Several months ago, we drew a sketch of the historical and theological background of the Secession. We have seen how the spirit of the Enlightenment had infiltrated the Church and theology in the Netherlands in the beginning of the 19th century. This became especially evident in the increasing animosity toward the doctrines of Dordt. the imposing of the new Ecclesiastical Constitution, and the introduction of a new liberal Hymn-book. All these developments set the stage and led eventually to the Secession of 1834. This becomes clear when we trace the history of this movement against the background of the life of Hendrik De Cock, the Father of the Secession.¹

The Father of the Secession⤒🔗

Hendrik De Cock was born on April 12, 1801 in Veendam in the province of Groningen in the northern part of the Netherlands. Shortly after he was born, his parents moved to the neighbouring village of Wildervank, where his father became the mayor. Here De Cock spent his early years. He was brought up in a religious atmosphere which was dominated by the liberal spirit that was so common in those days. This spirit was also characteristic of the preaching of the local reformed pastor, Rev. J.G. Oosterbeek. This minister did not deny any cardinal doctrines of the Bible, but neither did he preach them. His messages were basically calls to live a decent and useful life. Only one person within the congregation was different – the catechist, Mr. Hendrik Nieman. By him De Cock was instructed that salvation was by grace alone. Although this instruction did not immediately leave a deep impression upon him, it never completely left him. Because De Cock showed early the ability to study he was sent to the university in the city of Groningen to study theology. At this time some of the leaders of one of the schools of modem thought were on the theological faculty of this University. These professors had quite an impact on Hendrik De Cock, and thus, when he had finished his studies and began his ministry, his preaching was no different from the liberal spirit of his days. De Cock's son would write many years later that his father during this time was a very sincere man, but devoid of the grace of God. In this spirit, he served two congregations in the northern part of the Netherlands: Eppenhuizen and Noord Laren. In 1829 he was installed in Ulrum, his third congregation. In this congregation there were some people who truly feared the Lord. Among them there was an older man, whose name was Klaas Kuypenga. He had not found liberty as yet to do Confession of faith, but now he began to visit his pastor regularly to receive some instruction as a preparation for his confession. Very soon these visits changed in character. The teacher became the pupil and the pupil became the teacher. Kuypenga began to speak about his deep conviction that salvation is by grace alone. One of his favourite expressions was: "If I had to add one sigh to my salvation, I would be forever lost." These things were used by the Lord to open the eyes of Hendrik De Cock. He began to search for the truth. He read books and pamphlets of some reformed Dutch authors and studied the Institutes of John Calvin. Gradually the light of God's grace broke through. Of course this had an effect on his preaching. The people in Ulrum noticed the change in their minister's sermons, and many were thankful for this. Soon it became known in the surrounding area that the truth was heard again from the pulpit in Ulrum, and people came from far and wide to hear Hendrik De Cock.

The Crisis←⤒🔗

This created much envy and hard feelings among De Cock's liberal colleagues in the area. They opposed him in every possible way and showed increasingly their irritation and enmity. Actually, members of other churches in the area came to De Cock and asked him to baptize their children. They stressed that it was impossible for them to have their children baptized in one of the liberal churches, for one of the questions they had to answer was, whether they were willing "To acknowledge the doctrine which was taught in this Christian church to be the true and perfect doctrine of salvation". This they could not do in good conscience. After much hesitation, De Cock consented to baptize these children. Within a short time he was called before the classical board to give account for his actions. When he appeared before them, it became evident that there were more accusations against him, for a short time before, De Cock had written a little booklet against two liberal ministers who openly had deviated from the truth. De Cock had called them "so-called reformed teachers" and "wolves attacking the sheepfold of Christ". The classical board simply asked him whether it was true that he had baptized children of members from other congre­gations and had written this booklet against these two ministers. De Cock could not do otherwise than answer, "Yes", but the board refused to give him any opportunity to explain or defend himself. After a relatively short deliberation, a verdict was reached: the Classical board suspended De Cock from his ministry. A long legal battle with Church authorities followed, resulting in De Cock's permanent suspension and withdrawal of his entire income. De Cock submitted to this unjust decision, but it became increasingly difficult for him and for his congregation to accept the fact that an orthodox minister was suspended on faulty grounds, whereas liberal preachers had free course.

The Secession←⤒🔗

During the time of De Cock's suspension, a visitor, Rev. Hendrick Peter Scholte, pastor of Doeveren and Genderen in the southern part of the Netherlands, came to Ulrum. This minister also had had difficulties with the ecclesiastical boards in his area. Basically he was of one mind and one spirit with De Cock and he came to show him his sympathy. The consistory of Ulrum asked Rev. Scholte to preach the next Lord's Day, but this was refused by the ecclesiastical board without any valid reason. Nevertheless, Scholte did preach first on the following Friday night and then on Sunday afternoon in the open air, because the church was closed to him. This time the police was sent to see to it that the church was not used. On the Monday night following these events – October 13, 1834 – the consistory met. In this meeting, Hendrik De Cock declared that he now had found liberty to secede from the National State Church in the Netherlands (De Nederlands Hervormde Kerk). The Consistory fully supported him; actually, they had already pressed him about it. After they had prayed on bended knee, they all signed the Act of Secesion. With the signing of this document, they officially withdrew themselves from the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk. The Act reads as follows:

