J. H. Kellogg to W. C. White, Feb. 4, 1892

MANAGERS.
J. H. KELLOGG, M. D; Superintendent.
L. McCOY, Chaplain and Secretary.
G. H. MURPHY, Treasurer.
W. H. HALL, Steward.
Mrs. L. M. HALL, Matron.
OFFICE OF THE
Medical and Surgical Sanitarium
MEDICAL STAFF.
J. H. KELLOGG, M. D. KATE LINDSAY, M. D.
W. H. RILEY, M. D. A. J. HOENES, M. D.
H. M. DUNLAP, M. D. A. N. LOPER, M.D.
Battle Creek, Mich., Feb. 4, 1892.
W. C. White,
Care, Bible Echo Office,
North Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia.
Dear Brother:-

I send you with this, a copy of Dr. Paquin’s little “Blue Book” which Dr. Waggoner anathematizes in the Review for Feb. d. You have doubtless also noticed Eld. Wilcox’s references to the book. I send you the book so you can see just what sort of book it is. You would certainly get the impression from what has been said of it, that it is a book written for no other purpose than to teach infidelity an irreligion. I have every reason for saying that I know that this was no part of the author’s purpose. Although I never saw anything of the book until after it was printed, as soon as I had an opportunity to read it, I noted the points which are criticized, and called Dr. Paquin’s attention to them. He at once said: “I see that my meaning will be mistaken, and I shall remove these objectionable sentences in the next edition.” Only a few hundred copies of the first edition was published.MMM 178.1

I think the course several persons are pursuing toward Dr. Paquin and his book has nothing of the Christian spirit in it. Some of our writers have so much of the fighting disposition in them, that they are apparently all the time on the sharp lookout for something to criticize, instead of looking after truth. I believe that this critical sort of disposition is thoroughly un-Christian. You know how I felt for years about the course pursued by the Sentinel,—or rather, by some of the leading writers for that paper. Dr. Paquin’s book is entirely wrong in its ideas about religion, and there is good reason why it should be so: Dr. Paquin was educated a French Catholic; his brother is a Jesuit priest; his sister is a Sister of Charity—a hospital-nurse; he was brought up to drink wine, whiskey, use tobacco, and to indulge himself in ways customary with young men. When he began to study science, he began to think, and has been led by his own thought, investigation and observation, to the adoption of the most radical and sound views on the subjects of purity, diet and hygiene in general. He is in thorough accord with your mother’s teachings, and the real purpose of his book was to teach the important bearing which physical habits have upon mental and moral states. No one has ever taught these principles more strongly than your father and mother. In his comparisons of religion and science, Dr. Paquin evidently has in mind only true science and bogus religion; for, as he remarked to me, a half hour ago, “True religion includes true science.” Before coming into the Sanitarium, the man has never been in contact with people who endeavor to make their religion a practical thing, as he has told me the leading men in the orthodox churches where he was formerly at work as a Professor in the University of Missouri were corrupt and licentious men. His conclusion from this standpoint, which would seem just, was, that religion alone was not able to make them better. His expressions are unfortunate, because they class true religion and false religion under one head. Reared as a Catholic, he has never been taught anything but a religion of works, the works consisting chiefly in abusing the body, it is not remarkable that when enlightened, he should rebel against such monstrous teachings, and express himself in terms as strong as he has used in his book. I cannot, and would not if I could, defend any of the expressions in the work referred to, which refer to religion in a deprecating way, but it is only just to Dr. Paquin that his true position should be understood. No one could read the book through without becoming satisfied that the purpose of the work was to show the relation between physical habits and mental and moral states, and to impress the importance of simplicity and purity in diet in the battle against impurity of mind and morals.MMM 178.2

You and I believe all this, as thoroughly as Dr. Paquin does. Why should not our critics Dr. Waggoner and others commend the good which the book contains, instead of contenting themselves with condemning the author’s errors which are the result of ignorance and false education? Are men likely to be won to the truth by such a course? I cannot avoid taking a stand against such a course. Dr. Paquin is a quiet, inoffensive. reasonable men. You could not help but admire him as a patient, earnest, modest, truthful, practical, and, so few as one can judge, pure-minded man. He was attracted here by his love for our principles. Criticism could be built up against some of your mother’s writings on the same principles and by the same methods involved in Dr. Waggoner’s criticism of Dr. Paquin’s book. Certainly there could not be found in your mother’s writings any deprecating reference to religion, but Dr. Waggoner clearly shows in the last three paragraphs of his article referred to (of Feb. d), that he wholly ignores the important relation of physical habits and conditions to morality. Physical helps are by no means sufficient, but they are, nevertheless, important.MMM 179.1

