Secession and the Reformed ( ' Dopper ' ) Churches in South Africa '

Die Afskeiding van 1834 in Nederland het die kenmerke van die ware kerk (art. 29 ngb) op die wetlik omlynde instituut van die staatskerk toegepas. Volgens hierdie model moes die m otiei vir die afskeiding van 1859/60 ook die stigting van ’n opponerende insti­ tuut met eie kenmerke teenoor die staatskerke in Transvaal, ovs en Kaapkolonie gewees het of die Cbristelijke Gereformeerde Kerk waaruit ds Postma gekom het, moes aangegryp gewees het. Hierdie studie toon aan dat gelowiges in die wyse waarop hulle plaaslik l)ediening en kerkregering ervaar het intuitief tot die slotsom gekom het dat dit nie aan die kenmerke van ware kerk-wees beantwoord nie. Mense wat aan die gesag van Gods Woord gehoorsaam wou wees, is deur kerkgesag vanaf 1834 onteer en in isolasie gedrywe. Slegs ’n klein radikale Enslin-groep het in 1853 verwydering van die gesange uit alle eredienste geeis. Die beswaarde groep ait die ‘Dappers ’ het dié wat Gesange gesing het, laat begaan, m aar hulle wou self nie in hulle godsdiens gedwing word om ‘nuwighede’ te aanvaar voordat hulle dit met hullegewete kon rym nie. Om hier­ die rede is hulle offisieel deur predikante en kerkvergaderings as “deurboorders van die liggaam van Christus" beledig en vervolg. Hulle vertoë om begnp is geignoreer, en hulle kon vir twee dekades nie nagmaal vier nie. In Transvaal is tydens die konsolidasie van die Republiek in Sep­ tember 1858 offisieel tot ’n eie gemeente vir beswaardes binne die staatskerk toegestem. Die ooreenkoms is in Januarie 1859 opgehef toe die Algemene Kerkvergadering die sing van gesange vir alm al verplig het. Die behoefte aan ’n eie plaaslike bediening wat volgens hulle ge­ wete met Gods Woord en die riglyne van die Sinode van Dordrecht 1618/19 sou ooreenkom, lei tot die stigting van vyf selfstandige, onafhanklike, hoewel innerlik verwante, Gereformeerde kerke (gemeentes) in 1859/60. Hulle stel in 1862 ’n federate verband deur middel van die Kerkorde van 1619 daar waarin hulle as selfstandige kerke saamwerk sonder om in ’n groter geheel op te los.


ie i v ir d ie a fs k e id in g van 1859/60 ook d ie s tig tin g van 'n o pponerende in s t i tu u t m e t e ie k e n m e rk e te e n o o r d ie s ta a ts k e rk e in T ra n s v a a l, o v s en K a a p k o lo n ie gew ees h e t o f d ie C b ris te lijk e G e re form ee rd e K e rk w a a r u it d s P o s tm a g e k o m h e t, m o e s a a n g e g ry p gew ees h e t. H ie r d ie s tu d ie to o n a a n d a t g e lo w ig e s in d ie w yse w a a ro p h u lle p la a s lik l)e d ie n in g en k e r k r e g e r in g e r v a a r h e t in t u it ie f to t d ie slotso m g e k o m h e t d a t d it n ie a a n d ie k e n m e rk e v an w are kerk-w ees b e a n tw o o rd n ie . M e nse w at a a n d ie g e s a g van G ods W oord gehoors a a m w ou w ees, is d e u r k e rk g e s a g v a n a f 1834 o n te e r en in is o la s ie g e d ry w e . S le g s 'n k le in r a d ik a le E n slin -g ro e p h e t in 1853 v e rw y d e rin g van d ie g e s a n g e u it a lle e re d ie n s te g e e is . D ie b e s w a a rd e g ro e p a it d ie 'D a p p e rs ' h e t d ié w at G esange g e s in g h e t, la a t b e g a a n , m a a r h u lle w ou s e lf n ie in h u lle g o d s d ie n s g e d w in g w ord om 'n u w ig h e d e ' te a a n v a a r v o o rd a t h u lle d it m e t h u lle g e w e te ko n ry m n ie . O m h ie r d ie re d e is h u lle o ffis ie e l d e u r p r e d ik a n te e n k e rk v e rg a d e rin g s a s " d e u rb o o rd e rs v an d ie lig g a a m v a n C h r is tu s " b e le d ig en v e rv o lg . H u lle v e rtoë om b e g n p is g e ig n o re e r, en h u lle kon v ir tw ee dekades n ie n a g m a a l v ie r n ie . I n T r a n s v a a l is ty d e n s d ie k o n s o lid a s ie v an d ie R e p u b lie k in S e p te m b e r 1858 o ffis ie e l to t 'n e ie g e m e e n te v ir b e s w a a rd e s b in n e d ie s ta a ts k e r k to e g e ste m . D ie oore en k om s is in J a n u a r ie 1859 o p g e h e f toe d ie A lg e m e n e K e rk v e rg a d e rin g d ie s in g van g e sa n g e v ir a lm a l v e r p lig h e t. D ie b e h o e fte a a n 'n e ie p la a s lik e b e d ie n in g w a t v o lge n s h u lle g e w ete m e t G ods W oord en d ie r ig ly n e v an d ie S in o d e van D o rd re c h t 1618/19 sou o o re e n k o m , le i to t d ie s tig tin g v an v y f s e lfs ta n d ig e , ona fh a n k lik e , h o e w e l in n e r lik v e rw a n te , G e re fo rm e e rd e k e rk e (gem e e n te s ) in 1859/60. H u lle s te l in 1862 'n fe d e ra te v e rb a n d d e u r m id d e l van d ie K e rk o rd e van 1619 d a a r w a a rin h u lle a s s e lfs ta n d ig e k e rk e s a a m w e rk s o n d e r om in 'n g r o te r g e h e e l op te lo s.
