I do not understand how that religion can be regarded as a member of a Parliament of Religions without assuming the equality of the other intended members and the parity of their position and claims. Then again, your general program assumes that the Church of Rome is the Catholic Church, and treats the Protestant Episcopal Church of America as outside the Catholic Church. I presume that the Church of England would be similarly classified : and that view of our position is untenable.
Beyond this, while I quite understand how the Christian Religion might produce its evidences before any assembly, a "presentation" of that religion must go far beyond the question of evidences, and must subject to public discussion that faith and devotion which are its characteristics, and which belong to a region too sacred for such treatment. I hope that this explanation will excuse me with you for not complying with your request.
A careful and, as many believed, conclusive reply to these positions, was sent by the Rev. F. Herbert Stead, to the Review of the Churches. A summary of his argument, made by the Chairman for The Advance, is as follows:
The three grounds of refusal to cooperate in this movement are taken up by Mr. Stead and shown to be untenable. One is that Christianity is too sacred for such treatment as it will receive in the Parliament. He shows that the treatment proposed is to be fraternal, devotional, courteous, It seems to him a sacred opportunity for unfolding the Master's truth.
The second reason for refusal appears nominal and not real. It is this, that the Church of Rome is referred to as the Catholic Church. To call the churches by the names which they themselves take is only an act of courtesy. Of course the Congress is not committed to the idea " that the Roman is the true and only Catholic Church," or " to the idea that the Anglican is the sole and exclusive Church of England." "Only a rudeness wholly gratuitous would impute to his Grace any desire to prescribe names for other churches."
But the real objection of the Archbishop is that Christianity, being "the one religion," cannot be regarded as a member of a Parliament of Religions, without assuming the equality of the other intended members. To this Mr. Stead replies that no man will attend the Parliament and be expected or supposed "to regard all other faiths as equal to his own." "The case is precisely the contrary." Again, "The Parliament of Religions simply recognizes the fact, which is indisputable, that there are on this planet a number of religions, among which Christianity numerically counts one. It tries to epitomize that fact in a single room. If the Christian ought not to recognize in a single room what he perforce recognizes in God's earth as a whole, then he must logically class all other religions under the category of things that have no right to be. But such an attitude