We the undersigned Overseers and members of the Reformed Congregation of Jesus Christ at Ulrum, having noticed for a long time the decay in the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, both in the slighting of or denying of the doctrines of our fathers founded on God's Word, and in the degeneration of the administration of the Holy Sacraments according to the institution of Christ in His Word, and in the almost total neglect of ecclesiastical discipline, which elements are all according to our Reformed Confession (i.e. the Belgic Confession, A.B.) Art. 29 marks of the true church … Taking all this together, it has become more than clear that the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk is not the true but false church according to God's Word and Art. 29 of our confession. Therefore, the undersigned hereby declare that they, in accordance with the office of all believers, (Art. 28 of the Belgic Confession) separate themselves from those who are not of the church, and thus will no longer have fellowship with the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk, until it returns to the true service of the Lord; and declare, in addition, the desire to exercise fellowship with all truly reformed members and to unite with every assembly based on God's infallible Word in whatever place God has gathered such, testifying herewith that in all things we bind ourselves to God's Holy Word and our venerable Forms of Unity, which in all things are founded upon this word, namely the Con­fession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of the Synod of Dordrecht, held in the years 1618 and 1619; that we arrange our public worship according to the revered Ecclesiastical Liturgy and that, with regard to our ecclesiastical ministry and the government, we bind ourselves for the present to the Church Order drawn up by the afore mentioned Synod of Dordrecht.

Finally, we declare by this document, that we still recognize our unjustly suspended minister as our lawfully called and installed Pastor and Teacher.²

With the signing of this Act, the Secession had become a fact. This event would have widespread effects throughout the churches in Holland, even extending its influence to the history of North American churches.

The First Effects←⤒🔗

The Secession did not remain confined to the Congregation of Ulrum! When Rev. Scholte travelled back to his own congregation, he soon found out that he was in trouble with the Church Authorities there. By the 29^th of October, he received a letter from the Classical Board of Heusden, advising him that the Minister of State entrusted with the General Direction of the Affairs of the Hervormde Kerk had informed them that:

You have given occasion to the irregularities on October 12 at Ulrum, by your pressing persistence to preach in the Congregation of Ulrum on the above-mentioned day; yea, you have not hesitated on the previous day to preach and baptize there, without consent of the Counselor, and even on the aforesaid day, after persistent refusal by the Coun­selor, you held a religious address to the crowd in the open, and you have made yourself guilty of actually transgressing the Church law, found in Article 11 of the regulations for vacancies and calls.

The Board called these actions a misdeed of an offensive nature and decided for this reason to "suspend Rev. H.P Scholte provisionally in his ministry as Preacher in the Hervormde Congregation to Doeveren, Genderen en Gansoijen". When Scholte received this letter he considered it for a day. He then wrote a letter of reply in which he said: "With surprise and wonder I received my notice of censure, not because the censure seemed strange, for from all that has passed between us before I could foresee the censure and what would follow; but I had not expected that one should act in this way and call preaching, baptizing and the holding of a divine service in the open air against the will of a counselor, a misdeed of a serious nature. Was I not entitled to do these things as a minister of the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk? Was not the refusal after repeated requests in the name of an ordained Consistory terribly impolite? Should not true hearted preachers be happy that the Word of God is preached often?" Furthermore, he stated that he would continue to preach because God had called him to do this. This implied for him that he had to reject the censure and "according to the example of Paul, Acts 19:9" had to leave the Church. Scholte's congregation stayed with him, for on the same day an Act of Secession was drawn up and signed by almost every member of the congregation. This Act reads as follows:

We, the undersigned, members and inhabitants of the Re­formed Congregation of Doeveren, Genderen and Gansoijen, having noted that the Classical Board of Heusden has censured our Pastor because he preached, baptized and held a religious address in the open air in the Congregation at Ulrum. (sic) Since this is all founded upon God's Word and commanded by God's Word as work for the Pastors and Teachers, therefore the Congregation can see nothing else in the act of the Classical Board than the placing of human regulations above the Word of God, even as this was done in the time of the Reformation by the papal church authorities, in the days of Jesus and the Apostles by the Pharisees and Scribes, and in the days of the Old Testament by the opponents of the true religion. And moreover we declare that we will no longer live under such a government or hold ecclesiastical fellowship with such as submit to it, but will hold ourselves to God's Word and the forms of unity which agree with it, as reformed congregation withdrawing from them, we shall regulate our worship by the old church liturgy, and our God-appointed overseers and Elders shall for the time being hold themselves to the Church Order of the Synod of Dort, held in the years 1618 and 1619.³

Thus in this congregation a break was made from the Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk. Similar events began to occur in other parts of the Netherlands as well. In many towns and cities groups of people separated themselves from the State Church. By the end of 1835 almost eighty congregations had joined the Secession Churches. The strong growth of this movement greatly surprised the authorities of the State Church. They had not realized that for many who loved the truth the bond with the State Church had become very weak over the years. Those people could not find food for their souls under the liberal preaching. This is precisely why they had started to come together in Conventicles ("Gezelschappen"). There sermons were read of the orthodox writers and they spoke on the ways of the Lord. Many of those conventicles followed De Cock and Scholte and eventually became congregations within the Secession Churches.⁴ In these beginning stages there were only a few pastors for these many churches. Except for De Cock and Scholte there were the Revs. S. van Velzen, G.F. Gezelle Meerburg, A. Brummelkamp and A.C. van Raalte.⁵ These ministers were young, in their early twenties and thirties, when the Secession took place, but yet they became leaders in the new church and became known as the "Fathers" of the Secession.