The marks of the true church, as described in art.29 of the Belgic Con fession are applied by Calvin^ to the visible local congregation.During the Reformation local ministries were reformed in order to correspond to the marks of the true church of Jesus Christ.During the 18th and 19th centuries the concept of the church changed as a result of rationalism.
The 'church' is since then understood as a social structure, a static legal persona with a specific constitution and name, a C o lle g ia lic it a recog nised by the secular authorities.As was done during the secession of 1834 in the Netherlands the marks of the true church were ascribed dur ing the 19th and 20th centuries to such ecclesiastical structures as the reason why a 'new church' was established.
The Reformed Churches in South Africa (gksa) happened to originate in 1859 -1860 in terms of the 16th century's ministenal rather than the later institutional concept of the church.History will testify to the fact that the 'Doppers' and their co-objectionists were, without the leadership of any pastor, concerned with reform of local ministries and public wor ship.The institution of a particular denomination as such did not concern them.They did not opt for secession because they wanted an alternative 'church'.They tried by all means to remain loyal within the unity of faith, worship and discipline as was determined by the Synod of Dordt 1618/19 in the Netherlands.Their norm was art.7 of the Belgic Confes sion.^ Because they adhered to this point of view, secession was delibera tely forced on the discontented group in 1859.

BACKGROUND
The commercial, political and ecclesiastical reign of the Dutch East India Company (VOC) in Southern Africa scrupulously protected relig ion, though exclusively in the Dutch Reformed tradition.Even the prac tice of Lutheranism was not allowed before 1780 and this matter had not yet been settled when De Mist arrived in 1802.In 1795, during the Napoleonic wars, the rule of the VOC was abruptly terminated by the arrival of British forces.
In performing its religious obligations, the voc was assisted by the dis tant Classis of Amsterdam in the Netherlands.The number of congre gations in the Cape Colony was restricted and these congregations were not allowed to meet and operate in their own classis or synod.Never theless, in matters of worship and discipline, the local churches enjoyed freedom and responsibility in the best decentralised Genevan and Dutch traditions."The more or less indej^ndent congregations observed and practised the Reformed faith and discipline to the standards of the Synod of Dordrecht 1618/19.
By the year 1800 a group of closely related families bearing surnames such as inter alia Van der Walt, Venter and Kruger had already settled in the secluded North Eastern regions of the Cape Colony.They were isolated from Cape Town and church 'civilisation' by mountain ranges, vast distances and semi-desert country.Despite their isolation and lack of formal education, these people were well-behaved, law-abiding and God-fearing citizens, practising a Puritan life-style.In most respects they contrmled and governed tnemselves, adhenng to their reformed religion and cultura heritage.They neither modified their dress nor remodelled their fashions.They were very un-Enghsh but not all anti-English.They could attend church services in the remote towns only a few times a year for confirmations, marriages, baptisms or to take Holy Communion.' By 1850 these farmers of the North Eastern Cape Colony had been nick named 'Doppers' especially by British administrators and liberal citi zens of Cape Town who looked upon themselves as enlightened and high ly civilised.The Doppers were thus labelled as unenlightened, uneducat ed, primitive and even as " dirty Dutch" .*'On the other hand professor John Murray of the Dutch Reformed Church, who served as minister in Burgersdorp and vicinity from 1847 to 1859 said that they were "if not the Drain, at all events the backbone of the nation that is being formed in South Africa" .' Somebody with the penname Z w e r fg r a a g (probably John Murray himself) praised the Doppers highly in a Cape Town news paper during 1857.«They were also the first and only pioneers who on their own, invented a unique scheme in 1800 to placate and civilize the primitive San or 'Bushmen' hunters.'These isolated people on the north-eastern border of the Cape Colony lived a free life but were perpetually in danger in various ways.There was always the risk of a loss of cultural identity and social and racial assimilation with the heathens of a primitive African culture due to the proximity of neighbouring San and Khoi-Khoi-tribes, but religion and traditions formed their stronghold.Furthermore, parents preserved their life-style by means of home education of their children.The parents taught their children to read and write, using the Holy Bible and the Heidelberg Catechism.The p a t e r ia m ilia s daily conducted Scripture reading and devotions for the whole family, including domestic slaves and other coloured servants.On Sundays a complete sermon from a 17th century Dutch 'author' was read.Not only had they developed a strong sense of individuality, they also gave expression to their Reformed religion in their daily lives.Thus the Dutch State Version of the Bible (1622) was the sole and single source of authority in all religious, moral, social and political matters of the day.'"It is therefore obvious that their values concerning tradition, individua lity, freedom and responsibility to God would bring them into conflict with the newly formed centralised ecclesiastical authorities.When the Presbytery of Graaff Reinet endeavoured to force changes upon them from 1834 to 1853 there was indeed conflict.It is interesting that while approximately only one fifth of the Dopper community seceded from the Dutch Reformed Church in the Cape Colony (DRC), the nickname 'Dopper' was transferred to them.Later on the name was also applied to other objectionists in the Transvaal, who were not even part of the original Dopper community.

