The state church's weaknesses led to protests, unjust treatment of protesters, and eventual secession. Conventicles continued to form and meet, in substance constituting unauthorized worship services (prayers, Psalm- singing, reading of Scripture and of sermons, etc.). Many splinter groups formed, some uniting into a new "synod" but with tensions remaining among the new groups but more especially between them and the state-sponsored groups. The core of the protest was against departures from Reformed orthodoxy (a la Dort) in favor of rationalism and early higher criticism of Scripture and also against seizure of spiritual authority and abuse of civil authority by the state. For example, as citizens, parents demanded baptism of their children even though the parents themselves never had professed faith and showed no signs of conversion (nominalism was rampant as it usually becomes when the state determines religious affiliation and citizenship decides church membership). Protesters insisted on faithfulness to the Forms of Unity and Formula of Subscription, a pious life with evidences of repentance (distinct pietism), and the right of parents to educate children according to the demands of God's Word and conscience.

Early leaders of this reform movement in the Netherlands Hervormde Kerk (the "state" church--NHK) include Willem Bilderdijk (1756- 1831, "father of the Dutch Reveil"), who independently taught students in Reformed orthodoxy, Nicholas Schotsman (1754-1822), a preacher who published several pamphlets attacking those who denied orthodox doctrine, and a Jewish-Christian pastor, Isaac Da Costa (1798-1860, himself a disciple of Bilderldijk), as well as students who were under his influence, such as De Cock, Brummelkamp, Scholte (who formed his own study group at Leiden during student days), Van Velzen, and Van Raalte. Da Costa, articulate and zealous, was known for defending the traditional doctrines of the Deity of Christ and the substitutionary atonement, i.e., the most basic evangelical doctrines of salvation. According to the practice of those in the Reveil, he conducted special Bible study groups outside the church, and he boldly published his views, helping to foment discontent. Many came under Reformed teaching in this way.

De Cock (1801- ? ) was the first to officially separate from the NHK. While serving as a pastor, he was converted to Reformed orthodoxy by the reading of pamphlets, creeds and of John Calvin's Institutes (borrowed from the study of a neighboring pastor). Interestingly, he had not encountered these things in his theological training! Having embraced the orthodox doctrines of grace, regeneration, justification, and sanctification, De Cock began to preach these with great fervor, and as a result he became very popular among the common folk, who were tired of the rationalism and worldliness of their pastors. Some of these folk brought their infant children to De Cock to be baptized, rather than to their own pastors, whom they considered unregenerate. Violating the church order (and therefore also the civil order), De Cock administered the sacrament for these people, incurring the hostility of their pastors and of the civil authorities. He also became infamous for a rather caustic pamphlet he circulated protesting the new hymns being used in the churches by government decree. Many of these hymns contained teaching contrary to Reformed theology, he argued. Then, after having in fact left the NHK in 1834 (after having been suspended from his duties for over a year at the hands of the authorities) along with many others, his group declared themselves a "free church" by their publication of an "Act of Secession." Many in the "conventicles," groups of evangelically-minded brethren from the Hervormde who favored traditional Reformed theology and practice and met together for study, worship and encouragement, readily joined this movement. In fact, the existence of the conventicles facilitated the secession; the conventicles formed the nuclei of the new secessionist congregations and insulated the new groups against state repression, to which they had already become accustomed long before the secession occurred!

It should be noted that De Cock and his circle were not the only ones unhappy with the church situation. Many sects (communalistic, chiliastic, congregationalistic, etc.) also arose and separated from the state church. This phenomenon of separation from the state church was not limited to the Netherlands' Reformed; secessions also occurred in Switzerland, Scotland and Germany among the Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran.

The formal secession of De Cock's group took place on October 13, 1834. Several other groups formally proclaimed their independence from the state church before the year was out. They stated their intention to return to the doctrines of Dort and subscribed to the Belgic Confession, especially emphasizing Article 29's tests of the true church. They specifically cite in their declaration the denial and mutilation of the biblical teachings, failure to administer the sacraments properly according to the institution of Christ, and the almost complete neglect of church discipline (three things cited specifically in Article 29). In short, they declared that the Netherlands Reformed Church was a false church and that they, therefore, were returning to orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and by their secession were reestablishing the true church.

A period of persecution followed, with varying severity, but never approaching the dimensions of the Inquisition. De Cock was prevented by the police from preaching in his church in Ulrum, and his family was evicted from the parsonage. Scholte, Brummelkamp and Van Velzen, who had been members of a study group called the "Scholte club" at the University of Leiden (which was very much under Da Costa and De Cock's influence), were deposed from the NHK ministry for problems similar to De Cock's, though these preachers continued to be much sought after by the people, who met under all kinds of duress in barns and forests to hear their sermons, according to the pattern of conventicle meetings. Such meetings were often disrupted and the leaders subjected to fines. Scholte had been suspended from the ministry because he refused to baptize the children of baptized but non-confessing (and profligate) members and for his associations with De Cock. Brummelkamp (1811-1888) was suspended for the same reason and for his criticism of the hymns, but also because of his defense of De Cock. Van Velzen (1809-1896, brother-in-law of Brummelkamp) was suspended for his so-called opposition to hymns, but behind this suspension was resentment against him for his defense of the likes of De Cock and Scholte. He had also allowed Brummelkamp to preach for his congregation. Van Velzen was deposed after he submitted notice of secession. Van Raalte (1811-1876), also under the "Scholte club" influence, was denied ordination because he refused unqualified subscription to the government-imposed church rules and regulations, though such subscription had never before been required of ministerial candidates.