The Opposition of Old Friends←⤒🔗

Not all orthodox ministers followed De Cock and Scholte in leaving the State Church. Before the Secession took place, Scholte especially had been in close contact with the circle of the "Reveil" (Revival). This was a group of men who were deeply opposed to the liberal trend in the Church and State. They strongly protested against this spirit of the times by writing articles in periodicals and booklets. Although the leaders of the Reveil were not ministers themselves, their influence in the Church was far reaching. When De Cock and Scholte came in conflict with the Church Authorities, these men of the Reveil at first sympathized with them. But as soon as they noticed that De Cock and Scholte had withdrawn themselves from the State Church, their attitude changed. For the men of the Reveil did not believe that secession was the proper answer to the deplorable situation in the Church. The ideal they envisioned was to reform the Church from the inside. They believed that this was still possible. This is clear from the following words of Isaac Da Costa, one of the leaders of the Reveil: "Although the Nederlandsch Hervormde Kerk most certainly has deviated in doctrine and discipline from its Confession, this does not yet mean that this Church is a false church as defined in Article 28 of the Belgic Confession"⁶. This implied for the men of the Reveil that Secession was not appropriate at this time. One of the reasons for this view was that they believed that there were still many within the State Church who loved the reformed truth and who in the words of Da Costa – "had not bowed their knees before Baal!" For this reason it was thought better to stay within the State Church. Several orthodox ministers, who did not directly belong to the circle of the Reveil, showed themselves to be of the same opinion.⁷ Although these men had serious objections to the general spirit of liberalism in their Church, they stayed with her. This had a far reaching effect, for due to their dedication, the Reformed preaching has stayed within the Hervormde Kerk even to this present day.

However, the feelings of these orthodox ministers toward the Secession became increasingly bitter. One of the main reasons for this was that the Secessionists considered the State Church as a false Church, and themselves as the true church. L. Oostendorp writes:

Scholte and De Cock agreed that they were founding no new church, certainly not a denomination. Right here lay the great offence in their labours. For both neither Roman Catholicism with its superstition (bijgeloof) nor the Hervormde Kerk with its unbelief (ongeloof) could be anything but a false church. Therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ, the historic Reformed Church, is for them found in the seceding body!⁸

Scholte and De Cock did not deny that there were certain people in the State Church who loved the reformed truth, but they refused to acknowledge her as a church as long as her members openly tolerated heresy and refused to adhere to the Confession. On this crucial point the Secessionists and the orthodox ministers who stayed in the State Church could never agree and consequently numerous accusations were levelled against each other. This is a dark page in the history of the days of Secession.

The Persecution←⤒🔗

The question may arise: What was the reason for this persecution? Moreover, why should the state interfere with the affairs of the Church? Wasn't there separation between Church and State? Indeed there was, but we should realize that this separation was of a special nature: the "religion proper" did not fall under state-supervision. This meant that the Church had complete freedom to preach and to teach. The government and organization of the church, however, were under strict control of the state; particularly after the introduction of the Ecclesiastical Constitution of 1816. King William I saw himself also as a spiritual leader of the people, and thus he felt it his duty to safeguard the unity of the Church in the Netherlands. Every threat to this unity was considered a serious offence. For that reason, the authorities took action against the conventicles, even before 1834.⁹ In these circles, there was great dissatisfaction with the situation in the State-Church and its liberal preaching, and hence they were looked upon as cells of intolerance and separatism. Several of their meetings were interrupted by the police and fines were given to those present. The authorities based their action upon the Penal Code dating back to the time of Napoleon. It was stated therein that a society of more than twenty people, which would come together regularly to discuss affairs of religion and state, could only be established with the approval of the State. A society which held meetings without this approval of the State had to be disbanded immediately and the leaders had to be fined. After 1834 the Secession-Churches expected to be treated differently and to be left alone by the authorities. They thought: we are not just a society or a conventicle, but a Reformed Church. Yet their expectation proved to be false, for the old laws that had been used against the conventicles were used with even greater force against the Secessionists. If their church services were attended by more than twenty people, they were interrupted and disbanded by the police and the army. Ministers, consistory-members and the owners of the premises in which the services were held were fined. These fines usually amounted to the maximum penalty of one hundred guilders per person. This meant that the Secessionists had to raise thousands of guilders during these early years. Many of these fines were never paid, mainly because the majority of the people were very poor, but the authorities did not let this go. If someone did not pay his fines, all his goods were sold at a public auction. This left many in a terrible predicament. Often all their cattle, their furniture and even their clothes were sold. Nothing was left. Quite a few of these auctions were held on the Lord's Day and this made it impossible for rich members of the Secession-Churches to buy back these goods. It also happened that people who did not pay their fines were put in jail. They were usually kept there for six months, but some were even in prison for two years! The Secessionists suffered in other ways as well. The army was used to disrupt their worship services and "to keep the peace". These soldiers had to find a place to stay and so they were quartered in the homes of the Secessionists. Some­times they had to provide room and board in their small houses and farms for five or even ten men. Members of the Secession-Churches were also subjected to ridicule and scorn, and even to violence from the general public. Many were fired by their employers and the poor among them were not allowed to live any longer in their small houses that were owned by the diaconate of the State Church. All these things together made it extremely hard for the Secession-Churches to maintain themselves and to survive. Yet, in spite of all this persecution, their numbers increased.