THE 19TH CENTURY AS AN ERA OF CHANGE
In 1804 Mr J.A. De Mist, Commissioner-General of the interim govern ment of the Dutch Batavian Republic in the Cape Colony (1802 -1806) promulgated a constitution for the church according to the new ideas of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution.By virtue of this Church Order the church was now regarded as a denomination, a cen tralised body, a legal persona, a c o lle g ia lic it a .According to the philo sophy of the 18th century (eg J. J. Rousseau's L e C o n tra t S o c ia l) the autonomous individual enjoys the freedom of religious association and constitutes by means of delegation and agreement with others a church to his liking.The Church Order provided state support for the worship of a Highest Being in the 'Dutch Church' mainly to promote virtue and good morals among its subjects.Provision was made for a synod under supervision of the government.The implementation of this provision was, however, postponed.''Two years later the British occupied the Cape Colony for the second time.It became increasingly hard to get Dutch ministers to come to South Africa.In 1820 Governor Somerset decided to introduce ministers from the Scottish Presbyterian Church into the Dutch (Afrikaner) communi ties.This coincided with his policy of anglicization whereby use of the English language became obligatory in all official communications.'* In 1824 these presbyterian ministers induced the Governor to permit the first Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church according to the provisions already made in the Church Ordinance of De Mist in 1804." Van nou af tree 'n heeltemal nuwe faktor, naamlik die gesentrahseerde kerkbestuur, na vore en dit kom teenoor die eeue-lange tradisie van plaaslike vryheid in die gemeentes te staan.Die Skotte bet in hierdie sentralisasie en eenvormige praktyk geglo . .The First Synod adopted De Mist's Church Order as the basic constitut ion of the DRC (NGKSA) while the General Regulations from the same revolutionary background, introduced by King William I in 1816 for the Reformed (Hervormde) Church in the Netherlands, were adapted to constitute a centralised synod with regional presbyteries and local con sistories.Up to now this constitution was rejected because of its collegialistic characteristics.It was typical of presbyterian church polity there in that the authority over the local Church was invested in the presby tery."Theological liberalism and religious modernism were introduced to the Afrikaans speaking community in Cape Town since the beginning of the 19th Century.Afrikaans speaking and Dutch ministers were trained in liberal theology at universities in the Netherlands.On account of his reason and intellect the autonomy of man was emphasised and identified with enlightenment and being civilised.By the middle of the 19th century some Afrikaans speaking ministers of the DRC rejected teachings of the Heidelberg Catechism in public.'* The Scottish ministers played a lead ing role in opposing the rationalistic and liberal influence by launching a revival movement.There was a direct confrontation between these two groups on the DRC Synod of 1862.The Supreme Court upheld an appeal by the liberal group and enforced the boundaries of the Cape Colony on the institution of the DRC (ngk).
An immense shift in religious conceptions became obvious in the Cape Colony.This caused unrest and deep concern among the Doppers in tne remote rural areas.They were determined to preserve their inherited reformed religion and to protect themselves against the onslaught of liberalism and modernism.''For them there was no reason to change their customs or traditions in any respect, even if they were out of step with the so-called " new light" .
TENSION AND RIFT By 1830 the British colonial government had established new towns and parishes manned by Scottish clergymen among the Doppers or Trekboere who must not be confused with the Voortrekkers, The Voortrekkers lived in the eastern and south-eastern border districts until they left the Cape Colony from 1834 onwards.They were cattle-farmers who were dissatisfied with the British colonial border policy.The Doppers in the northern and north-eastern border districts on the other hand were sheep-farmers who formally remained loyal to the British rule on account of their interpretation of the Fifth Commandment.A few Dopper families, however, including that of Paul Kruger joined the Trek, more or less coincidently.The Kruger family was destined to play an impor tant role in political and ecclesiastical matters in the Transvaal.
A new Evangelical Hymn Book had been introduced in the Netherlands during the French Revolution.Without any formal appraisal the exam ple was followed by one congregation after the other in the Cape Colony.
The first sign of tension in the DRC occurred in the congregation of Cradock which was attended by people from the later established towns of Colesberg, Burgersdorp and Middelburg.The precentor at Cradock re fused to sing the words of a hymn, though he agreed to sing the melody.The Presbj4ery of Graaff Reinet to which the congregations with sub stantial Dopper membership belonged, advised the Cnurch Council of Cradock to try to dissuade such persons from their bigotry.^'At the same time people who did not belong to the Dopper community, but objected most strongly to the introduction of the hymns, also left the Cape Colony in the Great Trek." In the newly established neighbouring congregation of Colesberg the Church Council existed of eight members.Half of them just closed their books whenever a hymn was announced.The Scottish minister, Thomas Reid and his supporters, attempted, without success, to enforce the 1833 decision of the Presbytery.Reid refused to baptise the children of those who objected to the hymns because he did not consider them to be true believers." In 1841 office bearers of Colesberg in favour of singing hymns wrote to the same Presbytery intending to terminate the persistent demon stration of objections.^"In 1841 the Presbytery issued an official pastoral circular, not only to the congregation of Colesberg, but also to objectionists in the congregation of Cradock (including the later established Burgersdorp)." Without proper investigation the Presbytery rejected the objections which claimed that the hymns contained a new gospel.The content of the Pastoral Circular reveals the nature of the objections indicated refe rence to the principle of article 7 of the Belgic Confession as well as ar ticle 69 of the Church Order of the Synod of Dordt 1619.The Presbytery rejected obviously what was argued in the congregations referring the objectionists to the authority of the ministers who accepted the hymns.The Presbytery accused by means of this Pastoral Circular the object-ionists of committing a grave sin.They were summoned before the cruci fied Christ on Calvary to answer why they were persisting in their stubborness thereby piercing Christ's bleeding side and tearing his body apart.They were entreated by the Circular to humble themselves for the sake of unity.This action was seen as a "uiterste konsekwensie van die Liberalisme" ," and can be regarded as a manifestation of collegialism."It may also be a consequence of presbyterianism where the Presbytery (especially the ministers) rules the congregation on behalf of the unified church.« The attitude of the Presbytery proved disastrous.The objectionists reacted strongly to being blemished as desecrators of the body of Christ.Being branded by an official ecclesiastical body they abstained from Holy Communion year after year.If the label was valid, they reasoned, the liturgical formulary of selfexamination excluded such persons from communion.They demanded that the ecclesiastical courts restore their good name and standing within the churches.
