 20 September 1877, all in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. On the call to the Oosthem parish in Friesland and Kuyper’s deliberations thereabout, see Rullmann, Kuyper Levensschets, 103.

Kuyper’s series on “Perfectionism” (“Volmaakbaarheid”) ran in De Heraut, 17 March–4 August 1878, and was published in book form under the same title as Part II of Uit het Woord: Stichtelijke Bijbelstudien, 1st series, vol. III (Amsterdam, 1879), 61-163. All quotations are taken from the excerpts provided in English translation in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 143-63: “mixture of truth and untruth . . . driving forces of our age,” 162; “push forward . . . mounting doses,” 151-52; “spiritual delicatessen . . . in its organizations,” 162, 161; “with Rome . . . ends up in the flesh,” 155; “Pelagius always lurks . . . for the holy,” 152; “of the holiness . . . incredibly low,” 147; “by the born-again sinner,” 144; “precisely the shallow,” 159; “Unconscious Sin,” 157; “the rule prevails,” 160; “solid, single-minded people . . . sturdy cohesiveness,” 145; “quiet seclusion,” 162; “not wish to conceal . . . error, sinful!,” 161; “our holiest,” 151; “whether the nervous . . . such misappraisal,” 163. For the pre–Civil War American critique of revivalism see the sources collected in James D. Bratt, ed., Antirevivalism in Antebellum America (Piscataway, N.J., 2005). On the context and role of the Keswick Movement in Anglo-American evangelicalism, see Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, 77-85, 94-101, 118-19.

Kuyper’s theological columns in the first half of the 1870s were collected in Uit het Woord: Stichtelijke Bijbelstudiën, 1st series, vols. I-II; see summaries in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, I, 170-71, 193-96. The Work of the Holy Spirit ran in De Heraut 2 September 1883–4 July 1886, and was published in book form in Amsterdam, 1888-89. I have cited the English translation by J. H. DeVries (Grand Rapids, 1956 [New York, 1900]): “entire counsel,” 205; “work of the Holy Spirit . . . that of grace,” 45-46; “in love’s hour,” 336; “root of life,” 467; “the elect . . . converts himself,” 349; “as often as he discovers,” 296; “gradually wrought,” 297; “exquisite delineation . . . the eternal verities,” 532-33. The cosmic, corporate, and historical work of the Spirit is covered in Kuyper’s Volume I (3-199); the individual-soteriological phase is treated in Volume II-III/1.iv (203-447). On the first phase see also Vincent Edward Bacoute, The Spirit in Public Theology: Appropriating the Legacy of Abraham Kuyper (Grand Rapids, 2005). Kuyper’s meditation on Psalm 42 was published in De Heraut, 19 January 1890. Citations are from the English translation in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 148-53: “plains and valleys,” “God alone is,” “sacred silence,” 149; “the roar,” “revelation . . . his own soul,” 150; “deep anxiety,” 153, “double the power,” 152; “the child of God,” 153; “to the plain . . . imprinted on his soul,” 151.

Notes on Chapter 6

The most important secondary accounts for this phase of Kuyper’s life include Koch, Kuyper biografie, 171-238; Janssens, Opbouw ARP, 133-252, digested by the same author as “Antirevolutionaire organisatievorming, 1871-1879” and “Eenheid en verdeeldheid, 1879-1894,” in Harinck et al., eds., ARP, 53-72, 73-92; Van Deursen, Distinctive Character, 1-67; and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 83-120. Theo van Tijn locates Kuyper’s work in the context of its times and parallel movements in “De Doleantie kwam niet alleen,” Documentatieblad voor Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis van de negentiende eeuw 10 (January 1986): 41-46; and “De sociale bewegingen van 1876 tot 1887,” AGN 1978 13: 90-100.

Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, recounts Kuyper’s vocational decision upon his return to the Netherlands, 84-89; Koch gives more detail on his journalism in Kuyper biografie, 175-78. Janssens analyzes the pre-formation of the Antirevolutionary Party in Opbouw ARP, 156-62 (“urgent confessional necessity,” quoted 157; my italics); Koch, in Kuyper biografie, 178-89 (“thunderclap,” 189). E. J. Hobsbawm’s observation on “organization, ideology, and leadership” comes from The Age of Capital, 1848-1875 (New York, 1975), 19; on the potential of the lower-middle class, 246-48. His profile of the general European Liberal regime at the time (266-74) is amplified for the Netherlands in Kossmann, Low Countries, 206-10, 259-65; Hans Daalder, “The Netherlands: Opposition in a Segmented Society,” in Robert Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, 1966), 197-98; Janssens, Opbouw ARP, 227-28; and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 171-74. Ons Program was published in Amsterdam immediately upon the conclusion of its run in the Standaard in February 1879. It appeared thereafter in several slightly amended editions until superseded by Kuyper’s Antirevolutionaire staatkunde: met nadere toelichting op “Ons Program,” 2 vols. (Kampen, 1916-17).

The 1878 Education Bill is analyzed in the context of the Progressive Liberal agenda in Kossmann, Low Countries, 297-302; see also Koch, Kuyper biografie, 178-81. Janssens gives the most detailed analysis of the petition campaign in Opbouw ARP, 146-55, emphasizing its disjuncture with Kuyper’s original plans and party design. See also Koch, Kuyper biografie, 182-84; on the mutual distaste of Kuyper and the king, 184-85; “Orange has broken,” quoted 185. Kappeyne is profiled in Kossmann, Low Countries, 300-301, and in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 180-81.

The preparatory work for founding the Free University is detailed in Van Deursen, Distinctive Character, 6-14; Koch, Kuyper biografie, 221-38; and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 89-113. Jasper Vree explores the broader context in “‘Het Réveil’ en ‘het (neo-) Calvinisme’ in hun onderlinge samenhang (1856-1896),” in Augustijn and Vree, eds., Kuyper: vast en veranderlijk, 54-85; “care of souls,” quoted 72. Jonathan Z. Smith nominates the 1876 Higher Education Law as the beginning of Religious Studies as an academic discipline in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago, 1982), 102-3. Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, cites Kuyper regarding “our future preachers,” 99; treats the exchange (also its monetary details) with Elisabeth Groen van Prinsterer, 96; and Kuyper’s correspondence with Lohman, 100-107 (advising skepticism toward the Ethicals, 106).

Van Deursen, Distinctive Character, 11-12, provides details about the endowment and underscores Lohman’s hesitation regarding the narrow theological base of the university. Kuyper’s tracts against Van Toorenenbergen are De Leidsche Professoren en de Executeurs der Dordtsche Nalatenschap and Revisie der Revisie-Legende, both published in Amsterdam, 1879; against Bronsveld, “Strikt genomen”: Het recht tot Universiteitsstichting, staatsrechtelijk en historisch getoetst (Amsterdam, 1880). Koch, Kuyper biografie, provides good summaries of these, 226-31; “pastor-factory,” quoted 221; “enemies from without,” quoted 227. For Van Toorenenbergen’s counsel to Elisabeth Groen van Prinsterer, 227; regarding Kuyper’s perpetual enmity with Bronsveld, 229. Kalyvas analyzes the broader pattern of tension between church leaders and the Christian-Democratic movement in Rise of Christian Democracy, 6, 18-57; “carried important costs,” 29; “Protestantism in the Netherlands” (capitalized in the original) is cited in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 102. Scholten’s commendatory letters to Kuyper, dated 28 December 1879 (“historical standpoint . . . Kingdom of God”) and 20 September 1880 (“If our paths”), are found in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU.

On the founding of the Christian schools union, see Janssens, Opbouw ARP, 154; of the ARP, 164-65; of the Free University, Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 109. On the university’s funding sources, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 227; Van Deursen, Distinctive Character, 11-12; and a register in Kuyper’s hand in Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. On the university’s early quarters, see Ad Tervoort and Marijke Völlmar, Wetenschap en samenleving: groei en ontwikkeling van de VU-familie in beeld (Amsterdam, 2005), 123-24; for statistics on the student body, 71-72; on the function and importance of the Union, 33-36, and Van Deursen, Distinctive Character, 39-44. All subsequent quotations from Kuyper in the text are from “Sphere Sovereignty”: “And so our little School,” 489; “To possess wisdom” and “Thinking after God . . . through all the ages,” 476; “scholarship often stands,” 475; “every State power,” 472; “the man of Tarsus,” 475; “Is this not” and “the least respected,” 479; “is not giving,” 479-80.

Janssens, Opbouw ARP, ably describes Kuyper’s development of a saturated political culture among his followers, 166-80; the process of party centralization, 183-208; and factional tendencies in the early 1880s, 239-52. On Mondriaan, see 165, 178-79; for his work as a political cartoonist, see Herbert Henkels, “Piet Mondriaan and the Hague School,” in Ronald de Leeuw, John Sillevis, and Charles Dumas, eds., The Hague School: Dutch Masters of the 19th Century (London, 1983), 147. The pattern of interlocking directorates in Kuyper’s movement is studied in close detail against sophisticated theoretical backdrop in Kuiper, De Voormannen, 381-497, with illustrative charts, 591-98. Intermarriages and other family connections are mapped on 620-41. Extensive data and narratives on these patterns are available in Kuiper et al., eds., Dolerenden en nageslacht, thoroughly indexed by family names. For the Esser clan, see 200-220; Hovy, [103-5]; Kuyper, [106-7], 284-95; Rutgers, [110-12]; Lohman, [113-15]; Brummelkamp, 205-6. Hovy is briefly profiled in Van Deursen, Distinctive Character, 11-13; his life, character, and career are treated thoroughly in R. E. van der Woude, “Willem Hovy (1840-1915): Bewogen christelijk-sociaal ondernemer,” in P. E. Werkman en R. E. van der Woude, eds., Geloof in eigen zaak: Markante protestantse ondernemers in de negentiende en twintigste eeuw (Hilversum, 2006), 127-61.

Stellingwerff describes Kuyper’s Amsterdam home in Kuyper en de VU, 161-63; his allure to his rivals’ sons and encouragement of non-Calvinist associates for his children, 165. Christian Hunnigher’s reminiscences are found in Kuyper and Kuyper, Oude Garde, 59-80; “sermons from likeminded ministers” and Sunday routine, 62. One of his principal collaborators in the Doleantie reproved him for his absence from church; see C. H. W. van den Berg, “Kuyper en de kerk,” in Augustijn et al., eds., Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed, 173 and 250 n. 6. On the family’s dinner-time devotions, 26, 63, 65; on Kuyper’s domestic style, 63-67, 145-46.

Notes on Chapter 7

Kuyper’s inaugural address at the Free University was originally published on the date of its delivery, 20 October 1880. Citations here are from “Sphere Sovereignty,” 461-90. The fullest study of sphere sovereignty as a theory is J. D. Dengerink, Critisch-historisch onderzoek naar de sociologische ontwikkeling van het beginsel der “souvereiniteit in eigen kring” in de 19e en 20e eeuw (Kampen, 1948). For shorter, English-language analyses, see Bob Goudzwaard, “Christian Social Thought in the Dutch Neo-Calvinist Tradition,” in Walter Block and Irving Hexham, eds., Religion, Economics, and Social Thought (Vancouver, 1986), and James W. Skillen and Rockne M. McCarthy, eds., Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society (Atlanta, 1991).

The quotations relevant to Kuyper’s sketch of the “spheres” are all from “Sphere Sovereignty,” 467. His statements about divine sovereignty and world-imperial claims thereunto are on 466 (“the State as ‘the immanent God’”); about “that glorious life” of the late-medieval Low Countries, 470; “our human life,” 467. On Althusius, I have relied on the Introduction by Frederick S. Carney and Preface by Carl J. Friedrich to Carney’s translation of Althusius’s Politics (Boston, 1964); and on James W. Skillen, “The Political Theory of Johannes Althusius,” Philosophia Reformata 39 (1974): 170-90. On von Gierke, see Antony Black’s “Editor’s Introduction” to Otto von Gierke, Community in Historical Perspective: A Translation of Selections from Das Deutsche Genossenschaftsrecht [1881], trans. Mary Fischer, ed. Antony Black (Cambridge and New York, 1990), xiv-xxx. Von Gierke published Johannes Althusius und die Entwicklung der naturrechtlichen Staatstheorien in 1879. Jonathan Chaplin explains Kuyper’s aversion to Althusius via von Gierke in a personal communication to the author, 4 November 2003. On the theme of republican virtue, see “Sphere Sovereignty,” 469-71.

The first edition of Kuyper’s Ons Program (Amsterdam, 1879) included the April 1878–February 1879 series in De Standaard that formed one continuous commentary on the twenty-one Articles of the official Antirevolutionary Party Program, plus numerous newspaper pieces (“Bijlagen”) that he had published on previous occasions. The volume underwent several subsequent editions, but the ARP Program did not change in Kuyper’s lifetime and appeared near the start of every edition. Chapter and page citations below refer to the first edition. Kuyper’s crucial 1873 newspaper series on “Ordinantiën Gods” appears in Ons Program, 116-29. Citations below are from the English translation, “The Ordinances of God,” in Skillen and McCarthy, eds., Political Order and the Plural Structure of Society, 242-57. McKendree R. Langley, “Emancipation and Apologetics: The Formation of Abraham Kuyper’s Anti-Revolutionary Party in the Netherlands, 1872-1880” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1995), gives helpful detail and analysis of Kuyper’s commentary, 113-60.

Issues concerning sovereignty and its ramifications are stated in Articles 1-5 of the ARP Program and treated in Ons Program chapters 1-6. Article 1/chapter 1 deals with the party name; conscience being “sovereign in its own sphere” is stated and explicated, 198-202. Article 20/Chapter 21 covers church-state separation; the “conscience of the legislator” is stipulated 103; “each have their own domain” appears in “Ordinances of God,” 252. Kuyper argues against the concept and usages of an “atheistic state” in Ons Program chapter 5, asserting Calvinism as the “tonic note” of the nation, 28-33; “equal rights for all” was a perennial slogan in his work, occurring, e.g., in “Calvinism and Constitutional Liberties,” 315.

Articles 6-11/chapters 7-12 treat the framework of government; the House of Orange is handled already under the section on authority, 74-78; Orange’s sovereignty is declared a “mystery” on 77. On constitutionalism and the Constitution of 1848, Article 7/chapter 8; on cabinet and Parliament, Articles 8 and 9/chapters 9 and 10; on franchise extension, 295-97 and 421-24; on electoral reforms, Article 11/chapter 12, especially 415-20, 424-25; on decentralization, Article 10/chapter 11.

Article 3/chapter 3 announces the centrality of divine ordinances; Articles 12-20/chapters 13-21 present the programmatic applications Kuyper saw issuing thence. The existence, reality, and divine origins of these ordinances are stipulated in “Ordinances of God,” 244-45 (italics in original). The “circumference of each” comes from “Sphere Sovereignty,” 467; “incontrovertible assertion,” from “Ordinances of God,” 245; “God’s creation” and “all the givens,” 246; “spiritual fathers” and “are cited,” 248-49; “partially obscured” and “ground rules,” 250; “simply wishes,” 248; “it is impossible,” 255; “knowledge of God’s ordinances,” 251 (my italics); “eternal principles,” 255; the 1873 list of five ordinances, 255-56. Kuyper’s poetic invocation of the ordinances is recorded in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, III, 5. Translation is mine, borrowing from a variant of this poem translated by Henrietta Ten Harmsel, in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 227-28.

Kuyper treats church-state relations in Article 20/chapter 21 of Ons Program and educational policy in Article 12/chapter 13; “right to establish” comes from “Ordinances of God,” 252. Dengerink summarizes Kuyper’s view of the family in Critisch-Historisch Onderzoek, 124-27. On the school’s relationship to “the father,” see Ons Program, 477-78. On the state and public health, see Article 15/chapter 16; regarding vaccination, 806-7, 848-57. Kuyper valorizes the state as a “servant of God,” 138-46; “rises high” comes from “Sphere Sovereignty,” 468; “purely external means” comes from “Ordinances of God,” 249. On defense policy, see Ons Program, Article 17/chapter 18; on fiscal matters, Article 16/chapter 17; on their intersection, 862-64, 868-72, 924-31. Article 14/chapter 15 covers “public virtue,” distinguishing that from “morality,” 761. Kuyper’s understanding of the specific way in which the Netherlands was a Christian nation is spelled out 146-54 and the policy implications thereof, 189-97, as well as Article 5/chapter 6; “baptized nation” recurs throughout Kuyper’s writings, e.g., “Maranatha,” in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 212.

