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

ists, were then subject, knew Claassen well. §103 8. The five elders set forth their reasons for not being able to recognize the “brethren” as Mennonites in the following way: “To the Supervisory Commission in Odessa: We can no longer recognize Claassen and his accomplices [com- panions] as Mennonites for the following reasons: 1) In their document of January 6, 1860, they state literally: ‘therefore we dissociate ourselves entirely from this corrupt church.’ 48 2) In accordance with Matt. 13:24-30 we believe that such as do not possess the true faith will also be found in a Christian church and therefore extend holy communion to all those who have been baptized upon their acknowledged confession of faith and do not live in manifest sin. The secessionists, however, teach: ‘Holy communion can only be extended to the true believers,’ and therefore label the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in our congregations a devil’s service. 49 3) In our congregations it has always Difficulties and Victory 249 been the custom to pour water upon the head of the baptismal candidate. These teach, however: To baptize means to immerse [compare further XX: ‘Baptism’], and have now begun to immerse, hither and yon in the streams of the steppes, not only the unbaptized youth, but to rebaptize by immersion all those who have long since been admitted to the church through baptism. 4) . . . [Here the five elders censure— and justifiably so— certain degenerate elements in the worship services of the brethren; cf. H115 further concerning this: ‘The Movement of Excessive Exuberance’ in the M.B. Church] . . . ‘But since we immediately notified the governmental authorities of them at their inception, we earnestly protest being in any way responsible for them. To this our statement we add the following request: that the governmental authorities initiate appropriate disciplinary measures 50 so that those who have left the church lose their harmful influence upon our congre- gations. 51 However, should they arrive at the point— which until now was not to be expected— where they should desire once again to join our congregations in the manner prescribed by our church, we would be more than willing to readmit them to our fellowship. Given June 10, 1861. The church elders: Ratzlaff, Toews, Wedel, Warkentin, Lenzmann.” 9. Pastor Dobbert, in the document cited above, expresses his opinion with regard to the actions of the five elders: . . . “It is clearly evident from this report [concerning the above events] that Claassen and his adherents did not enter the conflict with carnal weapons; he had clearly articulated and denounced the breakdown of church discipline, the Achilles heel [the weakest point] of the church, and had insisted upon reform. [The pastor finds it hardly credible that contrite souls, who blame themselves, are placed under the ban, as indeed happened in many of the congregations, and then continues]: Was Claa