In 1847 a Colesberg deacon, Jan H. Venter, appealed to the Synod in Cape Town to have the defamatory allegations in the Presbytery's pastoral Circular withdrawn.He pointed out that in matters of religion these people did not want the convictions of others forced upon them.The synodical committee supported the apical.The DRC Synod (NGK) neverthe less upheld the Presbytery's official pronouncem ents.In 1849 Venter again pleaded with the Presbytery on behalf of "het grootste gedeelte van de Gemeente van Colesberg" to withdraw the offence embodied in the Pastoral Circular of 1841 in order that the Lord might again bless the congregation in holy communion "tot Zijn eer" .'"Venter and his supporters pressed for the removal of the insult laid on them in 1841, and did not demand the removal of the hymns.The ministry in the local congregation was the focus point of their complaints and appeals.No attack was launched on the church structures as such.
Fuel was added to the fire of discontent when the rev Reid, without consulting the Church Council permitted the Anglican bishop Gray to conduct a service in the n g k of Colesberg during his visition tour to the region.''The dissatisfied people asked the Presbytery whether "onze Reformatie onder een g e d w o n g e n g o d s d ie n s t bestaat of niet" ."The widespread discontent that resulted united the faithful, those in favour of as well as those against the Evangelical Hymns, to reject the ministry of the rev Reid.A third of the congregation independently obtained the services of the Rev John Murray from the neighbouring congregation of Burgersdorp who ministered to them on the farms of Venter and Celliers."In 1851 the Presbytery had to agree with the petitioners that chaos prevailed in Colesberg.They passed the problem on to the Synod of 1852.The impotence of the Presoytery to restore order in the local congregation became a matter of great concern among these unfortu nate people."In 1852 the synod advised the transfer of the minister and in the meantime allowed the discontented part of the congregation to have its own separate services conducted by the rev John Murray of Burgersdorp.> * ' In order to terminate the disruptions in Colesberg, the Presbytery ar ranged in 1853 that the rev Reid would resign from his position under payment of the amount of one thousand two hundred and fifty pounds by ten members of the congregation, inter alia J. H. Venter, J. P. and H. J. van der Walt and a shopkeeper, A. Ortlepp.This arrangement had been properly effected by a notaiy public in Graaff Reinet with full con sent of the Presbytary.^'This painful history witnesses to the fact that these tenacious objectors tried to reform the ministry over long years, even though they received little help from the official ecclesiastical bodies.
After the rev Reid has resigned his office in the Presbytery he sued the above mentioned petitioners in the Supreme Court for damages.His claim was formally granted in 1856 and he was allowed one pound for damages.The defendants were also ordered to pay the costs of the suit.^*Thus they suffered a severe financial setback m order to restore peace in the ministry of Colesberg.The Presbytery remained a mere bystander to these proceedings.Two of the defendants, J. H. Venter and J. P. van der Walt, sold their substantial properties in the Cape Colony immedia tely after the verdict and moved north to play a leading role in the seces sion of the Reformed Churches in 1859." Although less discontent rifted in Burgersdorp which previously belonged to the congregation of Cradock, the same suffering under the Pastoral Letter of 1841 prevailed with the result that great numbers of members abstained from holy communion."oReid's trial drew much public attention and the quaintness of the Cop pers was openly discussed in the Cape Town papers.To hold such strong reli^ous convictions against educated ministers of religion was incred ible in times when modernism linked civilisation to formal education.But even then an authoritative contributor, using the pen-name 'Zwerfgraag' (probably John Murray), testified at length in the liberal Cape Town newspaper, H e t V o lk s b la d , to the loyalty of the Doppers to their church, religion, government, I^r ita n way of life and excellence of character."'The rev P. Huet of the DRC in Pietermaritzburg, observed in 1860: " Ik geloof dat ds Postma gelijk heeft met te ze ^e n , dat de Afscheiding hier te lande, reeds v66r zijne komst feitelijk oestond . . .Ik geloof dat in hen . . .een sluimerend, zich onbewust gevoel van gemis aan Calvinistische prediking hun door oude Gereformeerde boeken overgeleverd, bestond . . .Ik geloof. . .dat hun nauwgezet vasthouden aan de Bijbel met kanttekeningen, en hun verkleefdheid aan de oude Calvinistische leer een middel is geweest tot bewaring wat aan verscheidene plaatsen anders geheel verloren ware gegaan -de Gereformeerde Kerkleer."''THE COLESBERG-STRUGGLE EXTENDED TO BLOEMFONTEIN Since 1847 several protesters from the Colesberg-Burgersdorp area in the Cape Colony trekked and resettled in the southern parts of the Orange Free State.Because the British controlled the region before 1854 the rev Andrew Murray was appointed by the Governor of the Cape Colony in Orange FYee State gained its independence as an independent Boer (Afrikaner) Republic from Britain in 1854.Koos Venter, formerly from Colesberg, became vice-president.Soon there was conflict between Venter and the rev Andrew Murray, who was opposed to the indepen dence of the young republic and even petitioned against it in England.^'Andrew Murray and his brother John of Burgersdorp were the sons of the Scottish minister of Graaff Reinet and were trained for the ministry in Scotland.Their religious convictions were connected with the soK^alled Marrow-men in Scotland.""After 1857 Andrew Murray became a wellknown leader of the revival movement in the n g k .He was strongly in fluenced by John Wesley and has widely been accused of semi-Pelagianism."'Nevertheless, since 1856 the 'revival'-movement in the NGK gained momentum against the Rowing influence of liberalism and modernism.The revival approach differed from that of the Doppers who accepted unconditionally the covenantal relationship with a sovereign God.An drew and his brother John conceded that they were unable to fathom the religious mind of the true Dopper.«The rev P. Huet, another minister in the DRC (n g k ) at that time, was convinced that the failure to teach true Reformed doctrines from the pulpit caused the general discontent amongst the Doppers."'The launch ing of an evangelical campaign for revival within the NGK coincided in 1859 with the secession of the Reformed Churches (GKSA).