Notes on Chapter 8

The Doleantie and Kuyper’s role in it are covered in Rasker, NHK, 153-90; Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 121-58; Koch, Kuyper biografie, 239-83; and various of the essays in Bakker, De Doleantie van 1886. On the “panel incident,” see Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 149-52, and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 263-65. C. Augustijn characterizes it as Kuyper’s “greatest tactical blunder” in “De spiritualiteit van de dolerenden,” in Augustijn and Vree, eds., Kuyper: vast en veranderlijk, 185.

Kuyper’s comprehensive text on church reform was Tractaat van de reformatie der kerken (Amsterdam, 1884); I have cited from the Volksuitgave of 1884. He puts the case in briefer compass in Ijzer en Leem (Amsterdam, 1885), 18-21. Secondary analyses are supplied in W. Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande,” in Bakker, De Doleantie van 1886, 134-38, and C. H. W. van den Berg, “De ontstaansgeschiedenis van de Doleantie in Amsterdam,” ibid., 77-78, 84-85, 95-96; see also Rasker, NHK, 181-82, and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 252-53. Kuyper lays out his case against the 1816 Regulation and its consequences in Chapter III of Tractaat, “On the Deformation of the Churches,” 83-115; for a terse, popular summary, see “It Shall Not Be so Among You,” E. T. of “Alzoo zal het onder u niet zijn,” Uit de diepte I & II (Amsterdam, 1886), in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 126-31, 135-36. His fears even about local church offices are recorded in Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande,” 84-85.

Kuyper’s assertion of the Dortian-confessional essence of the Dutch Reformed Church is strongest in Revisie der Revisie-Legende (Amsterdam, 1879), and summarized well in C. Augustijn, “Kerk en godsdienst 1870-1890,” in Bakker, De Doleantie van 1886, 71. His hope that formal division would promote better harmony is expressed in the concluding section of Contra-Memorie inzake het Amsterdamsch Conflict . . . (Amsterdam, 1886), digested in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie II, 143-46. The impact of Kuyper’s position with respect to the church’s role in Dutch society has attracted copious commentary. See, most thoroughly, Kuiper, De Voormannen, 164-99; more briefly, Rasker, NHK, 164, 169-70; Van den Berg, “De ontstaansgeschiedenis van de Doleantie,” 77-78, 91-94; and Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande,” 134-44. Some of Kuyper’s crispest statements of the issue come in Ijzer en Leem, 25-26; “De Heelen en de Halven,” Standaard, 17 June 1885; and Tweeërlei Vaderland, 22-23, 28-30. On “Legitimism,” Ijzer en Leem, 24-25. His argument that 1816 and not the Doleantie was “revolutionary” is put briefly ibid., 18-21; most extensively in “Complot en Revolutie,” pamphlet of 30 January 1886 collected in Het Conflict gekomen (Amsterdam, 1886). See also Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande,” 134-44, and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 252-56.

Statistics on church membership and attendance are taken from Augustijn, “Kerk en godsdienst,” 44, 48-52, and Van den Berg, “De ontstaansgeschiedenis van de Doleantie,” 77-79, 83, 94-95. “Supervision of doctrine,” quoted in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 248. Kuyper laid out his campaign strategy in Tractaat, 196-204; see also Rasker, NHK, 181-82. The “yoke of synodical hierarchy” became a mantra in the Doleantie; see, e.g., Afwerping van het juk der Synodale Hiërarchie (Amsterdam, 1886). For “dead churches,” Tractaat, 198; “false preaching,” 197; “doleerende kerken,” 199. “Lamenting” and “plead” are quoted from the Tractaat by Rasker, NHK, 181. The radical climate of the times, set by the economic crisis, is well explained in Theo van Tijn, “De Doleantie kwam niet alleen,” Documentatieblad voor de Nederlandse kerkgeschiedenis van de negentiende eeuw 10 (January 1986): 41-46, and “De sociale bewegingen van 1876 tot 1887,” AGN 1978, 13: 90-100. Kossmann, Low Countries, 310-11, 314-15, gives a briefer summary. On police riots and the Eel Riot, see ibid., 316, and Van Tijn, “De sociale bewegingen,” 95, 97-99. For liberal and conservative condemnations of Kuyper as a dangerous radical, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 274-75. Kuyper’s memory of burying his father is recorded in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 125; for that and Lohman’s advice to him after Willy’s birth see also Koch, Kuyper biografie, 240-41.

The process of the Doleantie is recounted succinctly in Rasker, NHK, 182-89; in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 256-72; and in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 139-56. Figures on the crisis for VU graduates stand ibid., 123, 141; image of “general staff” and troops in the field comes from Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande,” 113; “the gospel of Christ,” Rasker, NHK, 182; “the interests of the kingdom” and “the Lord Jesus Christ,” quoted ibid., 182, 183. The procedural infighting is followed in greatest detail in Van den Berg, “De ontstaansgeschiedenis van de Doleantie,” 96-103. On the Doleantie in the provinces see Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande”; Rasker, NHK, 186-89; and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 144-49; “spiritual classis,” quoted in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 260; “irregular, churchly, and valid,” quoted in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 147. Rasker, NHK, 185-86, summarizes the legal process; Koch, Kuyper biografie, 266-70, gives more detail. On the Church Conference and the further spread of and hostility to the Doleantie see Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande,” 123-32; “throwing off the yoke,” quoted 123. The final scale of the Doleantie is registered in Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande,” 127; Van den Berg, “De ontstaansgeschiedenis van de Doleantie,” 103; and D. Th. Kuiper, “De Doleantie en de Nederlandse samenleving,” in Bakker, De Doleantie van 1886, 237, 239. The opposition to Kuyper from former colleagues is described in Augustijn, “Spiritualiteit,” 185-86 (“continuous, hateful,” 186), and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 156-58. Koch, Kuyper biografie, covers the hostility from some of his longstanding adversaries, 270-79, but also Kappeyne’s assistance, 271-72, for which see also Bakker, “De Doleantie in den lande,” 139.

Kuyper’s address to the fifth annual meeting of the VU society on 30 June 1885 was Ijzer en Leem; on this as a pivot point in the process, see Jasper Vree, “‘Het Réveil’ en ‘het (neo-)Calvinisme’ in hun onderlinge samenhang (1856-1896),” in Augustijn and Vree, Kuyper vast en veranderlijk, 70-72. “What pain,” Ijzer en Leem, 28; “the creature breaking off,” 13; “to divide from Christ,” 20. Kuyper’s involvement with South African affairs in this period is detailed in Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 45-146; English-language summary, 242-46. On his trips to London and overwork, 116-17; regarding the Boers’ Calvinistic calling, 61-65, 134-37; on Kuyper’s cooperation with Fruin, 83, 87-90, 119, but also 128-31; the cooling of his support, 133-45. Kuyper’s address to the Transvaal-delegation rally — for the context of which, ibid., 121-27 — was published as Plancius-Rede (Amsterdam, 1884); “also personally,” 14-15; “intolerable,” 18-19. His letter of 29 March 1884 to S. J. DuToit is quoted in Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 130; his letter from Paul Kruger’s secretary F. Eloff, 21 May 1891, ibid., 142. Kuyper’s exchange with Nicholas M. Steffens is explicated further in James D. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America (Grand Rapids, 1984), 46, 60; “You should drop that idea,” letter of Nicholas M. Steffens to Kuyper, 7 May 1886; “our Dutch people,” ibid., 25 January 1891, both in Steffens papers, Calvin College and Seminary Archives, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Kuyper’s key Standaard article (17 June 1885) anticipating the Doleantie is “De Heelen en de Halven” (“The Wholes and the Halves”); “better or braver,” 1. His post-deposition sermon (11 July 1886) was “It Shall Not be so Among You”; “much farther” and “the One who sends me,” 133; “How we loved,” 137; “Have I, I myself,” 139. His sermon at the Church Conference 11 January 1887, “Een ziel, die zich nederbuigt,” was published in Uit de Diepte XXXI-XXXII (Amsterdam, 1887), and is digested in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie II, 182-85; “I am fearful,” 183; “the heights of self-righteousness,” 183; “the waterspouts of God,” 184. Kuyper’s address to the seventh annual meeting of the VU society was Tweeërlei Vaderland; “had not the people,” 23-24; “could become so powerful,” 24. His warning against creating a new ecclesiastical party was published at the conclusion of his series in De Heraut on the “Practical Consequences” of Particular Grace, in early 1882. The series was collected as Part I of De Practijk der Godzaligheid (Amsterdam, 1886) and is digested in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie II, 172-78; “isten” and “anen” and “in the great whole of the church,” quoted 176; “we are from the depths of our soul” and “head of a new school,” quoted 177. Kuyper’s next series concluded in July 1882, was collected as Part II of De Practijk der Godzaligheid, and is summarized in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie II, 178-82; “driven by the deeply sinful pull,” quoted 181-82.

The personalities and issues facing the formation of the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland are analyzed in various of the essays in Wolthuis and Vree, De Vereniging van 1892; a briefer digest is available in Rasker, NHK, 189-90; and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 279-83. The outstanding analysis of the inner as well as more formal differences between the two sides is Augustijn, “Spiritualiteit”; on pew-rents and “money,” 192, 197; “preacher’s church,” 189; quest for “objective” worship, 193-94; on baptism and communalism, 194-96; weak nurture and loss of “church as mother,” 198; “a church of spiritually mature,” 195. These traits and the negotiations that sealed the union are further studied in J. van Gelderen, “Op weg naar de Vereniging,” in Wolthuis and Vree, De Vereniging van 1892, 35-80. Relevant statistics are given in Gerrit J. Schutte, “Een samenleving in verandering en vernieuwing,” ibid., 27; Kuiper, “De Doleantie en de Nederlandse samenleving,” 237-39; and Van Rooden, Religieuze regimes, 162. Kuyper’s famous declaration of his future ambitions came in his 13 February 1886 brochure, “De Vredelievenden in de Besturen,” collected in Het Conflict gekomen, and is excerpted in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie II, 137-38.

Notes on Chapter 9

The classic study of Kuyper’s ecclesiology is P. A. van Leeuwen, Het Kerkbegrip in de Theologie van Abraham Kuyper (Franeker, 1946). More recent analyses of value include C. H. W. van den Berg, “Kerk en wereld in de theologie en wereldbeschouwing van Abraham Kuyper,” in In Rapport met de Tijd: 100 jaar theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit (Kampen, 1980), 140-66; by the same author, “Kuyper en de kerk,” in Augustijn et al., eds., Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed, 146-78; W. Speelman, “De Demokratische Kuyper,” Segmenten (1978): 157-99 (157-72 on the church); and Jasper Vree, “Organisme en instituut: De ontwikkeling van Kuypers spreken over kerk-zijn (1867-1901),” in Augustijn and Vree, Kuyper: vast en veranderlijk, 86-108. A solid overview in English is Henry Zwaanstra, “Abraham Kuyper’s Conception of the Church,” Calvin Theological Journal 9 (November 1974): 149-81. My summary of Kuyper’s theological phases follows C. Augustijn, “Kuypers theologie van de samenleving,” in Augustijn, Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed, 34-60; Vree, “Organisme en instituut,” and by the same author, “‘Het Réveil’ en ‘het (neo-) Calvinisme’ in hun onderlinge samenhang (1856-1896),” in Augustijn and Vree, Kuyper: vast en veranderlijk, 54-85. The dictum about “thinking through his church ideal” comes from Van den Berg, “Kuyper en de Kerk,” 155.

The influence of Schleiermacher on Kuyper’s ecclesiology was first asserted by Van Leeuwen, Kerkbegrip, 98-100, 118-20, and is conclusively demonstrated in Jasper Vree, Abraham Kuyper’s Commentatio (1860): The Young Kuyper about Calvin, À Lasco, and the Church, Volume I (Leiden, 2005), 2-4, 49-54, 57, 65. Key early sermons on ecclesiology at Beesd are those treating the articles in the Apostles’ Creed on the Holy Spirit and the holy catholic church, delivered 31 January and 7 February 1864, respectively; see Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. His inaugural sermon at Utrecht was “Menschwording Gods”: “The Church is thus not just a gathering,” 259; “all that passes itself off,” 260; “mottled,” 266; “noble competition,” 265; “the divine does not come forth . . . agitations from without,” 261; “to the eternal shame” and “the spirit of the age,” 263.

Kuyper’s inaugural sermon at Amsterdam, “Geworteld en Gegrond,” highlights “eternal election” in its preface 3-4, but the topic received extensive treatment only in his next sermon, “De Troost der Eeuwige Verkiezing” (in his Predicatiën, in de jaren 1867 tot 1873 [Kampen, 1913], 111-29). “Geworteld en Gegrond” describes the church as organism, 5-8, 11-14; as institute, 8-11, 14-19; “perfected” and “connection with heavenly life,” 11; “in Christ as a human life” and “so now a double stream runs,” 12; “organism” and “heart,” 13; “just as much grounded,” 8; “the institute of the church exists,” 15; Calvin’s image of church as mother, cited 16; “that alone makes progress,” “the shoulders of those who have gone before,” “the higher ground of the new life,” “sets itself between us,” “life-sphere” and “forms the person,” “called from the root,” all 17. The “scaffolding” metaphor is unpacked on 18-19. Confidentie: schrijven aan den weled. Heer J. H. van der Linden was published in Amsterdam, 1873.

Kuyper’s Dat de Genade Particulier Is was published as volume I in the second series of Uit het Woord (Amsterdam, 1884) after running in De Heraut April 1879–June 1880. I have used the English translation by Marvin Kamps, Particular Grace (Grandville, Mich., 2001). De Leer der Verbonden (Uit het Woord II/II, Amsterdam, 1885) ran in De Heraut September 1880–October 1881. Kuyper exfoliated the “practical consequences” of the doctrine of particular grace in De Heraut November 1881–July 1882 and published them as the first two parts of Practijk der Godzaligheid (Uit het Woord II/III, Amsterdam, 1886). “We very earnestly resist,” Particular Grace, 77; “the rule that the Lord God sets . . . only chaos,” 266; “the higher moral earnestness,” 58; “in embryonic form,” 94; “everyone has his own tie,” 87. One evocation of the “mountain-tops” comes in Leer der Verbonden, 304. Kuyper paints his model of proper Christian prayer in Particular Grace, 178-79, elevates Trinitarianism over Christocentrism, 180-81, and discusses preaching amid the uncertainties of election, 232-33.

All discussion and citations of Leer der Verbonden come from its fifth section, “The Delights of the Covenant”: “the Covenant of Grace is the glorious channel,” 319; “we do not sit,” 317; “sticks and blocks,” 303; “brook” running “through all the bumps,” 324-25; “transitional, mixed, and unconscious,” 323. An older but helpful delineation of Kuyper’s ideas on the covenant is G. Kuypers, “Abraham Kuyper over Genadeverbond en Sacrament,” Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift 47 (1947): 65-77. Kuyper’s concept of the democratic dimension of election is illustrated in “De Troost der Eeuwige Verkiezing” and in Particular Grace, 320-26; “the broad circle of people,” Leer der Verbonden, 303. Kuyper faults common applications of election in ibid., 312-19, 351-57; “holy despair of the sect,” 319. Kuyper’s typology of sectarianism runs ibid., 306-11; “methodists” and “passivists,” 309; “meddlesome” and “lackadaisical,” 307; “manufacturing methodism,” 307; geen verbond, geen verband, 311; “the normal means,” 335. Kuyper contrasts the views from “God’s side” and “the human side” in Particular Grace, 225-41 (quotations, 239), and treats the theme of “fixed ordinances” on 266-68 (quotations, 266); “psychological . . . injustice to the sacred,” 240; “raises us up,” 192. His ultimate resort to scriptural authority comes on 67.

