HPB-SB-14-88

H. P. Blavatsky Scrapbooks

from Adyar archives of the International Theosophical Society

T i

vol. 14, p. 88	volume 14, page 88 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

< Joseph Cook: Reports and Criticisms. (continued from page 14-87) >

to some principle which it is not always easy for the reader to discover, but which has always, doubtless, some reference to their supposed bearings upon the peculiar kind of orthodoxy of which Mr. Cook appears as the champion. There are some writers whom Mr. Cook thinks it necessary always to berate, no matter what they say.

Mr. Fiske then goes on to prove what he states, by quoting parts of Mr. Cook’s lectures and then by giving the exact words of the writers from whom Mr. Cook makes quotations. Mr. Fiske concludes:—

If we were to go through with Mr. Cook’s volumes in detail we should find little else but misrepresentations of facts, misconceptions of principles, and floods of tawdry rhetoric. . . . . . . I have not treated him seriously, or with courtesy, because there is nothing in his matter, or in his manner, that would justify, or even excuse, a serious method of treatment. The only aspect of his career, which really affords matter for grave reflection, is the ease with which he succeeded for the moment in imposing on the credulity, and in appealing to the prejudices of his public.

This article has been published in pamphlet form, and many thousands have been sold. Every person should procure and read this pamphlet* as it will give them a good idea, to use one of his own vulgar words, [see Lecture on “Future Punishment”] of Mr. Cook’s blatherskyte.

When in England, Mr. Cook refused to discuss with Mr. Bradlaugh, under the plea that he had no wish to advertise infidelity. Really this is rather amusing that the “great Champion of Orthodoxy” should make such a weak excuse. Would he not advertise Christianity, even more so, had he discussed and vanquished Bradlaugh and infidelity for ever at a blow. Even Mr. Cook’s orthodox admirers cannot fail to see what a splendid chance he missed. This is a good example of the way he strengthens instead of weakens unbelief.

Having gone through his repertoire of lectures in England, we next find him in India, where he was politely requested to discuss the merits of his orthodoxy by five different persons, viz.—Mr. D. M. Bennett, Colonel Olcott, Madame Blavatsky, the Editor of the Philosophic Inquirer, and Pandit Dayanand Saraswati, to all of whom he sent a pitiable excuse, or one of his usual insulting replies. What was the consequence? Before he left India, he was posted up as a coward and a slanderer, and articles appeared in the press, headed, “The Pious Slanderer,” refuting aspersions he had cast upon the reputation of well-known citizens. Even Christians wished he had never visited India for Christianity’s sake, as he had done more harm to Christianity than all the infidels could do in double the time. He refused to debate with the editor of the Philosophic Inquirer, giving the curious reason that he was only an humble clerk on a very small salary. “I cannot deal with a man who is only a writing clerk in the bank on Rs. 20.”* [See Theosophist, Bombay, April, 1882.]

“A public meeting was held in the Framji Cowasji Institute, Bombay, on January 30th, where, before a crowded audience, statements made by Mr. Cook, were by documentary and other evidence thoroughly refuted, the Indian papers publishing accounts of the exposure. The proceedings of this meeting were published in pamphlet form, and widely circulated throughout India.”

The following letter was sent to Mr. Cook while at Calcutta, and was published in the Amrita Bazar Patrika, dated March 2:—

My Dear Sir,—It was an unfortunate day for you in India when, in one of your lectures at the Town Hall in our city (Bombay), you tried to revile the Theosophical Society and run down the spiritualists. The Society in many parts of India is more powerful than you can ever imagine. By saying a lot of nonsense about it you have disturbed a nest of hornets, and you remember how you felt the stings both during your next lecture in the same Hall and also at Poona. Although out of sight for about three weeks, you are not out of our mind. You have simply made us diligent by your aspersions. In a week’s time five thousand copies of a pamphlet will be distributed gratis, in which we have shown what the Society really is, and posted you up as a coward and a slanderer. I send you by to-day’s post a copy of the Bombay Gazette, of the 17th February, in which we have shown to the public of Bombay what character you have. You seldom dreamt that a statement you signed in March, 1880, in Boston, would be held up against you in Bombay in February, 1882, after you had reviled the experiments of a body you had the honor to sit together with.* This is your Christian veracity. Remember that by your orations you have degraded Christianity in the eyes of the Indians instead of making them appreciate it. Even true Christians in Bombay say, in reference to you, “Save us from our friends.” I wish for the cause of Christianity you had stayed away at Boston. You will be perhaps leaving our shores after you have gone through a few of your obstreperous dramatic performances which you call lectures. So let me wish you a hearty farewell and a bon voyage, and assure you that you have left Christianity as remote, or perhaps remoter, from the hearts of educated natives than it ever was. India will never be Christian, try to prove it how you may with all your learning.