Of course the persecuted churches tried to find means to change the difficult situation they were in. They sent many petitions to the king, requesting his help and protection. These efforts were futile. The king himself was behind the measures against the Secessionists. But soon some influential people in the Netherlands began to voice their disagreement with the persecution. Slowly and reluctantly the attitude of the authorities began to change. A major breakthrough took place when the Church of Utrecht, under the leadership of Scholte, asked King William I for official recognition. This was granted in 1839. When many other churches followed this example, the persecution began to decrease. They finally came to a complete stop during the reign of King William II (1840-1849).

The Crisis of Youth←⤒🔗

In addition to external opposition, the Secession-Churches suffered from internal conflicts. Particularly during the early years, the new churches were plagued with argu­ments. There was disagreement on the question of recognition by the State, on a new Church-order, church membership and many other things. Although some of them are quite relevant to us today, this article cannot deal with all of these matters. We only wish to discuss the important conflict that arose between the two "Fathers of the Secession" – De Cock and Scholte. Originally both men had been united in their opposition against the liberal trend of the State Church. In that time, they compared their friendship to that of David and Jonathan (cf. 1 Samuel 18:3). Yet it did not take long before important differences on baptism and the church surfaced between the two friends.¹⁰ Scholte viewed the church as a body of true believers alone. All those who had made confession of faith together with their children had to be viewed as true members of the Church of Christ. This implied that only children of true members were to be baptized, that is "of those who manifest the marks of Christians." However, those who do not show such marks may not be recognized as members and must together with their children, be denied the Sacraments until their conversion.

While Scholte started with man, that is, with the believer and his faith, De Cock's view was determined by the idea of the covenant of God. He saw the Church under the aspect of the Covenant of Grace. This Covenant is established sovereignly by God (cf. Gen. 17:2ff). It is also very broad, for it does not only include believers, but also their children and those who are not converted. The Church is depicted in the Parable of the Tares among the Wheat and the Parable of the Dragnet (Matt. 13): There is a twofold class of people in the Church: those who do believe and those who do not. And so De Cock baptized all the children of the congregation, even the children of those who had not made confession of faith. He defended this practice in the following way: "Who are the children of the congregation? Not alone those born of believing parents, but also those who have sprung from attendance in her lap, and whom the Church according to all pleasing laws has taken under her care in her house, and for whom the Lord in His free powers, has also granted the promises." Although this view of De Cock has certain weaknesses, such as allowing children of non-confessing members to be baptized, eventually it did become the common view of most Secession-Churches. De Cock's view is most certainly to be preferred above Scholte's view as more in accordance with Scripture and Confession.¹¹ The disagreement of De Cock and Scholte about the church order is closely connected to this conflict. The Act of Secession stated that the new Churches would adhere for the time being to the Church Order of Dordrecht. Scholte, with his strong emphasis on the Church as a body of true believers was not deeply interested in a church order with strict rules. Therefore, he wanted to do away with the church order of Dordrecht and return to the "simple rules of the Word of God." De Cock was totally opposed to this view point. He wanted to adhere to the Church Order of Dordrecht, not merely because of traditionalism, but particularly because he believed that its principles were based upon the Scriptures. At the General Synod of 1837, Scholte's view­point triumphed and a new church order was accepted. This so-called church Order of Utrecht has caused much confusion and trouble in the Secession churches. Years later, this Church Order had to be abandoned and the churches returned to De Cock's view, and thus they accepted the Church Order of Dordrecht. In the same period, the rift between Scholte and the majority of the Secession churches had become so deep that reconciliation appeared to be impossible. The result was that Scholte was deposed from his office in 1840. He continued to serve a small group of congregations that were still faithful to him. In 1847 a disappointed Scholte, with many of his followers, immigrated to the prairies of Iowa.