The third phase of Kuyper’s ecclesiology is epitomized in his Encyclopaedie, 183-345. His Free University lectures were transcribed and published in five volumes by his students as Dictaten Dogmatiek (2nd ed., Kampen, 1910). The church was the subject of vol. 4, Locus de Ecclesia, based on lectures delivered in 1892 when Kuyper was finishing the Encyclopaedie. Van den Berg, “Kerk en Wereld,” lists Kuyper’s recurrent paired concepts, 142-43, and explores his organic thinking, 142-51. Speelman carries out that analysis at greater length in “Demokratische Kuyper,” 157-69, alluding to Schelling, 159. Zwaanstra draws the same link in “Kuyper’s Conception,” 156, after Van Leeuwen, Kerkbegrip, 118-20. Schelling’s religious thought is well summarized in English in John E. Wilson, Introduction to Modern Theology: Trajectories in the German Tradition (Louisville, 2007), 49-51, 60-69. Van den Berg, “Kerk en Wereld,” 147, notes the analogy of organic church to society as institutional church to state. All quotations are from Encyclopaedie, vol. III: “according to ordinances,” 194; “the organic character of the human race,” 190; “not for a moment . . . higher grace,” 189; “central” in “consciousness,” “personal life of the faithful,” “the coming to be of conversion,” and “the central action upon the consciousness,” 194-96. The institute-organism “opposition,” “more precisely,” “organism of the church,” and “twofold manifestation” appear on 218; not “accidental” but “principial and necessary,” 216. The subjects of the “institutional” and “organic departments” are laid out 218-25; “the Christian metamorphosis” and “fall away,” 215; “minimally through the sphere” and “so little spiritual depth,” 194-95. Kuyper alludes to current Dutch emigration to Colorado, 204; the episode is detailed by Peter de Klerk, “The Ecclesiastical Struggles of the Rilland and Crook Christian Reformed Churches in Colorado in 1893,” in De Klerk and Richard R. DeRidder, eds., Perspectives on the Christian Reformed Church: Studies in Its History, Theology, and Ecumenicity (Grand Rapids, 1983), 73-98. Richard Rothe’s thought is summarized in Wilson, Introduction to Modern Theology, 106-11; “whole moral community,” 110. See also Claude Welch, Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century: Vol. I, 1799-1870 (New Haven, 1972), 282-91. Kuyper’s parallels to and differences with Rothe are explored in Speelman, “Demokratische Kuyper,” 160-62.

Kuyper’s Onze Eeredienst (Kampen, 1911) collected eighty articles on worship that he had written in De Heraut 1897-1901 (covering theoretical background and the elements of a typical service) and fifty more he published there in 1910-11 about baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and other special occasions. The volume has been translated (with an approximately thirty percent abridgement) as Our Worship, ed. Harry Boonstra (Grand Rapids, 2009), from which all references and quotations are cited. Kuyper’s democratic theme is evident, e.g., 86-89, 93-97, 145-46; his emphasis on full worship and not just sermon, 17-18; restrictions on the minister’s role, 103-4 (“will retain a more humble,” 104); and his outline of the essence of worship, 8-19. On the Votum, 107-15; the role of reciting the Creed, 155-58; kneeling in prayer, 141-47; and the merits of liturgical over spontaneous prayer, 29-36, 137-40, 171-73, 207-9. His historical analysis is exemplified on 25-27, 108-10, 128-30, 174-77; his critique of Sankey and the syndrome he inspired, 121-24; on conventicles, see 18, 119-20, 253-55. Kuyper explores preaching, 174-206, and the Lord’s Supper, 261-88 (“exceptionally holy character,” 277; “the worship service reaches its highest point,” 261; “oppos[ing] any notion,” 273). On his strong preference for still using a communal table, 268-71; on the virtues of anonymity, 270. He covers the liturgy of baptism, 221-47 (“If baptism neither . . . issues directly from baptism,” 247).

The best treatment of controversies in the GKN between the Union and the Synod of 1905 is in Jasper Vree, “Hoe de citadel onstond: De consolidatie der Vereniging, 1892-1905,” in Augustijn and Vree, Kuyper: vast en veranderlijk, 200-242 (“To conceive of the visible or local church,” quoted 214; “adhere as closely as possible,” quoted 234; “God fulfills his promise,” quoted 235; “Archimedean point,” 236). For further background see J. van Gelderen, “Op weg naar de Vereniging,” in Wolthuis and Vree, De Vereniging van 1892, 35-80.

Notes on Chapter 10

The book version of Kuyper’s series on common grace was published in three volumes as De Gemeene Gratie (Leiden, 1902-5), with the supplement De Gemeene Gratie in wetenschap en kunst in 1905. Citations from Gemeene Gratie are given by chapter as much as possible to overcome the different paginations of successive editions; necessary page citations come from the first edition. Key interpretations of the theory are Ridderbos, Theologische Cultuurbeschouwing; W. H. Velema, “Abraham Kuyper als theoloog,” In die Skriflig 23/3 (1989): 56-73, elucidating themes already laid out in Velema’s De leer van de Heilige Geest bij Abraham Kuyper (The Hague, 1957); S. U. Zuidema, “Common Grace and Christian Action in Abraham Kuyper” [1954], in Communication and Confrontation (Kampen, 1972), 52-105; Ridderbos’s rejoinder, “De Dialectische Theologie van Abraham Kuyper,” Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde 29 (1959): 110-29; A. A. van Ruler, Kuypers idee eener christelijke cultuur (Nijkerk, 1940); and most recently, Cornelis van der Kooi, “A Theology of Culture: A Critical Appraisal of Kuyper’s Doctrine of Common Grace,” in Kuyper Reconsidered, ed. Van der Kooi and De Bruijn, 95-101; and Richard J. Mouw, He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Grand Rapids, 2001).

Kuyper’s early statements of the broad span of Christian action come in “De Menschwording Gods” (“all fields of life,” “every domain,” 24-26) and “Sphere Sovereignty" (“there is not a square inch,” 488). Augustijn analyzes Kuyper’s changed context after 1885 in “Kuypers theologie van de samenleving,” in Augustijn, Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed, 43-54. “A Twofold Fatherland” was published as Tweeërlei Vaderland. Kuyper describes “our fatherland here below,” 8-9; “defined the direction” and “secularization is the stamp,” 35; on the tools of secular hegemony, 34-35; “prince and people,” 36; “a colony of the heavenly fatherland,” 32; “a better dawn,” 36. Kuyper’s address at the 1896 Synod of the GKN is contextualized by Jasper Vree in “Hoe de citadel ontstond: De consolidatie der Vereniging, 1892-1905,” in Augustijn and Vree, Kuyper: vast en veranderlijk, 206-21. The address was published as “De Zegen des Heeren over Onze Kerken” (Amsterdam, 1896); “reduced lot,” “little churches,” “spiritual prattlings,” 15; “conflict quickens faith” and “an instrument of the Lord,” 19; “Brothers, I believe in the future,” 21; “standpoint” and ruling “principle,” 13; “Christian worldview in the tongue of our own time,” 22.

For Kuyper’s series on the “natural knowledge of God,” see Augustijn, “Kuypers theologie van samenleving,” 38-42, and Ridderbos, Theologische Cultuurbeschouwing, 98-102. Kuyper’s citation from Calvin appears in GG, I: 6 (“the unbelievers who dwell”). On the “Arminian” (also “Pelagian”) error, I: 7, 138; II: 185-86, 190-91, 382, 583-88 [ch. 58]; on “Anabaptist” faults, I: 102-4; II: 65-78 [chs. 9-10]. For the role of common grace in the entire cosmos, see Kuyper, GG, II: ch. 11, and Ridderbos, Theologische Cultuurbeschouwing, 69-72; on the twofold goal of common grace, ibid., 88-93. Kuyper describes common grace as “a curtain of protection” in Particular Grace, 217, and uses “bridling,” “tempering,” “restrained,” and “blocked” as both complementary and synonymous terms for common grace’s functions throughout Gemeene Gratie; a good example is I: ch. 30. See also Lectures on Calvinism, 123-25. Gemeene Gratie I: chs. 3-12 and 39, treat the Noah episode; chs. 13-38 flash back to Eden and the fall up to the flood.

Ridderbos expands on Kuyper’s notion of cultural development as a fruit of common grace in Theologische Cultuurbeschouwing, 88-93, 106-31. Clear statements in Kuyper include Gemeene Gratie II, chs. 81-83; and “Common Grace in Science and Art,” 445-46. On his racial hierarchy and heliotropic sense, see Ridderbos, Theologische Cultuurbeschouwing, 198-200; Gemeene Gratie II, ch. 89; Lectures on Calvinism, 32-40; “beauty does not enrich,” Gemeene Gratie in wetenschap en kunst, 59. Jan Willem Schulte Nordholt puts Kuyper’s concept in larger context in The Myth of the West: America as the Last Empire (Grand Rapids, 1995 [1992]); see especially 91. Kuyper articulates the image of God being manifested best in the whole human race in Gemeene Gratie II, ch. 83; “if it has pleased God,” 626; in “the whole life . . . is not necessary,” 619. “The names of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle” and “almost exclusively . . . fear of the Lord,” “Common Grace in Science,” Kuyper Centennial Reader, 448; “undeniable fact,” 448-49. On Kuyper’s connection of common grace chiefly to corporate forces, see Augustijn, “Kuypers theologie van samenleving,” 52-54 (“the life-relationships,” 52).

Ridderbos analyzes Kuyper’s relation of particular to common grace in Theologische Cultuurbeschouwing, 93-97; Kuyper lays it out in Gemeene Gratie II, chs. 32 and 91. Kuyper’s four-part typology is spelled out at the climax of Gemeene Gratie II, chs. 88-90; “the life of non-confessors,” 677; “Christian” indicating “nothing about the spiritual state . . . higher standpoint,” 662; “the life of Christ-confessors outside of the church institute,” “salt of the earth,” “external contact,” “internal kinship,” and “a leaven [that] has permeated,” 677; “though the lamp of the Christian religion,” 268. For “Christian metamorphosis,” see Encyclopaedie III, 195-97, 200, 215, 307-8, 343.

Kuyper clearly foreshadowed his mature epistemology in the portion of “Sphere Sovereignty” dedicated to that concern (see Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 480-88). He articulated his position most fully in the context of his broader understanding of theology in Encyclopedia of Sacred Theology: Its Principles (New York, 1898); more briefly in Lectures on Calvinism, Lecture 4, “Calvinism and Science”; and in “Common Grace in Science,” 441-60. These were originally articles that ran in De Heraut 6 May–9 June 1901. Important book-length commentaries in English are Peter S. Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview: Abraham Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids, 1998); David Naugle, Worldview: The History of a Concept (Grand Rapids, 2002) (on Kuyper, 16-25); and Stained Glass: Worldviews and Social Science, ed. Paul A. Marshall et al. (Lanham, Md., 1989). Important essays include Nicholas Wolterstorff, “Abraham Kuyper on Christian Learning,” Educating for Shalom: Essays on Christian Higher Education (Grand Rapids, 2004), 199-225; Jacob Klapwijk, “Abraham Kuyper over wetenschap en universiteit,” in Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed, ed. Augustijn et al., 61-94; and “Rationality in the Dutch Neo-Calvinist Tradition,” in Rationality in the Calvinian Tradition, ed. Hendrik Hart et al. (Lanham, Md., 1983), 93-111; Del Ratzsch, “Abraham Kuyper’s Philosophy of Science,” in Facets of Faith and Science, Vol. II: The Role of Beliefs in Mathematics and the Natural Sciences, An Augustinian Perspective, ed. Jitse M. van der Meer (Lanham, Md., 1996), 1-32; Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 253-82 (“Romantiek en Calvinisme: Kuypers Wereldbeschouwing”); J. D. Dengerink, “Kuyper’s wetenschapsleer,” Radix 2 (1976): 87-102; René van Woudenberg, “Abraham Kuyper on Faith and Science,” and Gijsbert van den Brink, “Was Kuyper a Reformed Epistemologist?”, both in Kuyper Reconsidered, ed. Van der Kooi and De Bruijn, 147-57 and 158-65, respectively.

Kuyper would have recognized the terms of engagement in such classic interpretations of the crisis in European high culture at the turn of the century as H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought, 1890-1930 (New York, 1958), and Gerhard Masur, Prophets of Yesterday: Studies in European Culture, 1890-1914 (New York, 1961). More recent analyses include J. W. Burrow, The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914 (New Haven, 2000); William Everdell, The First Moderns: Profiles in the Origins of Twentieth-Century Thought (Chicago, 1997); James T. Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870-1920 (New York, 1986); and Carl E. Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York, 1980). On the development of “worldview” as an idea and method, see Naugle, Worldview, 55-107; Masur, Prophets, 160-72; and the essays by Albert M. Wolters, “On the Idea of Worldview and Its Relation to Philosophy” (14-25), and Sander Griffioen, “The Worldview Approach to Social Theory: Hazards and Benefits” (81-118), in Marshall et al., eds., Stained Glass.

An efficient treatment of the hegemony of “science” in European culture after 1850 is Burrow, Crisis of Reason, 31-67; Everdell, First Moderns, details the challenges to the regnant model from within the natural sciences, 30-62. On Mach, see ibid., 15-17, 185-86; and Burrow, Crisis of Reason, 61-64. I take Mach’s characterization of atomic physics from Ratzsch, “Kuyper’s Philosophy of Science,” 12. Early glimpses of Kuyper’s worldview approach occur in Wat moeten wij doen (Culemborg, 1867) — “which corner” and “the cardinal point of difference,” 2, 6; and “Sphere Sovereignty,” 481-88 — “what natural scientist,” 487-88; “not as if,” 486. Heslam argues for James Orr’s influence on Kuyper in Creating a Christian Worldview, 92-96, and Naugle follows, in Worldview, 17, detailing Orr’s views 6-13. Dilthey’s seminal essays on epistemology, psychology, and aesthetics are listed and dated to 1892-94 in the bibliography in H. P. Rickman, ed., W. Dilthey: Selected Writings (Cambridge, 1976), 264-65. On Dilthey’s understanding of the pluralism and conflict of worldviews, see Naugle, Worldview, 82-98. On “worldview” vis à vis “philosophy,” see Wolters, “On the Idea of Worldview,” 15-19; on its mass appeal, Griffioen, “Approach to Social Theory,” 86-87; on Engels and worldview, ibid., 86-87, 97, 99, 106.

Kuyper’s notion of a primordial fit between archetype and ectype is laid out at length in Encyclopedia, 63-83; more succinctly in “Common Grace in Science,” 443-45. For commentary, see Klapwijk, “Kuyper en wetenschap,” 71-74, and Ratzsch, “Kuyper’s Philosophy of Science,” 2-3. On immediate intuition in Adam/Eden, see “Common Grace in Science,” 449-51; “to Adam, science,” 451. Kuyper sets out his division of the faculties in Encyclopedia, 192-210; see also Klapwijk, “Kuyper en wetenschap,” 82-85. On his particular divisions within the faculty of theology, ibid., 85-86, and Encyclopaedia, III, 210-11. Kuyper delineates the effects of sin on knowledge in Encyclopedia, 106-14. On science as an unguided collaborative effort by the whole human race, see ibid., 155-56, and “Common Grace in Science,” 445-47; “great temple” and “elaborate blueprint,” 446; “the entire temple was built,” 447.

Kuyper introduced the language of “palingenesis” in his 1892 rectorial address at the Free University, “The Blurring of the Boundaries,” 400. He elaborates the epistemological consequences for research and scholarship in Encyclopedia, 150-82; on “normalists” and “abnormalists,” see Lectures on Calvinism, 132-38; on the roles of “faith” in all personal and collective knowledge-projects, see Encyclopedia, 125-46. On non-religious factors that shape the scholarly enterprise, see Encyclopedia, 169-70; “friction, ferment, and conflict,” 171. On the common ground shared by the two types of science, see Encyclopedia, 157-63; lower-higher, 157-58, branching tree, 162, 168, “we are equally emphatic,” 161. Valuable commentary upon these issues can be found in the essays by Ratzsch, “Kuyper’s Philosophy of Science,” 8-20; Wolterstorff, “Kuyper on Christian Learning,” 219-25; and Klapwijk, “Kuyper over wetenschap,” 65-67, 74-82.

