HOM CE OPATHY
A TNDY.
ALLOPA T'HY.








R EPLY
TO
"AN EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINES AND EVIDENCES OF
HOM(EOPATHY,
BY WORTHINGTON HOOKER, M. D."
By E. E. MARCY, M. D.,
AUTHOR OF "THE HOM(EOPATHIC THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE."
" Nor stands a fact
Less in repute, because an empty jest
Has cracked thereon, and shown its hollowness."
BOKER.
"No cheek is known to blush, or heart to throb,
Save when they lose a question or a job."
POPE.
NE W -Y O RK:
WILLIAM- RADDE, 322 BROADWAY.
C. L. RADEMrXACHER & SHEEi,, 239 ARCH-STREET, PHILADELPHIA;
OTIS CLAPP, SCHOOL-STREET, BOSTON;
J. Go WESSELHa:FT, 64 FOURTH STREET, ST. LOUIS.
185 2;.




ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by
WILLIAM  RADDE,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York
ANGELL, ENGEL & HEWITT, Printers, 1 Spruce-st.
~vW                 WvvvWvv




TO
WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT
THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS OF
THE LIVING AUTHORS OF AMERICA)
WHO HAS GIVEN THE
POWERFUL SUPPORT OF HIS GENIUS TO THE GREAT LAW OF
"SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURANTUR,"
THIS REFUTATION OF A SUPERFICIAL AND MENDACIOUS
ATTACK UPON THAT LAW.
IEI -3eopectfuIu Irncrtibeb,
BY HIS ADMIRER AND OBEDIENT SERVANT,
E. E. MARCY.








PREFACE.
THE extraordinary advances made by the homeeopathic principles of medicine, have induced in the
last two years an opposition unprecedented for activity, earnestness, and virulence. On their first promulgation in America, while they had the character
of novelty, and few except disciples had any definite
acquaintance with- them, two or three of the leading
physicians of the allopathic school attacked them in
pamphlets, in one case at least remarkable for a ready
wit and -most felicitous manner. It will be understood that we refer to Dr. Holmes. Since the publication of his trifling, superficial, but brilliant essay,
the master minds of the Old School, probably from a
more familiar acquaintance with the subject, and a
conviction that "discretion," -in this case, was "the
best part of valor," have -generally been silent, and
the attacks upon the Philosophical Method of Cure




X                   PREFACE.
have been confined to the meaner and least scrupulous allopathic physicians, the class which in all
professions, occupations, and conditions, is content
for a small reward and a little notoriety to do the
baser work for which there is supposed to be an occasion or a necessity.
For a certain insolence of tone, rather than for any
peculiar talent or freshness exhibited in it, a volume
entitled " Homceopathy: an Examination of its Doctrines and Evidences, by Worthington Hooker, M. D.,"
has recently attracted some notice. It contains, indeed, nothing of fact, conclusion, ol suggestion, that
had not been said often before, and in a more pungent
and attractive nianner, but- possibly for the fortunate
selection of a publisher-the book has had some currency, and in the following pages we have taken the
trouble to answer it; not that it deserved for its own
qualities any such attention, but that in one exposure
this whole class of feeble, false, and malicious attacks
upon Homceopathy- might be refuted.
The progress of Homceopathy is an apparent and
altogether unquestionable fact in the recent history of
civilization. It is I evident that this progress is not to
be retarded by sneers, or calumnies, or the partisan
interference of universities, or even by legislative




PREFACE.                   Xi
injustice and persecution. The sentence, I~agna est
veritas et prevalebit, in this case strikes as much
terror into the hearts of the upholders of old abuses,
aS the still more ancient judgment, Jfene, mene, tekel,
up2harsin, when written by the finger of the Almighty
on the walls of the Assyrian palace.
But what can the allopathists do?  They' are committed to a systemr; their daily- bread or their luxurious life is dependent on its ascendancy; and they
have no resort but at all hazards to oppose whatever
may endanger its. popularity or stability.  And the
history of dogmatic controversy furnishes no parallels
for the uncanldid, ungenerous, and altogether unworthy methods resorted to by the supporters of the
ancien regime, in  mledicine, against the disciples of
Hahnemann -and  the great masses of intelligent
people who -are induced by the constant successes
which mark the advance of his theory to -accept
it as their law in cases of disease.
The first, the greatest of all difficulties in the way
of a defence of the allopathic practice is, that that
practice is not the result of a system. There is
about it nothing of method, or proportion, -nothing
philosophical; but the whole collection of its propositions is admitted, by its niost eminent professors, to




xii                PREDACE.
be incongruous, uncertain, and entirely without any
pervading and harmonizing idea. Undoubtedly the
experience of two thousand years has been prolific of
facts, but no one has ever pretended, from the
chaotic accumulation, to call into life an orderly,
symmetrical and philosophical system, to reduce
the results of experience and observation in Allopathy to a science.  llomceopathy has this great
advantage, -that, like Minerva, it sprang into existence perfect in its grand and beautiful symmetry,
as complete in its parts and orderly in its movement
as that universe of which the secret flashed upon the
father of astronomy like a new and infinitely sublime
creation.
The reception of I-Iomceopathy has been in a singular degree parallel with the reception of other
great truths, especially in the earlier years of their
promulgation. The educated and thoughtful perceived their truth, or at least paused before rejecting
it. The ignorant, incapable from intellectual weakness or perverse dispositions, rejected it with vulgar
abuse and abortive wit. Our readers will perhaps
all remember a dialogue between a homespun farmer
and a young collegian, printed in some of the school
books used a quarter of a century ago, in which the




PREFACE.                    Xiii
student is put down by logic something like what
follows:
"James. What's that you say? this great masterly world is round,
and turns round every day? You're a fool! The world's as flat as a
pancake. Why if what you tell is the case, how happens it that all the
water is n't spilt out of my mill-pond every night? "
Here was a show of logic, a show of wit; it was all
very plausible to the objector, and to persons of his
calibre; it is parallel with the opposition to the principle in medicine, similia similibus czrantucr, which
is above the comprehensions of the vulgar, as it is
destructive of the professional advantages and reputations of the adherents of the rapidly decaying practice of the immethodical, inconsistent, and dangerous
traditional dogmas which it is destined to supersede.
The following chapters have been very hastily prepared, amid the anxieties of a most arduous professional occupation, but it will be found that they fully
meet, and, it is trusted, satisfactorily answer the
trivial criticisms and unscrupulous misstatements of
an author who has chosen by exhibitions of audacity
and a want of conscience to challenge such consideration as he would in vain attempt to secure by a legiti
mate trial of his strength, in fair controversy.
A  Roman matron being inquired of as -to her




XLV                PREFACE.
jewels, presented her children.  We emulate the
noble example of Cornelia; and although we have
condescended for once to enter the lists with a
Worthington Hooker, for. the purpose -of refuting his
calumnies, we have far greater satisfaction in pointing to the numerous families in which the Hahnemannic practice is accepted, for demonstrations, in
vigorous and unimpaired constitutions, of the truth
of a system which preserves in their original beauty
and power natures which a beneficent Creator designed for constant happiness and usefulness.
E. E. MARCY, M.D.
NEw-YORK, March 20, -1852.




CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
EXAMINATION OF ATTENUATED SUBSTANCES IN
CONNECTION WITH ALLOPATHIC ARITHMETIC.
PAGE
Progress of Homceopathy-Attacks upon it-Infinitesimal
doses-Other imponderables-Dr. Hooker on their weight
and bulk-Allusion to doses in the Organon-Malaria —
Contagious  particles - Electrical molecules - Magnetic
atoms-Physical and chemical characteristics of these
agents-Phenomena of catalysis-Views of Liebig and
Kane-, Most powerful substances. in nature imponderable
-New discoveries measured by existing knowledge —Examples of its unreasonableness-Distinction between the
homeeopathic law of cure and doses-Hahnemann's first
ideas of medical reform... ~.     19
CHAPTER II.
FALLACIES OF DR. HOOKER CONCERNING DRUG
PROVINGS.
Drug provings, —Dr. Hooker's errors respecting them —Precision of Hahnemann in conducting them —Manuscripts of




Xv1                     CONTENTS.
PAaE
Hahnemann —Provings by other homceopathists-Homceo.
pathic Materia Medica —Manner in which it is made upOpposition of the old school to drug provings-Honorable
exceptions-Dunglison-Pereira-Paris-Justness of their
remarks upon the subject.... 36
CH'APTER III.
EXAMINATION OF THE HOM(EOPATHIC LAW -OF
CURE.
Dr. Hooker's-ignorance of the homeopathic system —Proofs
of-it-Action of drugs-Illustrated from the OrganonHomoeopathy attacks diseased parts alone —Allopathy attacks healthy parts-SyJdenham-His pathology and treatment-Ancient and modern Allopathy contrasted-Fallacies
of Dr. Hooker respecting the use of camphor in choleraMisapplication of similia similibus curantur-Allopathic
use of similia-Drug provings confirmed by pathological
facts-lExperiments of Flourens, Majendie, Brodie, Miiller,
and Wilson-Homeeopathic law of cure claimed for Hippocrates-Hooker versus Hahnemann, on the mode of conducting experiments-The working and the indolent men
of the profession compared.... 44
CHAPTER IV.
EXAMINATION OF DOCTRINES AND DOSES.
Susceptibilities of diseased parts-The attenuations to be
employed-Action of imponderables illustrated-A few of
the precepts of Homceopathy-Allopathic and homaeopathic
practice contrasted —Range of doses employed by the two
schools examined-Large and small doses-Mode of action
similar-Identity' of drugs never destroyed-Syllogism re



CONTENTS.                     XVii
PAGE
specting raising a weight by a rope and an invisible filament of one —Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology-A
knowledge of them essential to the homceopath-Allopathic pathology not reliable-Reasoning on false dataContradictions of Dr. Hooker in commenting on crude and
attenuated drugs-Use of camphor in cholera-Influence
of Homceopathy in reducing allopathic doses.. 60
CHAPTER. V.
THE INCONSISTENCIES OF ALLOPATHY AND HER
ADVOCATES.
Arguments against Homceopathy —Their unique characterWonderful medicine box found in New York-Two sides
to it-Definition of modern Allopathy-Illustrations of itAttempted appropriation of similia-Case of Dr. RodgersDifferent combinations of Allopathy brought into practical
operation-Allopathy prescribes for the name of the disease,
Homosopathy for symptoms-Good Allopathy and bad Allopathy-Who can distinguish them-Dr. Hooker's opinions of Homceopathic Physicians-Feelings which have
prompted it-Statistics of hommeopathists-Their reliability-Opinion of Dr. Forbes of Homceopathy —Ex parte
statement of M. Andral-His admirers advised to consult
_.Esop's Fables-A course of study necessary in order to
test Homceopathy fairly.                             78
CHAPTER VI.
HOM(EOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY CONTRASTED.
Estimate of Hahnemann-Mode of making up this estimateFirst appearance of Hahnemann-Corfdition of medicine at
the time-Proneness of Allopathy to theorize-This course




XViii                   CONTENTS.
PAGE
avoided by Hahnemann-Experiments upon his own-.person-Risks encountered in making them-Noble'traits of
Hahnemnnn-Opinion of able allopathists respecting himHomceopathy cannot be amalgamated with AllopathyReasons why not-Allopathic verdicts upon medical doetrines' —Remarkable illustrations of them- All innovations
crushed-Baglivi and Hoffmann-Diversified, combinations
of allopathy exposed-Presen t and past opinions comparedInconsistencies of the Old School-Allopathy of 1587,
1703, 1707, 1714, 1797, 1800, 1852-Instincts of modern
Allopathy-A-llopathic verdicts declined-Other verdictsReasons why Homceopathy.is not universally investigatedSome Old School gentlemen_ in the right track-Medical
radicalism-What is it?-P6litical radicalism-Contrasted
with medical radicalism.....      102
CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.
Intolerance of medical men-Slow advancement of medicineReasons for it-Medical inquisitions-Not now permittedPoints at issue between the Schools-Misunderstood by
Physicians-Homceopathy especially noticed recently-Its
condition inAmerica now, compared with that of twentyfive years ago —Quotation from Dr. Curtis —Present condition of Homceopathy in Europe-Also in France, Germany,
&c.-Dr. Tessier-Homceopathy approved by the ClergyReproaches for exercising their own judgments upon the
subject.    1......      36




REPLY TO DR, HOOKER
ON
H'O M CE O P A T H Y.
CHAPTER I.
EXAMINATION OF ATTENUATED SUBSTANCES IN CONNECTION
WITH ALLOPATHIC ARITHMETIC.
HOM(EOPATHY has now been before the public for
more than half a:century. It has been introduced
into every part of the civilized world;, its principles
have always been clearly announced, and wherever
its practical value'has been fairly tested, whether in
public hospitals or in private practice, the results
have uniformly demonstrated it to be more successful
than any, practice of medicine which has hitherto obtained. The system has, gradually~ but steadily, continued to extend throughout the area of civilization,
until it has enlisted among its earnest advocates a
very large number of the most intelligent of every
country.' Attacked, and misrepresented as it has ever
been, by the mercenary physicians and apothecaries of
2




20        HOMCOPATRY VS. ALLOPATHY.
the Old School, it has still advanced triumphantly
through all the storms of calumny, bitter-invective,
and malignant hate, which have been continually
poured upon it. It will ever continue to advance
until its momentous truths shall be universally recognised, and mankind be forever released from the
blighting curse of Allopathy, and its -death-dealing
poisons.
Among the thousand and one attacks which have
been made upon Homceopathy and its advocates, we
have recently noticed one entitled, "' Homaceopathy, an
Ezxamination into its Doctrines and Evidences; by
Worthington Haooker, X1. D."  Like every other
attack which has been made upon the system, it is a
mere tissue of misrepresentations, and tricky artifices
to mislead the ignorant and unthinking -from its real
doctrines, and, to divert attention from the actual
points at issue between the schools. With intelligent minds, such poor sophistries and silly attempts
at " reviewing evidences," of course carry with them
their own refutation, and recoil upon the heads
of those whose cupidity or malice have prompted them
to issue them. But as there is a class of persons who
may possibly peruse this essay, under the supposition
that it is an honest exposition of the Homceopathic
doctrine, we shall take occasion to strip the author of
the flimsy web with which he has invested himself, and
display him to the world, a pettifogging perverter of
facts, a calumniator of a large class of judicious schdlars, who are his superiors. in all respects, and a mere
panderer to the hate, malice, and medical demagogism
of the more contemptible of his school.




NINUTESIMAL DOSES.              21
Like all other Allopathists who have written
against Homceopathy, the gentleman from Connecticut, Dr. Worthington Hooker, has laid himself out
on ijnfitesimal doses. As many have done before
him, he has entered into mathematical calculations,
of the high dilutions, and has attempted to be exceedingly witty upon the absurdity of supposing the existence of power in imponderable substances. Mark well
the point, viz., Dr. Worthington Hooker, of Norwich, Connecticut, asserts that he cannot figure up
the weight of the molecules of certain imponderable
substances like the-higher attenuations of Homceopathy, (he very shrewdly forgets to allude to other imponderables in the same connection, like miasmata, the
contagious particles of smallpox, scarlet fever, measles,
and certain forms of typhus, the atomic particles
floating in the air of cholera-infected districts, magnetism, electricity, light, caloric, etc. etc.,) and therefore, that these imponderables must of necessity be
powerless.  The astute  genius  of  Worthington
Hooker,. M. D., has figured it all out, and has demonstrated with perfect transparency, that Homceopathy is absurd, and that no one can reason upon
medical topics but allopathic physicians, with intellects as penetrating as-his own. - It is granted that
scientific men, clergymen, etc., may reasonvery logically upon all other topics but that of medecine; this
is forbidden ground, because, in this field, their mental
vision at once becomes perverted; allopathy appears
to them like a grim' and terrible monster, glutted with
victims of two thousand years, and they turn instinctively to Homceopathy for relief to their sufferings.




22         HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
Now, although we deny emphatically, that the subject of doses has any thing to do with the great homceopathic principle of cure, and while we assert that
the selection of doses always has been and always
will be subject to the judgment of the practitioner,
who, whether he chooses a tincture or a dilution, may
still be a consistent homceopath, we shall, however,
take this close reasoning gentleman, Worthington
Hooker, M. D., of Connecticut, as we find him, and
show him that imponderable substances, yea, imponderable quantities of vegetable, animal, and mineral
substances, are not so, entirely inefficient in impressing the human body as he pretends to believe, but that
they do possess powers, so wonderful and efficient
in their character, that even his own comprehensive
intellect can scarcely have a conception of their extent, much less of their mathematical, chemical, or
physical properties. Before proceeding with this subject, we make the following quotations from  the
writer, to show that he was perfectly aware of the fact
that even Hahnemann himself considered the question of infinitesimal doses a matter totally distinct
from his great principle of cure, similia similibus' Ourantur. Indeed, it is known by every student of medicine, that Hiahnemann made use of medicines in
the usual forms and doses for a considerable period
after the announcement of his chief discovery, and it
was only from experience and repeated experiments
that he discovered the powers of small doses during
disease. But to the quotation:
"I now invite the attention of the reader to an exposition of the system of Hahnemann, as developed in




SNFINITEIMAIL DOsES..          23
his'Organon,' a work which is universally regarded,
by homceopathists, as the great:text-book of medicine" (page 15).
The writer here gives a summary of iahnemann's
conclusions, and then observes that,, "in this summary,
or analysis of the homceopathic method, (as he calls
it),the reader will-notice that there is nothing said
about infinitesimal doses. And it'is remarkable that
there is not the slightest hint upon this subject in the
Organon, till we reach the 204th'p-'page, though the
whole book contains but 300 pages, and then it is
alluded to only in a note, and that ~rier'ely incidentally.
Almost all he does say' about it,'frQm begining to end,
is said in notes. In the text, it is'not'treated of at all
in any explicit and'circumstantial manner, but is
barely hinted at" (page 20).
Why,.then, in the name of reason, with these facts
staring you in the face, have you'taxed your calculating powers so enormously upon: this "incidental"
and unimportant point? Why have you not taken
the'" great text-book of the homceopath" as you found
it, and criticized it honestly and fairly, instead of
selecting a proposition which is only "barely hinted at
in the Organon," to vent upon it your hatred against
a rival school?
We take' the liberty of calling into requisition once
more the mathematical genius, the irresistible logic,
and the wonderful acumen, of this shining light of
Allopathy, who presents himself so -confidently as its
champion. We desire-him to take into consideration the following substances, which "-homceopaths,
scientific men, clergymen, etc.," really' believe to




24         HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
possess some power of action on the human body, and
to describe to us their weight and bulk, as well as their
chemical and physical characteristics. As- the value
or absurdity of all things is to be measured by the
"plain common sense,"-and the vast comprehension of
this Connecticut gentleman, will he hasten to enlighten
us' upon these subjects, so that we may no longer be
deluded by absurd notions of such " loose reasoners"
as Newton, Davy, Locke, Herschell, etc.? 
i. It is well known that when vegetable substances
are subjected to a certain amount of heat and moisture, the atoms or molecules of which they are composed are' set free, and become diffused in infinitesimal proportions through the atmosphere, for miles
in extent, so that any individual inhaling this air,
will get a dose'of these atoms of sufficent strength to
poison his body, and cause intermittent' fever. These
are some of nature's high attenuations, and have been
termed by. medical writers, miassmata.We beg leave to summon this -quick oracle, whose'close reasoning," and extraordinary mathematical,
and chemical genius is destined to direct the judgments of " intelligent scientific men, clergymen, etc.,"
to display on this point all his calculating powers and
to give us tthe weight in figures of a quantity of these
miasmatic atoms sufficient to infect a large army, or
if this puzzles him, the inhabitants of the whole universe, with intermittent fever; to inform us of some
chemical test by which we may detect these atoms in
the immense space throughout which they are diffused; to give us some tangible and comprehensible
idea of their physical properties, so that we may really




nMPOiDEBBAI3E SU:STA~CES.        25
know that such things do exist as miasmatca, and that
they are not the mere fanciful imaginings of a "'homceopath, a scientific man, or a clergyman!" Will
he put them under the lens of his most powerful
microscope, and instruct us -loose- reasoners" respecting their size, shape, and general appearance?
What if such insignificant chemists as Lavoisier,
Berzelius, Davy, Black, Dumas, and Faraday, have
repeatedly attempted to detect chemically these miasmatic particles without success? doubtless these men
were "loose reasoners," and were not blessed with
the keen, analyzing powers of the gentleman from
Norwich!
What if such intelligences as those of Newton,
Euler, Dalton and Euclid could not, either'by their
own, or even " Iomceopathic arithmetic," calculate
their weight,- dimensions, and shape, and therefore
decided to consider and to call them imponderable,
(i. e. having no weight,)-why, let it be remembered
that Worthington Hooker, M.D., of Connecticut, was
not then in'existence!
What if those half-learned astronomers, IHerschell
-and Chevalier, have no lenses sufficiently powerful to
see these vegetable atoms —nature's homoeopathic attenuations-d-oes it follow that the keen sight of the
Connecticut champion of Allopathy should not see
them? Before his next essay appears, we may expect
that he will put a dose of a high homceopathic attenuaation into.one scale, and a dose of fever miasm into the
other, and gravely inform us which -sinks the beam.
But suppose the gigantic. intellect of our critic
should fail in all these tests-suppose his " arithme