It is difficult to tell to what extent the interwoven political and ecclesias tical troubles in Transvaal as well as Dopper family relations combined forces to get a minister of religion from the Netherlands to serve among dissatisfied groups in the Orange Free State, Magaliesburg and Lydenburg."*Vice-president Venter of the Orange Free State, who had had no formal education, was an intelligent, headstrong man -a unique and pictu resque character.In 1858 Venter informed the Church Council of the NGK in Bloemfontein where Andrew Murray was the minister, that, much to his regret, his conscientious objections compelled him to resign as a member of the congregation.He referred to the Evangelical Hymns and the doctrines taught in the church, the manner in which public wor ship (which included methodist-like prayer meetings) and confirmation were conducted.He also voiced dissatisfaction with the way in which the gospel was preached.Venter assured of support from Lydenburg, committed himself finan cially to the project by pledging all his possessions because of his over whelming longing to go "in godshuijs met vreugde" ."Like all Doppers, Venter had no knowledge of the secession of 1834 in the Netherlands.No denominational or institutional identity whatsoever of Callenbach or Van Andel was implied in his call.He merely endeavoured to obtain a reformed ministry on local congregational level.The founding of a new denomination was not in his mind.He vaguely identified ministers on account of their personal convictions in regard to the reformed faith, and not because of their institutional connections.
Venter's initiative was responded to by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of the Netherlands (CGKN) after Van Andel had mediated in 1857.The synod delegated the rev Dirk Postma to offer help in the form of ministers and teachers of this church to the Government of the Republic of Transvaal.At that time there were only one minister and three teachers in the Transvaal."The Synod obviously had no or very httle knowledge of the ecclesiastical tensions in the Transvaal.It is remarkable that a reply to Venter's communications to Van Andel deals with the Government of the Transvaal and not with Venter in the Free State.The connection of Venter with Lydenburg may explain this.

THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE IN THE TRANSVAAL 1853 -1859
Strong pro-British colonial sentiments against the Great Trek prevailed at the Dutch Reformed Synod of 1837 in Cape Town.It enforced an eccle siastical ban on the Voortrekkers and prohibited any minister to ad minister sacraments to them.This attitude began to change only in 1847.When Sir Harry Smith in 1848 proclaimed the Orange Free State as British territory, he described the provision of a minister of religion as one of the advantages of British rule.Some Transvalers, namely the Pretorius-party clashed with Smith in a skirmish at Boomplaas 1848.They were after that the more convinced that the alliance between the Cape Colonial British Government and the Cape Church presented a grave threat to their independence in the Transvaal.They objected strongly against the attempts of the Cape Synod of 1852 to incorporate the Transvaal churches.In the same year Britain suddenly recognised the political independence of Transvaal.
In 1853 candidate-minister Dirk van der Hoff unexpectedly arrived from the Netherlands in the Transvaal.The Volksraad and Government im mediately founded the N e d e rd u its c h H e rv o rm d e K e rk (n h k ) as church of the state, independent from the Cape Synod of the d r c (NGK) .It was believed that closer ecclesiastical ties with the state church in the British Colony would jeopardize the newly won political independence.''' In the Constitution which was accepted in 1858, provision was made for an official state church, the independent country's own church.In 1863 «8 -In d ie S k r if lig 1989, 23 (4) the laws and bylaws of the ngk of the Cape Colony were adopted for the NHK.»When the Volksraad and the church assembly ordained the rev Van der Hoff as the one and only minister in the church of state at Rustenburg in 1853, the compulsory singing from the Hymnal also came to the fore.'^''The opposition ranged from the moderate need for reassurance of some of the few Doppers from Colesberg to the demands of the radical Enslin group.The Doppers wanted to be reassured that they would not be forced to sing hymns or alternatively would be convinced with proof from Scripture that these hymns did not introduce a 'new gospel' into public worship.The radical Enslin group demanded the hymns to be removed from public worship alltogether.
In a pastoral letter, titled E e n e S te m u it M o o ir iv ie r and circulated during 1855, the rev Van der Hoff stated on behalf of the General Assembly his unwilbngness to take up the challenge to proof the h y ^s from Scripture " want overtuigen kunnen wij die menschen toch niet" ."He even dis illusioned the head of state by implying that he could not call on the Synod of Dordt of 1618/19 because that would proof him in the wrong.'*One of the Doppers, P. A, Venter, reacted likewise in a printed circular against E e n e S te m u it M o o ir iv ie r in which he testified to the sole autho rity of Scripture.He claimed being ministered in such a way by the rev Van der Hoff added insult to injury."In this important and far-reaching publication Venter drew attention to local worship and the Scriptural basis of authority which Van der Hoff ignored.He called on J. H. Venter, a relation of his in Lydenburg."It seems as if this movement had trigger ed off the action of J. J. Venter in the OFS in connection with Lydenburg to get a reformed minister from the Netherlands.''' The matter was further complicated because P. A. Venter and his sup porters sided politically witn Schoeman opfwsing M. W. Pretorius.*'^Towards the end of 1857 schism was in the air in Rustenburg, According to the magistrate Robinson, people resigned because of Van der Hoff's attitude.They wanted to have a church supported by themselves and subjected to Christ a lo n e .T h e y even considered ties with the Cape Synod.They were clearly working on a solution for their problems with the local worship and to achieve a church polity where the authority of Scriptures would be uphold.
To safeguard his position and power in the church and also his salary from the state.Van der Hoff tried to prevent the congregation of Lyden burg to get their own minister.This caused a snowballing conflict with M. W. Pretorius.Shortly after the circular of P. A. Venter in July 1856 Ph.Snyman, an elder of Rustenburg, lodged a complaint vnth Pretorius that the ecclesiastical affairs of the State Church had not been conducted by Van  Pretorius tried most strongly to get an antipode against the rev Van der Hoff's ambition to become chief minister.He even negotiated, officially but unsuccessfully to get a minister from the d r c (n g k ) in the Cape Colony to serve in a congregation on the basis of "Godswoord en de verordeningen . . .te Dordrecht van 1618 en 1619" .This was a deliberate effort of the president to consolidate the young Republic by establishing relations with Lydenburg as well as the so-called "Psalmsingers" .
