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