of the Royal Society. In the days preceding the Plymouth quarrel he had been a well-known preacher among the London Brethren. His judgment was strong against Newton’s line, whether in doctrine or in church management, though it is uncertain whether he ever approved of Darby’s proceedings. Robert Howard, at the time of the Bath meeting, was probably inclined to go further in support of Darby than either he or his brother afterwards found it possible to do. Indeed Darby’s circular alienated many influential men who might have tolerated, even if they could not have approved, his strange course at Plymouth.
When it became known that Groves had been admitted at Tottenham, Dorman wrote to John Howard, intimating that Tottenham came under the ban of excommunication. The ground of action was that Groves was “identified” with the “condition of things at Bethesda”. Ere long this would have been quite enough of itself, but as yet a makeweight was still of some value. Dorman accordingly added,—“more especially as he has been challenged on the score of holding and teaching false doctrines, and on other grounds, by brethren whose judgment I feel bound to respect”.
To this intimation Howard replied, asking Dorman if he were prepared to substantiate these charges before the church and in the presence of the accused. Dorman replied that he was willing to give account of anything he had said, but “at a proper time and in a proper place”. Tottenham could not be such a place, “in my present position towards it,” as Dorman euphemistically puts it. He expressed a hope that an investigation might be held at some other place, such as Bristol. Howard’s reply was pungent. “Your present position is that of one who brings charges … against a brother, which you refuse to