With schism in the air the young talented Paul Kruger (1825Kruger ( -1904) ) inter vened and came to the rescue.He supported Pretorius's endeavours to unite the striving parties in the young republic on the basis of a consti tution.He was already the ptower behind the constitutional movement which must inter alia prescribe the standards of Dordrecht as basis for ecclesiastical unity.He rejected the plan to secede in order to join the Ca{» Synod.Kruger might even have been informed about J. J. Venter's initiatives in the OFS and the support he had secured from the Schoeman party as well as from Lydenburg."Kruger envisaged a way to recognise conscientious differences on local level within the unity of the Transvaal Church.The proposed constitution promised to uphold the standards of the Sjmod of Dordrecht 1618/19 for the sake of unity of the church even when diversity in local worship should be allowed."He also reconciled the striving political parties in 1858 on the basis of a constitution.The idea to join the Ca{^ Synod lost impetus.Kruger believed that on the basis of local diversity and unity in the essentials, consolidation of the church and state was possible.
The Constitution of the Transvaal was unanimously accepted in 1858.The state would allow only ministers of religion who complied with the requirement about the standards of Dordrecht 1618/19.Kruger therefore suggested that the conscientious objectors accepting the Constitution, were granted the freedom to worship in a separate congregation, in accordance with their convictions.
When the news arrived that the rev D. Postma was on his way to the Government of the Transvaal, the Church Council of Rustenburg gave permission in August 1858 that he may officiate in a congregation accord ing to the wishes of the group who had opposed the rev Van der Hoff.This agreement was forwarded to the Government and endorsed by the Volksraad on 20 September 1858."There was hope in the air that a breach in church affairs had been avoided.
All the efforts endeavoured to solve the problems in connection with local worship and ministry.The institution of a denomination in opposition to the General Assembly recognised by the Constitution had not been considered or pursued.

THE D IE IS CAST IN TRANSVAAL 1858 -1859
According to the agreement at Rustenburg in August 1858 a committee under leadership of the Cmdt Paul Kruger should fetch the rev Dirk Postma from Natal.He was mandated by the CGK to offer help to the young state of Transvaal by providing in the dire need of ministers and teachers.Ironically, the Government had passed the notification of Postma's arrival on to the Church Council of Rustenburg who again transferred the obligation to a committee representing those who would be allowed to be administered to in a separate congregation.Although the CGK sent an official delegate to the authorities in the Transvaal he was beforehand officially destinated to serve as minister of a special congregation within the fellowship of the state church.If Postma did not please them, they were responsible for his return to Natal.If he complied with the requirements of the Constitution they could have him.*"Postma arrived in Transvaal in November 1858.In his diary he recorded his shock at realizing that the Transvaal church was on the brink of a secession.He may have sensed that his mission to Transvaal was al ready jeopardized in the way his reception was handled.He discussed the matter with Van der Hoff in a brotherly fashion and they agreed to settle the problems by means of indulgence.'®The General Assembly of the Transvaal Church gathered on the 11th of January 1859 in Pretoria in order to establish whether Postma would comply with the standards of the Synod of Dordrecht 1618/19.The chair man and only other minister present was Van der Hoff.He came from the NHK (state church) in the Netherlands who looked down with con tempt on the CGK where the rev Postma came from.In the two Dutch mimsters a clash between denominations was signalled.Van der Hoff must have loathed the idea of having a minister from the seceded CGK as his only colleague among a conservative Transvaal population, the more so because prospects were that more ministers from that side might arrive.For the first time, although initially unobserved, a de nominational factor of which Van der Hoff was very conscious as he had admitted in April 1858, began to play a part.''He had just settled a serious conflict with Lydenburg and president Pretorius on the issue of more than one minister in the church of state.He would not like to give up his position to ministers of the CGK of the Netherlands.He therefore had to play his hand cautiously.
It was a formality to establish that Postma adhered to the standards of Dordt 1618/19.Nobody commented on the breach of agenda when the chairman, in spite of the official agreement on this matter in September 1858, asked for Postma's view on the matter of singing Evangelical Hymns in public worship.Postma replied in writing (1) When a church is at peace with singing hymns, he would not pass judgement against such a church.
(2) To abide by the rule of the Church Order of Dordt (Art 69) would be the safest way.
(3) If some people have conscientious objections against hymns which are not based on Scripture, unity and love ought to impel others to cease singing such hymns.(4) If that is impossible to achieve, the matter should be left to the conscience of every minister to conduct services according to the situat I n d ie S k r if lig 1989, 23 (4) -71 ion in every congregation so as to prevent by all means secession for such a reason.
The Assembly then stated that the n h k would maintain its Evangelical Hymns because it was not a secessionist Christian Reformed Church.Thus the agreement of September 1858 was jeopardized, the singing of Hymns officially prescribed and compelled and the attempts of Presi dent Pretorius and Paul Kruger to achieve a modus vivendi by means of conscientious freedom within the unity of the state church were made undone.The assembly had cast the die.
The Í ) l l o ^g day fifteen prominent leaders including Commandant Paul Kruger, informed the General Assembly that they would depart from the "community of your church and desire to live as a Free Reformed Church (Vrye Gereformeerde Kerk) in accordance with the teachings, discipline and devotion of the fathers as revealed in the Synod of Dordt in 1618 and 1619" .They declared their heartfelt sorrow at the step taken but said that they believed and prayed that the existing mutual brotherly love between the two (take note) 'congregations' would not weaken and that with regard to the existing differences they would bear with one another in affection.They even prayed that God might again re-unite them in worship as well as in doctrine.They mentioned that the Com mission which had been appointed during August 1858 by the Hervormde Church Council of Rustenourg in connection with the rev Postma would henceforth act independently.It is remarkable that although the rev Postma belonged to the CGK they never envisaged or contemplated joining the CGK or founding such a denomination in South Africa.They did not look upon the church as a denomination or legal persona.No constitution was drafted or accepted on the 10th of February.They simply enrolled in order to receive the services of the rev Postma.Thw only had the passion to worship God according to their conscience.Their priority was the ministry of the congregation, according to the standards of the Synod of Dordrecht.'»' As far as the rev Postma was concerned, however, he was acquainted with the idea of a denomination.He therefore tried to draft a constitution and turned the Church Council on this purpose over to a General Assem bly on the 12th of February 1859."

