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 hypothesis. The center of gravity of their thinking is
in the theoretical, not in the religious; in reason, not in faith.