Some of our brethren, I think, are taking extreme grounds on the subject of righteousness by faith. It is a noble doctrine, and one which our people have certainly needed, and I trust I have received benefit from it myself, but I am exceedingly perplexed in trying to reconcile with common sense and with the teachings of the Testimonies on the subject of health reform, the positions taken by Dr. Waggoner, Prof. Prescott and Eld. Jones, as I understand them. I have devoted as much time as I can spare from my work, to an investigation and careful study of these questions, and I hope to find some way to reconcile the apparent conflict, but I am sure I can never become reconciled with the spirit shown in Eld. Waggoner’s article referred to above. I admire the liberality of Eld. Wilcox in the Signs of the Times of Feb. t in He recommending the American Tract Society’s Dictionary of the Bible. He recommends the book, although he says: “It is certainly wrong as regards the natural immortality of the soul. and some other great doctrines.” A great number of books are sold at the Review and Herald Office which teach false doctrines. Sometime ago they had the whole canvassing force selling a book about Mormonism written, or pretending to be written by a woman of grossly immoral character, eulogizing this woman unstintedly, notwithstanding her character has for years been notorious. Now here is a book that teaches pure doctrines, but is in error on one point: Why not notice the good it teaches, as well as condemn the errors? I think there is only one reason, and that is, that those who are condemning this book so bitterly, are not in thorough sympathy with health principles, or what we call Health Reform, and are taking an attitude which is absolutely irreconcilable with the common sense teaching of your father and mother, and which have heretofore received at par by our people.MMM 180.1

Now I do not mean to have any war with these good brethren, for I am sure they are conscientious and mean to do good, and are doing a great deal of good, but, as I said before, I an greatly perplexed to know where the consistent truth is, and mean to find it, if I can.MMM 181.1

As ever
Your Brother,
(Signed) J. H. Kellogg

P. S. The notice of Dr. Paquin’s book which appeared in the Feb. number of Good Health was written before I had seen the criticism of Dr. Wagoner, and I have made no changes in it since. I should also remark that Dr. Paquin’s book was written before he came to Battle Creek, and before he was acquainted with our people.MMM 181.2

I gave Dr. Paquin to-day a copy of your Mother’s beautiful little book, “Steps to Christ,” and I think it will do him good. He is not such a heathen as Dr. Waggoner some others seem to think he is. I wish, by the way, you would notice in reading Dr. Waggoner’s article, the rather unfair manner in which he treats the subject. For example, he holds science up to contempt more conspicuously than Dr. Paquin does religion, whereas it is just as improper for him to ridicule science when he means ‘false science,’ as for Dr. P speak disparagingly of religion when he means “false religion.”MMM 181.3

Another evidence of Dr. Waggoner’s unfairness is found in the very last paragraph of his article in which he attempts to prove that Dr. Paquin has no confidence in the Bible. The last ten lines of his article ere, I think, absolutely outrageous in their unfairness. Cannot one combat false ideas with the Bible even though they may be long cherished notions, without laying himself open to the charge of being an atheist? Evidently Dr. Waggoner’s idea of false science is anything that does not agree with his theological notions. I think the intolerance shown by some of our brethren is well calculated to drive away intelligent and broad-minded men instead of winning to our work. Some of these men have been spoiled by having none to criticise them but a lot of young licentiates whose limited education and knowledge of the Word loads them to look upon their teachers almost as demigods if not absolutely inspired.MMM 181.4

I am writing you thus about this matter because I am sure some one will tell you I have recommended Dr. Paquin’s book. The only sort of recommendation I have given it is that you will see published in the February number of Good Health, in the Literary Notices. In a private note to Dr Paquin, while. I was sick and before I had given his book more than a brief and very hasty locking over, I spoke of the good features of the book and made no reference to its errors. After getting well I had a personal interview with Dr. P. and pointed out the very things which have since been criticised, and he promised me they should be changed in the next edition, as he saw at once that they would put him in a light in which he would not wish to be seen and that they did not properly represent his own views. I am glad to see that Dr. Paquin takes his pounding in a very christianlike manner, and is disposed to get all the good he can from it and to hold no bad feelings toward anybody.MMM 182.1