SECESSION FROM THE DUTCH R E FO R M E D CHURCH IN THE OFS IN 1859
During May 1859 J. J. Venter and supporters of the same faith gathered at Torbrek near Bloemfontein, the farm of J. P. van der Walt, the ex opponent of the rev Reid in Colesberg.There was again no talk of joining the established CGK of the Netherlands nor even of joining the Reformed Church of Transvaal.They also simply assembled and ordained elders and deacons because they wanted to be recognised as another Free Reformed Church where the reformed religion is administered.'*The Government had to be notified of this event on special request by the members.They wanted to be an independent "Gereformeerdfe Gemeente die in Leer, Dienst en Tucht overeenkomt met de (Jereformeerde Kerk van Nederland, zooals die zich heeft geopenbaard te Dordrecht in de jaren 1618 en 1619 . . .De Kerkeraad van opgemelde gemeente beveelt zich met dezelve . . .aan de geeerbiedigde Overheid . .Assembly to restore unity by practising love and recognising the prin ciple of local freedom within the broader unity of the state church.The Government even invited ministers of the DRC from the Orange Free State as well as one from the Cape Colony, apparently to neutra ise Van der Hoff's dominance. This move proved to be a fatal one.Van der Hoff and the d r c ministers (one of which was the dominating and aggressive Hofmeyer of Colesberg) were allies in the campaign to isolate the "Doppers" and to dismiss influence from the CGK because they were traditionally linked to the Hervormde Church of the Netherlands.
Postma and Paul Kruger were summoned as witnesses to the meeting but treated as accused.They tried in vain to point out that they had seceded because of the "hierarchie of kerkheerschappy," the "overheersching en onregt" and the "onderdrukking der minderheid."They were not even listened to.The n h k and n g k ministers could not see past the question of the Hymnal which Postma and Kruger plainly did not regard the crucial issue.*'It is clear that Postma and Kruger approached the issue from the quality of ministries and church polity exercised while the Church Assembly dealt with denominational uniformity.
The Church Assembly resolved naively that the rev Postma could serve under the supervision of the rev Van der Hoff in a congregation within the structure of the n h k without using Evangelical Hymns.The Assem bly then notified the Government that the Reformed Church had thereby ceased to exist in Transvaal." Dit besluit worde genomen met het doel om de Nederlandsche Gereformeerde Kerk alhier met hare instellingen te handhaven aangezien de kerk niet is eene afgescheidene kerk."*'' The Reformed People in the z a r (GK) did not take this high-handed and offending resolution seriously.They simply pointed out that after seces sion had been forced on them they were not merely a n h k or n g k con gregation without hymns.Unity could only be restored on the foundation of the doctrine, service and discipline as established by the Synod of Dordt 1618 and 1619.They said that they had done everything to prevent a religious split.They had gone this far and were not prepared to abandon now anymore the Reformed freedom and institution they had founded.Considering the undeniable absence of unity in spirit and faith, an organisational unity could no longer be considered by them.*'Spiritual unity was the absolute condition for ecclesiastical unity which they longed to achieve.»*

IN CONCLUSION
The Doppers struggled as simple people during the 19th century against the sophisticated onslaught of liberalism and modernism.*'The n g k and NHK conceded nearly a century later officially that the Hymnal had to be revised on doctrinal grounds.*®The merits of the struggle and charac ter of the uneducated objectors without theological guidance changed the nickname 'Doppers' in the course of time to a name of honour.

The recurring refrain in their conscientious struggle was: a re the c h a n g es ( 'n u w ig h ^e ') w hich a r e fo rc e d upon us in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e te a c h
in g s o f th e H o ly S c r ip tu r e ?This repeated appeal was set aside over many years by various ecclesiastical bodies.They never gave Uie objectionists a fair trial nor did they try to understand, tolerate or appreciate their sincere beliefs.Until today the differences are reduced from the side of NGK and NHK to the question of the hymns (e.g.Van der Watt 1987).This perception may originate from the official endeavour to force the hymns by any means of the objectors.When the effort failed the object ors had to taJce the blame for the secession on account of the hymns.This is a misrepresentation.The truth is that ministers and ecclesiastical bodies forced secession on sincere believers by means of ecclesiastical pressure and procedures meant to enforce the hymns.The objectionists held on firmly to the basic principle of the Reformation, (i.e.article 7 of the Belgic Confession." ) The EnUghtment of the 18th Century changed the content of rehgion, the concept of authority and the perception of the church.The majority vote in the Presbytery and Synod replaced the s o la s c r ip tu r a principle as supreme authority in centralised church assemblies.A clash with the secluded Doppers who traditionally enjoyed individual freedom and local responsibility in sole obedience to the Word of God, was inevitable.Perhaps the most remarkable difference between these simple people and their sophisticated adversaries was their concern and care for the local ministry and worship.Their conduct was determined by the ques tion: " Is het naar Gods woord?" In contrast to this on strength of the General Assembly of the NHK in April 1859, it can be asserted that the ministers of religion tried to safe guard denominational structures according to the new denominational nature of the church introduced by De Mist in 1804 and the DRC Synod in 1824.One may make bold to state that this formal organisational and institutional concept of the church as an uniform body caused many se cessions and schisms in churches of reformed tradition during the 19th century, all over the Western world.Van der Watt'^ d escrib^ a wide range of different secessions in the DRC.In almost every case the domi nating cause for secession can be traced down to local resistance against dominance of centrahsed ecclesiastical bodies in a time when a strong sense of individual freedom and local responsibility still prevailed in rural and patriarchal communities.