On true knowledge as architectonic, see “Common Grace in Science,” 449-50, 454-55; “our mind constantly,” 455. My presentation of William James here follows Howard M. Feinstein, Becoming William James (Ithaca, 1984). Gauguin’s painting is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; Bergson posed his “questions of vital interest” in L’Energie spirituelle (Paris, 1919), cited by Masur, Prophets of Yesterday, 256. On the contemporary effort to establish the independence of and find a method for the “human sciences,” see Burrow, Crisis of Reason, 58-60, 88-89; Masur, Prophets of Yesterday, 159-202; Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory, 95-114. For Kuyper’s version of the problematic, see Encyclopedia, 137-46, and “Common Grace in Science,” 451-54, 456-58; “whoever neglects,” 456; “something entirely different,” 452.

Notes on Chapter 11

The most salient secondary treatments of this phase of Kuyper’s life are Koch, Kuyper biografie, 325-90; and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 185-226. Both build their interpretations around the conflict with Lohman, with Stellingwerff strongly and Koch more moderately critical of Kuyper’s behavior therein. The ARP and Kuyper’s role in its development in this period are closely studied in Janssens, Opbouw ARP, 183-296. See also Janssens’ summary coverage of the period (“Eenheid en verdeeldheid, 1879-1894”) in Harinck, ARP, 73-92, along with Roel Kuiper’s treatment of the immediately subsequent years, “Uit het dal omhoog, 1894-1905,” ibid., 93-107. The Christian Social Congress is analyzed in background, consequences, and international context in the essays collected in Gerrit J. Schutte, ed., Een Arbeider is zijn loon waardig (The Hague, 1991).

Kuyper’s yearnings for a purely academic future are recorded in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie II, 137; “rejoic[ing] with my whole heart” comes from the same source. The context and provisions of constitutional revision are explained in Kossmann, Low Countries, 350-52, and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 343, 347-49; much greater detail is available in E. H. Kossmann, “De Groei van de Anti-Revolutionaire Partij,” in AGN 1956, 11: 16-22. Ratios of electorate to population come from Wintle, ESHN, 253. Janssens, Opbouw ARP, 282-90, details Kuyper’s subsequent moves. “Proceed quietly” and “no party that worked its electorate” are quoted by Kuiper, “Uit het dal omhoog,” 106. The course of the Mackay cabinet can be followed in Kossmann, Low Countries, 352-57; Koch, Kuyper biografie, 325, 349-52; and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 187-89. See also Janssens, “Eenheid en verdeeldheid,” 89-90. For the provisions of the Education Act, see Kossmann, Low Countries, 354; of the Labor Act, 355; the crisis over military service, 355-57. Kuyper’s disaffection with the Mackay cabinet is traced in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 348-50, 355-57; on Kuyper’s Thorbecke envy, 348.

On Dutch colonial policy see Kossmann, Low Countries, 398-406; Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 224-30; and McKendree R. Langley, “Emancipation and Apologetics” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1995), 138-43; the education statistic is cited at 142. Kuyper spells out the ARP’s Ethical Policy in Ons Program, Article 18/Chapter 19, anticipated by his parliamentary speeches from 1874-75 summarized in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, II, 278-84. Keuchenius’s career and character are profiled in great detail by the friendly Frederik L. Rutgers, Levensbericht van Mr. L. W. C. Keuchenius (Leiden, 1895); his part in the contretemps of 1890 by Koch, Kuyper biografie, 353-57; his polemics during the Billiton scandal, 355; his link with Multatuli, 353; his role in the crisis of 1866-68 in Kossmann, Low Countries, 284-88.

Developments in the Dutch economy are summarized in Kossmann, Low Countries, 412-18, and Wintle, ESHN,172-83. The history of Patrimonium is sketched in G. J. Schutte, “Arbeid, die geen brood geeft,” in Schutte, Arbeider is zijn loon waardig, 23-25; statistic, 24. H. J. Langeveld, “Protestantsche Christenen van Nederland, vereenigt u,” in Schutte, Arbeider is zijn loon waardig, gives more detail, also as to Patrimonium’s part in catalyzing the Christian Social Congress, 103-16. For a winsome account in English, see Harry Van Dyke, “How Abraham Kuyper Became a Christian Democrat,” Calvin Theological Journal 33 (1998): 420-35. Kater’s remarks are all quoted by Van Dyke, 425; “Our Frisian Ireland” and “Mosaic socialism” by Langeveld, “Protestantsche Christenen,” 119. The Frisian radicals’ role before and during the CSC is detailed ibid., passim; more briefly in Van Dyke, “Abraham Kuyper Christian Democrat,” 424, 431-32. The role of Belgian and German examples for the CSC is cited in Langeveld, “Protestantsche Christenen,” 112; the atmosphere of Kuyper’s speech, 122. Kuyper’s long engagement with the social question is detailed in H. E. S. Woldring, “De social kwestie — meer dan een emancipatiestrijd,” in Augustijn, Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed, 123-33. His Utrecht sermon, “The Worker and His Master according to the Ordinances of God,” was delivered on 11 July 1869 and is found in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. The von Ketteler brochure he republished with an introduction was Die Arbeiterfrage und das Christenthum (Mainz, 1864); Dutch translation = De arbeiderskwestie en de kerk (Amsterdam, 1871).

Kuyper’s address at the CSC was entitled Het Sociale Vraagstuk en de Christelijke Religie (Amsterdam, 1891); all quotations from the English translation by James W. Skillen, The Problem of Poverty (Grand Rapids, 1991), 44-47. The “Sphere Sovereignty” citation is at 478 in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader. Kuyper’s Handenarbeid (Amsterdam, 1889) is available in English as “Manual Labor,” ibid., 231-54. Many of these themes are repeated in “De Christus en de Sociale Nooden” (Amsterdam, [1895]). “The stronger, almost without exception” and “clearly visible lines” come from Problem of Poverty, 33, 68; “[w]e must courageously and openly acknowledge” in “Manual Labor,” 234-35. Jesus, “just as his prophets before him” stands at 62 in Problem of Poverty; the larger point is laid out 35-42 and 60-63. Kuyper’s general principles of diagnosis and remedy come in Problem of Poverty, 30-34, 50-54, 59-79; “hobbling up at the rear,” 91. Kuyper surveys the real but limited role of government in redressing structural problems in “Manual Labor,” 240-42, and elaborates on Chambers of Labor there, 242, 246-48, 252-54. His longstanding proposal for a legal code for labor is elaborated in Woldring, “Sociale kwestie,” 131-33. On workers and education see “Manual Labor,” 250-51, and Problem of Poverty, 89; on worker morale and morals, “Manual Labor,” 233-34, and Problem of Poverty, 68-76; “Because we are conscious beings,” 73. The outcomes of the CSC are detailed in Langeveld, “Protestantsche Christenen,” 122-41; for more on the inspiration it gave to Dutch Christian labor organization, see L. J. Altena and A. J. P. Homan, “Zoodra de arbeider niet gevoelt dat hij rechten heeft, dan is hij weg,” in Schutte, Arbeider is zijn loon waardig, 142-80. A Frisian radical’s characterization of Fabius as the “evil genius” of “aristocracy” is recorded in Langeveld, “Protestantsche Christenen,” 109.

The provisions and controversy over Tak’s franchise bill are covered in Kossmann, Low Countries, 359-61; Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 191-97; and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 349-61, 364-67 (statistic, 365). Kuyper’s Deputies Convention addresses are “Niet de Vrijheidsboom maar de Kruis. Toespraak ter opening van de Tiende Deputatenvergadering in het eeuwjaar der Fransche Revolutie” (Amsterdam, 1889), and “Maranatha. Rede ter inleiding van de Deputatenvergadering op 12 Mei 1891” (Amsterdam, 1891), E. T. “Maranatha,” in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 205-28. “Without any craftiness or secret intentions,” “the oppressed are asking,” and “the politics of Europe,” “Maranatha,” 220-21; “to appreciate our Conservatives’” and “we take exception,” ibid., 213; “Christian-democratic shape” and “can still be done now,” ibid., 222; “even if the zeitgeist,” 223. Kuyper elaborates his policy of coalition with his concluding words of the series published (together with “De Christus en de Sociale Nooden”) as Demokratische Klippen (Amsterdam, [1895]), 95.

The growing conflict between Kuyper and Lohman is covered in close detail in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 367-90, and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 195-200. “I don’t like radicalism” (also Robespierre), “the party in the House,” and charges of conflated roles, Koch, Kuyper biografie, 369, 344-45, 346-47. On the election campaign of 1894, see Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 194-96; Koch, Kuyper biografie, 374-75; and Janssens, “Eenheid en verdeeldheid,” 91-92: “one of the fiercest election campaigns in Dutch political history,” 91; “conservatism of every stripe” and “final franchise extension,” 92. “Men with the double names,” Koch, Kuyper biografie, 327; “lord millionaires,” 327; see also Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 199. On the aftermath of the elections, see Kuiper, “Uit het dal omhoog,” 100-102, and Hans van Spanning, “Van vrij-antirevolutionairen naar Christelijke-Historische Unie,” in Harinck, ARP, 113-22.

Lohman and his approach are intermittently profiled in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 326-29, 335-37, 342-47, 357-58, 386-90. On mass journalism, 328; as a bridge-builder, 333. Kossmann efficiently contrasts the differences between Lohman’s approach and Kuyper’s in Low Countries, 494-95. Domela Nieuwenhuis wrote a very perceptive appreciation of Kuyper in a letter to him on his 70th birthday, reprinted in P. Kasteel, Abraham Kuyper (Kampen, 1938), 143-44. For the other side see Isaac Hooykaas’s letter to Kuyper, 31 March 1888, Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU; “I hate politics!” The queen’s reaction to Kuyper’s endorsement is mentioned in Jan and Annie Romein, Erflaters van onze beschaving (Amsterdam, 1971), 805-6. On Kuyper’s illness, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 369, 376-77, and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 200. The purge of Lohman from the Free University is detailed at wrathful length in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 200-217, and with less acidic a pen in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 378-83. “May you proceed this way” comes from a letter of Hovy to Kuyper, 6 February 1895, quoted in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 380; the exchange concerning brotherly love and friendship is recorded ibid., 384-86, quotation 385. Kuyper’s memoir of Keuchenius is Mr. Levinus Wilhelmus Christiaan Keuchenius (Haarlem, 1895). Jo’s telegram to Kuyper is found in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU.

Kuyper’s meditation on Willy’s death (see Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, III, 60-63), “As a Flower of the Field,” was published in Heraut, 14 August 1893, and then in In de Schaduwe des Doods (Amsterdam, 1893). I have adapted the English translation, In the Shadow of Death [Grand Rapids, 1929], #41, 255-68: “Why God calls away,” 267; “In His doings,” 266; “God’s work of grace,” 265-66. The quotations apropos of Keuchenius come from “He Bindeth Up Their Wounds,” #43, 271-72. The roster of Keuchenius’s children is available in Rutgers, Levensbericht.

Notes on Chapter 12

Kuyper’s “Evolution” was delivered as a rectorial address, 20 October 1899: “Our nineteenth century,” 405. The 1892 address is “The Blurring of the Boundaries”: “the pantheistic mood,” 368; “it seems that everything,” 387, 389. The mood of the 1890s has been scrutinized by any number of historians. I have been particularly guided by Carl E. Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York, 1980), and T. J. Jackson Lears, No Place of Grace: Antimodernism and the Transformation of American Culture, 1880-1920 (New York, 1981). These build on the classic studies of Gerhard Masur, Prophets of Yesterday: Studies in European Culture, 1890-1914 (New York, 1961); H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought, 1890-1930 (New York, 1958); and Henry F. May, The End of American Innocence (New York, 1959). More recent analyses include J. W. Burrow, The Crisis of Reason: European Thought, 1848-1914 (New Haven, 2000), and William Everdell, The First Moderns: Profiles in the Origins of Twentieth-Century Thought, 1870-1920 (Chicago, 1997). On dis/utopian literature in the United States, see Frederic Cople Jaher, Doubters and Dissenters: Cataclysmic Thought in America, 1885-1918 (London, 1964).

Kuyper’s three concerted treatments of art are Calvinisme en Kunst; “Calvinism and Art,” in Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids, 1931), 142-70; and the second half of De Gemeene Gratie in Wetenschap en Kunst [GGWK] (Amsterdam, 1905), 43-87 (originally a series in De Heraut, 16 June–14 July 1901). The principal secondary treatment is Peter Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview (Grand Rapids, 1998), 196-223. Kuyper alludes to his early course on aesthetics at the Free University in Calvinisme en Kunst, 5; and Stellingwerff refers to his course on Impressionism in Kuyper en de VU, 253. Kuyper notes the common link of religion to art in Calvinisme en Kunst, 28; Calvinism’s problematical past on this front, 8-10, 28-29; and its positive contributions, 20-27; “Calvinism outside the circle of Calvinists,” Calvinisme en Kunst, 27; “objective” standard and “Deviser and Creator,” GGWK, 72; “penetrates the depth,” Calvinisme en Kunst, 23; “who can understand human life,” GGWK, 86. On the Hague School, see John Sillevis and Anne Tabak, The Hague School Book (Zwolle, 2004), and G. H. Marius’s classic, Dutch Painters of the 19th Century, ed. Geraldine Norman (Woodbridge, UK, 1983 [1908]), 121-208; “unvarnished lives,” 135-36. Kuyper’s correspondence with Israels is found in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. Kuiper links Kuyper’s aesthetics to his politics in Zelfbeeld en Wereldbeeld, 188-90.

Kuyper defines his positive aesthetic in Calvinisme en Kunst, 10-17, and GGWK, 52-57, 64-69: “glory,” 56, 57; “imagination” and “genius,” ibid., 62, 73, 76-77; “higher, nobler, richer,” 64; “add something to human life,” 69. His critique of other contemporary standards comes at 73-75; “money” or “fame,” 73. Regarding the theater, 79; the “raw” and “low,” 79-81; “tyranny of popular sovereignty,” 74; “priestly service,” 76; on his followers changing their theology, 86-87. Kuyper lays out “Our Calvinism thirsts” in Calvinisme en Kunst, 40; lauds Genevan psalmody, GGWK, 78; and discusses Cats, Calvinisme en Kunst, 31-39. On Piet Mondrian’s origins and development, see Herbert Henkels, “Piet Mondriaan and the Hague School,” in Ronald de Leeuw et al., eds., The Hague School: Dutch Masters of the Nineteenth Century (London, 1983), 147-54. On Nietzsche, “Blurring of the Boundaries,” 364-68; “Not a single element,” 368; “What else is the Evolution-theory,” 375; “Nietzsche’s appearance,” 367; “genetic connection,” 372. On lack of “enthusiasm” and the cult of the Superman, compare ibid., 388 and 366.

Classic studies of Victorianism are Walter E. Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830-1870 (New Haven, 1957); and May, The End of American Innocence, 3-117. See also Daniel Walker Howe, ed., Victorian America (Philadelphia, 1976), especially 3-44; and Lears, No Place of Grace, 4-58. Concise summary statements are Norman F. Cantor, The American Century: Varieties of Culture in Modern Times (New York, 1997), 15-27; and Daniel J. Singal, ed., Modernist Culture in America (Belmont, Calif., 1991), 4-13. Masur captures the tensions of dynamic order in the first chapter of Prophets of Yesterday, “The Stress of Success,” 1-37. Howard Mumford Jones explores them in great detail respecting the United States in The Age of Energy: Varieties of American Experience, 1865-1915 (New York, 1971), 100-178; Houghton parses them for Britain in Victorian Frame of Mind, 1-23, 196-217.

On Victorian hierarchical thinking, see Burrow, Crisis of Reason, 68-95; Daniel J. Singal, The War Within: From Victorian to Modernist Thought in the South, 1919-1945 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1982), 5-7, 26-28, 136; and Cantor, American Century, 20-23; on antithetical dichotomies, see Houghton, Victorian Frame of Mind, 171-72; “structured competitiveness,” Howe, Victorian America, 18. Cantor summarizes Victorian historicism in American Century, 15-19; “addiction to history,” 16. For the original title of the first in Kuyper’s Lectures on Calvinism, see Heslam, Creating a Christian Worldview, 88. On Victorian organicism, see Cantor, American Century, 18-19; Everdell, First Moderns, 9-11. On idealism, May, End of American Innocence, 9-19; Houghton, Victorian Frame of Mind, 29-33, 298-304; Cantor, American Century, 24-25 (“secularized substitute,” 24). For Victorian earnestness, see Houghton, Victorian Frame of Mind, 218-62, and Howe, Victorian America, 21-25.