The Emigration Fever of the 1840s←⤒🔗

It should be stressed that not only Secessionists emigrated from the Netherlands during this time. They were only a minority compared to the large numbers of Netherlanders that moved to America during the fourth and fifth decade of the last century. In those days a tidal wave of emigration fever swept through Western Europe and affected different classes of society in the Low Countries. One of the main reasons for this "Great Trek" to America was the deteriorating economic situation in large areas of Western Europe. For several years in succession crops had failed. The difficulties caused by this came to a head when potato blight ravaged all of Western Europe in 1845 and consequently the entire potato harvest failed. Grains were too costly for a long time, and hence potatoes had become a staple diet, particularly for the poor. Thus the lower classes in the Netherlands suffered extreme poverty, especially in the rural areas. An additional burden during those days was the very complex tax system, which put heavy demands upon almost everyone. Against this background it is understandable that articles in magazines and pamphlets that described America as a land flowing with milk and honey, made a great impression. People dreamed of the New World as a land where work and wealth were waiting for the poor and unemployed. Besides this, taxes were said to be minimal and so America was looked upon as an almost tax-free country. Underneath all this there was an awakening urge for more freedom. Usually this desire did not express itself in specific demands but rather in a more general but vague feeling of dissatisfaction with the present situation. For instance, there was a growing uneasiness with the existing class-distinctions in the Nether­lands. As long as the immigrants lived in the Old Country this feeling was quite vague. But as soon as they had settled in their new homeland, they began to realize how much the inequality had been a burden to them. This is evident from several letters that were sent to the Netherlands. In one of them a recent immigrant wrote: "The lesser are equal here to the rich and one need not lift one's hat for anybody. The rich people are considerate of the poor who work for them." Also characteristic of this spirit is a letter written by Rev. Seine Bolks, from the town of Overisel in Michigan. He bitterly stated: "Nobody longs for the land of our birth. We all feel liberated from all the torturing shackles on our souls and bodies. It is not a country here where the workingman has to bring his sweat to the country's offices, while being cursed. Also a lesser or poor man is not put back or despised; indeed, the opposite is true, he is respected and liked."¹² In other words, the immigrants had found freedom in the Land of Liberty; the freedom they had desperately longed for.

A place of refuge for the people of God←⤒🔗

It should be clear that all the reasons mentioned above also played a part in the decision of the Secessionists to leave the country. Yet these were not the main reasons for their emigration to America. More than anything else they longed for freedom to worship God without any interference from the government. Now it has been stated that the persecution of the Secession-Churches, by the government, had almost come to an end by the time that the Great Trek to America began. This may be true, but let us not overlook the fact that financial and social persecution was still going on: Secession­ists were laid off and were harassed simply because of their religious convictions. After many years they had become weary of constant oppression and persecution and this became a strong motive for them to leave their country. In the New World they would be able to worship God in freedom and to give their children a truly Christian education. Closely connected with this cherished ideal of religious freedom was the increasing conviction that the judgements of God had come over the Netherlands and over Western Europe as a whole. Especially Scholte propagated this idea in a very outspoken manner. In his view, Western Europe had become the Babylon of Revelation (Cf. Chapt. 17 and 18). The great sin of all European nations was what he called the Sin of Pilate. We remember that Pilate said to the Lord Jesus: "knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?" (John 19:10). As Pilate misused his authority over the Lord Jesus Christ, Scholte argued, so the governments of Europe have always misused their power with respect to the Church. They are guilty of oppressing and enslaving the Church and of taking away the liberty of the children of God. For this reason, the judgements of God had come over Europe, including the Netherlands. And now the time had come that the Lord was saying: "Go out of here, my people!" For He had made a place of refuge in the New World! This is the reason why Scholte gave the name of Pella to the city in Iowa where he settled with his followers. Pella was the city in ancient Israel where the early Christians found a refuge when the judgements of God came upon the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Scholte saw his Pella as a place of refuge for the people of God, now that God's judgements were falling upon Europe.¹³ Not many emigrating Secessionists agreed with this "prophetic vision" of Scholte, but there was a general feeling that the judgements of God were threatening the Old Country and that the Providence of God has opened a way of escape for them and their children.¹⁴

Enroute with Van Raalte←⤒🔗

As soon as the idea of emigration had taken root in the hearts of many of the Secessionists, they began to make preparations. Under the leadership of the Revs. A. Brummel­kamp and A.C. van Raalte, a Society for Emigration was formed. Its name was: Society of Christians for the Emigration of Hollanders to the United States of North America. One of the first actions this society took, was to seek contact with people in America of Dutch descent. They established contact with two ministers of the Dutch Reformed Church of America, viz. Rev. Isaac N. Wyckoff in Albany, N.Y. and Rev. Thomas De Witt, minister at the Collegiate Reformed Church in New York, N.Y. The latter published a lengthy letter, written by Brummelkamp and van Raalte, in his periodical the "Christian Intelligencer" of October 15, 1846. This letter was entitled, "Appeal to the Faithful in the United States in North America."¹⁵ Both ministers pleaded with the Reformed people in the United States of America to help the Dutch immigrants who would arrive soon. Actually, van Raalte was already enroute, accompanied by a shipload of Netherlanders and he arrived in New York on November 17 of that same year. At that time van Raalte wanted to establish a Dutch Colony in Wisconsin, and so the entire group of immigrants travelled westward along the Great Lakes route. When they arrived in Detroit it was winter and the journey to Wisconsin could not be continued. Hence the Dutch immigrants were forced to winter in this area. Van Raalte used this time to speak to several well-informed people about his plans for the future. They convinced him that the forests of Western Michigan were the best place for him to settle with his people. Thus on the evening of February 9, 1847, a small group of Netherlanders, under the leadership of van Raalte, arrived at the site of what is now Holland, Michigan. The following day, after a fervent prayer, they began to build the first log cabin and to chop roads through the dense woods. A period of hardship followed: it took a long time to clear the land and to prepare it for planting and sowing. Part of the area was low and swampy and this caused widespread illnesses. During the first few years many people fell ill and a large number died. In spite of all the difficulties, the city of Holland and other Dutch settlements that were founded in the area, began to grow and to prosper. This was the result of the almost incredible courage and perseverance of the early settlers, which we, as a later generation, can only admire. The pioneers themselves did not accredit the realization of their plans to their own efforts, but to the Lord, who had led them to this country and who, in the midst of all their afflictions, had not forsaken them.¹⁶

