HPB-SB-14-96

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 14, p. 96	volume 14, page 96 vol. title: vol. period: 1882 pages in vol.: 174
Legend HPB note HPB highlighted HPB underlined HPB crossed out <Editors note> <Archivist note> Lost or unclear SBT, DT Restored

<<   ☰   >>

eng • рус

< “Shells.” (continued from page 14-95) >

“C. C. M.” It would be impossible to add to, or improve upon, his beautiful and complete exposition of these abstruse metaphysical subjects. His papers are an intellectual treat, and a boon to fellow-students.

It appears to me that after the sublime picture presented of the “Evolution of Man,” in the last “Fragments of Occult Truth,” in the Theosophist for October, the opponents of the Re-incarnation theory must find themselves driven into their “last trench,” or routed out entirely. If it be the necessity, the inevitable law of “human evolution,” there can be no escape from myriads of returns upon a series of planets, of “individual units” composing the human family, and Re-incarnation can no longer be disputed.

I would recommend the perusal of this “Fragment” to your readers. The grandeur and fascinating beauty of the picture there presented to the mind leaves one in the state of being lifted to a vast altitude, and gazing at an infinite prospect, lost in reverential awe and intense admiration, mingled with the deepest joy, and a wholesome sense of one’s own littleness. In contemplating the vastness of this mere sketch, human life becomes extended to an infinitude of grandeur, worthy of its Divine Originator, and the small schemes of creation believed in by some o our more orthodox friends sink into puerile insignificance.

November 20th, 1882.

C. G.

<[Blue curved stroke beside the signature.]>

–––––––

THE PHILOSOPHIC INQUIRER.
SUNDAY, December 24, 1882.

Joseph Cook:

REPORTS AND CRITICISMS.

Supplementary Selection.

[Complementary to “Reports and Criticisms”
issued by the Melbourne Committee.]

II.

From Sydney he [Joseph Cook] proceeded to Melbourne, where he again delivered his stereotyped lectures, and there once more refused to step out of the ring within which he has entrenched himself. A deputation of gentlemen awaited on Mr. Cook’s agent, to request him to meet Mr. Thomas Walker in discussion, Mr. Cook sent a reply to his agent, the slanderous calumny and insulting language of which no gentleman except Joseph Cook would be the author. The following correspondence appeared in the Melbourne Age, August 5th, 1882.:—

Mr. Cook’s Letter.

Melbourne, Australia,

‘July 31, 1882.

Dear Sir,—As you are annoyed by challenges sent to be presented to me, I authorise you, as my agent, to make the following replies to the Spiritualists and infidels and representatives of so-called free-thought, when they insist on inviting me into public debate on the platform:—

1st. Freethought, Spiritualism and infidelity in general in America, England and India, and, as far as I know, in Australia, are notoriously connected with schemes for the propagation of immorality. Several of the prominent agitators in support of infidelity and freethought have been sent to gaol for distributing infamous publications through the mails. No decent man can consent to appear on the same platform with the representatives of enterprises that have a debasing effect on the public mind.

<[An ink stroke beside “general” extends above “in” and into the right margin.]>

2. I am not open to challenges of which the evident object is to advertise infidelity.

3. Not an unoccupied nor an unengaged hour is left open to me in Australia.

4. When infidels of any kind issue a book that goes through ten editions in ten years, as a dollar copy, I will reply to it. I have a right to offer this challenge, for several of the volumes of the Boston Monday Lectures have gone through ten editions in five years.

5. Infidels can put their written inquiries, if they choose, into the box at my free question-box lectures.

Yours truly,

JOSEPH COOK.

Mr. W. G. Marsh, Melbourne.

Mr. Walker’s Reply.

W. G. Marsh, Esq.

Dear Sir,—Permit me, through you, to inform the Rev. Joseph Cook that the way to answer infidelity is to meet it, and silence it on the fair field of battle. To abuse it and denounce it simply to an audience of Christians when the other side is “gagged” is like maligning the lamb to a jury of wolves.

I would further say that the reasons Mr. Cook gives for not accepting my challenge appear very much like abuse inspired by cowardice, with the exception of No. 3.