The best treatment of the social psychology behind the Modernist turn is Lears, No Place of Grace, 7-58 (“weightlessness” and “fragmentation,” 32); as registered among some European intellectuals, Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna, 3-23, 181-278; and Burrow, Crisis of Reason, 59-67, 152-56, 160-69. On technology posing the central dilemma of Modernism, see Cantor, American Century, 39-40. Like Kuyper, Lears connects Nietzsche and “the blurring of boundaries” in No Place of Grace, 41; “evasive banality,” 7. Burrow confirms Kuyper’s association of Spencer’s thought with “pantheism” (Crisis of Reason, 46). Kuyper’s Ons Instinctieve Leven (Amsterdam, 1908) is available in English translation as “Our Instinctive Life” in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 255-77. He highlighted his travels and mountaineering in a brief handwritten autobiographical sketch left in his papers (E-12, Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU). For further detail see the account written by his daughters, Kuyper and Kuyper, Levensavond Kuyper, 15, 28-30.

The role of politics in the birth of Modernist culture is best demonstrated in Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna, 3-23, 279-321; for close analyses of Lueger and Herzl, see 133-75. Cantor sketches his profile of Modernism in American Century, 43-51. For American Progressives as proto-Modernists, see James T. Kloppenberg, Uncertain Victory: Social Democracy and Progressivism in European and American Thought, 1870-1920 (New York, 1986), 340-94; and Douglas Tallack, Twentieth-Century America: The Intellectual and Cultural Context (London, 1991), 147-58. Kuyper celebrates the role of instinct in human life in “Our Instinctive Life,” 256-61; “perfect knowledge,” 258; “the means,” 276; “takes up his position” and “true of the genius,” 260. On the role of art in the Modernist self-conception and cultural production, see Art Berman, Preface to Modernism (Urbana, 1994), viii-x, 5-9, 23-26. Kuyper’s own role as an artist is glimpsed in Jan De Bruijn, “Abraham Kuyper as a Romantic,” and John Bolt, “Abraham Kuyper as Poet: Another Look at Kuyper’s Critique of the Enlightenment,” both in Van der Kooi and De Bruijn, Kuyper Reconsidered, 30-41 and 42-52, respectively. Bolt gives more extensive treatment to this theme in A Free Church, A Holy Nation: Abraham Kuyper’s American Public Theology (Grand Rapids, 2001), 44-79.

Details on the Standaard’s 25th anniversary fête are given in Roel Kuiper, “Uit het dal omhoog, 1894-1905,” in Harinck, ARP, 102-4. The event is more skeptically interpreted in Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 218-21. Kuyper’s speech is published in the proceedings of the event: Gedenkboek: opgedragen door het feestcomite aan Prof. Dr. A. Kuyper bij zijn vijf en twintigjarig jubileum als hoofdredacteur van “De Standaard”: 1872-1 April-1897 (Amsterdam, 1897), 59-82; quotations 60-61, 67. The versification of Psalm 68 comes from Psalter Hymnal (Grand Rapids, 1987), stanzas 1, 3, and 6, corresponding to vv. 1, 7-9, and 20 in the biblical text. Jasper Vree traces the ebb and flow of “Calvinism” as a trope across Kuyper’s career and its culmination in the 1890s as a holistic system in “‘Het Réveil’ en ‘het (neo-) Calvinisme’ in hun onderlinge samenhang (1856-1896),” in Augustijn and Vree, Kuyper: vast en veranderlijk, especially 73-78.

Notes on Chapter 13

The fundamental sources for Kuyper’s American trip are the collection by that name in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU, and his reflections published first in his newspapers, then in book form as Varia Americana [VA]. Both but especially the first are well worked in the best secondary account, C. A. Admiraal, “De Amerikaanse reis van Abraham Kuyper” (hereafter “AR”) in C. A. Admiraal et al., Historicus in het spanningsveld van theorie en praktijk (Leiden, 1985), 111-64. A more extensive analysis along the lines laid out in this chapter is James D. Bratt, “Abraham Kuyper, American History, and the Tensions of Neo-Calvinism,” in George Harinck and Hans Krabbendam, eds., Sharing the Reformed Tradition: The Dutch-North American Exchange, 1846-1996 (Amsterdam, 1996), 97-114. VA has been republished in an annotated edition along with correspondence from Kuyper to family members in Mijn reis was geboden: Abraham Kuyper’s Amerikaanse touree, ed. George Harinck (Hilversum, 2009).

Mark Noll, The Princeton Theology, 1812-1921: Scripture, Science, and Theological Method from Archibald Alexander to Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (Grand Rapids, 2001), and Theodore Dwight Bozeman, Protestants in an Age of Science: The Baconian Ideal and Antebellum American Religious Thought (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1977), explain the mentality of the Princeton theology. The quotations from “Calvinism and the Future” are found on 194 and 189-90 in Lectures on Calvinism. Kuyper’s acceptance speech with its “revenge” statement is in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU.

On RCA-CRC history and context at this point, see James D. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture (Grand Rapids, 1984), 37-79. Admiraal covers the West Michigan episode in “AR,” 121-25. Local press coverage included the Grand Rapids Democrat, 27 and 29 October 1898; the Grand Rapids Herald, 29 October 1898 (“America is destined”); and the Holland Daily Sentinel (“what works . . . of the common people”) and Holland City News, both 28 October 1898. The Dosker and Steffens correspondence is found in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU, and at Heritage Hall, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Quotations respecting Freemasonry come from VA, 81-82, 126; see further, 55-122, for his comprehensive report on Dutch America to a Netherlands audience. On the Iowa trip see Admiraal, “AR,” 125. Kuyper’s positive portrait of American life comes in VA, 1-22, 123-30, 136-50; “What conserving social force,” 19.

The Chicago leg of Kuyper’s tour is covered in Admiraal, “AR,” 125-28; “Hambletonian” quotation is from the Chicago Tribune, 6 November 1898. The war of words in Grand Rapids can be followed in the Democrat, 27 October 1898; the Herald, 28 October 1898; and (Kuyper’s reply) the Democrat, 29 October 1898 and De Grondwet, November 1898. The interweavings between religious outlook and political behavior in the United States have been well traced by Robert Kelley, The Cultural Pattern in American Politics (New York, 1979); Richard J. Carwardine, Evangelicals and Politics in Antebellum America (New Haven, 1993); Daniel Walker Howe, The Political Culture of the American Whigs (Chicago, 1979); and Paul Kleppner, The Third Electoral System, 1853-1892 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1979). The varying American intersections between Christianity and the Enlightenment are brilliantly analyzed in Henry F. May, The Enlightenment in America (New York, 1976). Lodge’s Alexander Hamilton was published in Boston, 1892. On Bancroft see Robert Canary, George Bancroft (New York, 1974).

The best treatment of religion in Hamilton remains Douglass Adair and Marvin Harvey, “Was Alexander Hamilton a Christian Statesman?” William and Mary Quarterly 12 (April 1955): 308-29, quotation 314. This is confirmed in broader context by such standard biographies as Broadus Mitchell, Alexander Hamilton (New York, 1976), and James T. Flexner, The Young Hamilton (Boston, 1978). On the status of Hamilton’s reputation at Kuyper’s time, see Stephen F. Knott, Alexander Hamilton and the Persistence of Myth (Lawrence, Kans., 2002). Dwight’s standing both in conservative Federalism and American radicalism is captured in Robert H. Abzug, Cosmos Crumbling: American Reform and the Religious Imagination (New York, 1994), 30-45. On Samuel Adams see Pauline Maier, The Old Revolutionaries: Political Lives in the Age of Samuel Adams (New York, 1980), 3-50.

Admiraal covers the Cleveland and Rochester visits in “AR,” 128-30; Kuyper spoke of the Rochester women in VA, 38-43. The doubtful Rochester reporter wrote in the Post Express, 19 November 1898; the mistaken Chicagoan in the Tribune, 5 November 1898 (both clipped in Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU). Admiraal summarizes Kuyper’s Yankee-belt lectures in “AR,” 125, 128-30, 141; the New Brunswick and Philadelphia lectures, 138-40. Kuyper published The Antithesis between Symbolism and Revelation at Amsterdam, 1899. On Van der Hoogt, see Admiraal, “Amerikaanse reis,” 130-31; but also his role in Dutch immigration fiascos in Colorado as recounted in Peter De Klerk, “The Ecclesiastical Struggles of the Rilland and Crook Christian Reformed Churches in Colorado in 1893,” in De Klerk and Richard De Ridder, eds., Perspectives on the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids, 1983), 73-98.

Kuyper’s early rhetoric about McKinley is quoted in Admiraal, “AR,” 127, 132; their meeting and its aftermath are described on 132-35; quotation, VA, 189. He predicts the consequences of expansion in VA, 189, and in the Chicago Daily Inter Ocean, 11 November 1898, quoted in Admiraal, “AR,” 128. His subsequent presidential endorsements are recorded in Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 170-73, 286. For the Maryland tour, see Admiraal, “AR,” 132, 135-38; quotation, 138. On Gilman, see George M. Marsden, The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief (New York, 1994), 140-59. The ANV meetings are described in Admiraal, “AR,” 127-28, 142-43; Kuyper’s Collegiate lecture, 142; the return trip, 143.

Letters priming Kuyper regarding American religion came from Henry Dosker, 3 January 1893, 13 March 1896, and 15 April 1898; and from Nicholas Steffens, 7 May 1886, 4 January 1888, 27 October 1888, 12 February 1890, 30 December 1892, and 9 November 1897, all at the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. Kuyper’s own report to his Dutch audience came in VA, 123-67. He treated “The Boss System” in a separate chapter therein, 168-84 (quotation, 173), and covered the press, 23-28. “The Power of the Dollar” titles a separate article, 49-54; the issue of seminary endowments comes up 151-56; “richer class,” 153.

Developments in Dutch America from Kuyper’s trip to 1918 are covered in Bratt, Dutch Calvinism, 37-92. Quotation from the Hope College Anchor comes from an undated 1917 clipping in the Henry Beets Papers, Heritage Hall, Calvin College. Kuyper’s North American legacy is detailed in James D. Bratt, “De erfenis van Kuyper in Noord Amerika,” in Augustijn, Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed. This is also available in English in broader frame as “American Culture and Society: A Century of Dutch-American Assessments,” in Rob Kroes and Henk-Otto Neuschäfer, eds., The Dutch in North America: Their Immigration and Cultural Continuity (Amsterdam, 1991). The recent Kuyperian impact in American evangelicalism is summarized in Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, 1994), 215-39, and James C. Turner, “Something to Be Reckoned With,” Commonweal 126/1 (15 January 1999): 11ff. Examples of current Kuyperian voices from the Right are Charles Colson and Nancy Pearcey, How Now Shall We Live? (Wheaton, Ill., 1999), and Bolt, Free Church, Holy Nation; from the Left, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace (Grand Rapids, 1983), and Hendrik Hart and Kai Nielsen, Search for Community in a Withering Tradition: Conversations between a Marxian Atheist and a Calvinian Christian (Lanham, Md., 1990); in the Center, Richard J. Mouw, He Shines in All That’s Fair: Culture and Common Grace (Grand Rapids, 2001), and Abraham Kuyper: A Short and Personal Introduction (Grand Rapids, 2011); George M. Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York, 1997); and James W. Skillen, Recharging the American Experiment: Principled Pluralism for Genuine Civic Community (Grand Rapids, 1994).

Notes on Chapter 14

Kuyper’s warning about American imperialism is from VA, 191. A full English translation of Evolutie (Amsterdam, 1899) is available in the Calvin Theological Journal 31/1 (April 1996): 11-50. It is also reproduced with a few minor excisions in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 403-40, from which all quotations are taken. Kuyper’s statement respecting the American war in the Philippines is on 408; his praise of Zola is cited from De Standaard, 28 February 1898, in Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 284.

The faux death of Sherlock Holmes occurred in “The Final Problem” (set in 1891 and first published in 1893, collected in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 1894); his return is recounted in “The Adventure of the Empty House,” collected in The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1905). For his defense of the occult, see Arthur Conan Doyle, The History of Spiritualism, 2 vols. (New York, 1926). On Johanna Kuyper-Schaay’s death, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 435-37, and Stellingwerff, Kuyper en de VU, 279. Materials apropos of her funeral are in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU. Kuyper’s Heraut meditation appeared on 3 September 1899 and is included in In Jezus Ontslapen: Meditatiën (Amsterdam, 1902; English translation, Asleep in Jesus: Meditations [Grand Rapids, 1929]). A fresh translation is included in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 408-15: “There you stood,” 409; “the Word of God . . . swallowed up by life,” 411. Kuyper’s Pauline quotation comes from 2 Corinthians 5:4. Quotations from Asleep in Jesus are on 48; Kuyper’s three images of eternity are laid out in meditations #7, 24, and 37, and his call to witness in #52; “mysterious wave of the demoniac,” 331; “hypnosis of the dogma of Evolution,” is from “Evolution,” 405.

The history of evolutionary thinking in its various schools at the time is well analyzed in Peter J. Bowler’s series of books: Evolution: The History of an Idea, rev. ed. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1989); The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900 (Baltimore, 1983); and The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth (Baltimore, 1988). Some important Anglo-American Protestant contributions are studied in David N. Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders: The Encounter between Evangelical Theology and Evolutionary Thought (Grand Rapids, 1987). Kuyper’s statements about “spontaneous unfolding” and “the Chief Architect” are in “Evolution,” 436; regarding Christianity’s consonances with evolution, 438; regarding scientific method, 416 and 422. Bowler’s assessment of Darwinism’s unpopularity is in Evolution, 246; his characterization of Weismann, 248. Hodge’s statement concluded his What Is Darwinism? (New York, 1874); on which, see further Livingstone, Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders, 101-5. Bowler’s books above treat Haeckel and Spencer in comparative context, as does Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945 (Cambridge, 1997), 82-103 and 132-45. Alfred Kelly, The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860-1914 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1981), covers Haeckel in greatest detail; his purposes and popularity are elaborated on 22-28, 91-94, and 136-41. Kuyper’s statements about Haeckel (“gaseous vertebrate . . . newly defined condition”) are in “Evolution,” 435-36; “Evolution is a newly conceived system,” 439; “insolent and condescending . . . consequences from their principle,” 435; “consumed with passion,” 418; “dogma of evolution . . . system as system,” 439; on Modernism and Pantheism, 413-16 (“idea of a guiding purpose,” 416); “the emergence of a new faith . . . Decadence,” 407; “the only road . . . usurpation of power,” 410; “we owe not,” 435; “the Christ of God,” 439. With respect to ethics and evolution for Nietzsche and Huxley, see Bowler, Non-Darwinian Revolution, 162, 186; for Spencer, Hawkins, Social Darwinism, 204. Kuyper’s concern over “the precipitate of the spirit . . . under the higher” comes in “Evolution,” 431.

For the history of South Africa I have relied on Leonard Thompson’s title by that name (rev. ed., New Haven, 1995), and Frank Welsh, South Africa: A Narrative History (New York, 1999). Peter Warwick, ed., The South African War: The Anglo-Boer War, 1899-1902 (Harlow, Essex, 1980), features essays on all aspects of that conflict; see also Bill Nasson, The South African War, 1899-1902 (London, 1999). The contemporary description of Johannesburg as “Monte Carlo” is quoted in Tabitha Jackson, The Boer War (London, 1999), 14. Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, traces Kuyper’s works and words on the episode in great detail; the “virus” quotation is on 134, the context and assessment of Kuyper’s essay, 179.