26         OMMEOPATHY VS. AILOPATfl.
tic" stops short, and he becomes lost in a maze of
miasms, what becomes of all the preconceived ideas
upon this subject? Why they are swept, of course,
by the dictum and " close reasoning" of this gordian
master in logic, into instant annihilation. Can anything which he cannot " figure up," see, taste, smell,
and handle, be aught else than a humbug-the offspring of fancy and "loose reasoning?"  Wooden
nutmegs and brass clocks forbid!
2. We again invoke the arithmetic and chemistry
of this champion of crudities. In common with a large
portion of the medical world, we deluded homceopaphists have always supposed that infinitesimal particles were constantly escaping from patients suffering
from small-pox, scarlet fever, etc., and that these particles, when introduced into the blood through the
lungs, were capable of contaminating the human organism with such maladies.
Here we beg the mathematical gentleman from
Connecticut to bring again his wonderful " arithmetic" to bear, and give us some idea of the weight, or
the chemical and physical properties of these contagious molecules? Or if the result should not tally
with the standard of power, as inculcated by Worthington Hooker, M. D., of Connecticut-if with his
arithmetic he cannot cypher out their weight and bulk,
then let him with his mighty breath, blow the " absurd
bubble" out of existence, as a humbug which can only
entrap the " homceopath, the scientific man, and the
clergyman.", Weigh us out, we pray thee, a little
small-pox contagion, if it be only a millionth, or even
a sextillionth part of a grain! Or, if your arithmetic




IMPONDERABLE SUBSTANICES.        27
and scales are both out of order, give us some delicate
chemical test, so. that we may know that contagion
and small-pox are not humbugs. Or, perhaps, it would
be more agreeable to the gentleman to calculate the
weight and bulk of another of nature's high attenuations-as, for example, the molecules of which the
infection of Asiatic cholera is supposed to consist.
Let us have the weight of all these molecules indeed
which have existed since the world began, or we shall'be obliged to-consider them as "humbugs," —mere
phanitasies of "homceopathists, scientific men, and
clergymen!"  Let no one commit the absurdity of
supposing that any material substance.-can possess
power, or in: any way affect.the. human structures,
unless its weight and dimensions can be accurately
calculated in figures, by the " arithmetic" of Worthington Hooker, M. D., of Connecticut, the champion
of modern Allopathy.
3. But it is possible, instead of displaying his " towering arithmetic" upon the infinitesimal particles of
vegetable, animal, and mineral substances that he
would prefer to " cypher" on material substances of a
different class. As the recent experiments of Professor Andrew Crosse, in England, have conclusively
demonstrated that water and other liquids can be so
highly charged with electrical particles as to.render
them powerfully antiseptic when taken into the human stomach, as well as to give them new and potent
chemical properties, will our phenomenon illuminate
the world by a mathematical, chemical, and physical
description of electrical molecules? We trust that
2*



28         HOM(EOPATHIY VS. ALLOPATHIY.
the " arithmetic" will: prove successful, or electricity
must henceforth be considered a "humbug," and all
those old fashioned individuals who believe in it, like
Franklin, Dufay, Priestley, Gay Lussac, Volta, Morse,
and Page, must be ranked with those " deluded loose
reasoners," the " homceopathists, scientific men, and
clergymen."  Come, 0 "close reasoning" champion
of Allopathy, weigh us out the charge of electricity it
would require to rend a world to fragments. You
have presumed t6o reduce all phenomena within the
scope and appreciation of your own infallible intellect
-you, who deny the existence of power in attenuated
atoms, unless you can see them, smell them, taste
them, weigh them, and clutch them in your brawny
hands, tell the " loose reasoning" and benighted world
something- about the physical qualities of these electrical molecules!
Would you prefer to experiment on the particles of
matter which are continually escaping from the magnet? Baron Reichenbach, an allopathist, who has recently published a very learned work upon this subject,.not only asserts that magnetic atoms continually escape
from magnets in definite directions, but that these
atoms may actually be seen in a dark room, by sensitive persons. We beg leave to ask the mathematical
gentleman of Connecticut to reply in his next attack
on homeoopathy, to this reasonable query: Suppose a
million, a billion, or a sextillion of the most powerful
horseshoe magnets ever made, should be kept in full
operation for a period.dating from the creation of Adam
to the probable final destruction of the world, and that
all the magnetic atoms escaping them should be col



CATALYTIC ACTIoN.            29
lected together, what, according to your " arithmetic,"
would be their weight and bulk?
If the gentleman from Norwich will take his compass and go to any part of the world, he will find the
needle invariably pointing towards the magnetic pole,
thus showing that the molecules which escape from
this great magnetic deposit pervade the whole universe, exercising an attraction under all circumstances
towards the'parent source. At the pole itself, it was
ascertained by Sir John Ross, that the needle uniformly points directly downward, or perpendicularly
to the surface of' the earth. At every other point on
the globe, the needle forms some sort of an angle
with the pole, unless affected by local causes. Will
this monster of science inform us how'much this universe of molecules weighs?
While our allopathic opponents are attempting to
ridicule the idea of power in imponderable agents,
and other phenomena which they cannot understand,
and which their heathen idols, Hippocrates and Galen,'forgot to teach, why do they not cry out, " humbug," against another mysterious and inexplicable
force which has recently been introduced to the- scientific world by Liebig. and his cotemporaries, and which
has been termed catalysts.?  Why do they not perpersuade some of their mathematical geniuses to  cypher" on the subject, so that we may comprehend
the rationcale of catalytic action a
Modern chemists'have ascertained that the mere
contact or presence of minute quantities  f'certain
substances, with indefinitely large proportions of other
substances, communicate to the latter entirely new




30         HOMXEOPATE1Y VS. ALLOPATHPY.
and potent- qualities. In this process the acting
agent loses no appreciable weight and undergoes no
apparent change, and yet results of the most important character are manifested.
"The active force in a compound," according to
Liebig,* " depends on a certain order or arrangement,
in which its elementary particles touch each other."
"The chemical force of sulphuric acid is present in
sulphate of lime as entire as in oil of vitriol. It is not
appreciable by -the senses; but if the cause be removed which prevented its manifestation, it appears
in its full force in the compound in which it properly
resides.":
" In compounds of this kind, in which the free manifestation of the chemical force has been impeded by
other forces,.a blow, or mechanical friction, or the
contact of a substance, the particles of. which are in a
state of motion (decomposition, transformation,) or
any external cause, whose activity is added to the
stronger attraction of the elementary particles in another direction, may suffice to give the preponderance
to this strongest attraction, to overcome the vis inertice, to alter the form and structure of the compound,
which are the result of foreign causes, and to produce
the resolution of the compound into one or more'new
compounds with altered properties."
"In examples of this class, an infinite variety of
new forces are- developed from apparently inactive
substances, by, the invisible operation, of elementary
particles contained in these substances.. Mere friction or contact of a small quantity of one substance
* Animal Chem.,- page 62.




CATALYTIC ACTION.             31
with another, effects transformations and developes
new properties in the latter without the slightest appreciable loss of weight, bulk, or chemical properties
of the former.
"It is remarkable," says Kane, "that this law of
catalysis, of which the simplest expression is, that
where two chemical substances are in contact, any
motion occurring among the particles of the one may
be communicated to the particles of the other, is4of a
more purely mechanical nature than any other principle as yet received in chemistry; and when more
definitely established by succeeding research, it may
be the basis of a- dynamical theory in chemistry."
"We must, at least, look upon these actions of catalysis, as tending towards a change in our ideas of
the nature of chemical affinity, which may before long
remodel the whole constitution of the science."
We might extend our queries, and "put sums" ad
infinitum, but knowing that there are limits, even to
such' comprehensive and analytic intellects as that
of Worthington Hooker, M.D., of Norwich, Connecticut, we pause,- for the present, for replies- to those
already offered.
~But- seriously, is not that man a pitiable object, who,
at this enlightened period, has- the presumption and
folly to measure the powers and properties of substances by bulk and weight a When the most obtuse
intellect, by moderate observation and- reflection, may
see that nearly all of the most active and potent material agents with whigch we are acquainted are imponderable-absolutely incapable of being appreciated by
any mathematical, chemical, or other material test



32         HLOMEOPATEY VS. ALLOPATHY.
is it not singular that an individual, who is recognised
as a member of a learned profession, can be found,
who, coolly and over his own signature, attempts to
convince the public that attenuated and imponderable
substances are inert, powerless, and unworthy of consideration? While I am penning this very paragraph,
an important communication is brought me from a
distance of more than 1000 miles, in an instant of
time, by a few imponderable atoms of electricity!
Their function is accomplished, and they are dissipated, perhaps to take a prominent part in some living
organism, or perchance to convey again, on their quick
wings, some communication-perhaps to Worthington Hooker, M.D., of Norwich, Connecticut.
It is melancholy to witness the extent to which the
prejudices of individuals will carry them when their
interests are at stake. They find no difficulty -in understanding and acknowledging that all classes of imponderables (except that class- pertaining to homceopathy), whether originating from the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdoms, are powerful morbific, remedial, and chemical agents, and they would no more
think of bringing "arithmetic" to bear upon them,
than of entering into a mathematical calculation to
ascertain the weight of the' vital principle which
presides over the operations of the body, in sickness
and in health."
Men have ever been prone to measure every new
discovery and every unusual phenomenon by existing
knowledge, or by their own limited capacities, and to
pronounce everything absurd and a "' humbug" which
they could not at oncecomprehend and appreciates




IMPONDERABLE AGENTS.           33
The vast discoveries of Galileo, Columbus, Newton,
Harvey, Jenner, and Fulton, were first laughed at by
the world, and met with all kinds of silly falsehoods
and' inuendoes by the "m aterial headed " pamphlet
writers of different periods. And where stand now
the authors of these discoveries, and where their pitiful revilers? When our own Fulton first-announced
the powers of steam as a propelling agent, his scheme
was regarded as absurd, and he himself was denounced
as a visionary madman! lNow the name of Fulton is
immortal, while those of his aspersers have long been
sunk in oblivion beneath the contempt of the world.
So, when the powers of imponderable agents shall
have become universally acknowledged. and appreciated, will such " material -headed reasoners" as this
champion of Allopathy sink into merited obloquy,
or rather, absolute oblivion.
From the few examples which we have adduced,
we think it will be evident to the meanest capacity
that infinitesimal atoms of vegetable, animal, and
mineral substances, when introduced into the human
organism, are capable of producing effeets of great importance, and of almost infinite variety. Whether
these substances have been reduced to their condition of infinitesimal subdivision by a natural -or an
artificial process, can be a matter of no consequence,
provided  the attenuations are effectually accompIished in either instance.
Notwithstanding, however, the self-evident fact of
the efficacy of imponderable quantities of matter, a
fact which has been recognised by nearly all of the
most eminent philosophers and chemists of the 18th




34         IOMMLEOPATIY vs. AILOPATH.
and 19th centuries, we again deny most emphatically
that it has any necessary connection with the great
homweopathic law of cure, similia similibus curantur.
The question of doses was a mere matter of.experience on the part of Hahnemann, gradually acquired
by a long series of observations, some time after the
discovery and public announcement of the main doctrines of Homceopathy.. Hahnemann witnessed and
deplored the general routine of indiscriminate drugging, with mixtures composed of almost every variety
of poison, and endeavored to lessen the evil and to
attain more accuracy and certainty, by proving drugs
on healthy persons, in order to ascertain their specific
action, and then to prescribe them  singly. Until
the time of HIahnemann physicians had striven with
each other for the palm of giving the largest quantities of drugs, the more powerful the better, without
absolutely destroying. their poor patients. The discoverer of homceopathy adopted the opposite course,
and used all his' sagacity to ascertain how small a.
quantity of medicine would suffice to cure a disease.
In accomplishing this object, he had no hypothesis to
sustain-no ancient heathen dogma to bolster up-no
prejudices to gratify; but his sole objects were truth,
and the welfare of his fellow.creatures. Guided by
such laudable motives, and uninfluenced by. the
jealousies and calumnies of professional rivals and interested apothecaries, he devoted his whole energies,
mental and physical, to the accumulation of facts,
with the view of establishing a rational system  of
medicine. How much he has done towards attaining his end, we leave for others to decide.




VIEW. OF HOM(EOPATHY.          35
In perusing the mendacious attack of this Connecticut defamer, the uninformed reader is induced to
suppose that he, may- be honest, and that he really
aims to give the uMiblic a true representation of the
homceopathic doctrine and its evidences. With a
degree of hypocrisy.which would do credit to the
most shrewd Jesuit, and with a considerable amount of
poor cunning, the author has selected a few isolated
passages from  the writings of Hahnemann, which
have no bearing upon his doctrine of cure, and held
them up as a " view of Hommeopathy."  IHe likewise professes to give a view of the system, as announced by other standard authors. Farther on we
shall quote from these writers proofs of the entire
lack of foundation for these assumptions.




CHAPTER II.
FALLACIES OF DR. HOOKER CONCERNING DRUG PROVINGS.
THe second chapter of the " doctrines and evidences" is chiefly devoted to the provings of drugs,
on persons in health, with reference to their application in disease, and to the "' manner in which little
doses cure."
The writer calls attention to the " manner in which
homeoopathists discover to what disease any remedy
has that peculiar affinity, which is an essential condition of its curative power. It is done," he says, " in
this way: the remedy is given to persons in health; the
symptoms which follow in them are carefully and minutely noted down; after making-out this group of
symptoms, you may be sure, "'as they say, that in
whatever case you find a similar group of symptoms,
there you have the disease which this remedy, in infinitesimal doses, will cure."
In conducting these provings the writer asserts that
there is " no formal set of rules prescribed, and that
there is nothing very definite in regard to the size of
the doses used." The utter absurdity of these -assertions will of course' be apparent to all who are in the
slightest degree familiar with" homceopathic writings.;




FROVINGS OF TA EMANNh.          37
but as they may be seen by some who are ignorant
of the doctrines of Homceopathy, we deem it proper
to refute them at the onset.
The present writer has personally beheld and perused a large number of original provings by Hahnemann, in his own handwriting, detailing minutely the
circumstances under which the different drugs were
taken, the exact sizes of the doses used, and the symptoms arising from these doses. All these facts are de-.
scribed by Hahnemann in their regular order, and
with a systematic precision and minuteness unparalleled in such investigations. - In these provings the
drugs were employed both in the crude form, in
large doses, and in an attenuated state, in order that
their entire effects might thus be thoroughly displayed. Indeed we were repeatedly informed by
Madame Hahnemann, the wife of the founder of our
system, that her husband had often been made seriously ill for months at a time in consequence of his
experiments with large doses-of crude-drugs. Nearly
all of his'earlier provings were made with crude
medicines, in various doses; but afterwards reflecting
that the efforts of nature are always directed to the
speedy expulsion from the system of noxious substances, by vomiting, purging, or some other excretory process, he deemed it essential that small doses
should also be employed, in order that they might be
retained for a longer period,. and thus afforded time
to manifest their,entire pathogeneses.
Hahnemann has always inculcated the importance
of proving drugs, in both a crude and attenuated state,
and in a variety of doses. In every proving which




38         HOMEOPATHY VS. ATLLOPATH.
he or his disciples have ever made, these forms and
doses have been most accurately specified, as the experiments advanced; but the impropriety of including all these details in a Materia Medica, and the impossibility of pointing out beforehand the exact
quantity of each drug to be taken, in a work like the
Organon, will be apparent to every man of common
sense. The rules which we find in the Organon are
as precise as can be embraced in any work of this
character, as the following quotations will show:"Thus there is no safer or more natural method of
discovering the effects of medicines on the health of
man than by trying them, separately and singly, in
moderate doses, upon healthy individuals, and observing what changes they create in the moral and
physical state; that is to say, what elements of disease
these substances are capable of producing."-(Organon, p. 136.)
"In studying.the effects of medicines upon healthy
persons, it must not be forgotten that even the administration of moderate doses of the so-called heroic remedies is sufficient to produce modifications
in the health of the most robust individuals. Medicines that are more gentle in their nature ought to be
given in larger doses if we would likewise prove their
action.  Finally, if we would try the effects of the
weakest substances, the experiment must be made
upon persons only who are, it is true, free from
disease, but who; at the same time, are possessed of
a delicate, irritable and sensitive constitution."-(Organon, p. 142.)
" Each of these medicines ought to be taken in its




MODE OF PROVING DRUGS.            39
simple and pure form. As to indigenous plants, the
juice is expressed and mixed with a small quantity
of alcohol, in order to preserve it from corruption.
With regard to foreign plants they are to be pulverized or prepared as spirituous tinctures, and mixed
with a certain quantity of water previous to administration.  Salts and gums, however, ought'not to be
dissolved in water till the moment they are to be
used.  If a plant cannot be procured but in its dry
state, and if its powers are naturally feeble, it-may
be tried in the form of an infusion; that is to say,
after having cut it up small, boiling water is poured
upon it in order to extract its virtues. The infusion
ought to be drunk immediately after its preparation,
and while it is still warm, because all the juices of
plants, and all vegetable infusions to which no alcohol
is added, pass rapidly into fermentation and corruption, and thereby lose their medicinal virtues."-(Organon, p. 143.)
" Sometimes a person apparently delicate is not at
all affected by a medicine that is known to be very
powerful, though administered in moderate doses,
while other substances that are much weaker make a
tolerable imhpression'on him. At the same time there
are individuals of robust constitutions who experience
very considerable morbid symptoms from medicinal
agents that are apparently mild,. and, on the other'hand, they are likewise but little affected by others
that are powerful. But as it can never be known beforehand which of these two cases will occur, it is
proper that each should commence with a small dose,
and be afterwards increased progressively if deemed




40         HOMEOPATtY'VS. ALLOPATRfY.
requisite. Advancing, from day to day, to higher
and still higher doses."-(Organon, p. 145.)
So far then as the provings of Hahnemann are
concerned, although they were chiefly made some forty
years ago; when IHomcoopathy was in its infancy, it is
evident that the statements and- inferences published
by Dr. Hoosker are utterly false and contemptible.
Thie writer even contradicts himself upon this point
as he does upon many others.  On page 33,'he
remarks in regard to the provings that "there is no
formal set of rules prescribed, and we are left to infer
for the most part what the principles are which govern
observers in conducting these' provings,' as they are
termed."
On page 51, we find, "All agree as to the mode of
conducting the provings."
We have personally seen and examined carefully
the greater part of Hlahnemann's original manuscripts,
which are still in- possession of his wife, at Paris, and
can therefore vouch for the several facts to which -we
have alluded.
In regard to the vast number of provings made by
the disciples of HIahnemann, within the last fifty years,
we have only-to remark, that.it is a fact perfectly
well known to those who have taken any pains to
-investigate the subject, that in all instances the doses
have been specified, the symptoms have been carefully noted as they occurred, and all circumstances
connected with the experiments have been minutely
detailed.
With reference to the symptoms which have been
adopted into our Materia MIedica, the following course
has been pursued:




HOMCEOPATHIC0 MATERIA MEDICA.      41
I. A careful collection of symptoms which have
been observed in cases of accidental or intentional
poisoning, with the- pathological appearances present
in those who have died from the effects of drugs.
2. A selection of such symptoms as have been repeatedly experienced from a given drug, in large and
small doses, by manydifferent provers, in different
parts of the world.
3. Symptoms derived from  reliable Allopathic
sources.
4. Symptoms which have been repeatedly dissipated by remedies selected in accordance with the
law of srimilia similibus curantu'r.
One would naturally suppose that a Materia Mledica
founded on such data as these, should be entitled to
some confidence. Sustained as our provings are, by
such a variety of self-evident- facts, one might believe
that it would require a man of much more than
ordinary impudence and recklessness, to call these
provings imaginary and fictitious.
But the writer does not find fault alone with the
manner of conducting the provings; he, would strike
down the whole system of experimenting with drugs,
in health, as useless.  In other words, instead of
ascertaining the true specific effects of single drugs
by actual experiments upon the human body, in order
that they may be prescribed with some degree of certainty in disease, he would have us believe that it is
more philosophical to prescribe them at random —
mixed together in strange confusion, and without any
knowledge of their specific action, in accordance with
the instructions of the alchemists and other practition



42          HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
ers who flourished during the dark ages. The idea of
administering medicines singly, and in a pure form, is
supposed to be particularly absurd and unscientific,
and is sneered at accordingly. So thought those
respectable ancients who founded Allopathy, and
who deemed it essential to mix together as many
articles as possible in one prescription, in order that
some one of them should hit the disease! One very
scientific modern Allopathic physician had a favorite
recipe consisting of 100 different ingredients of every
possible description; like opiates, cathartics, tonics,
antiphlogistics, stimulants, sedatives, acids, alkalis,
etc., all mixed together with the most perfect disregard of every chemical or other rule. His argument
was, that'" out of so many dissimilar and potent drugs,
there must surely be one which would hit the nail on
the head and cure the malady."
The same theory is now practically adopted by the
great body of Allopathists. They scout the idea of
ascertaining the pure effects of medicines upon' the
human'organism, but prefer random  shots with a
great number of articles, with different properties.
By this course, they are pretty sure to hit the patient
effectually, whether the disease is reached or not.
We have the pleasure, however, of recording the
truth, that many distinguished Allopathists have, in
late'years fully recognised the importance of drug.
provings on the healthy, as a guide to their application in disease. Such facts are of course bitter
pills for such medical bigots as Dr. Hooker, but we
proceed to.administer them, as follows:
Professor Dunglison, in his work on "New Reme



IMPORTANCE OF DRUG PROVINGS.         43
dies," page seventh, writes thus: " To treat disease
methodically and effectively, the nature of the -actions
of the living tissues, in both the healthy and morbid
conditions, must be correctly appreciated; the effects
which the articles of the Materia Medica are capable
of exerting under both those conditions, mrust be
known from accurate observation, and not until then
can the practitioner prescribe with any well founded
prospect of success."
Dr. Paris, in his Materia Medica, remarks that
" observation and experiment upon the effects of
medicine are liable to a thousand: fallacies, unless
they are carefully repeatedunder thie various circumstances of'health and disease, in different climates,
and on different constitutions.'
Pereira assures us, "; that in order to ascertain the
action of remedial agents on the living body, it is
necessary that we examine their influence both in
healthy and dqiseased conditions. For,'by the first we
learn the positive or actual power of a medicine over
the body; while by the second, we see how that
power is modified by the presence of disease." (Per.
Mat. Med. and Ther., vol. 1 p. 126.)
The justness of these observations will be instantly
recognised'by every man of common sense and common honesty. The intolerant and ignorant aspersers
of Hahnemann, will continue, as a matter of course,
to vent their angry spite against this_ as well as his
other reformations, but their simple declamation will,
as heretofore, be disregarded.
3




CHAPTER III.
EXAMINATION OF TIE HO](EOPATHIC LAW OF CURE.
IN this chapter Dr. Hooker professes to " examine
the doctrines of Homeeopathy;" and it is here that he
displays, in a most pitiable manner, his utter ignorance of the whole system as taught by Hahnemann
and his followers.  For example, he says "if the
*doctrine, s8inicta s8imilibus curacntur be the 8ole law
of therapeutics, the totality of effects produced by
any article in the healthy,. should be a sure indication
that this article will relieve a similar set of symptoms
whenever they appear in the sick.  For example,
opium produces in the healthy a state- of insensibility
and somnolency, and ipecac. produces nausea and
vomiting. Therefore, if the homeopathic law be the
sole law of cure, opium  should invariably relieve
insensibility and sompnolency in the sick, and ipecac.
should invariably relieve nausea and vomiting. It
matters not that they sometimes do this in some particular cases: to prove the -law to be the sole law
they should alwayl do it." (p. 54.)
According to the writer's own confession a remedy
in order to be truly homceopathic in disease, must
be Selected which will cover the totality of the symptoms. In. other words that that medicine alone is ho



HO:EOOPATHIO LAW OF cURE.        45
mceopathic, which produces in the healthy a totality
of symptoms closely resembling those of the disease to
be cured. Suppose then we have a case of insensibilitys and somnolency, with a dozen other important
symptoms which opium  does not produce in the
healthy, does opium  correspond to this totality of
symptoms, and is it perfectly homceopathic in this
instance?  If the totality of the symptoms consists
only of insensibility and somnolency, like that which
opium produces when taken in health, then will opium
most assuredly cure; and that too " invariably."
Ipecac. "'invariably" cures nausea with eructations,
and accumulation of saliva in the mouth during the
nausea, and vomiting of mucus or the ingesta, because
it. produces  these symptoms in the healthy; but it
does not always cure nausea and vomiting, attended
with violent pains in the stomach, internal burning
heat, intense thirst, dryness of the mouth and throat,,and great tenderness of the stomach on pressure, because these symptoms are not caused by ipecacuanha when taken in health, In this case, arsenicum
corresponds to the totality of symptoms, because it
does produce these symptoms in the healthy, and it
will therefore cure.
For cases of nausea and vomiting accompanied by
different trains of symptoms, such as neither of the
above medicines produce in health, other drugs, which
will accurately correspond to these groups, will alone
prove efficacious.
"Beyond the totality of the symptoms there is
nothing discoverable in diseases by which they could
make known the nature of the medicines they




46        EHOM(EOPATHR  VS. ALLOPATIY.
stand in need- of, and we ought therefore to conclude
naturally that there can be no other indication whatever than the ensemble of the symptoms in each individual case to guide us.in the choice of a remedy."
(Organon, p. 86.)
This language is clear and explicit. It is not by
one or two symptoms of a disease'that we are to be
guided in the selection of-the appropriate remedy, but
by the ensemble -the grand total.
* This is the doctrine inculcated. by Hahnemann, and
if Dr. HooQker had given the subject ordinary attention, he would never have advanced so "shallow and
contemptible" an argument against it.
Further on w% find the following: "If similia
similibus curantur be the sole law of cure, then a
remedy should-never produce in the sick effects similar to those which it produces in the healthy."
In making this observation it is quite evident either
that the writer has intentionally endeavored to deceive his reader, or that he has never read the-Organon
or the other works, with which he professes to be familiar. Had he consulted these works he would have
learned.that it is a fundamental principle -of the homceopathic theory and practice, to create with the medicine an artificial disease similar to the natural one,
but a little stronger, for a brief period,:which shall su-.
persede and annihilate -it. He would have learned further that natural diseases are prone to run on until disorganization occurs-the reactive forces of the system
exercising comparatively little influence over them;
while medicinal diseases, when not excessive, are
temporary, and yield readily to the recuperative




AOTION OF MEDICDLES.            4
powers of-the organism. He would also have learned
that drugs produce primitive and secondary effects,
the first of which, in the. case of homceopathic remedies, are like the natural disease, but of short duration; while the last are of a character' directly opposite, or curative, and permanent.
"Every agent that acts upon the human economy,
every medicine produces more or less some notable
change in the'existing- state of the vital powers, or
creates a certain modification in the health of man for
a period of shorter or longer duration'; -'this change is
called the- priitive- fect. Although this is the joint
effect of both a medicinal and a —vital power; it belongs,
notwithstanding,- more particularly to the former,
whose action is exercised upon the body. But our
vital powers tend always to oppose their energy to
this- influence or impression. The effect that results
from this, and which belongs to our conservative vital
powers and their automatic force, bears the name of
secondary - efect or reaction.7"
" So- long as the.primitive effects of artificial morbific agents (medicines) continue their influence upon
a healthy body, the vital power appears to play
merely a passive part, as if it were compelled to un-'dergo the impression of the medicine that is acting
upon it from without. But, subsequently, this also
appears in- a manner to rouse itself. Then, if there
exists any state, directly contrary to the primitive
effect, the -vital power'manifests a tendency to
produce  one that is proportionate -to its  own
energy, and the degree of influence exercised by the
morbid or medicinal agent; and if there exists no




48         HOMCEOPASTHY VS. ALLOPATItY.
state in nature that is directly contrary to this primitive effect, the vital power then seeks to gain the ascendancy by destroying the change that has been
operated' upon it from. without (by the action of the
medicine), for which, it substitutes its' own natural
state (reaction).Y'
" For example, somnolence and stupor are rimitive effects of opium, which continue ten, twelve, or
more hours, according to the size of the dose; sleeplessness and nervous excitement always succeed this
state, constituting the secondary efect of the drug,"
" Constipation, excited by opiumsh(primitive effect), is
followed.by diarrhoea (secondary effect); and evacuations produced by purgatives (primitive effect), are
succeeded by costiveness,which lasts several days
(secondary effect). It is thus that the vital power,
in its- reaction, opposes to the primitive effects of
strong doses of medicine which operate powerfully
on the healthy state of the body, a' condition that is
directly opposite, whenever it is able to do so."
"It is true that even small doses produce primitive
effects that are perceptible; but the- reaction made
by the living organism never exceeds the degree that
is requisite for the re-establishment of health." (Organon, p. 112-13.)
The homeopath, therefore, always attacks the disease itself, by producing with his remedies, such -impressions upon the disordered structures as shall annihilate the original morbid action, and substitute in
its stead a temporary drug action, which the recuperative forces of the system always speedily remove,
if the malady be curable. The causes of disease are,




MOTION oF MEDIINES.            49
for the most part, subtile, imponderable, and in many
instances absolutely, immaterial, like sudden news,'grief, fright, anger, and other mental emotions; and
it is not surprising that infinitesimal doses of drugs,
when properly selected, may uniformly operate in such
a manner as'to overcome these' first causes, and
occupy their places. In effecting his object, the homceopath sometimes produces a temporary aggravation of symptoms with his remedy, but this is always of short duration, and is invariably followed by
a curative and permanent reaction of the system
against the effects of the drug, which supersedes the
disturbed equilibrium, and secures health. But if a
sufficiently small dose of the medicine be employed,
this aggravation, or primitive efect, will be nearly,
and perhaps entirely imperceptible, and the curative
reaction, or secondary effect, will commence almost
immediately.
By experimenting with drugs in health, the homoeopath knows -precisely upon what structures they
act specifically, and what symptoms they produce.
He knows -that disease, irritation, inflammation, and
nervous erethism, render the tissues affected morbidly sensitive to impressions of all kinds, so that things
which were salubrious and agreeable in health become then sources of the most exquisite pain, and
often actually intolerable.' He knows that if brandy,
or meat, or condiments, be introduced into an inflamed stomach, the life'of the patient is endangered.
He knows if he exposes a patient with ophthalmia to
the bright sunlight, or permits him ~to read and write
by gaslight, that disorganization and loss of sight will




50          HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
be likely to ensue. In a word, he knows that nearly
all diseases render the parts affected so extremely
susceptible to impressions of every kind, that even infinitesimal doses of specific medicines produceemanifest primitive effects, and therefore if he administers
his remedies in a crude state, he is almost certain to
produce too violent effects, in the forms of medicinal aggravations, like those which Hahnemann first
observed from  the use of ordinary doses of crude
drugs.  From  necessity- therefore, and  not from
theory, the believer in Homceopathy uses small doses,
in- order to avoid the most serious medicinal actions.
In regard to the doses, one rule obtains among all
jitdicious homceopathists, viz..: to give a sufficient
quantity of the drug to cure the disease, with as
little detriment to the healthy parts, and to the general system, as possible. The homceopath has medicines of every grade of strength, from the saturated
tinctures and alkaloids to the highest dilutions; but
as he has to deal with morbid conditions, totally different from those in health, and with inflamed tissues,
so refined in sensibility that light, noise, or even
mental emotions, become powerful disturbing agents,
he finds it necessary, from experience, to adapt his
doses to the altered sensibility of the disordered parts,
that he may avoid unnecessarily active influences.
Is not this philosophical, reasonable, and perfectly in
accordance with common sense?
If allopathists, with their empirical, contradictory,
and pernicious notionis, choose to combat diseases by
inflaming healthy parts, and filling the systems of
their patients with large quantities of deleterious




ANCIENT ALLOPATHY.            51
drugs, of which they know nothing with,certainty,
and'which they never presume to take themselves, when
sick, we can only say, God help the poor victims, their
patients!- If they prefer to adhere to a -school which
has no fixed principles of theory or practice; a school
which has successively adopted for a time, and then
abandoned as worthless, more hypotheses and modes,
of treatment than could be even enumerated in a volume; a school abounding in professors who nearly all
differ in opinion, (both theoretically and practically,)
and who very generally quarrel when called together
in consultation; a school eminently ill defined, unsuccessful, and which is entirely destitute of' the confidence of many of its own most learned and- accomplished adherents-we can only say, God is kind to them,
in rendering their reminiscences of practice oblivious!
Among the numerous. theoretical and practical
tenets which' have been in vogue in this school, we
quote the following from a "Practice of PAysic, or
Dr. Sydenham's Processus Integri, translated out of
Latin into English,,with large Annotations, Animad —
versions and Practical -Observations on the Same, by
William Salmon, M. D.- London: 1707."  And let it
be remembered that Sydenham was not only a standard
allopathic author at the date of this performance, but
that he now ranks as one of the fathers of Allopathy,
whose name and memory are held in veneration by
its modern disciples. Whether the latter have really
improved upon their illustrious predecessor is a matter
of doubt, which future generations will have to decide.
Selecting the chapiter on Pleurisy as a fair sample
of the book, we present the writer's views respecting
3*




52         HOMBOPATHY Vs. ALLOPSATlt.
the cause of the malady, which he says consists of a'" preternatural fermentation of the blood extravasated;
in which fermentation, the sharp particles do by their
points or acrimony, vellicate the membraceous parts,
and'being intimately fixed in the nervous fibres, they
make a concussion therein, which because it is continued to the origination of the nerves, a sad sensation
or' pain does arise, which is various, dull, pungent,
rending, throbbing, distending, corroding, &c., according to the nature of the part affected, quality of the
spirits, and concurrent - particles of the blood and
humors" (page 52).
In regard-. to the treatment of Pleurisy, we quote
the following from page 53: "Bleed' on the affected
side three or four times, and take away ten ounces of
blood. The juice expressed out of horse-dung, with
water drawn from ox, calves, sheep, or hog's blood, is
commended as an excellent thing, because'it imbibes
the pleuritic acid. Helmont rejects bleeding as an
accursed remedy; because a pleurisy, cured by bleeding, often leaves a consumption behind it; and that
they'who use bleeding much do: often fall into this
disease: He commends powder of stag's' tail, which
may be drank to a drachm at a' time; so also goat's
blood, taken liquidand warnm, or dried and given in
powder to a drachm or more.' Powder of bull's tail is
also good, and of,a boar's tooth. Or, take powder oJ
goat's blood, and of stag's tail, of each. one scrwple
red poappy-water ana ounce and a half; mix for a dose...Or, take'roweros of red poppies, and of daisies, leaves
of woild chicory, of each a handful; horse-dung -an
ounce and a half; boil in barley water ac suficient




ANCIENT AD IMODERN ALLOPATflY.       53
qZantity, strain, and sweeten with syrup of red poppies: of which let the sick take a draught now and
then."  Various other remedies are advised to cure
this complaint, like the "spirit, or volatile salt of
man's blood, and of vipers, crab's eyes, etc.," which
are recommended as "incomlcarable things."
This, it is true, is the allopathy of 1707, but as the
chief argument which at the present day is adduced
in favor of the school, is its antiquity, and the great
mass of facts, and of theoretical and practical observations, which have been handed down in it from the,
venerated fathers of Allopathy, it would be unfair to
leave the doctrines of these periods unrepresented.
But, what real improvements has modern Allopathy made over ancient Allopathy? Are the violent and
heterogeneous compounds of the.moderns any more
successful in curing diseases, than the more harmless
compounds of the ancients? Are the random and haphazard formulae of the one any more definite and
satisfact6ry in their effects, than those of the other?
Is the " volatile spirit of vipers, or of man's blood " any
less indicated in pleurisy, than the " spirits of nitre, or
of minderiri a " Are the powders of " stag's tail, boar's
tooth, goat's blood, and crab's eyes," any less efficient
in combatting this malady than Dover's pbwders,
James's powders, and calomel powders? If we may
believe the published reports of old allopathists, their
treatment was more successful than that of their modern
descendants; upon the principle, probably, that their
remedies opposed fewer obstacles to the kindly operation of the vias medicatriz naturc, than do those of
young Allopathy. Will -Dr. Hooker, and his confreres of 1852, with their spirits of nitre and minderiri,




to.        HOMCEOPATItY VS. ALLOPATXTY.
and their powders of calomel, opium, etc., pretend to
cure pleurisy as speedily and as safely, as did Dr.
Sydenham and his associates of 1700, with " spirits of
vipers and of man's blood," and " powders of stag's
tail, boar's tooth, and crab's eyes?" So far as we can
ascertain the facts in the case, the balance of evidence
is in favor of the old practice, and on all his own principles, we may insist on its adoption by Dr. Hooker.
At page 56, our- candid and logical critic intimates
that "' Hahnemann and his followers assert most
stoutly, that camphor removes the totality of symptoms called cholera." Where, among the writings of
Hahnemann and his followers, has Dr. Hooker ever
seen any assertion of this kind? Where can he point
to a single passage from which even an inference might
be drawn, that camphor alone covers and removes all
the symptoms of cholera? In what homeopathic work
has he ever seen it advised, except for certain specified
symptoms, which may or may not be present in
cholera?
Here again, Dr. Hooker has either made a wilful
misrepresentation of the doctrines of Homoeopathy, or
he has never read the books he-professes to criticize.
Neither Hahnemann nor his disciples, have ever prescribed for the name of a disease, but always for symptoms alone. Camphor produces in the healthy a few
symptoms which frequently, but not invariably, occur during certain stages of cholera; and it is for
these symptoms alone that it is a specific remedy, and
not for cholera as a unit, or a " totality of symptoms."
Every one who has ever looked into a homeoopathic
work on practice, is perfectly aware that there.are
quite a number of remedies not less important than




SIMlLIA SIMTIBUS CURAINTUIR.       55
camphor, in-the treatment of cholera, and that these
remedies are always selected in accordance with the
synmptoms present in any given case. The most charitable construction, therefore, which can be put upon
this part of the "' examination, of the doctrines of Homeeopathy," would be of ignorance and stupidity on
the part of the writer.
Again, on page 56, Dr. Hooker remarks: "If simiia s8iwilibus curantur'be the sole law under which
cures are effected, then we should be able to prove,
either that the vital powers are never competent to cure
disease alone and unassisted by remedies, or, that they
do it in. conformity with the homceopathic law."
By referring to a quotation from tHahnemann* on
page 112-13, the reader will at once appreciate the sophistry of this mode of reasoning. - Hahnemann
everywhere declares thlat there is always a reaction of
the vital principle against all deleterious influences
acting upon the body, whether morbific or medicinal.;
and that it is through the instrumentality of this reaction alone that cures are effected.  It is true that
morbific influences are often so intense in their ef —
fect as to resist the natural curative reaction- of the
vital force; and it is in cases of this kind that new medicinal impressions must be created in the place of
the natural disease, in order that the vital powers
may react successfully and thus induce a cure.  If
the morbific action has been slight this natural reaction will be sufficient-to resto~rethe disordered tissues
to health; but if the action be more intense it must
be changed to a healthy medicinal action before a
cure can'take place.
* Organon.