His reasons given in No. 1 require proof, and for this fair discussion is necessary. I call upon the Rev. Joseph Cook to prove in debate, if he can, that “freethought in America, England and India is notoriously connected with schemes for the propagation of immorality.” Dare the Rev. Joseph Cook name the infidels who “have been sent to gaol for distributing infamous publications through the mails?” He says there are “several prominent” ones. Who are they? and dare he inform the public what the “infamous publications” were? Were not some of them simply extracts from the Bible without comment?

His reason given in No. 2 is an old one. He gave it in England and India, to Chas. Bradlaugh and others. Surely infidelity would not be advertised if he demolished it in fair debate.

No. 4 is despicable. Did Jesus write a book? Was his mission therefore undeserving of notice? How many editions did Newton’s Principia go through in 50 years? Does Mr. Cook mean to tell us that his “Monday Lectures” are better than Herbert Spencer’s “Descriptive Sociology,” which has been a loss to the author of some thousands of pounds? It seems to me that the evident object of Mr. Cook is to advertise the Boston Monday Lectures. The modesty of Mr. Cook in this respect is unequalled. Infidels must write a book and wait for ten years before he will deign to appear on the same platform with them, as if the popularity of a book proved the truth of its contents. If it did, how will Joseph Cook compare with Ouida? The founder of Christianity was a friend of publicans and sinners. The Rev. Joseph Cook, of Boston, is evidently a little prouder.

Mr. Cook concludes his letter by saying that infidels can, if they choose, put their inquiries into the question box. Good and well. If they do, will he answer all their questions? He did not at Sydney. And after he has done so, will he permit me to show the failures of his answers?—Yours truly,

THOS. WALKER.

Reply of the Deputation.

Melbourne, August 2, 1882.

Dear Sir,—After waiting in vain for a copy of your reply to our request that you would publicly meet Mr. Walker in debate, we have been enabled, by perusing the copy published in the Daily Telegraph of to day, to frame our answer.

We deeply deplore and indignantly resent the insulting terms in which you have couched your refusal. We deplore them because we feel that your effort to arouse bad feeling and recrimination must tend to obscure the truth, and we indignantly resent them because of the base and unmanly insult that you have gratuitously cast upon an orderly and respectable gathering of 2,000 citizens of Melbourne.

We feel sure that every right thinking man, be he Christian or not, must blush at the spectacle of one who aspires to be the follower of the meek and lowly Jesus basely covering his moral cowardice by the imputation of mean motives. For refutation of the further grounds of your refusal we have referred your reply to the notice of your challenger, Mr. Thomas Walker, who will doubtless meet them.

We are, dear sir, Yours truly,

JAS. DONOVAN,

A Member of Deputation.

This correspondence requires no comment, any thinking mind will see that his reasons for not meeting Mr. Walker and others in debate, are most unsatisfactory.

In his lectures Joseph Cook shows his hatred and contempt for those who differ from him in opinion by showering upon them such a list of vulgar abusive names that it would be impossible for any one, not as well up in the vocabulary of abuse as himself to repeat.

“He called us vipers, serpents, toads, devils, fiends, nuisances, poisonous reptiles, venomous wretches, and a long list of similar names. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I would not pretend to insult the great body of Christian clergymen, by assuming that he is in any respect the model of their methods or manners. Many, if not all the ministers of religion, are educated men and gentlemen, and I should grossly libel them, if I supposed them capable of imitating Mr. Cook by conducting an attack against the faith of millions of their fellow-mortals by gross abuse and vituperative epithets, or of discrediting a great cause by calling its advocates vulgar names,”—See Emma Hardinge Britten’s answer to lecture, “Does death end all?” in Religio-Philosophical Journal, September 8th, 1880, The “Chicago Paper” he would not name, because he would not advertise the “noxious vermin” that conducted it.

We now come to his proposed visit to Brisbane. The Rev. Mr. Griffith received a letter from a Mr. Reeve, in which he stated that the Rev. Joseph Cook was open to an engagement. [Vide Telegraph, August 15.] A meeting of Ministers and others interested was called for the<... continues on page 14-97 >

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  The Age, Melbourne, August 5, 1882, p. 3