THE MENNONITE BROTHERHOOD IN RUSSIA (1789 - 1910), P. M. Friesen, 1911

lieve that it should be addressed to the civil authorities. I can give no other answer to the fourth point than the one I have already given in the statement of March 29 of this year, which I here repeat verbatim: ‘The means [. . . identical to the document of March 29, to . . .] to the praise of the pious. Blumstein, December 30, 1860. Johann Harder, elder.’ 6. The following document once again answers the specific question §101 regarding the attitude of the “brethren” to the Mennonite confession of faith with great clarity: “To all of the church elders of the Molotschna Mennonite Colony: Greetings in Christ, who shall have the preeminence in all things! Col. 1:18. Since we are in complete agreement with the present confession of faith and not only believe in it but also desire to act in accordance with it, we ask you herewith and request permission from our superiors to move away from here— would you, for your part, place any obstacles in our path? Liebenau, January 1, 1861. Heinrich Huebert, minister, Jakob Becker, minister.” 248 THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH §102 7. Meanwhile Claassen labored spiritedly in St. Petersburg for over a year to acquire land— whether by lease, purchase, or from the crown— and the right to emigrate before he, of necessity, began to complain about the local authorities. For some time even Amur was under consideration as a place of settlement, with the captain of a Danish sailing vessel having already been contacted to take them there “around Africa.’’ The Suez Canal, the trans-Siberian Railway— these were then all enigmas of the future! It must be stressed that these “thoughts about emigration,” corresponding to Huebert's and the brethren’s “concepts of the Kingdom” in general, were brought into ideological connection with the coming of the Lord and the preceding apostasy and regarded as an article of faith, though of secondary or even lesser importance. Bartel of Berdiansk compared Claassen to Moses, and foretold the ingratitude that would be his. Likewise Reimer of Gnadenfeld, who repeatedly compared him with Zinzendorf. This was the prevailing sentiment throughout the new congregation. Claassen pursued the matter most realistically in St. Petersburg, presenting it at first exclusively as a consequence of the burning issue of the current land shortage. (The “land question” was then just surfacing in the Molotschna.) Only with the utmost reluctance did he link the issue with the oppression resulting from the “secession,” because the refusal on the part of the Area Administrative Office to issue him and his companions passports had irresistibly forced him in this direction. (He sought advice only from Privy Councillor Hahn, and it was only later that he informed him of his predicament.) Thus asserts Privy Councillor A. Klaus in the officious book, Unsere Kolonien, who, as an official of the Ministry of Crown Lands, to whom the Mennonites, as all other colon