Hello to all friends here at Brethren Archive.

I would like to know how reliable (historically) is Roy Huebner's "J.N. Darby Precious Truths Revived and Defended", available at Present Truth Publishers.

Volume I "Revival of Truth 1826-1845" https://www.presenttruthpublishers.com/pdf/Darby_Precious_Truths_v1.pdf
Volume II "Defense of Truth 1845-1850" https://www.presenttruthpublishers.com/pdf/Darby_Precious_Truths_v2.pdf
Volume III "Defense of Truth 1858-1867" https://www.presenttruthpublishers.com/pdf/Darby_Precious_Truths_v3.pdf 

Obviously, the judgments he made regarding the events are according to his particular "TW" views. My question is more related to the historic events per se.

Andre 

I have these but it is quite some time since I last read them, possibly as long ago as the late 1990s. 

While I take it that Mr Huebner's historical research is generally factual based (at least in these three volumes), I find him rather caustic when he is in disagreement with others. Certainly, in his account of later divisions among the "exclusive brethren" he regarded his "TW" views the correct ones, his section of the "brethren" being the right one according to him, he having always been on the right side in every division. 

His view of the teachings of BWN in volume 2, which with RAH I deem seriously erroneous, having access to BWN's tracts as well as the Fry manuscripts at the CBA, and the account of events at Plymouth followed by the "Bethesda Question" so-called, I would in the main from my own researches have little quarrel with him, as similarly with the 1866 debacle in volume 3, but his sarcasm which comes in from time to time is not helpful, and this latter would show his "TW" bias. 

Mark 

Paul vigorously defended the truth in his writings to the churches or concerning individuals. Historically what he wrote was of course perfectly true. We know, for example, when, how and why he confronted Peter on his separation. More importantly, Paul expounded the truth which Peter could not deny. If what Huebner wrote is, or is not the truth, let it be proven.

But, historically, the “Brethren” will propose, hypothesise, defend, argue and divide as they’ve done for more than a century and a half. Some will agree with Huebner, others not. But what I’ve found and have a settled mind about, is to test everything that Mr Darby (and others) wrote in his writings (letters, commentaries, etc), and to test it against Scripture to the best of my knowledge. And, if there are credible witnesses (“that in the mouth of two or three witnesses”) to historical events, who am I to find fault? “Remember them which .... have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.” (Heb 13:7).

Any view of a person, “exclusive” or “open” is by the way. Today, more than ever before, when the faith once delivered to the saints is assailed, we need to embed ourselves in the Scriptures.