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

sus in fact is,— who forgives sins and trespasses and does not repent of those He calls and elects. I tell you, dear brother, and I write this with a humbled heart: I would be the most wretched of all people, I would not know in what direction to turn if God had not had pity on me, as He did in His dearly, dearly— beloved Son .... Dear brother, we want to live in the faith, pray in faith, also for our government, especially for our noble and much-loved Emperor [of whom we expected all help and deliverance for this earthly pilgrimage, and from whom it also came as we saw above— Petition of May 18, 1862] W. Bartel.” 3. In the meantime, during the spring of 1862, the false teaching of the so-called “liberated” and “strong ones,” a group of five leading brethren, J.B., J.K., H.B., J.M. and B.B., was exposed in its perversion through a scandalous lapse into sin by three persons (one of these brethren and two sisters). This “doctrine of freedom,” the name by which the “June Reforms” of 1866 subsequently condemned it, consisted of the following: “We are free of sin; it is dead. There is neither man nor §116 272 THE MENNONITE BRETHREN CHURCH §117 woman, but Christ is all and in all.” The four “free” brethren now most severely attacked the fifth, their “bosom friend” (as Wilhelm Bartel so dramatically describes them), after he had fallen into sin. They would not understand or admit that they also were guilty through their overzealous teaching and their own unwise and questionable behavior based on the assertion that sin could not entice them any longer. Wilhelm Bartel, now rightly so, exposed this fact to them unsparingly. Because the sinners had shown repentance, he did not want them excommunicated , which latter action, however, the four accomplished. One of the sisters doubtlessly was repentant; she also was forgiven. The other one, judging from the written material, was not; and the fallen brother justified himself (accusing the others of complicity in the misdemeanor because of their false teaching). He did this, in our opinion, in a too bold and insufficiently repentant manner, although he had endured frightful spiritual agony and felt keenly the shame and the hurt that he, formerly an eloquent witness to the Gospel, had caused to the Lord and His work. Later he was found utterly repentant and has long since become a useful member of the chinch in America, though holding a modest position. 4. We clearly perceive the course of this perversion in various documents and in the letters of Wilhelm Bartel, who, though more sober now, still lacked sufficient humility and self-understanding. He writes to Mrs. Claassen of Liebenau, May 7-8, 1862: . . That I have severed my relations with our brotherhood 79 you will already have heard . . . because they forcefully attempted to persuade me to agree with their dealings (against the three fallen ones). The two B's are very provoked and treat me (and the