distance had a full right to enquire into local dispute;[1] but even this stopped far short of asserting that it was competent to any meeting in the country to summon before it any accused member of any other meeting. It is perhaps not difficult to detect an undertone of misgiving in that sentence of Dormant letter which I have printed in italics. The pretext could hardly have thoroughly imposed on a such duller man.
The subsequent course pursued at Rawstorne Street is almost incredible. Dorman had requested an immediate reply on the ground that Darby had been asked to stay in London until it came. Soltau accordingly, on Newton’s behalf, sent a short note on the 25th,[2] intimating that the reply, which he promised to despatch “with the least possible delay,” would be a refusal. Dorman actually took advantage of this courteous intimation to withhold the real reply altogether. Without even waiting for it, he informed the Rawstorne Street meeting that Newton had refused; “adding that, without judging upon the charges, a person that refused to meet them must lie under them—that he could not receive reasons for not meeting them; … that after what had passed, if Mr. Newton came to Reading or Oxford, … he as an individual would not break bread with Mr. Newton”. The full reply—a very long document—reached Dorman on the 27th. Dorman intimated to Clulow that it would not be used, and the Brethren at Rawstorne Street took action in ignorance of its content—that is, in ignorance of Newton’s real answer to their citation. If the church knew that such a document was in the hands of their
- ↑ This principle does not seem to have been at any time acted on at Bethesda, Bristol, and Newton’s attitude towards it was vacillating, to say the least; but Darby might fairly claim it as an original principle of Brethrenism.
- ↑ Darby, Coll. Writ. Eccl., iv., p. 132, says “24th”.