Two different visions←⤒🔗

In the meantime, Scholte had also travelled to America with a large group of followers. Van Raalte hoped that he would join him and settle somewhere in Michigan. Scholte, however, pursued his own ambition and journeyed to the plains of Iowa. For various reasons he did not want to join the group of van Raalte in Michigan¹⁷. The most important was a fundamental difference of vision between the two ministers on what a Dutch settlement in the U.S.A ought to be. Van Raalte's ideal was a Dutch colony, a Reformed Church and tradition and a theocratic society. Scholte really wanted none of these! In this light it is significant that van Raalte named his colony "Holland". Although he was not narrowly Dutch, like some of his fellow-immigrants, he clearly en­visioned a Dutch tradition for his settlement. This was to be a colony of Hollanders in America! Only they could own lots. The Dutch language was to be maintained in both church and school, even though the early settlers saw the necessity of learning English as well. In the first election after their arrival, no colonist was yet an American citizen. But what about Scholte's position? Shortly after the year 1860 he writes in an autobiographical sketch: "I came here in 1847 with between 700 and 800 Hollanders and laid out the town of Pella … Directly after our settling here we made our first declaration to become citizens, so as to identify ourselves as soon as possible with the land of our adoption."¹⁸ The lots of Pella were first reserved for Hollanders, but this was only "for the time being." And there was great emphasis on the im­portance of using the English language right from the beginning. Deeper still was the difference between the two leaders of those Dutch settlers in connection with the church. Van Raalte did not necessarily want his church in the new colony to be an exact copy of the Dutch Secession-Churches, but he definitely wanted a continuation of the Dutch Reformed tradition. On the other hand, Scholte promoted the idea of a free congregation in Pella. He wanted to return to what he saw as the church of the New Testament and wanted to abandon all forms of traditionalism. As a result the congregation in Pella was without office-bearers and rules for an entire year. Soon after a kind of constitution was drawn up and elders and deacons were elected. The elders were all allowed to preach "according to the measure of their gifts." In all these things it was Scholte's intention to let the congregation form itself, while he acted as a general supervisor. The third difference was the attitude both men had toward the idea of theocracy. In a theocracy the church or spiritual leaders exercise extensive influence over temporal affairs. Van Raalte hoped for a Christian community in the city of Holland. This is already clear in the constitution of the above-mentioned Society of Christians for the Emigration of Hollanders to the United States of North America. We read in Art. 7 of this constitution: "The first mission is to create a Colony that is Christian … Therefore, it will not accept any persons for colonization other than those who will be expected to submit to the Lord's Word, so that in that way not only a Christian consistory, but also a Christian govern­ment will be present in order to uphold the law of God which is the foundation of every state." That is why van Raalte openly advocated laws against dancing, drinking and every other vice. According to Scholte, Pella was not to be a "holy city here on earth," but "the world," in which God's people would be found together with unbelievers. Although he did not use liquor himself, he opposed prohibition laws. He rejected the ideal of a theocratic community, because it would breed an "outward, hypocritical Christian society." What Scholte really had in mind was to build an American city, with a non-denominational, free church and without a theocratic dream.¹⁹

The heritage←⤒🔗

Time has passed on. What has remained of the ideals of those immigrants? Of Scholte's so-called "religious experi­ment" in Pella hardly any traces are left. On the contrary, van Raalte's influence on church-life has been considerable. In 1850 he joined, with his congregations, the Dutch Reformed Church of America, and there he received a prominent position. In 1857 a part of the immigrants that had followed him, withdrew themselves and formed a new denomination which is known today as the Christian Reformed Church. Although van Raalte himself was opposed to this action, to some extent his views and his visions lived on in this newly-founded denomination. In spite of this influence the spiritual heritage of the Dutch Secession of 1834 has, generally speaking, became weaker in these churches over the years. Still, it is necessary in our days to preserve this spiritual heritage and to return to it.

