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

addition he tried to reverse the decisions of the brotherhood meetings which were praiseworthy and did not contradict the Word of God. Even as recently as a year ago, just before his separation from the brotherhood and at a time when M. already counted on that separation, he tried to cause a split, which however failed, so that the church, because of such dealings, Documentary Supplements 441 felt compelled to ban him. But even after his reinstatement, he recently transgressed in the matter regarding Huebert as well as in other things, wherefore at the brotherhood meeting on June 1 and 2 of this year, he was told that because his actions had caused such manifold damage and offense, he should hence forth not speak in the meetings or in the brotherhood, but must remain quiet, as he had already promised before his reinstatement. “In conclusion we only mention that we praise and thank God, that the so-called ‘doctrine of Antinominianism’ which some of our brethren and sisters misused as early as a year after our secession 220 and in so doing unfortunately succumbed to the flesh, whereby the Kingdom of God obviously sustained great damage, stopped four years ago 221 and no longer has any representatives. Those souls who had strayed into this evil, confessed their wrong at the time of M’s excommunication and received forgiveness. “Those resolutions were read publicly at a brotherhood meeting in Gnadenheim on August 4, 1865." Thus far the “June Reforms.” 11 (2). A Note Concerning (6.) “Shouting for Joy.” One should note how carefully the fact of shouting for joy as well as other minor details have been recorded! Claassen clung with fanatical determination to these childish practices which had already become orthodox ritual. Taken by themselves, they were pure adiaphora— insignificant forms or "middle things,” neither good nor evil— but in our own culture, given our present temperament and practices, as unthinkable as the clothes worn by the holy ones of God in the Orient (as well as in the Greco- Roman world): an Abraham, a Paul and his contemporaries, both male and female. Given our present traditions and customs and our psychological frame of mind, we would find their mode of dress grossly immodest and highly provocative and therefore, sinful. In similar fashion we could not eat while “reclining on couches.” The phrase we are given reads “And they sat at table” but in the original text it is "And they reclined.” This information is given for those “Huepfer” and their offended antagonists, as well as for the “breadbreakers” and those who think that everyone speaking one of our European tongues should be addressed with the informal “you,” etc., etc. The old languages have no equivalent for our present “Thou” (or the German “Sie”]; as, for example, the Dutch have no such term as “Thou,” but address God with “ye”— “Gij.” All of this is mere “quarrel about Caesar's beard,” and even less meaningful