56         HOMEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATfY.
After commenting upon the fallacy of trusting to hypotheses and theories in founding a system of medical
practice-a course which has been -pursued Mup to the
present moment by allopathists-the writer proceeds:
"s Not only is it untrue that similia similibus corantur
is the sole law of therapeutics, but there is no proof
that it is even one among the many laws of cure
which are employed in the removal of disease."
If Dr. Hooker will examine the standard authors
of Allopathy he will-find that opium and alcoholic
stimulants, when used to excess by the healthy, produce delirium tremens; and if he continues his examination he will see that these are the chief allopathic remedies for the cure of that disease.  If Dr.
Hooker will swallow an allopathic dose of rhubarb in
health, he will experience, in a few hours, a perturbation in his bowels, attended by copious, loose evacuations, with a sour smell, etc.; if he consults his books
he will observe that rhubarb is highly commended
for diarrhceas of this character.  If Dr. Hooker will
drug himself for some time with mercury he will get
an ulcerated mouth and throat, pains in his bones,
foul breath, augmented sensibility of the body, etc.;
if he again consults his books he will see that mercury
is the only specific advised for the same group of symptoms which arise from syphilis. If Doctor Hooker will
experiment upon'-himself with 30 or 40 grains- of
ipecacuanha, he will probably feel a nausea at the
stomach which will cause him  to expel the article
with profound indignation; his allopathic authorities
will inform him that this- drug, in, doses of one-sixth
of a grain, is one of the most important remedies to




AmLOPATIO USE OF SMILA.          57
cure nausea and vomiting. If Dr. Hooker will take
large and repeated doses of balsam copaibae in health
he will experience symptoms quite similar to-gonorrhcea: can he ever have heard of this as an allopathic remedy for that malady? Calomel, in repeated
allopathic doses, causes, according to Pereira, dark
or greenish mucus, and bloody stools, with griping
and tenesmus: is there any medicine more frequently
used by old-school practitioners to cure these symptoms than calomel?  Topical applications to the
healthy urethra of a strong solution of nitrate of
silver give rise to symptoms which can scarcely be
distinguished from gonorrhoea: if Dr. Hooker consults his " Ricord" he will find that this is the most
prominent local remedy for the cure of that disorder.
This same homeopathic law of similia applies with
full force to the' topical treatment now so generally
adopted by allopathists for the cure of diseases of
the mucous membranes of the throat and bronchia,
and of the utero-genital structures.
We might multiply such examples ad inkizitum,
and prove, from the best old-school authorities, not
only that these homeopathic remedies produce in
health symptoms similar to those'which they'cure,
but that they give rise to pathological changes similar
to those caused -by the action of natural diseases.
Those who are familiar with the physiological researches of Flourens, Majendie, Brodie, Miiller and
Wilson, with reference to'the specific operations of
opium, belladonna, mercury, stramonium, alcohol,
etc., upon men and -animals, will at once recognise
the truth of these remarks.




Ei8        HOMCEOPAT]EY VS. ALLOPATHY.
From the few examples just enumerated, in which
our opponents employ the homceopathic law of cure,
it is quite evident that they practically recognise its
truth. Indeed, some allopathic writers," taking the
bull by the horns," concede its importance as a therapeutic law, and claim it as a discovery of Hippocrates.
Not so, however, with the vindictive conservatives of
the school, who cannot, or rather will not, see any proofs
in science, except such as have the very mold of antiquity about them. These redoubtable'oratcles are
regular descendants of the wise doctors who for so
long a period and with such virulence ridiculed the
discoveries of Harvey and Jenner.
In one part of his essay Dr. Hooker denounces
" provings" of all kinds, -and seeks to ridicule the minute directions given by -Hahnemann for conducting
them; -and in referring to them again, on page 65,
he dilates upon'the importance of minuteness and precision, and informs us how in his opinion they should
be managed. It is amusing to observe the grave assurance with which he writes of the "' loose reasoning"
and " loose analogies" of Hahnemann, who was so preeminently a man of facts, accurate in his data and
logical in his deductions, and who has elicited the
highest encomiums- from  men like tHufeland and
Forbes for his genius and metaphysical acumen. It is
certainly very laughable to behold a man of Dr.
Hooker's calibre seeking to pit himself against an intellectual giant like Hahnemann; to see his few senseless phrases thrown at the great structure of Homeopathy, with about as much effect as a ragged urchin
would produce in storming Castle Garden with snow



HOMIEOPATHIC MATERTA~ MEDICA. 9A
balls; and then to suppose that his misrepresentations
and flimsy sophistries will have the least weight or effect with any one in the wide world, if we except those
allopathic physicians whose ideas and whose reasonings lie in their pockets.- It is easy for an ape to
chatter and make up faces at a lion, or for a cur
dog to bark at the moon; and it is not difficult for
small men to cry out continually, " quack," "impostor," "cheat," or to sustain these demolishing
"arguments'' by making mouths at the greatest and
best of mankind.
When it is remembered that nearly every drug contained in the homceopathic IMateria Medica has been
repeatedly proved, in every variety of form and dose,
by numerous medical men in various parts of the
world, with uniform results, and that the pathological
changes which have been observed by allopathists in
those who-have been poisoned by these drugs, fully'confirm the records of provings,. no candid man can
doubt their truthfulness and reliability.  Some of
the provers have sacrificed health,-comfort, and
years of time, in such hazardous and laborious investigations, which will ever stand recorded as undying monuments of honor to these practical ameliorators of human danger and suffering. Indolent individuals who have themselves accomplished nothing
in the field of science, and who lack the energy or talent to appreciate the works of others, may look wise
and cry out "'humbug and delusion!" but the great
public, who are guided by facts and results, notwithstanding all mercenary attempts to mislead, will
receive the truth and be benefitted accordingly.




CHAPTER  IV.
EXAMINATION OF DOCTRINES AND DOSES.
IN his fourth chapter, Dr. Hooker again throws
himself into an extraordinary state of indignation respecting homceopathic doses.  He is exceedingly
provoked  that homceopaths generally  recognise
different degrees of susceptibility in the sick organism, and that they have the obstinacy to select medicines of such strength as may appear most appropriate to induce a cure speedily and safely.
He observes, at page 72, " if medicines produce in
infinitesimal doses such-effects as are attributed to
them, and if there- be such wide differences in the
susceptibilities of the sick, it must be very important
to fix upon exactly the right dose in each case. And
if an ifinnitesimal dose of a medicine, carefully prepared, with just the right amount of agitation and
trituration, be appropriate to a case, then it would
certainly be very injurious to the patient to give a
million of such doses at once."
The shallowness and sophistry of this entire extract renders a refutation  almost superfluous, as




PmIosoPIP  OF DOSES.            61
will be evident to all who reflect upon the operation
of morbific substances upon the human body. Thus,
a single inhalation of'the atmosphere of a room infected with infinitesimal atoms of smallpox or scarlet
fever contagion, is capable of giving rise to either of
these maladies -in their full force: according to Dr.
Hooker, "a million of such inhalations" ought to
demolish'the unfortunate breathers! A small particle of the virus of chancre, or of a smallpox pustule,
placed upon a denuded surface, produces the syphilitic ulcer or the variolous pustule, with all its attendant symptoms, but according to the " logical and
close-reasoning" Dr. Hooker, a million times this
amount of virus placed upon an exposed part, ought
instantly to convert the strongest man into a " greasespot." An individual passing rapidly through a
marshy district infected with infinitesimal miasmatic
atoms, becomes affected with intermittent fever:
according to the philosophical critic, should. this
individual by chance be detained in this infected
region for several weeks, he would get an intermittent
fever of such awful intensity that he would evaporate
into thin air by spontaneous combustion, or else be
converted into a human icicle from the severity of his
chills'!
But it is. unnecessary-to multiply examples to show
the absurdity of the modes of reasoning adopted by
our disingenuous opponents. If they would devote but
a tithe of that time to a candid and honest investigation of the great' truths of the homceopathic doctrine,' which they now expend in racking' their brains
to raise false issues and to invent sophistries and cal



62         HOM(EOoPATHY VS. ALLOPATHE.
umnnies against it, they might perhaps meet with some
degree of respect from the public, instead of that contempt which they now receive.
If these gentlemen will really examine the doctrines
of Homceopathy, they will find among them the following plain and incontrovertible precepts:
1, The conservative forces of the organism are always brought to bear against all deleterious influences acting upon the tissues. If the disturbing cause
be slight, nature alone suffices to bring about a curative reaction; but when the morbific impression is so
intense as to resist the restorative efforts of nature,
the homzeopath deems it necessary to call in the aid
of medicines.
2. In his remedial measures the- homeopath recognises but one law of cure, viz., simigla s8ail'blUs curcantur. But while he distinctly avows this doctrine
so far as the application of drugs is concerned, he
nowhere asserts, as Dr. Hooker falsely pretends, that
the restorative efforts of nature are not alone sufficient,
in many cases, to cure disease.
3. The only real cures ever made by drugs,- are
accomplished in accordance with the homceopathic
law, whether made by physicians of the old or the
new school —by crude drugs or by dilutions.
4. No two diseases, whether morbific or medicinal,
can affect the same structure at the same time.
5. The vital force reacts with much less power
against impressions made by morbific agents, than
against those caused by specific medicinal influences.
Disorders, therefore, caused by the former, tend to
run on to- the cflsorganization of the affected parts,




HOMdCEOPATHIO TENETS.          63
while those produced by the latter, speedily result in
spontaneous recoveries.
6. Homceopathic medicines expend their entire
forces upon those parts alone which are actually diseased; and-it is for this reason that veryminute doses
are adequate to produce those impressions which result in spontaneous curative reactions.
7. A medicinal: action, sufficient to cure disease,
may be produced either by the tincture or by a- dilution of the appropriate remedy,-our only object
being, to substitute a healthy drug action' in the
place of a -morbid one. Experience, however, has
amply demonstrated, that in a majority of instances
diluted drugs' act more mildly, more speedily and
more safely in provoking curative reactions, than crude
medicines, the first impressions of which are more
active than is absolutely necessary for curing, although
not usually so active as to give rise to serious results.
Drugs never loose their, identity, individuality, or
specific -modes of action, whatever may be the form
they are made to assume. The word dose is a relati've term, depending upbn the nature and form of-the
drug, the sensitiveness of the patient, and the amount
of inflammation or nervous erethism present in each
case. If one grain of tartar emetic in solution, or
twenty grains of ipecacuanha be introduced into a
vein of one of the extremities of a healthy individual,
the specific effects of these drugs upon the stomach
and skin, will speedily become manifest by vomiting
and perspiration. If sloth of a grain of tartar emetic,
or one half a grain of ipecac. be injected into the
blood of the same individual their specific actions




G6,4:      HOMMEOPATHY VS. ATLLOPATHY.
will still be maintained, although neither vomiting nor
perspiration will be produced. But if the stomach or
skin be affected with inflammation, or other morbid
sensibility, the last named doses will then manifest
their entire specific action in the' form of nausea,
vomiting, sweat, etc. If a given dose of medicine
were administered to one hundred individuals, it is
probable that no two of them would be affected with
precisely the same symptoms; although the characteristic specific impressions of the drug would be produced in all, with different degrees of intensity. It
is for this reason that homceopathists, from the time
of Hahnemann to the present day, have employed, -in
their provings of, drugs, every variety of form and
dose, and numerous experimenters of different ages,
sexes, temperaments, countries, and occupations, in
order that the most complete pathogeneses might be
obtained.
The susceptibilities of the tissues of the organism
to medicinal impressions, are proportionate to the
amount of inflammation, irritation, or nervous erethism present in each case; and as -no two maladies
or groups of symptoms ever correspond precisely in
all respects, it follows that a great variety of strengths
may be employed with advantage in our remedial
applications. 
10. In regard to doses, the homeopath has but one
object in view, viz., the'selection of that strength or
attenuation which will most safely, mildly and
speedily cure the disease. As this is purely a matter
of experience and of facts, and not at all connected
with the homeopathic theory of cure, its entire




THE TWO SCHOOLS CONTRASTED..65
reasonableness must commend itself to the judgments of candid men.
Let us now briefly contrast these homeopathic
precepts with those generally adopted by our Allopathic opponents in the treatment of disease, and see
on which side reason and truth lie.
Homceopathy addresses her remedies to those parts
alone which are actually dise'ased: Allopathy, in her
remedial measures, operates upon parts. which are
healthy.
Homoeopathy seeks to cure disease with as little
medicine as possible, in order that the organism shall
not suffer from serious medicinal diseases: Allopathy
employs enormous quantities of poisonous drugs for,the express purpose of creating artificial diseases in
healthy parts.
Homceopathy prescribes only for symptoms which
really exist: Allopathy prescribes for various groups
of symptoms under the same general name.
Homceopathy employs only those medicines which
have been carefully and repeatedly proved upon the
healthy:- Allopathy prescribes her violent drugs in
accordance with the traditions which have been
handed down from the sorcerers, the alchemists, and
the humoral pathologists of old.
Homceopathy recognises only a single law of cure,
and upon this law her whole system is founded: A1lopathy announces -numerous and' contradictory laws
both of theory and practice, but in her vague, and
empirical routine, adopts none of them.
Finally, Homceopathy relies solely upon the successful cures she accomplishes, for her prosperity and




636       IHOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
advancement: Allopathy, with no sound arguments to
sustain her, haunted by the ghosts of innumerable
victims which she has sent out of the world prematurely, and execrated by thousands of haggard living
beings whose constitutions have been ruined by her
destructive poisons, relies upon misrepresentations,
calumnies, collegiate persecutions, and impotent denunciations, to arrest the progress of her increasingly
powerful rival, and to retain the small influence she
still maintains over a portion of the lower classes.
After commenting at considerable length- upon the
wide range of doses employed by the homceopath; and
endeavoring to similate the laws which govern the
operations of imponderable -agents with those which
pertain to crude substances, Dr. Hooker arrives at'the
sage conclusion that " the range-of doses in Allopathy
is somewhat smaller than the range of doses in homceopathic practice."
We freely concede the truth- of.this observation,
and shall endeavor to adduce some reasons for this difference in "ranges."
We take it for granted that every man of-common
sense acknowledges -the vast powers of imponderable
agents, whether of vegetable, animal, or mineral origin. We suppose it will also be conceded, that the
laws which govern the actions of these agents, whether
operating chemically, morbifically, or medicinally, are
as yet entirely unknown, although ample observation
has demonstrated that they are as strongly pronounced
as those, which we observe in the reactions of ponderable substances.
The absurdity and sophistry, therefore, of entering




LARGE AND SMALL DOSES.            67
into arithmetical calculations, -and of alluding to differences in weight and bulk, when treating upon imponderable substances of all descriptions, will be apparent to the commonest intellect. We should consider the man an idiot who would be guilty of such folly
when writing or speaking of contagious or epidemic
substances, malaria, or the- molecules of electricity,
caloric,. and air; and he would certainly be no less
foolish who would attempt to bring his arithmetic or
his chemistry to bear upon other matters in this kind.
If, then, experience has taught the homceopathist
that a wide range of imponderable attenuations may
be used with advantage in his various therapeutical
measures, what. sensible man will have the presumption to gainsay the principle's utility?  Because the
crude doses of-Allopathy, which act mechanically,
chemically, or as corrosives, upon the delicate structures of the body: absolutely require to'be limited in
range, does it follow that the subtile and imponderable
doses ofl Homceopathy should be subjected to similar
regulations?
By sad experience, the old school physician finds
that he. cannot give more than.30 or 40 grains of quinine, daily, for several successive days, without killing
his patient.- If he prescribes only three or four grains
a day, he does, not often cure, but establishes a new
disease in the liver, which is superadded to that he attempts'.to cure. The process in this case is analogous
to that adopted in, France, in stuffing geese, so that
their liveis may become enlarged sufficiently to make
lpate de foi gras. His, range of doses is thus necessarily limited, for it would- be beneath his dignity to use
4




68         HOMICEOPATt Y VS. ALLOPATHY.
quinine in smaller doses than one grain, and he knows
it is pretty certain to kill if he exceeds thirty grains.
It would perhaps afford him infinite pleasure if he
could cram his patient with the entire contents' of
an apothecary's shop, but when he contemplates
such a course, a skeleton flits before him, and he desists.
In his use of calomel, the allopathist allows himself
more freedom. In New England, doses as small as
one-tenth of a grain are employed, and ten grains are
considered a full dose; but at the South and West,
calomel is given in doses of sixty and seventy grains,
and often repeated, until five and six hundred grains
have been taken, or'until the patient is' destroyed.
This is a pretty wide range, considering the nature of
the drug; and the discrepancy in the dosses of the
northern and southern allopathists, is somewhat notable; but the argument of the South is, that these
large doses:are not so apt to get into the blood as the
smaller doses of the North, and that therefore they are
less annoyed with those dreadful cases of necroses of
the bones, mercurial palsy, rheumatism, nodes, ulceration, gangrene, and sloughing of the gums, mouth,
and throat, loss of teeth, mercurial' erethism, mercurial
dysentery, etc., than are their northern brethren.
The allopathic range then. in the case of calomel,
is from one-tenth of a grain to sixty or seventy grains.
He cannot descend lower than the sixteenth of a grain,
because it would indicate a leaning towards homeeopathic doses,- which would ill become him; and he
cannot advance in the other direction for fear of murdering his patient. Professional expediency on the




UDE FND ATTENUATED DRUGS.         69
one hand, and necessity on the other, again govern
him.
With respect to other medicines, he is restrained by
the same causes.- On one side he beholds the small
doses of lomceopathy, and his self-conceit, his pride,
and his ignorant dislike of everything pertaining to
the new system, deter him from making any innovations in this direction. On the other hand, the stringent laws against direct murder and manslaughter,
serve to keep him  just within certain prescribed
bounds.
On page 76, we find this statement: "If both ordinary doses and'infinitesimal ones cure disease, they
must obviously do -it in different ways. The action
of the potentized infinitesimal upon the system'nust
be regulated ]by different principles from those which
govern the action of the same article in its crude form."
The absurdity of the assertion will at once be apparent, on the examination of a single substance, as
mercury, for example. This -mineral in any of its
ordinary crude forms, and in ordinary doses, causes
salivation, foetid breath, pains in the bones, etc.; if
it becomes diffused through the atmosphere in the
form of infinitesimal atoms, and these are taken into
the blood through the lungs, the same phenomena as
in the first instance present themselves-salivation,
feetid breath, etc.
Drugs, as we have before remarked, never lose
their identity or specific'modes of operation upon the
human tissues. By effecting changes in the forms of
drugs, we often develop latent properties, and thus
add much to their curative spheres; but during this




'0        HIOMCEOPATRY VS. ALLOPATHY.
process they lose nothing of their individuality, or of
their specific therapeutical properties. Symptoms,
therefore, derived from ordinary doses of crude medicines, are as characteristic of their specific actions
upon the organism, as are those produced by infinitesimal doses of the same substances.
It is for this reason that every article in the hommeopathic Materia- Medica has been repeatedly
proved in both its crude and attenuated forms, and
doses of almost every variety.
The only attempt at proof which Dr. Hooker has
made to sustain the last quotation, is as follows: If
both a rope, and an invisible filament of one, be supposed to raise a heavy weight, they must do it,-according to Dr. Hooker, on'different principles; and,
therefore, crude doses, and infinitesimal ones must
cure diseases on different principles. This syllogism
is about as logical and sensible as the one that, "  Man
is an animal and a hors'e is an animal-therefore a
man is a horse."
The idea of likening the laws which govern the
subtile operations of the living body, and the medicines acting upon it under the various circum instances
of health and disease, to those which preside over
inanimate matter, in lifting a weight with a rope,
must have been borrowed from that notable allopathist
of the last century, who invented the " powders of
bull's tail, man's skull and goat's blood," as sovereign
remedies in pleurisy.  We are dailvy expecting
another essay from Dr. Hooker denouncing the vis
medicatr-~.naturce as a fallacy and humbug, because
he cannot tie -it to- a heavy weight, and raise it into




ATATOMY,_ PHYSIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY.    71
the air, or " trot it out" and make it perform according to his allopathic notions.
Again, at page 79, Dr. Hooker remarks: "  hey
(the homceopathists).as a body wholly neglect the study
of Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology.  These
have no place ind the science of their therapeutics."
Of course Dr.. Hooker knew, when he penned this
calumny, that he was uttering a very absurd as well as
wicked falsehood. On the very pages of most of the
homceopathic authorities he professes to have examined,'Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology" are
constantly treated of, and are always alluded to as
important auxiliaries in elucidating the homceopathic
theory and practice. Dr. HIooker knew that one of
the most eminent homzeopathic physicians in Europe,
Professor Henderson, actually occupied the chair of
Pathology in the University of Edinburgh, at the
time he made this infaimous assertion.  In the two
homceopathic medical colleges of this country, at
Philadelphia and Cleveland, "Anatomy, Physiology,
and Pathology" are as thoroughly taught and are
deemed as important to the student, as they are in
allopathic colleges, and portions of the homceopathic
journals from which he quotes are devoted to these
very subjects; but in the face of all these palpable
facts, Dr. Hooker-has the assurance to publish such
a libel!
In order to put the honesty of Dr. Hooker to the test,
we hereby offer to. stake $1000, for the benefit of the
poor of New York, on the result of an examination
of the following proposition. We will designate four,
six, or more, if desired, of the very youngest homreo