The Purity of Doctrine←⤒🔗

It should be stressed that the motive of the Secession was not to separate from the State Church just for the sake of separating. The leaders of this movement were not stubborn, narrow-minded men who simply loved to make trouble. They were often unjustly depicted in this light by their opponents. In reality, the driving motive behind their actions was a deep concern about the decline of the doctrines of the Reformation in the State Church. The great yearning of their hearts was that Church and Nation would return to the pure "doctrine of the Fathers". What did they exactly mean by the expression "the doctrines of the Fathers"? Some scholars have stated that these "Fathers" were mainly the so-called "Old Writers."²⁰ They argued that the leaders of the Secession drew more from the troubled waters of mysticism and subjectivism, which according to these scholars marked the period of later reformed orthodoxy, than from the pure fountain for the theology of the early Reformers, like John Calvin. This is definitely untrue. The Secession Churches were indeed greatly influenced by the writings of "Old Writers", such as: Alexander Comrie, Wilhelmus a Brakel, Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, etc. Men like De Cock and Scholte, however, did not trace their way back exclusively through these authors, but returned particularly to the Reformation itself! De Cock, for instance, was greatly indebted to the Institutes of John Calvin, and even published a condensed version of this great work of the Reformer of Geneva. On the other hand, he and his colleagues also promoted reading the "Old Writers", and even republished some of their works. Apparently, the leaders of the Secession did not see essential differences between the Reformers of the 16^th Century and the writers of the later reformed orthodoxy. They viewed the entire reformed tradition as a whole, and their main desire was simply to adhere to and follow this one reformed tradition, for they were convinced that this tradition was based solely upon the Scriptures and that it represented the truth in its purest form. As had been already indicated, the influence of this reformed tradition had become very weak in the State Church. The general trend leaned heavily towards a man-centred religion with a strong Arminian flavour. There were great expectations of man and his accomplishments; a general belief in the progress of mankind was affirmed. They awaited the day when all doctrinal differences between churches would disappear, and a unity embracing, not only the Roman Catholic Church, but even Jews and Moslems would be achieved.²¹ Consequently, the liberal church leaders urged that a spirit of tolerance should prevail in the church and that people should not fight for doctrinal formulae of the past. They reveled in an atmosphere of doctrinal vagueness and indifferences, and hence these church leaders had a strong animosity to sharply defined doctrines as formulated in the Confessional Standards of the Church. In opposition to this trend, the leaders of the Secession called for a return to the reformed tradition. They did not hesitate to call the pre­vailing spirit of tolerance and liberalism "the false god of our age" or "the Baal of our days". They sought instead to promote the restoration and revival of the reformed truth. They were convinced that this truth was most clearly comprehended in the Reformed Confessions, particularly in the Canons of Dordt. By 1833, Hendrik De Cock had published a new edition of the Canons. In the forward, De Cock emphasized the importance of the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, as confessed and defended in this creed, stating that only by a return to this truth, the deceptive spirit of Free Will and liberalism could be defeated and crushed.

The spirit which these men struggled against and the one which also confronts us today are similar in several important ways. In our days there is also a lack of interest in and even animosity against a distinctly Reformed Christianity. Many people refuse to be bound by the authority of the infallible Word of God as the only rule for faith and life. Consequently, they are also opposed to the binding authority of the Reformed Confessions. However, the general result of this is that many have lost sight of the key doctrines of the Bible. They don't know any more what words like "election", "total depravity", "free grace", etc. mean! If any Christianity is left, it is only a vague and a very general religiosity. In view of this we ought to stress that it is necessary to adhere to the biblical doctrines of grace. We believe that they are very clearly summarized in the Confessional Standards, viz, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the often des­pised Canons of Dordt. It is for this reason that we do not need to be ashamed to abide by them and to defend them. This implies that it is most necessary for us to study our Confessional Standards and to let them become part of us. Failure to be acquainted with them has led to doctrinal indifference and has done great harm to the spiritual well­being of the Church. In this area it is definitely true that unfamiliarity breeds contempt!

The Purity of the Church←⤒🔗

It has already been indicated that the leaders of the Secession wanted the Church in the Netherlands to return to her own Confessional Standards. But it became increasingly evident that the State Church generally speaking did not want to give up the room they had created for various winds of doctrine! They wanted the Church to be tolerant and they did not want her to bow in "slavish obedience" to the old creeds. The Secessionists in particular objected to this view of the Church and this difference of opinion was one of the major causes for their Secession from the State Church. They wanted the Church to be "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), and not a place where all opinions and even heresies could exist side by side. Against this background, it becomes clear why the leaders of the Secession were convinced that they were not founding a new Church in 1834 and certainly not a new denomination. They considered themselves to be the true continuation of the Reformed Church in the Netherlands. They were the true Church which again bowed exclusively before the Word of God and the binding authority of the Three Forms of Unity.²²

The position which the Secessionists had taken had far-reaching implications. It meant that they denounced the State Church as having become a false church. We read this very explicitly in the Act of Secession: "Taking all this together, it has become more than clear that the Nederlands Hervormde Kerk (i.e. the State Church) is not the true, but the false Church according to God's Word and Art. 29 of our (Belgic) Confession." In Order to understand this concept of the true and the false Church, it is helpful to look at this article. We read: "The marks by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church." The three marks of the true Church which are mentioned here are absent in the false Church. The picture that our confession draws of this false Church is the exact opposite of the description of the true Church. We read at the conclusion of Art. 29: "As for the false Church, she ascribes more power and authority to herself and her ordinances than to the Word of God, and will not submit herself to the yoke of Christ. Neither does she administer the sacraments as appointed by Christ in His Word, but adds to and takes from them as she thinks proper; she relieth more upon men than upon Christ; and persecutes those, who live holily according to the Word of God, and rebuke her for her errors, covetousness, and idolatry." If we consider this article carefully, it will be clear to us that the accusation of being a false Church is a very serious one. This is how it was received in the State Church in the days of the Secession, particularly by the orthodox ministers who did not leave the Church. This is understandable, for they loved their Church, in spite of her errors, and we should not ignore the fact that there were still children of God and faithful servants of the Word in the State Church after the Secessionists left. This is so even today. This awareness has led many people in the Churches of the Secession to be more cautious in using the term "the false Church." However, we should still maintain that a Church which begins to ignore the truths of Scripture, as summarized in the Reformed Confessions and openly gives room to heresy, cannot be called a true Church any more.

