Rowbotham's words do stand for themselves.
From Rowbotham:
"If, after the severest criticism, and comparison with known causes of phenomena, the Scriptures are thus found to be absolutely truthful in their literal expressions, it is simply just and wise that we take them as standards by which to test the truth or falsehood of all systems or teachings which may hereafter be presented to the world. Philosophy is no longer to be employed as a test of Scriptural truth, but the Scriptures ought and may with safety and satisfaction be applied as the test of all philosophy. They are not, however, to be used as a test of science and philosophy simply because they are thought or believed to be written or dictated by inspiration, but because their literal teachings in regard to natural phenomena are demonstrably true."
"If, after the severest of criticism"
Who could disagree with this?
The teachings should be "demonstrably true."
Again, who can disagree with this?
On the spiritual and moral teachings Rowbotham says:
"If the truth of the philosophy [Victorian era word for "science"] of the Scriptures can be demonstrated, then, possibly, their spiritual and moral teachings may also be true; and if so, they may, and indeed must, have had a Divine origin; and, therefore, there must exist a Divine Being, a Creator and Ruler of the physical and spiritual worlds; and that, after all, the Christian religion is a grand reality."
Rowbotham tells us that it is faulty to push religion based on belief:
"It is quite as faulty and unjust for the religious devotee to urge the teaching of Scripture against the theories of the philosopher simply because he believes them to be true, as it is for the philosopher to defend his theories against Scripture for no other reason than that he disbelieves them. The whole matter must be taken out of the region of belief and disbelief. In regard to elements and phenomena belief and disbelief should never be named. Men differ in their powers of conception and concatenation; and, therefore, what may readily be believed by some, others may find impossible to believe. Belief is a state of mind which should be exerted only in relation to matters confessedly beyond the direct reach of our senses, and in regard to which it is meritorious to believe. But in reference to matter, and material combinations and phenomena, we should be content with nothing less than conviction, the result of special practical experimental investigation."
Rowbotham says that belief without evidence is a fallacy.
Picking out quotes of "therefore this is the conclusion" without showing the preceding sentences of "if this turns out to be true," and without context of the entire work which strongly champions the evidence of fact, is pretty childish and deceptive, in my opinion.
Rowbotham is actually very rational on the subject. It is his opponents who are irrational liars, screaming "Biblical Literalist REEEEE!!"
Pretty pathetic that the RE must resort to lies and attempted character assassination since they can't contradict the body work.