We next hear of him in Sydney, N. S. W., where he was received with open arms by his so-called Christian friends, and lectured to crowded houses at 3, 2, and 1, of course his only object is to save souls, the 3, 2, and 1 have nothing to do with it. The Sydney Bulletin, a fearless and out-spoken journal published every week in that city, contained some very truthful paragraphs in the issue during his stay in Sydney. In the issue of July 22nd we find the following:—

If Rev. Joseph Cook is the champion of Christianity in the States, then Christianity is to be pitied. He is ungainly, his platform attitudes are awkward and constrained, his voice is harsh, and his pronunciation execrable, and when he intends to be very impressive he has a fashion of shaking his head from side to side violently, which may be the sign of an inward spiritual grace, but looks very much like the sign of an inward material stomach ache. Infidelity he says defends adultery, lying, and theft. . . . Well Joseph, if you have come all the way from the States to utter these mildewed old calumnies, we are afraid you will not win many souls for the Kingdom. It would have been wiser for you to have remained in “Bawsting,” unless, of course, you are travelling to recruit your health, and——pay expenses.

Again, in the issue of July 29th we find the following, about his question box lectures:—

The Rev. Joe Cook, the “celebrated theological lecturer,” of Boston, has added to his other “shows” a “question box” lecture. He advertised for several days that on a given evening written questions upon spiritual and religious matters would be read out and answered.....We cannot help pausing for a moment here to do reverent homage to the phenomenal modesty of a stranger who thus coolly matched himself against the cultured doubt of a community of whose intellectual resources he was, necessarily, utterly ignorant . . . . . . . . . . . . At the outset of the lecture he announced, in tragic tones that he had before him the “secret doubts” of his audience. Naturally one would have expected that a champion of the meek and mild Jesus would have treated these “secret doubts,” which may have been stumbling-blocks to many decent men’s peace of mind, with tenderness, if not kindness. Not so. He was both discourteous and unfair in replying to some questions, others he did not deign to answer at all. Mr. Cook from the outset assumed the unwarrantable position that every question was intended as an intellectual poser for himself. All those that did not seem worthy of his logical acumen, he cast disdainfully aside, with some such sneer as—“This writer had better get a literary education.” “This is a very puerile question.” “A week’s study of Metaphysics would do this man good.” And so on—imputing sinister motives to questions which may have been submitted in perfect good faith, and which, though apparently so juvenile to the “Celebrated Boston Lecturer” may have been very stiff theological fences for the poor benighted enquirers. . . To one of the “secret doubts,” he replied, “But we will look behind the question to the spirit that animates it.” Then followed a scathing denunciation of the unfortunate writer, who happened, curiously enough, to be a most pious inoffensive old Wesleyan. The poor fellow had been taking a big dose of his Bible at one sitting and had got mixed. A gentleman, whose inability to resolve certain doctrinal points, had caused him to relinquish a long conceived idea of entering the ministry, sent Mr. Cook a list of questions concerning “Faith” and “omnipotence,” enclosing also his card and address. We are assured that they were earnest questions, and that the doubter waited eagerly and anxiously for their resolution. They were dismissed in a breathly—“And here, my friends, are a lot of questions which I have answered in my previous remarks.” Wonderful man! He knew without reading the questions what they were, and that they had been answered. Such a flippant farce as this stamps Joseph Cook as a lectring mountebank, whose inordinate vanity is only equalled by his unabashable effrontery.”

Fancy a disciple of Christ refusing to answer a question because it is ungrammatical, or asked in a simple manner by an uneducated person. The ruse is too thin, Joseph, the simpler the question, the more ready should be the answer.

* Rev. Joseph Cook: A Critique, by John Fiske, a. m., l. l. b. 83 George Street, Brisbane.

* Joseph Cook must have the brains of a buffalo; otherwise he would not offer such stupid excuses.—Ed. Ph. Inq.

* Mr. Cook and several other sceptics, attended a seance at the house of a well-known American author, to witness the production of writing on closed slates under test conditions, the seance was highly satisfactory, and at its conclusion, a document was drawn up and signed by Mr. Cook and the other gentlemen present, to the effect that the phenomena was genuine, and could not possibly have been produced by trickery. Mr. Cook now states in his lectures that he did not sign his name to the fact of spirit writing but to that of Psychography. Will Mr. Cook kindly explain the difference? Only acute and cunning person “dealing with an audience upon whose ignorance of the subject he might safely rely, could pretend to” believe that psychography and spirit writing were different things.

–––––––

THE SEVENTH ANNIVERSARY
OF THE
THEOSOPHICAL SOCIETY.

The seventh anniversary of this Society was celebrated on the 7th Instant. The scene, we hear, was an impressive one. The Framji Cowasji Institute of Bombay was quite filled with a crowd of Natives and a few European ladies and gentlemen; some educated Parsee ladies also graced the hall with their presence. The proceedings commenced exactly as it was re<... continues on page 14-89 >

Editor's notes

Sources

• 

  The Theosophist, v. 3, No. 7, April 1882, pp. 183–184; Supplement, p. 8