The ecclesiastical bodies failed from 1841 to 1859 because the issues were not determined by the question whether the objectors were true believers and entitled on a ministry as ordained by Jesus Christ even when prohi bitions should be observed.Instead, acceptance of the Hymnal was made an absolute prerequisite to formal denominational unity.Uniformity in views upon a Hymnal was of greater importance than the unity of faith within tW body of Christ.
The objectionists were immensely sensitive to horisontal or human authority which tried to pressurise them into a compulsory religion."Perhaps because theological leadership was wanting among the Dop pers, they did not apply the marks of the true church as was done in the Netherlands in 1834'*< to a denominational church or a centralised synodical institution.They were concerned with local ministry, unity in faith, worship and discipline according to the norms of the Synod of Dordt 1618/19.
They could rejoice after a sermon of Postma: " Vandag hebben wij weder Smijtegeld gehoord."They believed that by upholding consentious responsibility they once again could worship the Lord according to their understanding of his Word.'*The Church Council in the Free State (where Vice-president Koos Venter was an elder) explained the reason for secession to prof.Helenius de Cock in the Netherlands on the 14th January 1860, inter alia like this; "In connection with the discipline in the church our lack of knowledge hampered us to detect exactly what was wrong in the numerous regu lations.Nevertheless, we were able to see and experience this ecclesias tical discipline to be of a worldly nature.We were forced simply because Synod had decided -if only it had been a regulation.It was too infre quently or never at all asked whether or not the decision was according to God's Word . . .If Synod or Presbytery had passed judgement we were compelled to obey ..." The result to this experience is today known as the Reformed Churches in South Africa (GKSA).The real issue from 1834 to 1860 was to a great extent the clash between simple.Godfearing people with fixed ideas and expectations in connection with ministry and worship in the local church as a body of Christ with sophisticated leaders who cherished the idea of uniformity in the church as an organisation under their leadership.

NOTES
k e S p o e ls tra , P o tc h e fs tro o m OPSOMMING Afskeiding en die Gereformeerde ('Dopper') Kerke in Suid-Afrika D ie A fs k e id in g v a n 1834 in N e d e r la n d h e t d ie k e n m e rk e v an d ie w are k e r k ( a r t. 29 n g b ) op d ie w e tlik o m ly n d e in s t it u u t v an d ie s ta a ts k e r k to e g e p a s.V olgens h ie r d ie m o d e l m o e s d ie m o t He took his example from Abraham and Lot and with no ill feelings resigned the Dutch Reformed Congregation of Bloemfontein."'A few families joined Venter in his withdrawal from the DRC.'"In the mean time, on the 10th of March 1858, Venter took action after he had obtained limited information from a Dutch immigrant about conservative ministers within the Netherlands.Already in 1856 Venter had extended on behalf of himself and Lydenburg an open invitation by calling on a certain rev Callenbach to come and minister the reformed gospel to Venter and those whom he represented.He asked the same day the Dutch elder Van Andel's support to obtain a minister of strict I n d ie S k r if lig 1989, 23 ( 4) -67 reformed convictions.^'The only requirement was that such a person should adhere to the traditional Reformed religion and public worship according to the standards of the Synod of Dordrecht 1618/19.
der Hoff in accordance with the norms laid down by what he .called "ons algemeen Sijnoden nationaal gehouden te Dordrecht in het jaar 16 honderd 18 en 19."He mentioned that for this reason he would be compelled to join a secession which was already taking place in Rus tenburg, most probably related to the positions taken by Lydenburg and J. J. Venter in the OP"S.Tension and discord erupted in different but in fluential parts of the young and still disorderly Republic of Transvaal.*În d ie S k r if lig 1989, 23 (4) -69 SECESSION MATERIALISES IN 1859 IN THE TRANSVAALOn the 10th of February 1859 three hundred and ten people enrolled in Rustenburg to be the Reformed congregation or church of the Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek.They elected elders and deacons and called upon the rev Dirk Postma of the c g k of the Netherlands to become their pastor."They notified the Government that this new congregation fully corresponded in doctrine, service and discipline with the Reformed Church as determined by the Synod of Dordrecht 1618 and 1619.

Although
Postma may have cherished the idea of denominational unity with Rustenburg,*" the ordinary people were motivated on congrega tional level to receive the ministry of Postma rather than to join a parti cular denomination.*'Denominational identity did not motivate the rank and file among the Doppers at this stage, SECESSION FROM THE DUTCH REFORM ED CHURCH IN THE CAPE COLONY 1860 Independent and autonomous congregations organised themselves like wise in the Cape Colony at Burgersdorp (January 1860), Middelburg and Colesberg (December 1860).Everyone of these local churches notified the Governor of the Cape Colony independently of existence without mentioning denominational unity among them.*^It is ironical that Coles berg, where the struggle had started, should be the last in the row of five autonomous, independent and free Reformed congregations or churches.COOPERATION AMONG THE FIVE CORRESPONDING CHURCHESEcclesiastical fellowship was established in 1862 between these five auto nomous churches when they adopted the Church Code (Kerkorde) of the Synod of Dordrecht 1619 as the common basis for a federal synodical fellowship, cooperation and mutual assistance in ecclesiological mat ters.*^This Church Code can in no ways be judged a constitution to esta blish a denomination.It is rather an agreement to ensure cooperation between local churches in certain ecclesiastical matters.This unity in inner conviction and outward cooperation across the exist ing colonial and political borders to which the other Afrikaans speaking Churches were confined, was of immense importance for future eccle siastical and cultural development in South Africa.IMMEDIATE EFFORTS TO RESTORE UNITYPresident M. W. Pretorius and his Government in the Transvaal imme diately called for another meeting of the (General Church Assembly in order to revise its decision of the 11th January 1859.The outcome of this decision violated on the one hand the official understanding of September 1858 and on the other jeopardized political unity which Pretorius hoped to achieve, even with the OFS.The Government instructed the General I n d ie S k r if lig 1989, 23 (4) -73