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

ich were prohibited by the church elders without the express permission of the higher authorities. At the same time the inspector demanded from all district and church elders a written answer to the following questions: 1. What is actually the essence of this movement? 2. What kind of harmful consequences for the Mennonite brotherhood as a whole could arise through this movement? 3. What disciplinary measure must be taken to bring about the dissolution of this movement, and is it necessary to treat the leaders as disturbers of the common peace and order? It cannot be denied that the inspector proceeded very cautiously; the government did not act according to any preconceived notions. Its questions reveal that it wished very much to avoid rash action. Only after acquring insight into the situation, to which insight the answers received from the church elders and the Area A dminis trative Office were to contribute, did they intend to take suitable action. But what kind of information did the inspector receive? At the moment I have in my possession the explanations of the Area Administrative Office and of the Association as well as that of the church elders. The explanation of the former reads: ‘It is our opinion that, as far as the dissolution of this movement is concerned, one must proceed against the founders as well as against some of the most restless members as disturbers of the common Documentary Supplements 389 peace and order, according to law; however without taking their colony citizenship status from them, because the threat of corrective punishment could possibly lead them to the realization of their erring ways and cause them to turn about.’ The explanation of the church elders was entitled, ‘From all the church elders of the Molotschna District,’ but bears only the signatures of five elders; two names are missing, both of whom disagreed with the explanation of the five elders of March 11, 1860, and submitted their private vote— the Ohrloff Church on March 25 and 29, 1860, and that of the Kleine Gemeinde on March 24, 1860— to the Area Administrative Office, k) A striking deception 170 appears to have taken place in that it is likely that the government never became aware of these documents ; at any rate I did not find them among the documents which the inspector so kindly gave to me. And since the statement of the five elders, as the sequel makes clear, is so completely different in the perception and treatment of the sect in question from that of the other elders, the Area Administrative Office obviously bears the responsibility for the fact that the requests of the government were not fully complied with. If one were to argue that the majority of the elders ought in any case to decide this matter, then a precedent would be set which would upset all of our church practices; for in matters of faith numbers are not decisive but rather obedience to the Word of God. If, in respect to the c