The higher critic (I speak now of the rule and not of the exceptions) begins his investigations with his opinion already formed.  After he has discarded the Bible because he cannot harmonize it with the doctrine of evolution, he labours to find evidence to support his preconceived notions.  In matters of religion the higher critic is usually a “dyspeptic.”  The Bible does not agree with him; he has not the spiritual fluids in sufficient quantity to enable him to digest the miracle and the supernatural.  He is a doubter and spreads doubts.

Dr. Franklin Johnson, in Volume 2, of “Fundamentals” says (pages 55, 56, 57):  “A third fallacy of the higher critics is the doctrine concerning the Scriptures which they teach.  If a consistent hypothesis of evolution is made the basis of our religious thinking, the Bible will be regarded as only a product of human nature working in the field of religious literature.  It will be merely a natural book."...

Again:  “Yet another fallacy of the higher critics is found in their teachings concerning the Biblical miracles.  If the hypothesis of evolution is applied to the Scriptures consistently, it will lead us to deny all the miracles which they record."...

And:  “Among the higher critics who accept some of the miracles there is a notable desire to discredit the virgin birth of our Lord, and their treatment of this event presents a good example of the fallacies of reasoning by means of which they would abolish many of the other miracles.”

Professor Reeve, in a strong article in Volume 3 of “Fundamentals” (pages 98, 99) tells us of his own excursion into the fields of higher criticism, of his disappointment and of his glad return to the interpretations of the Bible that are generally accepted.  Speaking of his first impressions, he says: 

“The critics seemed to have the logical things on their side.  The results at which they had arrived seemed inevitable.  But upon closer thinking, I saw that the whole movement, with its conclusion, was the result of the adoption of the hypothesis of evolution."...

“It became more and more obvious to me that the great movement was entirely intellectual, an attempt in reality to intellectualize all religious phenomena.  I saw also that it was a partial and one-sided intellectualism, with a strong bias against the fundamental tenets of Biblical Christianity.  Such a movement does not produce that intellectual humility which belongs to the Christian mind.  On the contrary, it is responsible for a vast amount of intellectual pride, an aristocracy of intellect with all the snobbery which usually accompanies that term.  Do they not exactly correspond to Paul’s word, ’vainly puffed up in his fleshly mind and not holding fast the head, etc.’  They have a splendid scorn for all opinions which do not agree with theirs.  Under the spell of this sublime contempt they think they can ignore anything that does not square with their evolutionary