Kuyper’s essay is available in a shortened version as “The South African Crisis,” in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 323-60. For his critique of British military and missionary imperialism, 336-39; “the Boers know too well,” 339. For the national characters of Briton and Boer, see 327-32; “tenacity of the race,” 327; “absolute incompatibility,” 328; “natural sagacity . . . love of liberty,” 331; “Boer women . . . of their husbands,” 332. On African and Boer fecundity, see 339-40 (“The blacks are increasing,” 339) and 359 (“will never destroy”); on Blacks’ putative race revenge and Chamberlain’s folly, 340 (“confidential conversations . . . Jingo journalists”); on “incest” with “an inferior race,” 339; on Kuyper’s race hierarchy and the heliotropic myth, Lectures on Calvinism, 32-35. The assessment of Kuyper’s “selection-election” hybrid is by Dirk Th. Kuiper, “Theory and Practice in Dutch Calvinism on the Racial Issue in the Nineteenth Century,” Calvin Theological Journal 21/1 (April 1986): 73. Kuyper’s analogy of Boers with Normans as “a conquering race” is in “South African Crisis,” 330; “splendid promise . . . war of aggression,” 325.

Thompson discusses the aftermath of the war in History of South Africa, 143-53, and important ingredients of the new regime in The Political Mythology of Apartheid (New Haven, 1985). Kuyper’s skepticism toward Afrikaner nationalism and the new regime is detailed in Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 135-37 and 201-8. The role of Calvinism in general and Kuyperian neo-Calvinism in particular in the emergence of the apartheid system has been subject to spirited discussion. T. Dunbar Moodie, The Rise of Afrikanerdom (Berkeley, 1975), asserts a strong intellectual if not numerical presence, but also the Utrecht influence. André du Toit, “No Chosen People: The Myth of the Calvinist Origins of Afrikaner Nationalism and Racial Ideology,” American Historical Review 88/4 (October 1983): 920-52; and “Puritans in Africa? The Paradigm Examined,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 27/2 (1985): 209-40, contends that his subjects were not too Calvinistic but not Calvinistic enough. P. J. Strauss, “Abraham Kuyper, Apartheid and Reformed Churches in South Africa in Their Support of Apartheid,” Reformed Ecumenical Council Theological Forum 23/1 (March 1995): 4-27, provides the closest theological-ecclesiastical analysis. My assessments are guided particularly by the materials on 17-23; Kuiper, “Theory and Practice of Dutch Calvinism,” 76-78; and H. Russel Botman, “Is Blood Thicker Than Justice? The Legacy of Abraham Kuyper for South Africa,” in Lugo, Religion, Pluralism, and Public Life, 342-61.

Notes on Chapter 15

The essential book on this topic is Kuiper and Schutte, Kabinet Kuyper. See also Koch, Kuyper biografie, 439-90. Kossmann, Low Countries, provides accessible background information and analysis, 398-438, 473-80, 488-502, 508-16. Kuyper’s keynote address to the 1901 ARP Delegates’ Convention was “Volharden bij het Ideal” (Amsterdam, 1901); “the Christian part of the nation,” 5; “the very same Calvinistic principles,” 9; “on that decisive day,” 12; “not as a closed-off group,” 9.

Details of the Dutch recovery are available in Kossmann, Low Countries, 413-18; Th. van Tijn, “Het algemeen karakter van het tijdvak, 1895-1914,” in AGN 1978, 13: 306-13; and Wintle, ESHN, passim. On the lingering hunger and epidemics in the early 1890s see P. Hoekstra, “De laatste tien liberale jaren in het Noorden,” AGN 1956, 63. Wintle, ESHN, supplies data on wages, 232; food prices, 56; birth and death rates, 226-27; alcohol consumption, 63; and savings banks, 208. For rates of and average age at marriage, see Van Tijn, “Het algemeen karakter,” 309-10. Rates of and yield from educational spending are given in Wintle, ESHN, 268. Kossmann, Low Countries, describes the dimensions of Dutch industrialization, international commerce, and colonial trade, 414-18; “radical structural transformation,” 416. On the icons of the new order, see Hoekstra, “De laatste tien liberale jaren,” 60-62. The international character of “progressivism” in this era is well depicted by Thomas Bender, A Nation Among Nations: America’s Place in World History (New York, 2006), 246-95; on the key role played by “new” economists in the movement, 263-67, and in the Dutch Liberal party, J. T. Minderaa, “De politieke partijen,” AGN 1978, 13: 448.

The character and initiatives of the three Liberal cabinets of 1891-1901 are covered in Kossmann, Low Countries, 357-61; Hoekstra, “De laatste tien liberale jaren,” 66-82; and Minderaa, “De politieke partijen,” 441-48. Kuyper’s characterization of the franchise compromise of 1896 is quoted in Hoekstra, “De laatste tien liberale jaren,” 76, which also gives the working class percentage of the expanded electorate. Kuyper’s role in the debate over the Industrial Accidents bill of 1901 is covered in close detail in J. Mannoury, “Enkele legislatieve aspecten van het groot-amendement-Kuyper op de Ongevallenwet 1901,” in P. A. J. M. Steenkamp and G. M. J. Veldkamp, eds., Sociale Politiek, Opnieuw Bedacht (Deventer, 1972), 108-25. “Began to prepare,” Wintle, ESHN, 277.

The formation of Kuyper’s cabinet is covered in greatest detail by Jan De Bruijn, ‘Kuyper ist ein Luegner’: De kabinetsformatie van 1901 (Amsterdam, 2001), an expansion of his essay in Kuiper and Schutte, Kabinet Kuyper. Koch gives a briefer treatment in Kuyper biografie, 448-58. On Kuyper’s retreat to Brussels, De Bruijn, Kuyper Luegner, 36-39; on the queen’s attitude toward and meeting with him, ibid., 21-30, 40-42; Koch, Kuyper biografie, 448-50. On Kuyper’s negotiations with Mackay, Lohman, and Heemskerk, see De Bruijn, Kuyper Luegner, 31-32, 43-44, 50-52, 68-74; “There is no one else” and “It will be your responsibility,” quoted ibid., 70; “Kuyper is a liar,” 71. Kuyper’s becoming permanent chair of the cabinet is discussed in Alis Koekkoek, “Leider in eminenten zin,” in Kuiper and Schutte, Kabinet Kuyper, 101-2, 112-13. The three Roman Catholic ministers are profiled in Gerhard Beekelaar, “De Katholieke minister in het cabinet,” ibid., 115-38; “lethargic” and “pedantic,” quoted 133. On Melvil van Lynden, see Roel Kuiper, “De valse grondtoon,” ibid., 147-49, 152-55; on Van Asch van Wijck and Idenburg, see Janny de Jong, “Ethiek, voogdij, en militaire acties,” ibid., 162-70. De Bruijn also discusses Melvil van Lynden and Van Asch van Wijck in Kuyper Luegner, 58-63, 91-92.

Kuyper’s initiative respecting the South African War is detailed in Kuiper, “De valse grondtoon,” 139-47; a representative speech is in Kuyper, Parlementaire Redevoeringen, vol. 2 (hereafter PR2), 57-60. On Beaufort, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 172-74, 447-49, 475-76. Kuyper’s agenda regarding the social question, and the obstacles it encountered, are laid out in Loes van der Valk, “De overheid helpe den arbeid aan recht,” in Kuiper and Schutte, Kabinet Kuyper, 208-12, 219-29. His theoretical discussions about religion and politics can be read in PR2, 46-51, 61-79, 210-20. On religion and politics vis à vis church and state, ibid., 46-51, 62-63; “first religion, and second negotiation,” 51; “homogeneity in politics,” 214; “we all speak high Dutch,” 61; the fundamental difference between the secular and religious parties, 61-63; “Christianity beneath differences,” 77; “first and great commandment,” 79; on being radical, 74; on varieties of Democrats, 76; on Bernstein and Marx, 74-75; “worldview” and “spiritual” forces,” 90; regarding Gladstone, 63.

The Kuyper cabinet’s colonial policy is examined in detail in De Jong, “Ethiek, voogdij,” 157-83; for broader context see Kossmann, Low Countries, 398-412; De Gids article cited 403. On final “pacification,” De Jong, “Ethiek, voogdij,” 170-72; “our small band,” quoted 172. On Idenburg, Kossmann, Low Countries, 405-6, 409; De Jong, “Ethiek, voogdij,” 162-70; for his economic policy, 167-69; religion and cultural policy, 164-65; good government emphasis, 173; study of Indonesian lower classes, 169; of coolie labor, 170-71; decentralization, 174-77.

The definitive study of the railroad strike is A. J. C. Rüter, De Spoorwegstakingen van 1903 (Leiden, 1935). Kossmann, Low Countries, 497-98, gives an accessible summary in English; Koch, Kuyper biografie, 468-74, examines Kuyper’s role closely, as does Van der Valk more summarily in “De overheid helpe,” 216-18. On the socialists’ divide, see Minderaa, “De politieke partijen,” 456-61; on Troelstra’s role, ibid., 456, 459-61, and Van der Valk, “De overheid helpe,” 218 (“de-escalate”). Kuyper’s contribution to the debates in Parliament is recorded in PR2, 334-77 (sessions of 25 February–4 April 1903); 404-26 (30 June–1 July 1903); and 441-51 (22 September 1903). Kuyper defends using the designation “criminal,” 335, 373-76, and 441-51, and rejects the “class war” characterization, 411. For “seizure” and “ship of state,” 335; “to overthrow authority,” 376; on the moral bond of society and “for everyone,” 372. He references the “great disasters” at Chicago and Pittsburgh at 341 and 543-44; for strikes nearer by, 344. On his support for the right to strike, ibid., 354-55, and Van der Valk, “De overheid helpe,” 216. Kuyper and Loeff’s differences from Lohman’s hard line are summarized ibid., 217-18, and explored in more detail in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 469-70; see also Minderaa, “De politieke partijen,” 453. On Kuyper’s particularly intense debate with Troelstra and other socialists and its long-term effect on his reputation, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 470-74. The exchange following Troelstra’s invocation of “objective history” is recorded in PR2, 409-10 (session of 30 June 1903).

On Kuyper’s appointments policy see Ineke Secker, “Op de voordracht van onzen Minister van Binnenlanden Zaken,” in Kuiper and Schutte, Kabinet Kuyper, 236-69; and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 474-77. Statistics from Kuiper and Schutte, “Het ministerie eener nieuwe toekomst?,” in Kabinet Kuyper, 310-11. Beaufort’s class disdain is recorded in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 447-48, 475-76. The content and controversy over Kuyper’s education initiatives are covered in ibid., 477-80, and Pieter Boekholt, “Voor de vrijmaking van het onderwijs,” in Kuiper and Schutte, Kabinet Kuyper, 184-207. Data on the funding of and reforms in lower education are given ibid., 192, 194; on the “Integration Commission,” 196-98; on technical and occupation education, 198-204. Kuyper’s own addresses on this matter are recorded in Parlementaire Redevoeringen, vol. 3 (hereafter PR3), 88-115. See Kuiper and Schutte, “Het ministerie eener nieuwe toekomst?,” 308, regarding the national significance of this legislation and its appeal to Kuyper’s own constituency. Kuyper’s oration introducing his Higher Education bill is recorded in PR3, 1-53; “Christian life-conviction,” 53. He discussed the role of worldview in the architecture of knowledge in the session of 3 March 1904, 53-83. On Kant, 58, 64-65, 69-70; the hegemony of evolutionary biology, 58-59; on purging students and “free choice,” 71-72; on De Vries and Haeckel, 65-66; “drill school” and “dressed-up parrots,” 75; on the repetition of arguments, 83. Boekholt, “Voor de vrijmaking,” notes the Social Democrats’ support of education equity, 193.

Nabij God te zijn (Kampen, 1908) was published in two volumes; the English translation To Be Near Unto God (New York, 1925), by John Hendrik de Vries, combined these into one. Citations below are from the paperback reprint (Grand Rapids, 1979). The bulk of the original Volume I (#5-56) appeared in De Heraut 19 October 1902–13 December 1903, followed by #59-63 (20 December 1903–24 January 1904) near the start of Volume II. Almost all the rest of Volume II ran originally in De Heraut from September 1905 through July 1906, that is, after Kuyper’s defeat for re-election, and so will be treated in the next chapter. The Foreword of Drie Kleine Vossen (Kampen, 1901) is dated 27 June 1901.

On the “spiritual’s” superiority over and necessary segmentation from the “material,” see Near Unto God, meditations #4, 12, 20, and 26; “All religion is personal to the core,” 140; “the powers of the kingdom,” 142; “a hidden walk with God,” 140. On the great gap between things human and divine, see #4, 19, 24, 49, and 60. Kuyper’s meditation on the Trinitarian Name is #47; on the norm of the solitary soul, #11, 45, and 54; against the substitution of ethics for religion, #13, 37; on the lassitude of the righteous, #27; on the knowledge of God from the depths of sin, #50; on Paul’s enthusiasm, 309; “tender faithfulness,” 306. Kuyper treats divine images in the sun in #14; wings, #15; wind and temple, #16. His typology of responses to the promptings of conscience appears in #51; to unanswered prayer, #9 (“altogether different,” 68); and his reflections on Jesus’ interpretation of Deuteronomy 6:5 run from #38-41.

John Dewey set out the basics of his learning theory in “My Pedagogic Creed” (1897), The School and Society (1900), and The Child and Curriculum (1902). “He that loveth not knoweth not God” is the title of Near Unto God meditation #42; “the world-riddle” and “that deepest love,” 258; “thereby alone,” 261. Kuyper’s injunctions that this “must be an honest forgiveness” and is “almost incomprehensible” come from #30 (14 June 1903), quotation 189. His reflections on the contemporary cult of the will and the proper Christian parallel thereunto come in #29 and 30; on the need to develop beyond the Reformed fathers on this issue, in #31; “the urgency of the soul itself,” 197. Kuyper’s meditation for 28 June 1903 was #32, “Who Worketh in You to Will:” “that living soul-knowledge,” 199; “tide and wind,” “the helmsman,” and “such is the man of character,” 201; “this continuous process,” 204. His meditation on Romans 7:15 is #33, “What I Would That Do I Not:” “there is something bold,” 208. “Not as I Will” is #34: “the center of things” and “our honor,” 214; “you become suddenly aware,” “God’s reality, His Majesty,” and “abandons the theory,” 215-16; “His counsel and plan,” “verify,” “entering into the life,” and “our honor and the self-exaltation,” 216.

Notes on Chapter 16

The most thorough analysis of the 1905 election is George Harinck, “Als een schelm weggejaagd?,” in Kuiper and Schutte, Kabinet Kuyper, 270-301. See also Harinck, “De Antirevolutionaire Partij 1905-1918,” in Harinck, ARP, 123-29. Koch covers the election in Kuyper biografie, 480-90. The most thorough study of the varied career of the concept of antithesis in Kuyperian circles is by C. Augustijn, “Kuyper en de antithese,” in Augustijn and Vree, Kuyper: vast en veranderlijk: “Christianity beneath theological differences,” quoted 168; “preserve the place of Christian values among the people,” quoted 169. Kuyper hypothesized the “one great contrast . . . between the Christian and the modern life-conception” as an “enormous antithesis” in Parlementaire Redevoeringen, vol. 4 (hereafter PR4), 50, 53.

On the campaign strategies of both sides, see Harinck, “Als een schelm,” 275-80; on internal divisions within Kuyper’s coalition, 282-87; on his opposition’s earlier use of antithetical idioms, 292; “Throw him out!”, quoted by Koch, Kuyper biografie, 480. On Kuyper’s linkage of liberalism to socialism, see PR4, 51, and Augustijn, “Kuyper en de antithese,” 178, also quoting Troelstra, “Minister Kuyper is our grandpa.” See also Kuyper’s earlier discourse in Parliament, PR2, 553-58; “Formally . . . correct,” 553; “I have always recognized,” 554-55; “As Bernstein has said,” 556. Regarding “pagan” and “paganistic,” see Augustijn, “Kuyper en de antithese,” 178-81, and Kuyper, PR4, 79-80; on Bavinck as party chair, Harinck, “Als een schelm,” 271-73, 280. Harinck, “Als een schelm,” analyzes the election polling data, 293-95; the increase in the electorate is cited in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 480. On the queen’s anti-Kuyper tilt and his early departure, ibid., 480, 486.