BELGIC CONFESSION ARTICLE 29: THE MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH

We believe that we ought to discern

diligently and very carefully,

by the Word of God,

what is the true church--

for all sects in the world today

claim for themselves the name of "the church."

We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites

who are mixed among the good in the church

and who nonetheless are not part of it,

even though they are physically there.

But we are speaking of distinguishing

the body and fellowship of the true church

from all sects that call themselves "the church."

The true church can be recognized

if it has the following marks:

The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel;

it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them;

it practices church discipline for correcting faults.

In short, it governs itself

according to the pure Word of God,

rejecting all things contrary to it

and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head.

By these marks one can be assured

of recognizing the true church--

and no one ought to be separated from it.

As for those who can belong to the church,

we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians:

namely by faith,

and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness,

once they have received the one and only Savior,

Jesus Christ.

They love the true God and their neighbors,

without turning to the right or left,

and they crucify the flesh and its works.

Though great weakness remains in them,

they fight against it

by the Spirit

all the days of their lives,

appealing constantly

to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus,

in whom they have forgiveness of their sins,

through faith in him.

As for the false church,

it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances

than to the Word of God;

it does not want to subject itself

to the yoke of Christ;

it does not administer the sacraments

as Christ commanded in his Word;

it rather adds to them or subtracts from them

as it pleases;

it bases itself on men,

more than on Jesus Christ;

it persecutes those

who live holy lives according to the Word of God

and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry.

These two churches

are easy to recognize

and thus to distinguish

from each other.

In 1836 a new synod was formed by these separatists. Van Raalte was ordained at their first meeting. Some groups joined with the new church, while some in the group splintered off over various disputes (whether or not the children of non-professing members should be baptized, what kind of church order should be adopted). Some joined together into new denominations; others remained independent. The new church born of this movement was called the Christelijk Afgescheiden Kerk (Christian Separated Church). Later in 1869, this group united with others who had seceded from the Netherlands Hervormde Kerk to form the Christelijk Gereformeerde Kerk ( Christian Reformed Church).

For some years harassment by the authorities continued; soldiers were quartered in the homes of the pastors, meetings and preaching were forbidden, secret assemblies were disrupted by soldiers and those conducting the assemblies subjected to fines and imprisonment and confiscation of property, and the free church believers were shunned in school and society. Such officially sanctioned persecution ended in 1840, but the social stigma and shunning continued for many years. The separatists, generally of lower social strata, were denied employment or they could not market their products. Children were also abused by schoolmates. It is truly ironic that, while within the national church Jews, Mennonites, Lutherans, Arminians and even Roman Catholics were present and tolerated, the orthodox Reformed alone were persecuted for their attempts to be faithful.

The first synod of the Seceders was held in great secrecy in Amsterdam in 1836 with 14 delegates--three ministers and eleven elders. Their main business were to attempt to mold a new church order, which met with mixed success, and to protest against state persecution. In this they had support from churches in England, Switzerland and France, who petitioned the King of Holland to grant freedom of religion and exercise tolerance. Another synod met in 1837 to adopt a new church order, which was essentially the order crafted by the Synod of Dort. Again they met in 1840. By this time, the membership of the secessionist group was about 6,000, a periodical was being published, and ministerial training was taking place.

Meanwhile, even though violent persecution subsided, several groups belonging to the new synod decided to leave the Netherlands for the New World, with its promise of freedom and prosperity. The 1840's had seen the potato blight and much poverty, which was worse for the free believers because of their social ostracism. Some who had left earlier for the New World wrote of the good possibilities life in the U.S.A. held, and this gave new hope to these believers. They began to set off on their voyages in 1846, and for about 5 years a steady stream of immigrants from among these Dutch Christians continued to flow into the harbors of New York, Boston, and Baltimore. It should be noted that even though the vast majority of the emigrants cited economic rather than religious motives for leaving their homeland, still the likelihood of the seceders to emigrate was far greater than that of the general population. Most of them were from the middle or lower socioeconomic classes. Also, those not of the seceders who emigrated tended to be sympathizers with them in their religious and economic plights. Also, emigrants tended to leave in extended family groups and often as congregations, under the leadership of their pastor.

It is interesting to note that during this early time, under the duress of persecution and shunning, the shortage of formally trained pastors was addressed by the appointment of "exhorters" who exercised their "gift of prophesying" under the supervision of the consistories, but who were not permitted to administer sacraments.