This implies that the whole concept of the true Church should never lead to ecclesiastical pride. The Bible warns us very explicitly of the danger of assuming that we "have" the truth and we alone. That is clear from Jeremiah's warning against the people of his days who vainly boasted; "The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are these!" (Jer. 7:4) Instead the contemplation of the marks of the true Church should lead us to ecclesiastical and personal self-examination: Are we members of the true Church? And: Are we true members of the Church?²³ When we may find that the marks of the true Church are still present in our midst, we can only acknowledge the Lord for watching over us and for keeping us from deviation from the truth!

Furthermore, we should realize that a true Church is not a perfect church. This became clearly evident in the early history of the Secession-Churches: There were divisions and even schisms about many issues. Very often these troubles were stained by personality clashes and human stubbornness. Human sinfulness has done great harm to the church and still does today. We should be aware of this and watch and pray that our lives may not bring disgrace upon the cause of God.

Although the Secession-Churches have strongly em­phasized the marks of the true Church, they did not want to be exclusivistic. In his struggle against liberalism, Hendrik De Cock felt himself united with true believers of all persuasions, including, e.g. those of the Lutheran Church. Therefore, the Act of Secession stresses: "And (we) declare in addition, the desire to exercise fellowship with all truly reformed members and to unite with every assembly based on God's infallible Word in whatever place God has gathered such." It is regrettable that this principle, which is clearly based upon the Word of God, has been taken to heart so little. The number of divisions has increased greatly in our reformed circles. Nevertheless, those that have "the same precious faith" are exhorted by God to seek one another, or does He have to come to drive them together with his chastening rod?

The Purity of Spiritual Life←⤒🔗

The Secessionists were certainly not satisfied with an outward, formal adherence to the Reformed Creeds. They were not only opposed to the spirit of liberalism of their days, but they also saw the danger of a cold, lifeless orthodoxy. That is why they stressed repeatedly, both in their sermons and in their writings, the necessity of personal, experiential knowledge of the truth. This emphasis on experiential religion was truly the heart-beat of the Secession! For that reason some of their opponents ridiculed them, as being fanatical, mystical, etc. The leaders of the Secession took pains to refute these accusations and replied that they simply adhered to the reformed – experiential religion of the fathers! What are the characteristics of this spirituality of the Secessionists? I can only mention the most important of them. First of all, true piety meant for them a personal relationship between God and the sinner. It has been stated that this echoes the basic theme of the Reformation, viz. True religion is the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves.²⁴ That is why in the Churches of the Secession we find a deep awareness of the glorious majesty of God over against man's depravity and sinfulness. These people were firmly convinced that God does not take our sins lightly but that judgment is inevitable because of them. Actually, the notion of God's judgment upon the nation and the Church is quite prevalent in the writings of men like De Cock. However, those men also knew that God is a God of abundant mercy in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. This was not just a religious theory for them, but they knew something of this grace by personal experience.

Secondly, the spirituality of the Secessionists was greatly influenced by the idea of the sovereignty of the grace of God. In this light it is significant that Hendrik De Cock, on the first Lord's Day after the Secession took place, preached on the words of Ef. 2:8, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God." This word is almost programmatic for the Secession. It implies that its leaders sought to preach the Doctrines of Grace, including the doctrine of God's election. They did not preach a theological system which is dominated completely by the idea of election, but because they wanted to follow the biblical directives on preaching, they gave equal value to the gospel call, which comes to everyone who hears the Word of God and to the free offer of grace.²⁵

The third characteristic is that the Secessionists stressed that spiritual life should be based upon the Word and upon the Word alone! For our spirituality does not only need to be fed by the Word of God, but it also needs to be regulated by it. The leaders of the Secession knew of the deceitfulness of the human heart, which can produce many "religious" emotions. They also knew of the dangers of a false passivism, subjectivism and mysticism. That is why they sought to give Scriptural guidance for spiritual life, particularly in their sermons. This emphasis on a preaching that is first of all biblical, but also experiential is very vital for the Church.

Finally, a very important aspect of the spirituality of the Secessionists was their concern for the spiritual well-being of the Dutch people as a whole. In many booklets and tracts they called upon the hearts of the people to seek to God of the Fathers. Hendrik De Cock, for instance, pleaded with his countrymen by asking: "Where is the question still asked, when we meet together with others: Men and brethren, what must we do to be saved? Where do people still speak about what should be the most vital concerns: Death, eternity and the Kingdom of God?"²⁶

All the points we have mentioned contain valuable lessons for us. We should take these lessons to heart, not because we want to glorify the past, or because we think that these men were perfect, but because they rediscovered the Word of God as a power unto salvation. To rediscover this again and again is the need of the Church of all ages!