The only meditations included in Near Unto God that originally appeared in De Heraut between February 1904 and January 1905 are #64-68, the middle three of which came from Kuyper’s series on Old Testament history. Three entries originally from February 1905 are included (#69-70 and 73), four from April–May 1905 (#74-77), and four from election-season issues, 4 June–2 July 1905 (#71-72, 78-79). The regular series resumed on 24 September 1905 with what became #1 in the combined volume, then followed rather consistently from #80 on with the exception of the originals from 8 and 15 October 1905, which became #57-58. “It is faith,” “badges and rules,” and “the ground thesis” all come from #72 (4 June 1905), 439-40; “O God, My God!” and “not a general fulfillment” are from #79 (2 July 1905), 481ff., 486. The three apocalyptic texts are 1 Corinthians 15:24 [13 August], Matthew 13:49 [20 August], and 2 Thessalonians 2:8 [3 September], respectively. The meditation “from rock bottom” is #58 (15 October 1905), quotations 359-60.

Kuyper’s “twin passions” being “traveling and writing” is the observation of Koch, Kuyper biografie, 523. The two volumes of Om de Oude Wereldzee have Forewords dated 15 September 1907 and 28 October 1908, respectively. Kuyper’s essays on each land or people can be readily followed from their tables of contents. Volume I begins with “The Asiatic Danger,” then proceeds from Romania through “The Holy Land,” treating “The Gypsies” and “The Jewish Problem” along the way. Volume II begins with “The Enigma of Islam” and then runs the sequence from Egypt through Portugal. Kuyper’s travel schedule can be deciphered from various references throughout but is conveniently summarized in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 493-96. Regarding the Sea of Galilee and the reflections it prompted, I: 433-41; Jerusalem, I: 505-31; Bethlehem, I: 531-39. On his side trip back to The Hague, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 496; on the Berbers, II: 341-50; on the near-loss of his documentation, see Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, III: 322. For the “courtesies” he received en route, see OWZ, I: 56, 65-66, 371-72, 401-3, II: 438-40. His impressions of the Young Turks come at I: 368 and II: vi-viii; of the 1905 revolution in Russia, I: 109-11 (“socialist patrols,” 111), 128-30, 145-47. Details on pogroms in and around Odessa are given in Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West (New York, 2006), 67-68.

Kuyper’s chapter on “The Asiatic Danger” in OWZ begins with the reverberations of Japan’s victory over Russia (I: 2-6), which he also ponders at I: 10 and 37-40; “Asia for the Asians” recurs several times after I: 5. On the measures and consequences of European imperialism, see I: 6-7, 11-12, 34-35, 40-41, II: 420-22. On Britain’s maneuvers in the Sudan, including the Mahdist movement and Omdurman, II: 147-65 (“technology,” 164). On Britain’s encouragement of Wahabism (and similarly of Muslim-Hindu rivalry in India), I: 34-35. On French imperialism in North Africa, II: 337-41, 350-57, 381.

Kuyper’s use of racial categories is pervasive. His balanced esteem for the Slavic, Roman, and Germanic blocs in Europe is manifest in Pro Rege, of het Koningschap van Christus, II: 197-99, and III: 336-38. This was the book version of a theological series he published in De Heraut 1907-1910; the passages cited would have first appeared in late 1908 and mid-1910, respectively. Quotations regarding Romania, OWZ, I: 52-53, 73; his preference for Arabs over Turks, I: 28-29, II: 25, II: 461-62; of Berbers over Arabs, II: 343-50, II: 405. Religion “is and shall remain,” I: 318; on Orthodoxy and the Slavic soul, I: 115, 125-28, 143-45; respecting the Greeks, II: 187-88; on Europe as the synthesis of Aryan and Semitic, II: 504-7; against Gobineau, I: 46-54, 116-17. On Romania as a successful “smaller nation,” I: 43, 99. Kuyper uses “sphere sovereignty” in the Ottoman context explicitly at I: 328, but describes it in practice also at I: 247 and 316-17 with respect to Jewish communal autonomy, at I: 404-10 respecting present-day Lebanon, and at I: 541 respecting Jerusalem. On Fez, II: 386-95; “exceptionally beautiful,” 387; “guild system,” 392; on the Berbers, II: 343-50, 399-401, 405-8. His chapter on the Romani comes at I: 164-238; “parasites,” 235; their bohemian-anarchist legacy, 217-220; “social plague,” 218.

Kuyper’s early writing on Dutch Jewry ran in De Standaard and was published as a brochure, Liberalisten en Joden (Amsterdam, 1878). Ivo Schöffer discusses this tract in “Abraham Kuyper and the Jews,” J. Michman and T. Levie, eds., Dutch Jewish History I (Jerusalem, 1984), 237-60; Jacob van Nes considers it comparatively with other statements, including the essay in OWZ, in “Iets over Dr. Kuyper en de Joden,” De Macedoniër Zendings Tijdschrift 42 (1938): 109-16, 131-48. Regarding Stoecker, Schöffer, “Kuyper and the Jews,” 251; regarding Lueger, Kuyper, OWZ, I: 269. Kuyper rejects the blood libel and particular Jewish guilt for Jesus’ death at I: 284-85; “As someone who confesses,” I: 318-19. On Jewish fortunes in Romania, I: 300-308; in the Russian Empire, I: 308-16; under the Ottomans, I: 316-17; on Jewish poverty, I: 311; proclivity toward trade and intellectual professions, I: 286-89, 294-97; “inseparably,” I: 262; “physically weaker,” I: 290. “For Europe,” I: 317; on the dilemmas respecting Jewish options, I: 320-24; on Christian opposition to anti-Semitism, I: 323-24.

Kuyper treats Islam systematically in “The Enigma of Islam,” II: 1-51, but also at I: 16-42 and 334-62. As a mirror of ideal Calvinism, see I: 29-31, II: 3-7, 23; on architecture, I: 348-50, 424-26, 511-12, and especially II: 456-70. On Al-Azhar, II: 24-28; on pan-Islamic consciousness, I: 40-41, II: 42-43, 129; “fanaticism,” I: 335. His critique of Muslim theology is summarized at II: 7-11; “legalistic” and “spiritual depth,” 8; “old man with the new,” 9. See also I: 334-35. On the affection Islam won from liberal Protestants, I: 25; on Sufism, Shi’a, and the Dervishes as deviations, II: 10-11, 33-34; on Sufism as “pantheistic,” II: 10; Shi’a as a “sect,” II: 33-34; the Dervishes’ rituals, I: 355-56; “fleshly” indulgence, II: 11. Kuyper’s condemnation of Islam’s treatment of women is recurrent; see, e.g., I: 356-62; “unrighteousness that breeds,” 359. On moral corruption in Cairo, II: 68; on prostitution in Tunis, II: 283-84; in Algiers, II: 327-31; “refined sensuality” and “desecration of marriage,” II: 330. On women’s status as the measure of Christian superiority, I: 26-27.

Kuyper’s apprehension of Asia rising at the expense of the West was shared by many European leaders at the time. For confirmation of the Japanese victory’s inspiration of anti-colonialism across Asia, see Sukru Hanioglu, Preparation for a Revolution: The Young Turks 1902-1908 (Oxford, 2001), which confirms as well Kuyper’s concerns (I: 37-40) about a possible Japanese-Islamic alliance, including his seemingly outré warning that some Muslims were proposing to offer the caliphate to the Japanese emperor. Journalist Abdullah Cevdet ventured precisely that in the Cairo paper Ictihad; my thanks to Douglas Howard for this reference. Kuyper designates “The Asiatic Danger” as the “political world-problem” at I: 3; “our archipelago” occurs numerous times, e.g., I: 41-42. On the importance of the religious factor, I: 10-28. Kuyper articulates the monotheist-polytheist opposition there, at I: 39-41, and in many allusions elsewhere. “What will prove,” I: 18; on Germany’s “eastern policy,” I: 18, 375; on Aga Khan, I: 35-36; “when Islam will be worth gold” and “if our conscience,” I: 23; the “notion that we have everything to bring,” I: 31. His most concise statement of the Aryan-Semitic dialectic in world history is II: 504-9; “enduring struggle” and “eight centuries,” 506; “intellect and command . . . from its shoulders,” 507; “push a Germanic Jesus,” 509.

Kuyper’s series on the kingship of Christ was published in book form as the three volumes of Pro Rege. C. Augustijn made the “losing his grip” observation in “Kuypers theologie van de samenleving,” in Augustijn, Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed, 52 n. 114. Kuyper’s description of the modern world order runs in Pro Rege, I: 30-112. On technology, 39-48; the diffusion of the self, 59-70; the intensity of modern life, 48-58; on Schleiermacher, 42; “the forecourt . . . [of] the temple,” 43; “The spirit of a person,” 63; “Religion demands above all . . . overburdened for it,” 69; “intense over-stimulation of the nervous life” and “the forecourt of hell,” 55; “the mighty stream of modern life,” 58.

Kuyper analyzed the phenomenon of “world metropolises” in Pro Rege I: 71-81, citing particular cities and their signal qualities, 75; “far and away,” 82; “spirit of the world,” 81. He elaborates on Mammon and Art, I: 92-112; on Art’s capture by Mammon, 106-7; “magical and enchanting,” 98; “aristocracy . . . set the tone,” 104-5. His analysis of spiritual warfare unfolds in I: 195-226; his discussion of miracles and their fulfillment in European science and technology runs I: 123-84, 226-47, 436-47, 468-78. His observations about the “line of Cain” occur in I: 184-95; “The Wisdom of the World” is the chapter title of I: 226-37. Personal evangelism as antidote to Mammon comes at I: 102; the sensual being the icon of the Art-Mammon connection runs through I: 105-12; “as a spiritual power . . . once for all broken,” I: 478.

Kuyper reiterates the need for a new consciousness in the church in Pro Rege I: v-viii, 21-30, 203-5, 287-97, 339-49, 360-70; on Muslim prayers and resolute theism, I: 1-8. His biblical-theological treatment runs I: 277-559; his treatment of the personal sphere, Pro Rege, II: 1-118; of the church, II: 119-346; of the family, II: 347-541. On male headship under Christ, II: 379-401; on sacraments as markers and council members as wardens, II: 202-13, 256-77; on the international character of the church and opposition to national-church notions, II: 191-203, 245-61; “fiction,” 203; “entirely inconceivable,” 255. On child rearing, II: 509-30; on Christ as the heart of the church, II: 180-91; “set off in heaven,” II: 189. He treats the kingship of Christ over art in Pro Rege, III: 470-580. On classical form, III: 505-12; “fixed ordinance and law,” 507; on the Transfiguration, 512-22, 546-53, and OWZ, I: 461-71; on the Acropolis, OWZ, II: 220-24; on the Christian artist’s calling, Pro Rege, III: 542-43; on the Sublime, 558-68. Kuyper’s discussion of Christ’s kingship and science runs III: 354-469, with his new emphasis evident on 449-69; “the everyday . . . richest, greatest, and most interesting,” 463; “lies not alone,” 464.

Kuyper treats society and state in Pro Rege III: 1-226 and 227-353, respectively. He summarizes the growth of society’s power, 1-11, 45-64, and elaborates his higher regard for the state, 239-49. On voluntary organization, 85-95 and 184-94; on public opinion, 194-205; on the urgency of Christian labors in these domains, 1-11, 94, 144, 201-4, 218-26; on antithesis and separate organization, 184-225; “People have called,” 202; “in every area of life,” 192.

Notes on Chapter 17

This phase of Kuyper’s life is treated with somewhat different emphasis than mine in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 525-71. For the national scene, see Kossmann, Low Countries, 493-516, 545-60, and Henk Te Velde, “Van Grondwet tot Grondwet,” in Remieg Aerts et al., Land van kleine gebaren: een politieke geschiedenis van Nederland, 1780-1990 (Nijmegen, 1999), 161-75. Kuyper’s Concertgebouw oration was published as Bilderdijk in zijne nationale beteekenis (Amsterdam, 1906). Hahn’s cartoon is reproduced in Kuyper in caricatuur, Nieuwe herziene uitgave (Baarn, 1920), 49. Kuyper cites the matador image in Bilderdijk, 5; treats his nature as a genius, 8-12; his putative Christian-idealist aesthetic, 12, 31; his opposition to the Enlightenment, 13-15, 17 (“cobwebs,” 15); his organic thinking, 14, 17, 34-35, 40, 45; his epistemology, 15-16 (“worldview,” 16), 28, 42; his militancy, 19-20; its consequent miseries and effects on his demeanor, 20-23 (similarity to Burke, 23, 67-68); his revitalization of the national tongue and soul, 24-25, 31-34, 44-46 (“called our nation back,” 46); and his relevance for a future “day of wrath,” 46.

Developments in the ARP are thoroughly treated in George Harinck, “De Antirevolutionaire Partij, 1905-1918,” in Harinck, ARP, 123-55. See also Koch, Kuyper biografie, 535-49 (Kuyper’s decline of a parliamentary seat in 1905, 526), and Kuiper, De Voormannen, 245-50. The Heemskerk government is treated in great detail in Dirk Th. Kuiper and Gerrit J. Schutte, eds., Het kabinet-Heemskerk (1908-1913) (Zoetermeer, 2010). Kuyper’s disquiet with the Heemskerk cabinet first became public in Afgeperst (Kampen, 1912), a brochure criticizing colonial policy, and comprehensively in Starrentritsen (Kampen, 1915), 47-90, summarized, 85-90. Heemskerk’s retort was Een word over de genummerde driestarren van Dr. Kuyper (Rotterdam, 1915); the response of the Five Gentlemen was A. Anema et al., Leider en Leiding in de Anti-Revolutionaire Partij (Amsterdam, 1915). On cabinet formation, Koch, Kuyper biografie, 525-27; Kuyper, Starrentritsen, 47-55; “there’s something personally difficult,” Kuyper letter to A. W. F. Idenburg, 22 March 1908, in BKI, 164. For Kuyper’s complaints about Heemskerk’s bypassing him and the Central Committee, Starrentritsen, 81-83; regarding constitutional revision, 62-65; excessive compromise with the Liberals, 59-61, 65-66; and personal disrespect, Kuyper letter to Idenburg, BKI, 451-52. The nature and fate of Talma’s proposed social legislation are summarized in Kossmann, Low Countries, 499-500, and Th. Van Tijn, “De algemeen karakter van het tijdvaak 1895-1914,” in AGN 1978, 13: 312. Kuyper’s assessment thereof appears in Starrentritsen, 58-59, and in letters to Idenburg in BKI, 236-37, 392-93. For Idenburg’s cautions to Kuyper about the educational situation in the East Indies, ibid., 260-61; for his assessment of Heemskerk’s weaknesses (and strengths) as a leader, see his letter to Kuyper in ibid., 428-30; “happy Christianity” quoted in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 538. Kuyper wrote a post-mortem on the 1913 elections in letters to Idenburg, BKI, 379-81, 391-94.

Kuyper’s 1909 keynote address was Wij Calvinisten (Kampen, 1909); “a battle of principles . . . will of God,” 16; “Antithesis is the cement of the Coalition,” 18; on the antithesis more generally, 15-18. His 1913 stump speeches were De Meiboom in de kap and Heilige Orde (both Kampen, 1913), preceded by Uit het diensthuis uitgeleid (Kampen, 1912). On the coalition strategy, Diensthuis, 25-27 (“must build upon,” 20); Wij Calvinisten, 8-12; Meiboom, 18-20 (“guerrilla,” 19). On reassertion of distinctive principles, Diensthuis, 23-24; Wij Calvinisten, 12-18; Meiboom, 14-17. Heemskerk’s attitude to Kuyper is evident in Een word over driestarren and letters to Idenburg, BKI, 430-34. The letter in which Idenburg conveyed his sense of affairs to Kuyper is in ibid., 247-48 (“Great principles . . . not so precisely”). On the younger insurgency against Kuyper, see Kuiper, De Voormannen, 245-50; “in normal times are conservative,” quoted 310; “the time of first principles,” quoted in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 545. Kuyper’s critique of the rising law faculty at the Free University appeared in Starrentritsen, 69-76; against “individualism,” ibid., 68-70, 74; Diensthuis, 21-23; De Wortel in de dorre aarde (Kampen, 1916), 13-15.

