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

confession of a true and living faith, not upon the basis of a memorized faith. Communion is a witness to a covenant with God and to the union of the Lord with His followers, as also to that of the believers with one another (not a sign of fellowship of believers with unbelievers as it is now practiced?). As proof, Claassen cites the Foundation of Christian Doctrine by Menno Simons, Vol. I, p. 121, which reads: ‘If anyone errs in doctrine or faith and is carnally-minded, he may in no wise be admitted to the company of God-fearing and repentant people, as I Cor. 5:11 and 10:20-21 teaches. According to Rev. 18:4 and II Cor. 6, secession is a duty and co mman d. Furthermore, the ban is to be practiced in the future as well, but not in such a manner as is the practice in some churches (which is scarcely credible!), that it condemns those who confess and repent of their sins while unrepentant ones continue to live in sin unhindered.’ Was Claassen right in making this demand? (Is his view an exaggerated one, and— as the majority of elders have alleged— one which originated in a one-sided interpretation of the Documentary Supplements 387 Scriptures? Does he contradict his own written confessions of faith? How was his speech finally received and what sort of answer was he given? Do the Mennonite confessions of faith and Holy Writ teach the errors of Claassen and his associates?) g) At a conference of elders, on January 18, 1860, the petition for recognition as a separate church was flatly denied, without any indication of reasons: ‘permission cannot be granted.’ Instinctively, one is led to ask: by what right do the other churches exist, each of whom has its own special hue? At the same time the Mennonite Area Administrative Office was asked to do everything possible to persuade them to give up their erroneous plans. The signatures of five elders grace this testimonium paupertatis. The signatures of the elders of Ohrloff and of the Kleine Gemeinde are missing. It is quite clear that, had the elders had an eye and an ear for that which, as an irrefutable and undisguised truth, was declared by their opponents, and had they begun to pave the way for the removal of abuses, an agreement would still have been possible, a schism would have been prevented, since the opponents had declared on January 23: ‘Everyone would have preferred to have remained in his own congregation, but since the ministers do not act according to the Word of God, our consciences will not allow us to stay and so we wish to establish our own church as Mennonites.’ Ought one to praise or even approve the fact that these people were turned over to the secular authorities in such an offhand manner? Why did the elders not rather judge the erring ones according to their own laws? When Pilate said to the Jewish leaders, ‘Take him and judge him according to your own laws,’ the Jews replied, ‘We are not permitted to kill anyone.’ Hopefully everyon