CONGRES INTERNATIONAL D’HISTOIRE DES RELIGIONS. 29 
Ath, M. A. Sabatier read a paper upon “ Biblical Criticism and 
the Science of Religion,’ in which he treated the subject very 
exhaustively. He began by showing how Biblical criticism 
had been at. first dogmatic, aiming at a reconciliation of the 
texts which seemed to contradict each other. Compelled to 
apply philology to the study of the text, criticism freed 
‘itself from dogma, and became rationalist. Finally it simply 
took a historical character, not seeking a sense according 
with established doctrine, or with modern ideas, but seeking 
to replace the documents in the surroundings among which 
they had their birth. 
These statements were illustrated by examples giving the 
results acquired by the criticisms referred to. These were, 
the composition of the Pentateuch, the nature and the 
signification of the Apocalypse, the genesis of the primitive 
Catholic Church, and the formation of the Gospels. He 
strove to show how Biblical criticism, making clear the 
intimate relations between the religions of the Bible and the 
world around, naturally resulted in the science of religion in 
general, Such criticism exercised, therefore, a pacific action, 
setting forth, as it did, what was valid and _ luistorically 
necessary in all forms of religion. 
To many among my audience this will naturally seem to 
be a matter of opinion. There can be no doubt that Biblical 
criticism is of great value, but the question perforce arises 
whether this has conduced to a. pacific (irénique) result. 
And it is equally doubtful whether it wiil do so in the 
future. That it may help to show what is valuable and 
historically necessary is possible, and even probable; but 
will the various Christian sects accept this, and is it not 
likely to lead to further religious disputes? The odin 
theologicum, as we know well, has passed into a proverb. 
Exceedingly interesting was M. Jean Réville’s report upon 
the present state of the teaching of religious history in 
Kurope and America. This study was a favourite one in 
England, where, however, it has no professors, and though 
studied in Germany, it is not in reality officially recognised. 
Though it has made considerable progress during the last 
quarter of a century, it is still far from occupying its proper 
place. The lecturer distinguished three types of teaching 
with regard to the science of the history of religion, namely, 
teaching of a theclogical nature born in the theological 
faculties of Holland; the strictly historical type which saw 
the light in France; and, lastly, the varied American type, 