Kuyper described his new physical regimen in a letter to Idenburg, BKI, 256-58 (quotations, 256-57). Ons Instinctieve Leven (Amsterdam, 1908) is available in English translation as “Our Instinctive Life,” in Bratt, Kuyper Centennial Reader, 255-77. On animal and human instinct, 256-59; “reflection,” 270; “perfect,” “spontaneous, immediate, and completed at once,” 258. On the Five Gentlemen’s proposals, see Anema et al., Leider en Leiding; Kuiper, De Voormannen, 248-49, 345-46. Kuyper alluded to such proposals satirically in “Our Instinctive Life,” 270-71. Kuyper’s typology comes ibid., 268-69; “amphibians” and “the instinctive and the reflective life,” 268; “boundaries” and “the non-learned public,” 267; “spiritual decline and emotional impoverishment,” 268; “instinctively felt in essence,” 267; “must have the means,” 276-77; Saul and David, 277; citation of Le Bon’s La psychologie de foule (1895; E. T., The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind), 264-65. Robert Michels’s key book is Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie. Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens (1911).

For the Brussels episode, see Ewoud Sanders, “De Bijbel voor het kruis,” NRC Handelsblad, 21 December 1987, 12. The “decoration-affair” is concisely summarized in BKI, 196, 199, 209-10 (quotations). Jan De Bruijn treats the episode exhaustively in Het boetekleed ontsiert de man niet: Abraham Kuyper en de Lintjesaffaire (1909-1910) (Amsterdam, 2005). For Troelstra’s role, see Piet Hagan, Politicus uit hartstocht: biografie van Pieter Jelles Troelstra (Amsterdam, 2010), 499-504; “It was a gripping moment,” 503-4. Idenburg’s observations of Kuyper’s personality recur throughout BKI, in letters directly to Kuyper, occasionally to Colijn or Heemskerk, most often to his wife, Maria Elizabeth Idenburg-Duetz. The matter climaxes in long exchanges all around concerning Kuyper’s Starrentritsen in 1915; see BKI, 550-73. Idenburg’s critique of Heemskerk and associates is exemplified in letters to his wife, ibid., 554-55, 556, and 557 (“No one else . . . rock-hard head”). Heemskerk’s style of argument is evident in his letter to Idenburg, 430-33. Idenburg’s critique of Kuyper grew over autumn 1915. On the mistake of going public with internal grievances, Idenburg to Kuyper, ibid., 550; regarding taking opposition as personal, Idenburg to his wife, ibid., 491; “moral right . . . practical arrangements,” 569; “disciples but no colleagues,” “Kuyper is rough and coarse,” “extraordinarily tragic . . . power and influence,” 567; “the defects of his virtues,” 557; “deficiency in good taste,” 556; “the great difficulty,” 568; “knows so little of life,” 62. On Colijn, see footnote to letter of 7 November 1909, BKI, 195; and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 561-62. Idenburg recurrently complained to Kuyper about Western oil firms; see, e.g., BKI, 228, 250, 382-84, and 515. His characterization of Colijn as “a man of big things,” ibid., 371; “stands opposed to exploitation,” 288. On Kuyper’s views of Colijn, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 561-62; and BKI, 276, 402. “He is living,” 499; cf. 393; “I appreciate him,” 366.

Data on Kuyper’s children and their careers are available in Kuiper et al., eds., Dolerenden & nageslacht, 288-95. Kuyper discussed Jan Frederik’s situation in letters to Idenburg in BKI, 237 (“My poor Frederik”), 276 (“I keep praying”), 285, 296, and 323 (“His soul sleeps”). His early letter to Frederik urging spiritual reflection is dated 10 February 1884 (Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU). Frederik’s surviving letters to him are in the Kuyper Archive, HDC-VU; inter alia: 3 January 1905 (“I would love to see”), 1 October 1907, 13 February 1908, 7 September 1909, 13 October 1910 (“Why actually do you live”), 10 October 1911 (his long confessional statement), 31 May 1912 (“Today I visited”), 24 September 1913, and 27 March 1914. The feud between Kuyper’s daughters and his analysis of it can be traced in the correspondence in BKI. See especially Kuyper’s letters to Idenburg, 205, 226, 277, 294-95 (all quotations), and 338 (separation as a last resort); and Idenburg’s replies, 226-27, 281 (incompatible personalities), 302-3, 329 (skepticism toward Henriëtte), and 344 (quotations). Too’s “heart ailments” are reported ibid., 505.

The questions surrounding franchise extension are summarized in Kossmann, Low Countries, 551, 555-57; and are discussed in greater detail in Harinck, “Antirevolutionaire Partij,” 131-35, 152-54; Koch, Kuyper biografie, 555-58; and Te Velde, “Grondwet tot Grondwet,” 161-65, 171-75. Kuyper’s campaign rhetoric against women’s suffrage occurs in Heilige Orde, 18-22; “organic” and “household,” 19; against individualism, 18, 22; all other quotations, 20; birth control and divorce, 20-21. Te Velde describes the Dutch consensus on maternal norms for women in “Grondwet tot Grondwet,” 161-65; by socialists, 164; by feminists, 165. Kuyper’s praise for female cultural leadership in upstate New York occurs in Varia Americana, 39-41. His Vrouwen uit de Heilige Schrift (Amsterdam, [1897]) and De Eerepositie der Vrouw (Kampen, 1914) straddle his sharp critique of feminism in Pro Rege II: 401-22, amidst his discussion of normative family life (347-541). On the Christian family, 347-68; on household staff, 444-55; “right and equity,” 452. Regarding children, 422-44, 509-30; “sovereignty” and “mixed sphere,” 441. On feminism, 401-22; “magnetic power” and “almost irresistible magnetic power,” 405-6; “the woman who sins,” Pro Rege III: 142. On contemporary male sexual anxieties, see Bram Dijkstra, Idols of Perversity: Fantasies of Feminine Evil in Fin-de-Siècle Culture (New York, 1986). Kuyper grounds the family in sexuality at Pro Rege II: 378; on authority and Christian masculinity, 379-412; “rich treasury of the human race,” 411; “nothing but an attempt,” 413; “fixed ordinance,” 420-22; “the feminist wants to be a man,” 416. Regarding fops, 402, 409; the “chief cause of feminism,” “the scandalous means,” and “but that the egotism,” see 410. Kuyper queried Idenburg about the mining engineer J. H. Verloop’s “views on [the 36-year-old] Too” in a letter of 6 May 1913, BKI, 366. Bavinck’s support of women’s suffrage is recorded in R. H. Bremmer, Herman Bavinck en zijn tijdgenooten (Kampen, 1966), 240-41. The circumstances and consequences of the Dutch political “pacification” process are detailed in Harinck, “De Antirevolutionaire Partij,” 150-54; for briefer treatments, see Kossmann, Low Countries, 555-57, and Koch, Kuyper biografie, 555-58. On the Second Christian Social Congress, see Harinck, “De Antirevolutionaire Partij,” 147-48; ARP reorganization, 150-52. Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, III: 435, recounts the conversation between Kuyper and his publisher J. H. Kok about Antirevolutionaire Staatkunde, 2 vols. (Kampen, 1916-17).

Notes on Chapter 18

Kuyper’s response to World War I can be traced in De Standaard, particularly his Saturday columns; the correspondence in BKI is also revealing. A close secondary study is J. P. Feddema, “Houding van Dr. A. Kuyper ten Aanzien van de Eerste Wereldoorlog,” Anti-Revolutionaire Staatkunde 32 (1962): 156-72, 195-210; Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, provides broader context, 213-22, 232-36. “Socialism has seized with both hands,” Kuyper letter to Idenburg in BKI, 380. Kuyper praised Cort van der Linden to Idenburg in February 1915, ibid., 498. Kuyper’s circumstances and those of his children at the outbreak of war are detailed ibid., 467-70; “fratricide” and “suicide,” Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 216. For Kuyper’s assessment of France, see Feddema, “Houding Kuyper,” 162; on Russia, ibid., 170-71, and Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 214, 233; “growing half-Asian Slavic masses,” 233. On Britain, Feddema, “Houding Kuyper,” 163-65; Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 235-36; and BKI, 467. Regarding South Africa, Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, passim, summarized 236; and Feddema, “Houding Kuyper,” 164-66. On Japan, ibid., 169; Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 215; “heathen Japan” and the “world-historical curse,” Kuyper, Standaard, 9 January 1915. Kuyper and Idenburg often exchanged worries about Japan, especially with respect to the East Indies; see, e.g., BKI, 467, 478-79, 523, 541. Kuyper’s changing attitudes toward Germany are detailed in Feddema, “Houding Kuyper,” 195-208, and Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 234-36; “not guiltless,” Kuyper, Standaard, 8 August 1914. On the question of free passage, Feddema, “Houding Kuyper,” 156-61; “under protest,” 161.

Kuyper’s diagnosis of human pride was his very first statement on the war after the beginning of hostilities: Standaard, 4 August 1914. For his warning about the price of total victory, Standaard, 23 January 1915; “the Right as grounded,” Kuyper, Standaard, 1 August 1914. On the United States’ (prospective) role, see Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 214-15, and Kuyper, Standaard, 8 March (“America alone can do it”) and 24 March 1915. On the peace of Versailles, Van Koppen, Kuyper en Zuid-Afrika, 220-21; “league of winners,” 221; prospect of Antichrist, 220.

Information on the production of Van de Voleinding, 4 vols. (Kampen, 1928-31), is available in Rullmann, Kuyper-Bibliografie, III: 463-65; H. H. Kuyper’s assessment, 463. On contemporary eschatology in Anglo-American evangelical circles, see George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (New York, 1980), 48-66; and Ernest Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism, 1800-1930 (Chicago, 1970). The records of Kuyper’s consultation with Carnegie and his foundation are in the Kuyper Archive, HDC/VU. Kuyper assessed the failure of various peace projects in his retrospective on 1914 in Standaard, 2 January (“The misery that is now sweeping”) and 23 January 1915. His response to the socialist retort is in Standaard, 13 April 1915.

Henriëtte and Johanna Kuyper give a very detailed narrative of Kuyper’s last years in Levensavond Kuyper. For the events of 1917 see 14-32; the trip to Dresden, 29-30; the help of the German consul, 15. The character of the Dutch wartime economy is delineated in Kossmann, Low Countries, 549-54. Koch details Colijn’s role on the Standaard in Kuyper biografie, 562, 564; see also BKI regarding the Standaard and Kuyper’s financial difficulties, 467-70, 499. The personal events of 1918 are covered in Kuyper and Kuyper, Levensavond Kuyper, 32-40; on Too’s return, 34; the trip to Dresden, 35. Kuyper’s address to the 2 May 1918 ARP convention is Wat Nu? (Kampen, 1918); the full text is provided in W. F. De Gaay Fortman, ed., Architectonische critiek: Fragmenten uit de sociaal-politieke geschriften van Dr. A. Kuyper (Amsterdam, 1956), 161-71; “rich personality development,” 166. Regarding the ARP Central Committee chair, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 562, and Harinck, ARP,150-55. The abortive November 1918 radical rising in the Netherlands is summarized in Kossmann, Low Countries, 557-60; regarding Kuyper’s place in it, see Koch, Kuyper biografie, 562-63, and Kuyper and Kuyper, Levensavond Kuyper, 37-40. Kuyper’s 1919 is closely covered in ibid., 40-60; the celebration of the school-funding bill, 41-42; “today is a day of glory,” 41; Henriëtte’s trip to and from Washington, 45, 50-52.

The events of 1920 are given the most attention in ibid., 63-121; on Kuyper’s fall, 64-67; on escaping the fire while on vacation, 75-79; regarding De Heraut, 80-81, 99; his resignation, 93; Colijn’s visit, 103-5. Kuyper’s funeral is described in Koch, Kuyper biografie, 570-71; source of all quotations. Quotations exemplifying Henriëtte and Johanna’s thematic treatment of Kuyper’s death are the chapter titles in Levensavond Kuyper. On premonitions, see, e.g., 64; on providentialism and the series of final events, 13, 91, 94, 99, 105; on Kuyper’s work ethic and character, 19-21, 59, 63, 88; on the process of self-surrender, 19, 42-43, 57-58, 70-71, 82; on his last words, 112.

Developments in his movement after Kuyper’s death are traced in the various essays in J. De Bruijn, ed., Een land nog niet in kaart gebracht: Aspecten van het protestants-christelijk leven in Nederland in de jaren 1880-1940 (Amsterdam, 1978). The character of Colijn’s policies and administrations is taken from Kossmann, Low Countries, 603-6, 658-59, 667. For a different assessment, see Herman J. Langeveld, Hendrikus Colijn 1869-1944, 2 vols. (Amsterdam, 1998-2004). The Dutch experience in World War II is exhaustively treated in L. de Jong and Jan Bank, Het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, 14 vols. (’s-Gravenhage, 1969-).

Good studies on recent developments in Dutch society and culture are James Kennedy, Nieuw Babylon in aanbouw: Nederland in de jaren zestig (Meppel, 1995); and Stad op een berg: de publieke rol van protestantse kerken (Zoetermeer, 2009). Developments in the GKN and Free University are briefly surveyed in English in James D. Bratt, “Kuyper and Dutch Theological Education,” in D. G. Hart and R. Albert Mohler, eds., Theological Education in the Evangelical Tradition (Grand Rapids, 1996); see 244-50 for the interwar era and 250-54 for the 1960s and thereafter; “snakes are snakes,” quoted 247.

More thorough Dutch accounts of the GKN are H. C. Eindedijk, De Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland: Deel 1, 1892-1936 (Kampen, 1990); Gerard Dekker, De Stille Revolutie: De ontwikkeling van de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland tussen 1950 en 1990 (Kampen, 1992); M. E. Brinkman et al., eds., 100 Jaar Theologie: Aspecten van een eeuw theologie in de Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (1892-1992) (Kampen, 1992); and Jan Veenhof, “Hondred jaar theologie aan de Vrije Universiteit,” in Wetenschap en Rekenschap, 1880-1980: Een eeuw wetenschapsbeofening en wetenschapsbeschouwing aan de Vrije Universiteit (Kampen, 1980). The post-Kuyper history of the Free University is recounted from different perspectives in Johannes Stellingwerff, De Vrije Universiteit na Kuyper . . . 1905 tot 1955 (Kampen, 1987); and Arie Th. van Deursen, The Distinctive Character of the Free University in Amsterdam, 1880-2005: A Commemorative History (Grand Rapids, 2008). The literature on Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven is voluminous; a convenient English introduction from the source is Herman Dooyeweerd, Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Secular, and Christian Options (Toronto, 1979). Statistics on post-1960 changes at the university come from Bratt, “Kuyper and Dutch Theological Education,” 251.

Kuyper’s American legacy is surveyed throughout James D. Bratt, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture (Grand Rapids, 1984), which also covers CRC and RCA history 1890-1980 in detail. A Dutch language summary is “De erfenis van Kuyper in Noord-Amerika,” in Augustijn, Kuyper: volksdeel & invloed, 203-28. See also James D. Bratt, “The Christian Reformed Church in German Mirrors,” Calvin Theological Journal 42/1 (April 2007): 9-32. For the Kuyperian impact in broader American evangelicalism, see Mark A. Noll, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind (Grand Rapids, 1994), 216-17, 234-37; James C. Turner, “Something to Be Reckoned With,” Commonweal 126/1 (15 January 1999): 11-13; and John Bolt, “From Princeton to Wheaton: The Course of Neo-Calvinism in North America,” Calvin Theological Journal 42/1 (April 2007): 65-89.

Details on Elisa Willem Kuyper are available in Kuiper, Dolerenden en nageslacht, 292. Literature on Kuyper’s South African legacy is cited in the notes to chapter 14 above. On Kuyper’s applicability for African Christianity in general, see B. J. van der Walt, “Christian Religion and Society: The Heritage of Abraham Kuyper for (South) Africa,” in Van der Kooi and De Bruijn, Kuyper Reconsidered, 228-37. Allan Boesak’s invocation of Kuyper in court is recounted by Nicholas Wolterstorff in “Boesak’s Witness,” Third Way 9/5 (May 1986): 17. Boesak’s relevant work includes Black and Reformed: Apartheid, Liberation, and the Calvinist Tradition (Maryknoll, N.Y., 1984), citation of Kuyper, 91; and The Tenderness of Conscience: African Renaissance and the Spirituality of Politics (Glasgow, 2008), citation of Kuyper, 213-14. For the South Korean case, see Bong Ho Son, “Relevance of Sphere Sovereignty to Korean Society,” in Van der Kooi and De Bruijn, Kuyper Reconsidered,179-89.