72        HIOMEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
pathic physicians in. New York city, and display the
knowledge of any'one of them against that of Dr.
looker, in the above named branches-the examinations to be made, and the verdict to be rendered, by
any three competent and impartial scholars. Let us
see if the gentleman is as bold in testingfacts as he
is in making this sort of assertions. We do not believe
that a single homeopathic physician can be found,
either in this country or in Europe, who does not esteem
a knowledge of Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology,
not merely important, but absolutely essential to a
proper appreciation and practice of his profession.
In his pathological investigations, the homceopathist
does not indeed place'much reliance upon the autopsical appearances presented by those who have died
under allopathic treatment, on account of the difficulty
of distinguishing between the changes which have
arisen from the natural disease, and those which have
been caused by the poisonous drugs employed during
the treatment. In a majority of the cases -of death
under allopathic management, it is always a matter
of much difficulty to determine- whether the disease,
or the treatment of it, has contributed most towards
the fatal issue; and it is on this account that the
pathology of Allopathy is so defective and unworthy
of confidence. But in all cases where individuals
have died from natural disease alone, or from poisonous doses of drugs, homceopathists have uniformly
placed a high-estimate upon pathological investiga-,
tions.
The few last pages of Chapter IV. are made up of
a series of misstatements, and an absurd exhibition of




IDENTIIT OF DRUGS.            73
special pleading respecting what are impudently styled
the " inconsistencies" of homceopathic provings with
crude and attenuated medicines, doses, etc.
It is amusing to witness the flippancy with which
the writer seeks to pervert the ideas of Hahnemann
and his followers, by inventing his own data, and
then arguing against Homceopathy on the strength
of the positions which he falsely attributes to Hahnemann. For example, he everywhere implies that
according to the homceopathic doctrine, drugs lose
their identity, and become so altered in all respects
by the process of attenuation, that entirely new and
opposite properties are developed in them, so that
their modes of action.must be directly the reverse of
what they were in the crude state! Thus, at page 89,
we find the following: "They (homceopathists) record
in their collections of provings, indiscriminately, symptoms occurring under the use of both crude drugs and
dynamized infinitesimals; though they assert that
the latter act upon the system by virtue of a new
power given, to them in their preparation, and of
course cannot produce effects analogous tb those of
the former."
To prove the utter mendacity of the last part of this
quotation, we copy this statement from page 136 of
Hahnemann's Organon: " It is necessary to know the
fu2ll extent of the power by virtue of which each medicine excites disease. In other terms, it is requisite
that all the morbid symptoms and changes of the
health which their action individually is capable of
producing in the economy shall have been observed, as
closely as possible, before any one can hope to be able




74         HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
to find or select from  among them  homemopathic
remedies that are appropriate to the greater number
of natural diseases."
In no work on Hommeopathy' has DI). Hooker ever
seen a single observation from which it could be inferred that the effects of crude and attenuated drugs
upon the organism, are not analogous. He has
everywhere seen, that by the process of attenuation,
latent properties of drugs become developed; in such
a manner that their entire specific effects may become
manifest upon the human body; but he has never
seen it stated that drugs lose their individuality and
specific  kind of action under any circumstances, or
that new and opposite properties are communicated to
them by the process of attenuation.
"The entire curative virtues of medicines depend
solely upon the power they have of modifying the
state of health." (Organon.) It matters not whether
this "modification of the state of health" be produced by -a large or small dose, or by a crude or
attenuated medicine; it is the correspondence of the
primitive symptoms caused by the drug, with those
of the natural disease, to which the hommaeopath
looks in the selection of his remedy. This is his
great therapeutical law, and this his chief guide in the
treatment of diseases.
The'homeopathic Materia Medica is made up of
primitive symptoms, derived from very numerous experiments made by men of undoubted integrity, with
both crude and attenuated medicines. In conducting
these experiments the utmost regularity, accuracy,
and care have always been observed, and those symp



SCALE OF ATTENUATIONS.           75
toms only retained which have repeatedly and uni.formly been experienced by different experimenters,
in different countries, at different periods, and under
a great variety of circumstances. Nearly all of these
provings have likewise been corroborated by cases of
accidental poisonings reported by our opponents, and
by pathological facts. What more than this can be
reasonably required to substantiate the reality and
the perfect accuracy of the facts under consideration.
Throughout the whole of his essay the writer is
constantly working himself into a passion, because
ilahnemann and his disciples, in carrying out their
therapeutical law to its full and legitimate extent, have
deemed it proper to make use of medicines of a great
variety of strengths, from the mother tinctures up to
very high dilutions. In commenting upon this subject,
Dr. Hooker involves himself in, repeated contradictions; for while he concedes that Hahnemann, in the
-first instance, practised in accordance with simtilia
with -ordinary-doses of crude medicines, he is constantly pretending that only infinitesimal doses are
really homeopathic, and in accordance with the
doctrines of Hahnemann. Why did the author of
Homneopathy direct the preparation of a variety of
strengths of drugs, from the. strongest tinctures up to
the thirtieth dilutions, and-" point out examples in
which these different-preparations should be employed,
unless he considered this scale of strengths harmonious with his great law  of cure, and of practical
utility. Why has he so repeatedly inculcated the
importance of selecting remedies of such strengths as
shall be most appropriate in each case, in order that
4*




76         HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
the curative reactions may be no more violent than
necessary to restore the disordered parts? We reply,
for the almost universally conceded reason that the
tissues of the human organism, during disease, are subject to a very great variety of degrees of susceptibility
to medicinal impressions. Dr. Hooker may affect to
despise this self-evident fact, both in theory and practice, and continue to dose his patients indiscriminately,
as heretofore, with scruple doses of calomel and jalap,
etc., but-Heaven help the delicate human structures
thus empirically assailed.
Allusion is made at page 90, and in other places,
to the employment of "' allopathic doses" of tincture
of camphor in cholera, by IHahnemann and his -followers. This, like most of the other assertions in the
book, is simply false.  Dr. Hooker knows that he
cannot point to a single homoeopathic writer who has
ever advised camphor or any other medicine in " allopathic doses." Tincture of camphor has been prescribed in cholera by homceopathists, in doses of one,
and possibly two drops, but never in.the usual allopathic doses of fifty or sixty drops. In all the instances, therefore, where he has spoken of the use of
C" allopathic doses," in disease, by homceopathic physicians, the reader may rest assured that he has published what he knew, while writing it, to be untrue.
We are aware that allopathists have been forced, by'the great influence of Homeeopathy upon the'public
mind, and by their lack of confidence in their system, to diminish their doses to a very great extent,
but this significant fact does not justify the calumny
to which we have just referred. Our amiable oppo



DISCOVEREiS IN SOIENOE.        77
nents would doubtless.be very glad to restrict Homnceopathy, by defining what particular dilution shall be
exclusively adopted; and also to appropriate, as many
of them have. already attempted to do, our therapeutical law, sz'm silia  imilibus curantur.  But when
future generations shall look back upon the, records of
those who have made the most important discoveries
in medical science, the name of Samuel Hahnemann
will stand foremost in the list, while those who now
asperse him and his doctrines will be among jests and
wonders that are half forgotten.




CHAPTER V.
THE INCONSISTENCIES OF ALLOPATRY kAND HER
ADVOCATES.
IN chapter V. of the " evidences," it is asserted that
all cures which take place under homeopathic treatment are attributable to the kindly operations of the
vis mnedicatrix natqura, and that the numerous deaths
which occur under allopathic. treatment must be
placed to the account of " bad Allopathy."
From these luminous "evidences," the reader is
left to infer that Homceopathy has only been tested in
a " few families," and in a few'" chronic cases," —
that its advocates are quacks, fools, liars, artful, dishonest, impudent, altogether destitute of judgment. To
support these astounding " evidences" the writer has
advanced two most noticeable confirmations, viz.: 1st,
his own assertion; and, 2d, a wonderful medicine box
which was picked up in New-York many years ago,
containing calomel, morphine, tartar emetic, &c., with
a number of homceopathic phials containing pellets!
These potent "evidences" are so ably enforced by the
constant use of the classical epithets above alluded to,




BOx WITH TWO SIDES.            79
and by such assumptions of wisdom and talent on the
part of the author, that a reply'seems to be almost
out of the question. What can be said, when physicians of such disinterested benevolence, and such utter
disregard of their own' interests as Dr. Hooker and
his "judicious allopathists," choose to constitute themselves judges, and assume to themselves all the talent,
all the acquirements, all the honesty, and all the discretion, in medicine, and to denounce all other men and
all other systems? Does it not become all the rest of
the world — who cannot appreciate facts of a-medical
nature, who are'" loose reasoners," " deluded," etc.,
etc.,-to bow in humble submission to the imposing
dictum, and to the disinterested dictation of these
medical oracles?
With respect to the " box,," it has- two sides to, it,
one of which only has been displayed by'Dr. Hooker.
We shall expose its other side. It is a fact which is
perfectly well known,. that many'.allopathic practitioners are in the constant habit of using homceopathic-medicines by-stealth, and of giving the credit of
the cures thus made to Allopathy.' The sale of homceopathic medicines-to allopathic physicians has
been for a number of years past a source of no inconsiderable income to the homeeopathic pharmacies, and
we are credibly informed that this traffic is rapidly
increasing. Now, is it strange that these allopathists,
who thus. secretly employ our remedies, should continue to retain among their newly acquired' treasuires,
a few of their stereotyped drugs, like calomel, morphine, and tartar emetic?  The allopath to whom
this mysterious "box;" probably -belonged, might




80         HOMEOPATEY VS. ALLOPATIY.
have been floating about in the dusky mazes of eclecticism, delirious, and frightened hither and thither by
the delusive phantoms of ancient Allopathy, but yet
possessing an instinctive consciousness of the truth of
Homceopathy, when he dropped his prize.
We know that it would have been a very easy matter, and quite in character, for some of our unscrupulous opponents to have prepared a box like the one
referred to, and to have dropped it, designedly, in
order to manufacture from the circumstance "arguments" and " evidences" against our system, but upon
the whole, our charity inclines us to adopt the first
hypothesis as the most probable one.
On page 100, we find a phenomenon in medical
literature, in the form of a definition of modern AlloTpathy. In its line it is remarkably unique, and illustrates most forcibly the definiteness, uniformity,
precision, clearness, and beautiful simplicity of the
"regular" old-school system.  We quote: "But
what is Allopathy? Is it one thing-one mode-one~
system 2 By no means. This term is applied to all
kinds of practice pursued by all, regular physicians.
It is a very extended, and a very diversified combination. It' includes much that is good, and much
that is bad. And the practitioners of this Allopathy
are, some of them, bad practitioners."
Let us illustrate this subject, as defined by Dr.
Hooker. That Allopathy is a mere hotch-potch of
vague ideas, of the most diverse and contradictory
characters, derived empirically from all sorts of
sources, and, as a consequence, possessing nothing
definite or certain either in theory or practice, we




DEFINITION OF ALLOPATHY.          81
have for a long time been fully aware; but we con-,
fess we were not prepared to see the crumbling skeleton exposed to the gaze of the world by an allopathist.
From its extraordinary comprehensiveness, it is eminently worthy of the paternity of the prescription
alluded to in another part of this essay, containing
100 different and contradictory ingredients. — With
such a " very extended and diversified combination of
modes of practice," all tastes can surely be suited,
from the blood-letting Sangrado, and the heroic dispenser of calomel and opium, to the mincing gum-water
expectant, and the scientific prescriber of " powders
of bull's tail, boar's tooth, and man's skull," or the
" spirit and volatile salt of vipers, and man's blood."
Indeed, so "very extensive and diversified" is this
"',combination which constitutes Allopathy," that
within the last few years, the homeopathic law of
cure has been added to the list, with many of its
principal remedies, and its drop doses! It is true
that these men of "very extended and diversified
combinations " consider it- beneath their propriety to
learn the actual nature of homceopathic drugs, and
their applicability in disease, but prefer to employ them  empirically as the gambler throws his
dice, trusting,to "luck and chance" for the result.
With these "diversified combinations " allopathists
can pander to the fancies of "' all kinds of men and
the advocates of all kinds of systems."
The attempted introduction of the homceopathic
law, with its remedies and doses into Allopathy,
affords an excellent illustration of the consistency,
honesty, and. disinterestedness of the practitioners of




82          IOM(EO0PATHY VS, ALLOPAMT Y.
the old school. Fifty years ago this doctrine of
similia similibus cwrantur, and such medicines as aconite for fevers, belladonna for scarlatina, arnica for mechanical injuries, etc., encountered the ridicule and
bitter opposition of the entire body of our opponents,
and the very idea of prescribing any of these tinctures
in single drop doses was scouted as especially absurd
and unscientific. But modern Allopathy, with her
bony arms extended wide, is attempting to grasp
these heresies in her slimy and deadly embrace, like
a false fiend of darkness in pursuit of beauty and
truth. The genius of knowledge, however, is destined
to triumph over the demons of error and bigotry, and
truth, in the contest before us, will prevail.
We could cite numerous examples to demonstrate
the " very extended, and very diversified combinations " of principles by which different practitioners
of the old school are guided in the treatment of disease; but we shall confine ourselves to a brief description of a case of recent occurrence in this city,
as a fair sample of:the practical operation of the
"different modes, systems, and kinds of-practice"
now so much in vogue with the " regular physicians."
We allude to the case of the late J. Kearney Rodgers,
M.D.
For the facts in the case, we are indebted to a
pamphlet by Alexander E. iHosack, M. D., of  NewYork, with the following title:  -"History of the case
of the late- John IKearney Rodgers, M. D., addressed
to the profession." (C. S. Francis & Co., 282 Broadway, New-York.)
According to the records of Dr. Hosack, it appears




CASE OF DR. RODGERS.           83
that Dr. Rodgers was taken ill'on the 9th of October,
1851, with a slight chill, nausea, uneasiness in the
right side, and slight pain in the bowels.
On Saturday, the 11th, Dr. Dubois called in and
prescribed a Seidlitz powder.
On Sunday, the 12th, Dr. Wilkes was consulted,
and, regarding the disease "functional disorder of
the liver," administered two pills of blue mass, to
be followed by a Seidlitz powder.
On the 13th -and 14th, Dr. Hosack attended and
found him free from fever, with a white, slightly
coated tongue with a dingy hue at -the base, pain
in the bowels, slight'uneasiness -in the hypochondriac region, full and slightly accelerated, compressible pulse.  "'Regarding these symptoms as indicative of a biltary congestion," Dr. H. advised an
emetic or ten grains of. calomel, which, however, were
declined by the patient. On the evening of this day
Dr. Dubois was called in consultation with Dr. Hosack, and pronounced the symptoms " bilious remittent fever."
On Wednesday, the 15th, these two "'regular"
gentlemen again met in consultation, one of them
naming- the symptoms " congestion. of. the liver,"
*and the other calling them'.' bilious remittent fever."
Here we have a commencement of the "extended
and diversified combination" of practical'Allopathy.
Dr. Delafield was added to the consultation on
Friday evening, Oct.- Ith, and.declaring the disease
to be "bilious remittent fever," advised a discontinuance of the mercurial pills which had been prescribed ~by Dr. Hosack on the 15th, and a substitution




84         HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLQPATHY.
of the " usual febrifuge medicines."  Here again we
have a beautiful practical illustration of the " diversi-fied combination" system of Allopathy. According
to one gentleman's " system" or ".mode." of practice,
the patient had a liver complaint, and required calomel: according to the system of the other gentleman,
the patient was affected with "bilious remittent
fever," and required the " usual febrifuge medicines."
If still another " regular" hlad been added to the consultation he would also have taken -advantage of the
".very extended and very diversified combination of
systems which constitute Allopathy," and named
the symptoms typhoid fever, for which opium and
bark would have been appropriate. Another, who
had made diseases of the kidneys a speciality would
have termed it nephritis, and prescribed bleeding,
leeching, nitrate of potash, &c. Another, from his
veneration of his illustrions predecessors, might have
attributed the symptoms to a " derangement of the
humors," and ordered " powders of bull's tail, crab's
eyes, and goat's blood, or volatile spirit and salt of
vipers, and man's blood." Another, if he had recently
returned from Paris, would have called the malady a
gastro-enterite, and insisted on the leeching and gumwater "mode."
These are only a few of the " very diversified combinations" which might be adduced to illustrate the
certainty and precision of Allopathy. As we advance
with the case under consideration it will be observed
that Ho-mceopathy. has not escaped, but has been
mixed up in admirable confusion.. with the' combination."




CASE OF DR. RODGERS.           85
From the 17th to the 22d of October the symptoms
were about as follows: " General restlessness, imperfect sleep, depression of spirits, anxious countenance,
slight fever, increased sallowness, accelerated pulse,
and at times moderate. perspiration." During-this entire period the " usual febrifuge medicines" were employed, and it was not until frequent rigors set in, followed by profuse perspirations,. that this "kind of
practice"  was abandoned and "another mode'"
adopted, consisting of " quinine in ten  and five
grain doses, at intervals of several hours, which
was continued for several successive days. The positive effect of-quinine was in due time made manifest by ringin  in the ears and almost total deafness!"
The " very extended, and very diversified combination" practice stands out again most prominently. But
why the attention of these gentlemen should have.been directed to the ears of their patient, we cannot
imagine. Why the auditory structures should be
treated to cure a " bilious fever," must puzzle all but
such " close reasoning" prodigies, as the author of the
"Evidences."
According to Dr. Delafield, however, this particular
" combination," or " mode," 6r " system," was productive of no benefit, as the patient continued to get worse.
And the learned doctor now ascertained "that there was
something in the case that he could' not understand! "
There was no difficulty in understanding the " ringing
in the ears," and the" almost total deafness," and if the
gentleman had consulted a homceopathic Materia Medica, and examined the proving of quinine, he would




86        HOMCEOPAT'HY' VS. ALLOPATHY.
have had no difficulty in comprehending most of the
other symptoms of the case. Were an individual to administer to a stout mastiff, ten grains of quinine every
few hours, for six days in succession, and the act could
be proved against him, he would be indicted and
punished for wanton cruelty to animals. But dog doctors are not "regular," they have no "very extended
and very diversified combinations," and they cannot
trace their origin beyond the dark ages-therefore,
dog and horse doctors should be held responsible for
their poisonings.
At this stage of the case, it was deemed expedient
to try a new " mode," a new " system," a new " combination," and accordingly, "tincture of aconite was
prescribed in doses of one drop each,'" in alternation
with large doses of aromatic sulphuric acid. The acid
was given for the avowed' purpose of arresting the
excessive sweats," but no reason was ascribed for the
employment of homceopathic doses of a homceopathic
remedy. The legitimate inference, therefore, is, that
aconite was brought into requisition on account of its
general use in fevers, by homceopathic practitioners.
This must be true, because, in no allopathic work is
this medicine advised as a remedy in " bilious remittent," or other fever. We are aware that this is only
carrying out the "' diversified combinations" so naively
described by Dr. Hooker in his definition of Allopathy, and it is probable that the remedy would have
proved successful, if the disease had really been a
"bilious remittent fever." But in justice to Homceopathy, we are compelled to declare, that there was-not
a single symptom from the commencement to the ter



