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

hich in its co mmuni on services and in everything else is serving the devil, so as not to fall under God’s judgment with it.’ 159 We here do not know of any alleged desire by the withdrawing Documentary Supplements 379 members, other than the one mentioned above, for a ‘renewal because of the many prevailing practices concerning baptism and communion that are not in agreement with the teaching of Menno’ [quoted from the Friedensglocke ], 160 And a renewal according to their understanding and taste would have been inadmissible in any case, k) In Russia it is not up to the Mennonite church elders nor up to the individual churches or even the total Mennonite brotherhood to permit or deny the formation of new sects. This right belongs exclusively to the highest authorities in the land, who on the basis of the confession of faith submitted to them and the evidence given to them by the Prussian government [when? how?] granted a special privilege to the Mennonites. But this was not meant to open the door and gate to every conceivable fanatical sect among them. And so it became the duty of the church elders, after every effort to bring these members who had seceded back to order and sobriety had failed, to regard them as people not belonging to any Christian church organization and to report them as such to the Area Administration Office according to 2 Thess. 3:14. This was done by five church elders on January 18, 1860, with the request that the Area Administrative Office try to dissuade these seceders from their erring intention to form their own church of the saints. 1) When the kind efforts of the Area Administrative Office failed as well, the Inspector of the Colonies summoned three men who had been designated as leaders by the seceded members to appear before him on February 10, 1860. 161 There the three personally signed a promise ‘that they would not separate from the Mennonite church fellowship; that they would not perform any spiritual functions; and that in religious matters they would not undertake any step that was forbidden by the church leaders, unless they had first obtained an express authorization from higher authorities.’ m) Heedless of their promise, the seceded members conducted an election of ministers on May 30, 1860, and reported to the church-elders on June 2 of the same year that in so doing they had now organized themselves as an independent church. 162 n) Since these seceded members, by virtue of the written promise made by the three leaders to the Colonial Inspector, had been returned by the latter to the supervision of the churches by a letter on February 10, 1860, sub No. 1194, they were called to account by the churches for their illegal election of ministers and for violating their promise. They were admonished to submit to all divine and ecclesiastical order for the sake of conscience. But the three designated as directors of the association claimed not to have violated