CASE OF DR. ODGERS.             87
mination of the case of Dr. Rodgers, for which aconite was indicated, therefore its inefficiency, -and the
propriety of ranking it with the empirical- remedies
which were so freely employed in the case.- Respecting'the allopathic dose of tincture of aconite, their
most repudtable pharmacopaeias place it at fifteen
drops, to be gradually increased as circumstances
require. We leave the reader to draw his own inference in the matter.
October 24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th, passed'by
without any amendment of the symptoms, the patient
having taken, during this period, occasional doses of
quinine and purgative pills.
The drop doses of aconite were resumed again on
the 29th, and continued; with elixir vitriol, quinine,
laudanum, nitrolmuriatic  acid,  and  effervescent
draughts, up to November 5, when' the aconite was
discontinued, and the unfortunate gentleman gradually sunk into death under the use of quinine,
laudanum, and brandy and water.
According to Dr. Hiosack's" system " of Allopathy,
the malady was a liver complaint, for which emetics
and calomrel were the specific remedies; and this
physician is quite satisfied, that if his mode of practice had been- pursued, the patient would have recovered. According to the Allopathy of Dr. Delafield,
the disease was "bilious remittent fever~" for the cure
of which a "very extended, and very  diversified.
combination" of remedies was necessary, like febrifuge medicines and quinine in ten grain doses; aromatic sulphuric acid in large doses, and tincture of
aconite in single drop doses; cathartic' pills and lauda



88         HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
num in teaspoonful doses; effervescent draughts and
elixir of vitriol.
What particular "-system" or " combination" of Allopathy the other medical gentlemen would have
adopted if they had been allowed to exercise their
own unprompted judgments in the case, we cannot
imagine, but there is every reason to suppose that
they would not have confined themselves to " one
thing-one mode-one system," but that " all kinds
of practice," and the most " diversified combinations"
would have been called into requisition.
It may be urged that homnieopathic physicians
might also have mistaken this case, and we concede
the validity of the argument, if it is merely intended
to apply to the -classification of the symptoms under
some particular name. But the homoeopathist never
prescribes for groups of symptoms as a unit.  He
never regards the name which may be given to a disease, in the selection of his remedy, but each individual phenomenon connected with the case commands
his special attention, and is taken into consideration
in making up his prescription. It is. in no degree of
consequence to him whether the disease is designated
by this or that name; he looks only at symptoms, and
endeavors to combat them as they arise, by appropriate medicines.
Not so, however, with the allopathist.' His venerated
medical fathers have taught him that every.malady
and every' group of symptoms must have some particular name; and that his remedial measures must be
directed with reference to this name, and not to
symptoms. His first care, therefore, is. to ascertain




GOOD AND BAD ALLOPATRY.          89
what especial appellation best fits his case, and then
to search his authorities for the appropriate remedies.
Should the symptoms not be fully developed, and he
gives them a wrong name, as is so often the case, the
most fearful practical results often ensue.
Dr. Hooker speaks of " good Allopathy" and " bad
Allopathy," of c" judicious allopathists and injudicious
allopathists." Now as this gentleman has constituted
himself judge and arbiter of everything pertaining to
medical science, will he inform the world who, of all
the eminent physicians who attended Dr. Rodgers,
were judicious and who injudicious, and which of the
"modes" suggested was " bad Allopathy" and which
" good Allopathy'"  As human life is of some consequence, and as Allopathy consists of -so many different
"things, modes, systems, combinations, and kinds of
practice," and as eminent physicians constantly differ
so widely in the diagnosis and treatment of disease,
will the medical dictator point out some way of distinguishing " judicious Allopathy" from " bad Allopathy.?"  Will he tell us in what cases "powders of
bull's tail, and volatile salt of vipers" should be given
-when drop doses of tincture of aconite should be
prescribed-when the gums, mouth and throat should
be made to mortify and slough from mercury —when
"ringing in the ears and almost total deafness" should
be produced by quinine-in what stage of bilious fever laudanum should be administered in-teaspoonful
doses —whether opium  and brandy, or veneseption,
calomel and antimony, should be relied on in typhus
fevers-:whether single drop doses of the tinctures of
camphor, aconite, etc., in cholera and fevers, are allo



90          IOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
pathic or homaeopathic; and if the former, from what
old school authority, besides the " evidences" of Dr.
Hooker, are these minute doses derived-whether
bleeding and calomel, so boldly employed by some
old school gentlemen in cholera, do really kill or cure
patients; or whether opium, or rhubarb, or astringents, or gum-water, or the ethers, or brandy, or Hahnemann's specific, camphor, in drop doses, all of which
are-used by different practitioners, should be employed in this fearful malady -when shall we prescribe
according to the contraria contrariis opponenda, when
according to simwilia similibus curantur, when according to the cantipathic, or the expectart, or the Brumorian, or any of the other " diversified combinations"
which go to make up. Allopathy. Will Dr. Hooker
have the kindness to put himself into a pair of very
high-heeled boots with red tops, mount the town-pump
of Norwich, Connecticut, inflate his cheeks to the fullest capacity, and announce to our deluded human nature, who, beside himself, can distinguish "judicious
Allopathy" from " bad Allopathy"? After accomplishing this duty, will he be pleased to set his arms
akimbo, advance one foot iforward, da _  Napoleon, and
issue another decision declaring who, in addition to his
modest self, may be considered " practitioners of a judicious Allopathy? " These requests are made for the
benefit of allopathists alone, for the decree has already gone-forth respecting those homceopathists who
have been converted from Allopathy. We, deluded
converts, of course bow in abject submission before
the.majesty of genius.:-the extraordinary judgment,
the vast knowledge, the wonderful "mathematical




HOMCEOPATtO PHYSICIANS.           91
powers," the " close reasoninio," the " very extended,
and very -diversified combinations," the honesty, integrity, disinterestedness. charity, morality and piety
which pertain to Dr. Hooker, et id omne genus.  His
peculiar acumen and " close reasoning" have taught
him  that such men as IIenderson, Joslin, Tessier,
Croserio, Roth, Teste,'Dudgeon, Drysdale, Laurie,
Russel, Currie, Rose, Gross, Stapff, Fleischmann, Rapou, Molin,  Madden,::Scott, Quinn, Simon, Black,
Bayard, Gray, Metcalf, -Cox, Kitchen, and the many
thousand other converts from the "' diversified comnbinations which constitute Allopathy," are all, either
knaves and fools, or:actuated by " pecuniary considerations!"  How unfortunate that these deluded and
unhappy gentlemen:-had not been blessed with a
moiety of the penetratidn, the profound sense, the honesty, and the disinterestedness of Dr.'Hooker! How
unfortunate that: this.: brilliant sun of-Norwich did not
shine at the:commencement, instead of the middle of
the nineteenth century', so that the petty labors of
such an intelligenCe -as:that of Samuel Hahnemann
might have been annihilated in the beginning!
It is by no means a. pleasing task to wade through
the mass:ofl silly'  fallacies, and mean misrepresentations which' everywhere pervade Dr. Hooker's labored
essay, and we shall not therefore weary the reader by
noticing:-all-.of'his unfair assertions, and his impotent denunciations of Homweopathy and its advocates. It would be an easy thing to prove nearly the
whole publication, page by page,;a tissue of flimsy
sophistries respecting the homceopathic system, and of
unfounded accusations against its advocates, but they
5




92         HOMCEOPATIIY VS. ALLOPATHY.
are so palpable and absurd in their character, and the
vindictiveness, envy, and spite of their author are so
apparent, that such a course is not necessary. We
shall therefore only allude particularly in our remaining paragraphs- to a few- of those " towering"
statements, upon which considerable stress is laid.
Several pages of the present chapter are devoted to
Dr. Hooker's own assertions respecting the incompetency of homoeopathic physicians, or of laymen, to
judge of facts in medical science, and it is most earnestly advised that the people who had-the profoundest interest in the subject should rely solely upon the
superior wisdom, keen penetration, and peculiar tact
of such " close reasoning " philanthropists as himself.
He informs his readers that the statistics of homceopathic practice are of no-account, because homceopathic
families. have scarcely any acute diseases, but such as
are, for. the most part, either chronic or imaginary; or
if, by chance, a grave disorder should happen to exist, that an allopathic physician is instantly sent for!
A reply to such an absurd assertion as this would of
course be superfluous.
But in alluding to statistics, the writer very studiously avoids all mention of the homceopathic hospitals of Europe, several of which have for many years
been open to all observers. We shall in some measure supply. this omission by the following brief quotation from Professor Henderson's reply to Professor
Simpson's pamphlet on Homceopathy:
"Dr. Fleischmann, of the homeopathic hospital of
Vienna, at various periods, has published the results
of his treatment of inflammation of the lungs between




STATISTICS.                 93
the years 1834 and 1848-the latter being the last period for which his statistics have reached me. Dr. Reiss,
of the homceopdth'ic hospital at Lintz, Dr. Schweitzer,
of the homceopathic hospital at Kremsier, and Dr.
Tessier, of the hospital of Sainte-Marguerite of Paris,
also have published the statistics of their homceopathic
treatment of the same disease,'and the collective results are as follows: —728 cases.of inflammation of the
lungs, 35 deaths, or one death in 21 cases; less than
five per cent. In my letter tor Dr. Forbes, I have
given an account of the comparative success, in the
sanie disease, of the best hospital physicians, who use
allopathic remedies, in Paris; they firnish 531 cases,
of which: 81; died, or one in six and two-thirds, or
about fifteen per cent. In-the'Introduction to the
Study. of Homceopathy  (to which, and to the letter to
Dr. Forbes, the reader is referred for a more detailed
discussion of this most important'subject) various allopathic authorities are referred-to as furnishing-909
cases -of this disease, with 212 deaths, or 23.32 per
cent.; nearly one death in every four cases. In the
same work is contrasted the mortality under each systeim of treatment, in pleurisy and'peritonitis, and the
same vast superiority of the -homceopathic practice is
exhibited —the mortality of the former disease having
been in Fleischmann's practice, among 224 cases, only
one in'2, and' of the latter, among 105 cases, one in
21; while under the ordinary system, the mortality
was from 8 to 16 times greater. The absence of sufficiently large statistics on the allopathic side, renders
these last comparisons' less satisfactory than in the
instance of inflammation of the lungs; and in regard




94          IOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
to other acute inflammations, we have no data whatever from Allopathy to enable us to form an estimate
of its inferiority. I may add, however, that besides
the diseases mentioned above, Dr. Fleischmann's
table for the eight years prior to 1844, shows 181
cases of erysipelas of the face, and only two deaths;
31 cases of inflammation of the membranes of the
heart, without a single death; 44 cases of dysentery,
and two deaths; —results which are far beyond the
reach of any other known method of treatment." *
"Dr. Forbes, apparently surprised at the results
published in one of Dr. Fleischmann's tables, yet combatting the notion that the cases must have been slight
which recovered under what are commonly believed
inadequate means, observes,'It would be very unreasonable to believe that, out of 300 cases of pneumonia
(inflammation -of the lungs), 224 cases of pleurisy, and
105 of peritonitis (in all 629 cases), spread over a period of eight years, all the cases,-except the fatal cases
(27 in number), were slight, and such as would have
seemed to us hardly requiring treatment of any-kind.
In fact, according to all experience, such could not be
the case. But independently of this a priori argument, we have sufficient evidence to prove that many
of the cases of pneumonia, at least, were severe cases.
A  few of these cases are reported in detail by Dr.
Fleischmani himself, and we have ourselves had the
statement corroborated by the private testimony of a
physician (not a homceopath) who attended Dr. Fleisch* "Since 1844, the German hospital statistics give us 164 cases of erysipelas, without a death; 84 of peritonitis, with 4 deaths; 75 of pleurisy
with one death."




STATISTICS.                       95
mann's ward for three months.' *  And he says of Dr.
Fleischmann, that he'is  a regular, well-educated
physician, as capable of forming a true diagnosis as
other practitioners, and he is considered by those
who know him as a man of honor and respectability,
and incapable of attesting a falsehood.', Of the whole
728 cases to which I have alluded above, 616 occurred
in the hospital of this trustworthy observer. From my
own experience in the treatment of inflammation of
the  lungs, and  other acute diseases,t I have. not a
doubt of the thorough accuracy of the accounts given
us by the physicians to whom I have referred. But
how  do allopathic physicians get rid of these remarkable statements?  Some by denying their truth (for
there are men who will deny anything), and some,
Dr. Forbes among them, by ascribing all to the bountiful hand of Unassisted Nature!' If this latter view
of the subject be the  correct one, then it is obvious
that the medical men who believe it to be so should
cease from  all medical treatment in acute  diseases.
That it is not, however, the correct view of the matter,
appears very clearly from  the cases published by M.
*" Brit. and For. Med. Rev., p. 243, No. 41."
t "I have treated homeopathically throughout 16 cases of pneumonia,
with one death: 10 cases of croup, without a death; besides a few cases
of pericarditis, pleurisy, peritonitis, and many of dysentery, bronchitis,
and erysipelas, with only two deaths, one from dysentery in an old man
long in bad health, the other from general bronchitis inan infant. In one
case only was blood-letting adopted. Of other acute diseases, I have
treated homceopathically 39 of measles, without a death; 45 of hoopingcough, with'one death; and 36 of scarlet fever, with two deaths. Among
the last 2 deaths, one is included of a gentleman who, having recovered
from the feve'r, was seized with inflammation of the chest, and was
treated during the greater part of that, his last illness, by Dr.
Alison."




96          HOMCEOPATIHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
Grisolle. He left eleven mild cases of inflammation
of the lungs to follow their natural course,* and we,find that the consequences of the disease were, not
gone in any till the end of the third, and in some not
till the end of the fourth week, whereas, under the
homo3opathic treatment, every trace of- the disease is
usually gone, in severe cases too, in a third of that
time,t proving that -Homeopathy is not -a merely
passive system."
With regard to the great number of cases here adduced in illustration of the vast superiority of iqmceopathic treatment in the diseases under consideration,
let it be observed that nearly all of them occurred in
public hospitals which have always been open to the
inspection of physicians of every school; that the
symptoms and treatment of each case were minutely
recorded from day to day; that these records were
constantly open to the investigation of all who chose
to examine them; and that critical investigation has
always been- solicited by the physicians of these hospitals, In view of these circumstances, and of the incontrovertible fact that a majority of these cases were
treated under the immediate observation of allopathic
physicians, who have vouched for their accuracy and
fairness, it, is evident that none but the most ungenerons and uncandid would ever presume to deny their
entire correctness, or to.decry the reputations of the
distinguished gentlemen who have charge of these
institutions.
Throughout the whole of his unscrupulous tirade
* "See Letter to Dr. Forbes."
t "See for ample details,'Recherches Cliniques,' par J. P. Tessier,
Paris, 1850."




HOMm0OPATHO PHYSIOIS.            97
against Homoeopathy, Dr. Hooker has constantly
evinced the quality of his spirit, by imputing a lack
-of fairness, lack of talent, lack-of education, lack of
social position, and lack of responsibleness, to homoeopathic physicians. He' has evidently no personal
knowledge of a single member of our profession, nor
has he any data on which to form an opinion respecting the abilities or integrity of its advocates, yet like
the cornered reptile, he bites at everything within his
reach.
With regard to this subject, we take the occasion
to inform Dr. Hooker and his coadjutors that men of
real knowledge, and talent, and who firmly believe
in, the truth of doctrines they profess, are never
obliged to misrepresent the opinions, or to write
falsely of -the characters of those who differ from
them. Such a course is not only an indication of intellectual weakness and vindictiveness, but it goes far
-to prove inherent defects in views they advocate.
Those who are confident in the- soundness of their
doctrines, and actually possess knowledge, and critical
sagacity, are not apt to assume to themselves these
qualifications, and'constitute themselves judges -of
others, but they prefer that those who are disinterested
should decide in the matter.
That the public may not be misled by the false
assertions of our opponents, we deem it proper to de-:clare, that no man is recognised as -a homceopathic
physician who has not received a thorough medical
education in some legally authorised institution, and is
in possession of a proper diploma constituting him a
doctor of medicine. We have-had much intercourse,




98          H0OMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
both as an allopathic and as a homeopathic practitioner, with the members of both schools; and so
far as our observation has extended, the practitioners
of the new school compare favorably, in all respects
to say the least, with those of the old school. In the
present condition of IHomoeopathy, with its vast
array of intelligent and discriminating supporters, it
appears almost superfluous to refute these malicious
imputations of a certain class of our enemies, but as
falsehood often repeated, and uncontradicted, may
sometimes pass as truth, we have alluded to tile subject, and take the liberty of subjoining the opinion of
a liberal and enlightened opponent, the distinguished
Dr.'Forbes, formerly editor of the British and
Foreign Medical Review, as an offset to the uncalled
for and unsubstantiated denunciations of the gentleman from Norwich, Connecticut.
" No doctrine, however ingenious, not based on positive demonstrable facts, will any more be regarded
but as a piece of poetical speculation, which may
indeed amuse the fancy, but can never influence the
conduct of scientific men, much less of practical physicians. But Homceopathy comes before us in a much
more imposing aspect, and, claims our attention on
grounds which cannot be gainsayed.  It presents
itself as a new art of medicine, ai a mode of practice
utterly at variance with that long established in the
world; and clains the notice of mankind on the
irresistible ground of its superior. -..wer of curmng diseases and preserving human life. And it comes
before us now, not in,the  garb of a suppliant,
unknown and helpless, but as a' conqueror, powerful,




CLAIMS OF HOMCEOPATY.           99
famous, and triumphant.  The disciples of Hahnemann are spread over the who,le civilized world.
There is not a town of any considerable size in
Germany, France, Italy, England or America, that
does not boast of possessing one or more homceopathic physicians, not a few of whom are men of high
respectability and learning; many of them in large
practice, and patronized especially by persons of high
rank. New books on Homceopathy issue in abundance from  the press; and journals, exclusively
devoted to its cause, are printed and, widely circulated
in Europe and America. Numerous hospitals and
dispensaries for the treatment of the poor, on the new
system, have been established, many of which publish
reports blazoning its successes, not merely in warm
phrases, but in the hard words, and harder figures of
statistical tables."
On the last pages of this chapter we find a repetition of an old ex parte statement, made some fifteen or
twenty years ago, by M. Andral of Paris, (a bitter
opponent of Homceopathy,) respecting a trial which he
made with homceopathic- medicines, in one of the
Parisian hospitals.
That M. Andral was entirely ignorant of the doctrines of Hahnemann, and of the pathogeneses of the
drugs he made use of in this pretended trial, is clearly
evident from his own description of the experiment.
This fact was conclusively proved at the time, and.no one in Paris believed for an instant, thkat Andral
possessed- either, the knowledge to employ -hommeopathic remedies properly, or the moral honesty to
administer. them fairly if he had possessed this know



100        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
ledge. We suspect that Andral's Homaeopathy was
very much like that of Drs. iDelafield & Co., in the
case of the late Dr. Rodgers, when they prescribed
"aconite in single drop doses," in alternation with."large doses of aromatic sulphuric acid." We suggest to M. Andral and his admirers the study of
the following fable:
" Once upon a time," says iEsop, "a man and a lIion
were journeying together, and came at length to high
words as to which was the braver and stronger creature
of the two. As the dispute waxed warmer they happened to pass by, on the road-side, a statue of a man
strangling a lion. " See there," said the man, " what
more undeniable proof can you have of our superiority than that?"'That," said the lion, "is your
version of the story; let us be sculptors, and for one
lion under the feet of a man, you shall have twenty
men under the paws of the lion."
If M. Andral had invited a, competent homOeopathic physician to prescribefor the cases to which
he alludes, the results would have been marked, and
satisfactory; but it was more agreeable, to his interests and to his preconceived notions that the experiment should fail, and he therefore selected himself as physician, and prescribed a few homceopathic
medicines in an allopathiQ manner, viz.: by the
" diversified combination-" system of random guesses
respecting their applicability in each case.
The practice of Homomopathy does not consist of
a vague and indefinite system- of " guessing," which
can be intuitively adopted by the allopathic followers
of routine, without study; but it is a system founded




A1NDRAL'S EXPERIMENTS.          101
exclusively upon facts, and therefore requires a long
course of observance, and the most patient and accurate investigation, in order to apply its therapeutical resources properly.  Whenever Andral, or any
other allopathic physician, chooses to learn the doctrines taught by Hahnemann, and then to employ his
specifics honestly and fairly, he will -have no reason
to doubt the-truth of the former, or the great curative powers of the latter.




CHAPTER VI.
HOMI(EOPATHY AND ALLOPATFa CONTRASTED.
IN this chapter Dr. Hooker professes to give his
readers an "estimate of Hlahnemann."  Before making Up this curious "estimate," the writer must have
dosed himself largely with some of the "-accumulated
facts" of Allopathy, in the form of'' volatile spirit and
volatile salt of vipers," for we do not believe there
can be found, in the entire annals of medicine, a more
offensive and pitiable exhibition of vindictiveness, or
more utter disregard of the common decencies of life,
than are here presented. The only "arguments" or
"evidences" which are -adduced in this mendacious
chapter to illustrate the character and labors of Hahnemann, are derived from the morbid imagination
of the writer himself, and are such as: "cheat,"
"medical fanatic,'  "wild dreamer in science," " absurd theorizer," " scientific fool," " flimsy reasoner,"
" prone to delusion,"' "quack," "mongrel,"' "fantastic," "radical," "fanatic," etc.  These are the
" arguments," the " evidences," and the " close reasonings," indulged by our opponents; this is the kind of
logic employed by modern allopathists to injure a rival method. We have no means of knowing whether this Hippocratic oracle " made up faces," or " tore




HAHNEMANN AD' HOOXER.         103
his hair" while giving expression to these stupendous
" evidences," but we have no doubt that he required
several of the " powders of bull's tail and man's
blood," so highly commended by the great modern
light of his school, Dr. Sydenham, in his "Processus
Integri," before his equilibrium was restored.
But seriously, who can imagine a more disgusting,
and yet ludicrous spectacle, than is presented by an
individual of such limited capacities, and such palpable dishonesty as the author of the " Evidences, etc.,"
endeavoring to injure the character of Samuel lHahnemann! On the one hand we have an intellectual
giant, whose vast general erudition, profound knowledge of medical science, skill in logic, and laborious
personal researches in regard to the nature of drugs,
have elicited the highest admiration and respect from
every able and honorable allopathist who has ever
written respecting him: on the other hand, we have
an impotent medical charlatan, who has wasted some
fifty pages in efforts to " figure up" the weight of a
class of imponcderale substances, and about as many
more in calling hard names, and making up mouths
at Homeoopathy i The scene reminds us of a Tom
Thumb challenging Lord Bacon to intellectual controversy, or of any ridiculous display of weakness against
power.
For a period of more than fifty years, Hahnemann
devoted his entire energies, mental and physical, to
the advancement of medical science. With a mind
amply stored with the medical literature of past and
contemporary times, reasoning powers of the highest order, and a benevolence and devotion towards




104        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
his fellow men, unparalleled in the history of any
science, he entered upon his glorious mission. At
this period, there were no fixed and generally received ideas -upon medical topics, but everything was
vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory. Opinions that
were deemed orthodox in one country, were denounced
as erroneous in another. Hence arose a great variety
of modes of practice, of the most contradictory characters, each sustained by its array of strenuous advocacy, but all. of them founded upon conjecture, or
derived from the absurd dogmas of antiquity.
And this was no new state of things, for the whole
history of Allopathy had- thus far consisted of nothing
but a continued succession of changes in theory and
practice. Each generation had continued to advance
new ideas respecting the nature and treatment of diseases, and to look back with pity or contempt upon
the ages which had gone before.
With all those changes, however, the mortality of
the sick had not at all diminished. Patients continued
to sicken, to be drugged, and to die, as before, whether under the antiphlogistic, the expectant, the Brunoniani, or other mode- of treatment. The medical
world. had so long regarded the doctrines of the ancients. with veneration, that nearly all the practical
results of these doctrines were retained, although the
theoretical parts were rejected as absurd. Let it ever
be impressed upon the mind, that blood-letting, emetics, purgatives, sudorifics, etc., originated legitimately
and naturally from the " humoral pathology."
Hippocrates announced- that the existence of the
four humors, viz.: the blood, the phlegm, the yellow




HUMORAL PATHOLOGY.            105
bile, and- the. black bile, in proper proportions in respect to "quantity, quality, and'mixture," constituted
the healthy condition; and that any variation in the
quality or in the proportions of these humors, occasions disease.
HIis treatment consisted in expelling from the body
by bleeding, purging, sweating, etc., a certain amount
of any humor, which might exist in excessive quantity, and thus restore those proportions Which constitute health. If the theoretical opinions of Hippocrates
had been;- correct, if those humors had been actually
destined to play the part in the organism which was
attributed to them, and if the true cause of disease
had consisted in an excess of one or more of them,
then the evacuation and correction of these deranged
fluids would; have been a reasonable, and, perhaps,
successful mode of practice.
For many centuries the humoral pathology prevailed
almost universally, and the treatment which had been
legitimately deduced- from  this pathology was of
course recognisedl as the chief tmeans of cure. But
when totally new ideas obtained theoretically, and
-the humoral doctrines of the ancients were discarded
as fanciful and absurd, it was reasonable to suppose
that new theories of cure and new systems of practice
would, be adopted; but strange as it may be deemed,
such was not the fact.
Fifty years ago, the medical world was divided into
numerous, sects, such as the vitalists, the solidists, the
eclectics, the Brunonians, the expectants, etc., each
of which entertained peculiar views in regard to the
causes and nature of disease; but singular enough, in




106        HOMEOPATHY.VS. ALLOPATHY.
their practical' deductions, all harmonious-all according'to the method inculcated by Hippocrates and his
heathen cotemporaries, 2000'years before! One attributed disease to a derangement of the " vital properties" of the parts affected, but still persisted in
punishing the stomach, bowels, and skin, with emetics, drastics, and sweats! Another ascribed disease
to disorder in the solids, but still prescribed the same
treatment!'Still another recognised only two classes
of diseases, the sthenic and asthenic,'and yet the same
general remedies were adopted! Others still were
floating about, entirely undecided in their opinions, but
none the less intent on doctoring the poor stomach,
bowels, and skin, for the ills of the whole body!
In the. midst of such an array of discordant opinions,
and such a -confused mixture of modern hypotheses
with ancient dogmas, the founder of HIomceopathy discovered his theory of cure, similicia stmilibuS curantur.
Perceiving at a glance that the errors of those who
had preceded him had arisen from too much theorizing,
and too great'a proneness to substitute hypotheses for
facts, he resolved at the onset to rely solely upon facts
to substantiate or disprove the idea he.had conceived.
With this view he originated the proving of drugs
upon healthy persons, in order that their specific effects might be fully investigated, and that a foundation'might thus be laid for a scientific and rational
systeni of practice.'And.-he most nobly and faithfully carried out his conception — not by drawing upon
his -imagination, as preceding writers had done —not
by referring. to the accumulated absurdities of antiquity-not by assuming data on insufficient grounds




IIxANEM"AN.~              107
-but by a long series of) painful and hazardous experiments with drugs in different forms and different
doses, upon his own person. During the course of
these experiments, Hahnemann was not unfrequently
made seriously ill for weeks together, often noting
with feverish brow and trembling hand, each painful
symptom as it occurred.
When examining, a few years since, at Paris, the
original provings.of Hahnemann, in his own handwriting, we were filled with astonishment and veneration, at the contemplation of the immense labor,
disease, and pain, which all these provings must have
cost their author, and of the, active benevolence which
must have prompted them.. While tracing the different kinds of writing, here bold and plain, there timid
and tremulous,now irregular, and in someecases nearly
illegible, we could alm'ost fancy this benefactor of his
race in the midst of his trials and his sufferings. When
remonstrances were offered by his wife and friends,,
against the risks to which he continually exposed
himself in his experiments, his noble reply was,
"What is the comfort or happiness of one man, in
comparison with the future welfare of thousands and
perhaps millions T,or what? the life of a single individual, compared to the well-being of generations of
men?."
No one ever knew IHahnemann, but to love his
personal traits, to admire his brilliant genius and
talents, and to revere the benevolent impulses which
inspired all his vast efforts in behalf ofnmedical science. Even his strongest opponents, (we. mean those
who have any pretensions to ability, or are recognized




108        HOMCEOPATHY VS-. ALLOPATIHY.
as gentlemen,) have always-awarded him a high meed
of praise for honesty, genius, talents, and unwearied
industry in the investigation of facts. While respectfully differing with him in opinion, they have freely
acknowledged his integrityj his profound learning,
and his disinterested benevolence.
So far as relates to the great'homceopathic law of
cure, and to the practice of medicine founded upon
it, no "theorizing" ever has been, or ever can be
indulged in. It is a law which was logically deduced
from  absolute facts connected with specific effects
of drugs, and which has since been firmly established in science by facts alone. It is not a time-serving
law, it admits of no amalgamation with any other
hypothesis, "system,'? "mode," or ":combination of
-practice," —it recognizes no preconceived or hypothetical data, but it must stand or fall on demonstrated truths. If Homceopathy is true, Allopathy must
be false, and vice versa.
Some of our opponents'have inquired why: Hahnemann and his disciples have not sought to amalgamate their doctrines with those of Allopathy, as
Brown, Broussais and others have done? We, reply,
for the same reason that the Christian religion should
not be amalgamated -with Mohammedanism, or truth
with error.
"Hommeopathy," says Dr. Hooker, "has been
fairly before medical men for fifty. years; and the
profession has passed its verdict upon it in the most
deliberate ardt positive manner. Some aire disposed,
to think that this verdict is good for nothing, and
openly charge medical-men, as a body, with a wilful




ALLOPATHIC VERDICTS.         109
blindness to -the truth of Homceopathy.  If this
charge be well founded, the medical profession are
governed in relation to this doctrine by a spirit altogether different from that which they have manifested towards all other, new doctrines and opinions.
Look over the whole history of medicine, and observe
the course which the profession have pursued, in regard to the numberless doctrines and theories which
have arisen from time to time. As they have passed
away one after another, they have been examined and
sifted by medical men, and while much has been rejected, much has been retained and'added to the permanent treasures of our science." (p. 128.)
We do not remember ever to have witnessed a
more supremely ridiculous delivery, than, this' of
Dr. -Hooker, respecting the "verdicts of allopathic
medical men." If any one will take the trouble to
" look over the whole history of medicine, and observe the  course -which the profession have pursued,
in regard to the numberless doctrines and theories
which, have arisen from time to time," the pitiable
absurdity of Dr. Hooker's reasoning upon this subject, will be apparent.
Some twenty-two hundred years ago, a doctrine was
announced, that the human body' contained four
different humors. Health was supposed to obtain,
when these fluids -were all right with respect to
"quantity, quality, and mixture;" while diseases
were supposed to be produced by any alterations in
the proportions or quality of these humors. Upon
this hypothesis, a treatment was adopted, as we have
already intimated, for the purpose -of " purging off"




110    tHOMEOPATHY VS.. A-LOPATHY.
and " correcting" these disordered fluids. The doctrine has been recognised under the name of " humoral pathology."
This doctrine was "fairly before medical men," not
for fifty years only, but for two thousand years, and
that too after "the profession had passed its verdict
upon it in the most deliberate and positive manner!"
That" verdict" was favorable. What a grand illustration of the judgment, the wisdom, the critical
acumen, and the profound sagacity of allopathic
physicians!- What a commentary upon the competency of such " medical men," to decide respecting
the merits of a system of medicine! In this instance,
the " sifting" process was not even commenced until
the families of mankind had been poisoned for more
than twenty centuries by such profound and " close
reasoning analyzers " as Dr. Hooker and his amiable
colaborateurs.!- The curative efforts of these wise
fathers of Allopathy during this long period, were
directed to the correction of four imaginary humors.
Occasionally, while these centuries were rolling on,
an individual would dare to think for himself, and to
express an original idea; but -instantly the whole
"faculty" would frown upon him as an innovator, a
disregarder of the "accumulated facts" of antiquity,
a man of " loose analogies,"-a " dreamer in science,"
and a- " quack;" and he would be crushed under the
force of a close banded interest. - It is true, that a
small number, including Themison, Celsus, and
Paracelsus, succeeded in attracting the attention of
medical men temporarily to their innovations, but
the "verdict". for the "humoral pathology and'prac



ALLOPATHIC VERDICTS.          111
tice" remained fixed and unchangeable. until the
seventeenth century, when Baglivi originated the
doctrine that all morbid changes commenced in the
solids, and that the fluids were only acted upon
secondarily.
Cotemporary with Baglivi was -loffmann, who
adopted the views. of the former, but attempted to'explain the nature of diseased action by the operation
of what he termed spasm or atomy.
From- this period until the present time, several
medical'theories have'been introduced, allopathic
"medical men" have examined them, and the
"verdict" has been in favor of adopting them  all
in theory, but to abide by no one of them in practice.
It is for this reason.that the medical world, at the
present time, is divided into so many different sects,
and that the treatment of disease corresponds to the
peculiar pathological notions which'each individual
physician happens to entertain. No two colleges of
medicine teach the same doctrines —no two professors
entertain the same theoretical opinions-and as Dr.
Hooker well observes, "no one thing, no one mode,
no one system, no one kind of practice," generally
obtains-; but -the term  Allopathy is. applied to a
" very,extended, and very diversified combinatiorn" of
contradictory modes of both practice and theory. A
graduate of one institution bleeds on all occasions;
his " regular" brother, who has received his "c bundle
of ideas" from another school, denounces-blood-letting
as pernicious, and commends the almost universal
employment of calomel and opium; another university sends forth its students with the impression




112        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
that most of the ills of humanity are dependent on
gastro-enterite, and the practical " verdict" is, leeches,
and gum-water; and the " verdict" of another college
may be in favor of the excitement and collapse, or
the sthenic and asthenic theories, and direct its
students to beware of any " very diversified comnbinations" in their practice, but to confine their treatment
to stimulation and exhaustion.
Other schools lecture about all theories, believing
in no one of them; but as their perplexed pupils must
have some method of treating disease, they render
their " deliberate and positive verdict" in favor of the
bleeding, vomiting, purging, sweating, and blistering
system, which was derived from the exploded humoral pathology. Whether any of these schools include
among their remedies; the " volatile spirit and salt of
vipers," or the "powders of bull's tail, bore's tooth,
crab's eyes, and man's blood," we are not informed;
but we find these remedies most highly recommended
in the treatment of pleurisy, and other maladies, byone of the most eminent of modern allopathists, Sydenham, the -" English Hippocrates." *
Allopathic "medical men," required two thousand
years to " examine, sift, and form-their deliberate and
positive verdict "'respecting the utter absurdity of the
theoretical tenets of Hippocrates-the humoral pathology. If arithmetic be invoked, -according to the custom of our opponents in regard to imponderable doses,
it-will probably be ascertained that eighteen or twenty
additional centuries will be required to enable these
* Sydenham's Processus Integri, London, 1707, p. 53-4.




ALLOPrATHIC VERDICTS.         113
profound and " close reasoning." individuals to "'examine, sift, and pass their deliberate and positive
verdicts" upon the absurdity and destructiveness of
the humoral treatment to which this pathology gave
rise! Some of these deliberate gentlemen have firmly
believed for two hundred years, that diseases consist in
derangements of the vital properties of parts, and that
the exciting causes of these derangements are for the
most part dynamic, infinitesimal, and imponderable.
In view of these doctrines, it would be natural to suppose that dynamic, infinitesimal and imponderable
remedial agents would be selected to act on such vital
properties, sand to counteract'such subtile exciting
causes! But no, Allopathy deliberates slowly, and
as the humoral practice of blood-letting, vomiting,
purging, sweating, blistering, together With Dr. Sydenham's redoubtable "' powders of bull's tail," &c., and
the' volatile spirit and salt of vipers'  are quite
as important, and demand as close "examination and
sifting" as the remarkable theory respecting the "four
humors," above mentioned, a "deliberate -and positive verdict" cannot reasonably be expected until
about the year of grace, 4,000. Then, if the final
conflagration shall not have converted this world into
infinitesimal molecules, including the very material
and substantial Dr. Hooker himself, a more appropriate dynamic system of' treatment may be anticipated, such as should.legitimately be deduced from
a vital theory of diseases.
We- have remarked that a few of our opponents,
after abandoning the humoral pathology which had
served them for two thousand years, became vitalists




114        HOMGEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATRY.
in theory. They now suppose that most diseases are
produced by derangements of certain- spiritual properties pertaining to the organism-derangements of'the vital principle. Respecting the nature of this
principle, and the manner in which derangements of
it operate in causing disease, their ideas are as various as they are vague and unsatisfactory. - It is a
theory which admits of Dr. Hooker's' very extended,
and very diversified combination" of explanations,
and which serves most admirably for the indulgence
of the wild and reckless spirit of theorizing which is
so characteristic of Allopathy. By its aid, all things
can be explained, all contradictory opinions can be
reconciled, and all questions of a difficult or complicated nature can be readily solved. Thus, a dyspeptic desires his physician to inform him of the nature
of his malady; and he receives the highly satisfactory reply that there is an " impaired condition of the
vital powers of the stomach," and the inquisitive hypochondriac is informed that his " nervous system is
laboring under a loss of vital energy "-that his headache and bad dreams proceed from " disorder of the
upper sympathies," while the weakness and trembling
of his limbs are dependent on " derangement of the
lower sympathies."
We doubt whether any means could have been devised, so well calculated to cover over the ridiculous
inconsistencies of Allopathy, as this arbitrary assumption of an immaterial and intangible principle. It
admits of a " very extended and very diversified combination" of significations, from nothing at all up to
the infinite variety of opinions entertained, by this




OLD SCHOOL TENETS.            115
portion of the Old School. But it must be admitted
that this is a very convenient theory, especially when
patients are too inquisitive in regard to the nature of
their ailments.
With respect to the other theoretical tenets pertaining to Allopathy, they are quite too numerons and too
indefinite to render an enumeration of them  at all
interesting or feasible. To do this snlbject justice, it
would be necessary to record the individual opinions
of every gentlernan of the school, as no two of them
entertain precisely the same views respecting the intimate nature and treatment of disease.' We see this
truth verified in the wrranglings and dissensions which
are constantly occurrin- in their colleges, societies,
conventions, and private consultations.' Much care is
generally taken to keep their differences of opinion
from the public, in order that the systemn may iot become universally distrusted; but now and then the
" cloven foot" appears, as in the case of Dr. Rodgers,
and the disgusting empiricism of Allopathy is fully
displayed.
That the public may be filrnished with a few reliable data on which to found an opinion respecting the
competency of our opponents as — a class to act as
arbiters con6erning the truth or falsity of rnedical-doctrines, we subjoin a few of the theories whichl have
met their approbation since the'abandbnment of tile
humoral pathology. The works fi'omn which we quote
were standard allopathic treatises on'theory and p;ractice at the. different periods alluded to, viz.: 1587,
1679, 1703, 1707, 1714, 1797, 1800, 1852.
1. Allopathy of 1587. "Angina is the Latin word.




116        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
In English it is named Quincy, the which is an imposthume in the throte, the which doth let a man to
swallow either meat. or drink.
" The cause of thist isftrmnitie.
"This infirmitie doth come of reume ascending
from the head to the throte. And it may come of
vaporous humours, discending from the stomache to
the throte.
"A remedie.
" Three things is requisite to help these infirmities:
The 7yrst is letting of blood in a vayne named Cephalica. The second is to purge the head. with the pilles
of Cochee. And the third is to use gargarices, and
to take a little piece of porke or bacon, or else a little
piece of a sponge, and enoint it in oyle olive, and tie
about any of these things a strong thred, and let the
patient swallow in this matter and by and by pull it
out againe, and be sure of the thred that he that shall
do this feate, in holding fast the thred, doe pull it
out againe quicklie,"  (The Breviary of Health, tcc.,
omrpyled -by Andrew Boord, Doctor qf Physicke: an
English-man.  Imprinted at London, by Thomas
East. 1587.:)
In writing of pleurisy the same author remarks:
" In English it is named a pleuresy, which is an imposthume in the ceneritie of the bones, but there be
two kinds, the one is inward, and the other is in the
gristles of the bones, and the other is in the lacertes
in the brest, and Isaac saith that it is an hot impos



ALLOPATHY OF 1587.
thume that is ingendered in the midriffe named
diaphragme."
" The cause of this infrmitie.
"This infirmitie doth come of a furnmish blood, and
of an hastie heart, which doth perturbate either the
joynts, orelse the heart and stomache with the brest.
A remedie.
" First, if the part be constipated, take easy purgatives, as cassia fistula, and I have knowne old ancient
doctors in this matter use phlebothomie, the which
I did never use in this matter, considering the
periculisnes of it."
The following were the views of Andrew Boord,
M.D., respecting mania: " In'English it is named he
or they the which be mad and possessed of the devill
or devills, and their propertie is to hurte and kill
themselves, or else to hurte and kill any other thinge,
therefore let every man beware of them and keepe
them in a sure custody."
For the cure of this malady Dr. Boord advises that
patients be sent to Rome; "for within the precinct
of St. Peter's church without:St. Peter's chappel,
standeth a pillar of white marble grated round about
with iron, to the which our Lord Jesus Christ did lye
in himselfe at his delivering unto Pilot, as the
Romans doth say, to the which pillar all those that
be possessed' of the devill, out of divers countries and
nations, be brought thether, and as they say of Rome,
such persons be made there whole. Among all other




118       IHOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
a woman of Germany, which is 400 miles and odde
from  Rome, was, brought to the pillar, I there
being present, with great strength and violently this
woman was put into that pillar within the iron grate,
and after her did go in a priest, and did examine the
woman under this manner, in the Italian'tongue.'Thou devill or devills, I doe abjure thee by the potentiall power of the Father, and of the Sonne our
Lord Jesus Christ, and -by the virtue of the Holy
Ghost, that thou doe show to me for what cause that
thou doest possess this woman: what words was answered, I will not write, for. men will not believe it,
but wolde say it were a foule and greate lye, but I
did hear that I was afrayd to tarry any longer, lest
that the devills should have come out of her and to
have entered into me, remembering what is specified
in the. chapter of St. Matthew, when that Jesus Christ
had' made two men whole, the which waspossessed
of a legion of devills." (p. 5.)
The writer enters into a learned discussion as to
whether the great efficacy of the cure was attributable
to the pillar or to the holy words of the priest; and
after "examining and sifting" the' evidences in the
case he forms " a most deliberate and positive verdict" in' favor of the latter.
Allopathy of 167-9.*  According to the' English
Hippocrates," Sydenham, " Jaundice is -caused by the
diminution, loss, or decay of the animal salt in man's
body," and the following remedies are advised as
especially valuable: "Volatile salts of earth worms,
*Praxis Medica, of Sydenhamn, London, 1679, p. 451-2-4-6.




ALLOPATHY OF 1679.             119
hog's lice, serpents, and toads: or skins of hens' gizzards, and of their feet, skins of geese feet, of each in
powder, a drachm: volatile salts of urine, of earth
worms, and of millepedes, of each a scruple: saffron
in powder, 15 grains; mix them for four doses, to be
given in extract of juniper berries, every morning
fasting: or the ashes of sparrows' feathers, brain of
partriges, lice, hog's lice, galls of hogs, and powders
of viper's flesh, is approved by Hlelmont as a most excellent thing. -Paracelsus especially commends " the
juice extracted from the excrements of animals, mixed
with white wine, and given as a drink."  "Willis
highly commends lice (though a nasty medicine) to
be given alive, nine at a time, because they are full
of volatile animal salt." " &Sivius commends the volatile, spirit of urine, as a specific in jaundice."
These distinguished allopathists do not by any
means omit emetics and cathartics in their treatment
of jaundice, but they prescribe these " evacuators " in
the first instance, in order -to prepare the system for
the reception of the above enumerated "specifics
which restore and fix the animal salt."
Respecting the causes and pathology of jaundice,
the respectable father of modern Allopathy, Sydenham, "dissents froml   all authors, both.ancient and
modern, who have written before him."  He particularly condemns the "Galenic pathology, which ascribes its cause to choler."'Allopathy of 1703-7-14. " Palsy proceeds from the
obstruction of the passages, and the impotency of the
animal spirits, as they are either narcotically affected,




120        ROMMOPAT-HY vS. ALLOPATHY.
or being small in quantity, do not exert themselves
with vigor enough."
The chief remedies advised are, "mercurial purgatives, powder of viper's flesh and viper's, bones, volatile salts of earth worms, man's hair, and of dried hMtman flesh, (which is inferior to no other medica.
ment)." (Dr. Sydenham's Processus Integri, p. 177.)
In the same work we find the following prescription
for epilepsy: " Native cinnabar, man's skull filed, or
philosophically calcined, elk's hoof,. of each a drachm,
powder of the heart and lungs of a mole, a drachm and
a half, bezoarticum  lunoe, crab's eyes levigated, of
each a drachm, saffron a scruple, ambergrise, volatile
laudanum, of each 5 grains; mix them-dose from a
scruple to two scruples, according to-age, in water of
lilly convally flowers, and syrup of citron peels. Earth
worms dried ~ and, powdered, and'given. to half' a
scruple, have been experimented effectual; so also the
ashes of a mole given in like- dose." (Ibid, p. 86.)
The following powders are highly praised as a remedy for bleeding at the nose, and hemorrhages of
different kinds-: " Take of powder of man's blood, and
of man's liver, dry'd, of each an ounce; powder of
dry'd earth worms, and of catechu, of each half an
ounce; ashes of an old hat, or so roasted that it may
be rubbed to powder,'hog's excrements, dry'd and
powdered, of each' one drachm; mix and divide into
five powders for use."'(Ibid, p. 2~5.)
From a standard allopathic work on the practice of
medicine, we extract the following recipes: " Powder
of wood lice prepared  Div, white poppy seed D i




ALLOPATHY OF 171I.            121
powder of vipers Dii, mix-this is a powerful lythontriptic medicine, and ought to be had in estimation of
all troubled with that disease; give the foresaid quantity at once in broth." (Collectanea lledica, London,
1703, p. 86.)
In the same work we find the following external
application for quinsey: " One swallow's nest, album
groecum, Zjss, roots of althea, and of white lillies,
of each one oz., figs and dates, of each three, boil them
in water, and then add oyl of. violets, three drachms,
chamomile flowers, meal of Fenugreek-seed, linseed,
wheat, of each  six  drachms, cat's brains, four,drachms, powder of an owl burnt, iof swallow's
burnt, of each two drachms, one yolk of an egg,
saffron, one scruple,-make a cataplasm. This cures
a desperate quinsey." (p. 104.)
For colic, the writer recommends laudanum, and
"' drachm doses of powder of wolf's gut in wine," as
a sovereign remedy.
In a standard French work on surgery, written in
1714, "by l1E. Le Clerc, physician: and surgeon to
the French King," we find the following prescriptions
for cancer, which are declared specific:  " A decoction of vipers, crab's, eyes, adders and toads, may
serve to bathe them, and some of it may be taken
inwardly." The powders of mcles, toads, frogs, and
crabs calcin'd, cleanse the ulcers perfectly well."
(p. 166.)
Dr. Le Clerc speaks highly of calomel, and
"viper's grease in doses of half a drachm," in syphilis.
During the early part' of the 18th century, the




122         HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
metaphysical views of Stahl were "examined and
sifted " by the profession, and received their " deliberate and positive verdict" of - approval. This
sect was recognized under the name of AnMnzists or
Spirit'uali.sts. Taking into consideration the fact that
solids-and fluids when connected with the living body,
are not subject to putrefaction, dissolution, and other
ordinary laws of matter as when disconnected with
it,-Stahll superadded a spiritual principle which he
termed antirna, whic-h was supposed to act in "opposition to the physical powels of matter, and to
whlich.the. body owes all those  properties that
are strictly denominated vital.  Ile supposes this
principle to possess peculiar qualities, distinct finom
those which belong to matter; and he especially endow-ed it with a species of intelligence, or even consciEousness, by which it acts the part of a rational
agent, -and is the general director of all the corporeal
operations."
Among the distinguished physicians of the eighteenthl century,  who took a prominent part in sealing
the " deliberate and positive verdict" in favor of the
Stahlian hyp!othesis, were Sauvages, Whytt, Nicholls,
Gaubins, Alberti, and Junker.
During the last half' of the eighteenth.century, anotlher hl.ypothlesis was "examined and sifted" by this
"close reasoning" profession, and a "deliberate and
positive verdic " was rendered in favor of the "vital
tlleory."  " They have professed to ascertain the laws
of the'animal eiconlomy )by actual observation, and by
this means to discover lwhlat are 1ihe appropriate
powers or qualities of the living bcdy, and in what




ALIOPATHY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.  123
respect these powers or qualities differ from, those of
inanimate or -unorganized matter."
It is true that during this century there were a few
sensible -men, who, reasoning from the medical absurdities of the past, repudiated all hypotheses, and
declared themselves eclectics. These men evidently
entertained a profound contempt for the whole system of Allopathy, and wisely determined to keep
aloof from all hypotheses, and trust to Providence in
the treatment of disease, until a rational system of
medicine should be discovered. These early eclectics
were apparently honest. They appreciated the fallacies of every medical doctrine which had -been
broached, and prepared to arm their book of knowledge and remain "non-committal," until something
reasonable and demonstrable should be proposed,
rather than to accept any of the visionary tenets
which were then ill vogue.
As the -nineteenth century dawned upon the world,
the science of medicine presented a singular spectacle.
Instead of a rational and consistent theory of disease,
and a uniform system of cure founded upon well-ascertained facts, medical men were divided into
animists, vitalists, solidists, chemists, eclectics, Brunonians, Cullenists, mechanicians, expectants, etc.
But notwithstanding these numerous and contradictory theoretical doctrines, no new practical tenets
were deduced, but the humoral treatment of bloodletting, -purging, vomiting, sweating, stimulating,
blistering, &c., were still prescribed, although in amost vague and contradictory manner. For the same
malady one sect advised bleeding and purging;
6*




124        HOS{MEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
another sect denounced this treatment as fatal, and
commended. stimulants;'another class prescribed
chemical alteratives; another.emetics and diaphoretics; another opiates and gum-water, and so on ad
inrfinitum.
Thus has Allopathy continued up to the present
moment-a gigantic system -of theorizing from absurd and imaginary data. During the two thousand
years in which the allopathic "verdict" was fixed i'n
favor of the humoral pathology, this reckless spirit of
theorizing was expended in experimenting upon poor
humanity with almost every conceivable and outre
substance, from blood-letting and physic, down to
toads; adders, bull's tail, man's scull, and viper's
grease.  But from  the middle of the seventeenth
century to the present time, the "' most extended and
diversified  combination  of systems-modes —and
-kinds of practice," have been pursued by our opponents that can possibly be conceived of, so that
human life has been made the play-thing of various
sects of legalized empyrics. Ever ready to practically
test their absurd hypotheses, and their guess-work
prescriptions upon others, it is a notorious fact that
they have very rarely had the courage or we should
rather say desperation, to try the same experiments
upon themselves or their families.
Assuming to herself vast knowledge and respectability-denying the ability of the public to judge
respecting medical matters-boasting of her great
antiquity, and of her accumulated facts of two thousand years, modern Allopathy has entrenched herself
behind her enormos' self-conceit, surrounded by




MODERN ALLOPATZY.             125
envy, hate, malice, and vindictive slander, as body
guards. She has indeed grown hoary and witheredspotted all over with the errors and fallacies of many
centuries; but her. past history and her past deeds do
not elicit any marks of respect or gratitude from the
world, or give rise to any agreeable reminiscences;
but innumerable phantoms, pale, haggard, and sepulchral, ever hover around her, fit emblems of her past
and present existence. Under the accumulated weight
of so many mistakes and inconsistencies, she totters and trembles, and her former boldness is gone;
but she still survives, the shameless wreck of numerous exploded systems of absurdities.She still survives
-her destructive instincts still remain, and she still
glares around in search of more victims, but modern
science is rapidly extracting her fangs and impairing
her pernicious influence.
In regard to the inuendoes, and "-the very extended,
and.very diversified combination " of epithets, denunciations, and false accusations so freely indulged in
by her unamiable satellites towards homceopathic physicians and their numerous and intelligent patrons,
we might retort by resorting to counter denunciations
and counter accusations, but such a course would degrade us to a level with our allopathic traducers, from
which may the Lord ever deliver us. The veriest vagabond at the Five Points can call as hard names, and
make as false assertions, as even the author of the
"Evidences " himself, and we have no doubt that both
would exercise about an equal amount of influence
upon the public mind. Homceopathists prefer that
intelligent laymen, who are the parties chiefly inter



126        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHR.
ested in the matter, should decide respecting the
comparative merits of the two classes of practitioners,
confident that the verdict will not be in favor of those
who boast most of their own qualifications, or are
most lavish in the use of vulgar abuse.
We ask, then, if it is proper that medical doctrines
should be submitted to the advocates of Allopathy -for
a " verdict"? Is it reasonable to suppose that Hahnemann and his followers would submit their theory
of cure to the tender mercies of their opponents, after
a single glance at the past history of medical doctrines? The Ilahnemannian principle strikes at the
foundation of the whole- allopathic fabric, and the
points Jat issue involve the very existence of one or the
other method. There can be no mixilng of practices,
no "very extended and very diversified cornbinations" of principles, and no compromise of any description between the two schools, fob their doctrines
are directly opposite to each other, so-that one side
must of necessity be all wrong. For this reason we
should as soon think of placing the Chiristian religion
before Satan for approval, as of sulblnitting the truths
of l-Iolnceopathy to the'judgment of an Old School
tribu nal.  These self-constituted judges may, for
aught we know. be competent to deliberate upon
their owon doctrinal points, and form "' positive verdicts" as to whether " maniack persons be possessed
of devills," and whether the best treatment consists in
putting  thell into the " white.. marlble pillar of St.
Peter's church at Romnv' in order that the juristmay
quiz the devils so closely as to inducethern to take
" French leave" of "' he or she that be possessed.;" or




JEWISa  VERDICTS.           127
they may constitute a very appropriate medical jury
to decide respecting the merits of the "volatile spirits
and volatile salt of vipers, man's blood, urine," &c.,
and the "-very extended and very diversified combination" of powders peculiar to. Allopathy, like those
of " bull's tail, dried toads, adders, wolf's gut, crab's
eyes, old hat, earth worms, man's skull, hog lice,
wood lice, human flesh, human liver,' etc., etc., but
we most emphatically deny their competency, both
intellectually and morally, to render a just opinion
respectirg the merits of Homaeopathy. The followers
of ilahnemaun will continue, therefore, to decline all
these very kind offices of their vindictive opponents;
and trust, as usual, to the spontaneous verdicts which
are daily being rendered by a discriminating public.
Dr. Hooker asserts that only a few of the eminent
men of his school have embraced Homceopathy, and
that this is presumptive evidence of its unsoundness.
This Inode of combatting truth is not new, as any one
may be convinced by looking back upon all' past discoveries of any real value. When Christ and his humble disciples proclaimed to the world the glorious
truths of the Christian religion, nearly all of the
learned and powerful men of that period, especially
the priests and other members of the' clerical profession," denounced our Saviour oas an impostor, and
his doctrines as fallacies.  After he had continued
his mission through a long series of years, and multitudes of the people had been convinced of the truth
of what he taught, the argument of this " profession"
then was, "behold our rabbis, our'priests, our wise
men, our men in authority,-do not they adhere to




128        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
their ancient gods, their idols, and their accumulated
facts of centuries?"  " Have they not passed their
verdict against the religion of Christ in the most deliberate manner? and can such an holy, learned and
ancient profession be wrong?"   These allopathic
rabbis and their abettors carried out their verdict in
a practical manner by nailing our SaViour to the
cross; but all of their persecutions and false accusations did not for an instant arrest. the diffusion of
the Gospel among the people.
The same rabbinical motives now actuate the professors of Allopathy in their opposition to HEomceopathy. The most eminent of them are in receipt of
large incomes from extensive practices, from professorships in medical colleges, from positions in hospitals, and from other lucrative offices, and they cannot
afford to acknowledge the truth of Homceopathy, for
by so doing they would be cast out of the allopathic
synagogue, with a prospect of loss of business, and
starvation staring them in the face. These distinguished Old School gentlemen are altogether human
and -prudential-they know their own interests too
well to forsake their ancient idols-they prefer to remain sleek and comfortable, and to be drawn about
the streets by pairs of good-blooded and comfortable
horses, rather than to run the risk of being nailed to an
lallopathic cross. And then these well-conditioned
gentlemen are quite aware of the time and labor
it would require to learn the homceopathic doctrines so
as to be able to practice them properly, and this again
deters them from even an investigation of the subject.
So likewise, pride of opinion, long standing and deep



ALLOPATHY oF. 1852.          129
rooted prejudices, and reverence for ancient names
and ancient doctrines stand in, the way, as formidable
barriers against all novel ideas and all original thought.
And again it requires a large amount of moral courage to meet the sneers, the ribald imputations, and
the reckless slanders of the baser members of the profession, who make it a point to assail every one who
dares dissent from the abominations of the Old School.
Timid and sensitive men, therefore, not unfrequently
persist in upholding doctrines which they know to be
erroneous, through dread of the attacks of these-medical Jesuits.
At page 140, Dr. Hooker observes: " If we compare the therapeutics of the present day with that
which prevailed fifty or a hundred years ago, medication is vastly more cautious and discriminating than
it was then, and the movements of nature, in the cure
of disease, are much more narrowly observed. And,
at this time, there are multitudes of minds in the profession on the right track in their inquiries; and we
have reason to anticipate that great advances will
now be rapidly made- in- the practical part of our
science."  The evidences of this are daily witnessed
in the sly adoption of homceopathic remedies into allopathic practice. Even so late as ten years ago, the
use of aconite, in bilious remittent, and other fevers,
of belladonna in scarlatina, of can)por in cholera, of,
arnica in mechanical injuries, and of rhus in erysipelas, would have been deemed rank heresy by our
opponents; but if we examine the allopathic "therapeutics of the present day," we shall see that all of
these homeopathic specifics are now in common use,




130        HOM(EOPATHY VS. ALLOPATIIY.
and that they are highly commended in some of their
journals, as new and important allopathic discoveries!
It is difficult to believe that a learned. profession
can descend to such meanness as to'steal, in cool
blood, the discoveries of another, and seek to appropriate them to its own credit, while'at the same time
it has' the insolence to denounce their author as a
"quack," a "' dreamer in science," etc.
There is no doubt that the celebrated Liston'was
" on the right track in his enquiries," for several years
previous to his death, as his frequent employment of
belladonna and rhus in erysipelas, and a variety of
other homceopathic medicines in different diseases,
amply prove. -There is no question but that Dr.
Lyon, physician to'St-. Bartholomew's hospital, of
London, is "on the right track," if we may judge
from his excellent paper in the " Lancet," of the
---- ~ ——, on the-value of belladonna as a specific
in scarlet fever. There is no doubt but that all of
those Old School gentlemen " are on the right track,"
who at the present time so often employ aconite in
fevers, coffea, nux vomica, belladonna, and aconite, in
neuralgic affections, ipecac. in. asthma and nausea and
vomiting, phosphorus in pneumonia, etc. For their
own sakes, and' for the welfare of their patients, we
sincerely congratulate these enquirers of the profession upon this tendency' they now evince, of placing
themselves- upon the " right track " in therapeutics.
A little more moral courage, a little more: independence of thought, and a little more industry, gentlemen.eclectics, and'you may yet get entirely into the




MEDICAL RADICALISM.           131
"right track," and become useful members of the -homceopathic profession.
In the last pages of his essay, Dr. Hooker alludes to
lHomceopathy as a system of " medical radicalism,"
and to her advocates, as "radicals in medicine," and
like a starving mendicant, implores "the intelligent
and influential in the community" not to encourage-this
radicalism, but t-o' throw- around his profession all
those safeguards which are needed to secure its advancement."  In lieu of any arguments to sustain his
assertion, or of any reasons why his modest request
should be granted, he resorts to the same wise and
profound philosophy which pervades his entire attack-,
in the form of the most "extended and diversified
combination" of epithets, that we have ever seen
strung together.
His style of logic is something like this: "Hiomeeopathy is a system of medical radicalism," and therefore  "medical delusion," "fallacy," "quackery,"
" imposture,"  "absurdity," " ephemeral folly," "patent nostrums," " fantasies,' "fanatical," "loose reasoners," etc., etc. The advocates of Homceopathy possess tile very spirit of radicalism," therefore, " quack,"
impostor," "ignoramus,"  " dreamers,"  "scientific
fools," "loose analyzers," "cheats," "uneducated,"
"irresponsible," etc., etc.
It is certainly a novel if not a conclusive mode of
attacking a rival system, to make an arbitrary assertion, and then to ransack Webster's dictionary for abusive words with which to sustain it. This may be a
very shrewd-" Yankee trick" in medical dialectics, but
ill not suit the intellectual palates of the " intelli



132        HOMEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
gent and influential in the community," any better
than the equally ingenious.trick" of palming off
wooden nutmegs and wooden hams, as genuine articles, would agree with their gustatory faculties.
But let us briefly examine this " medical radicalism " of which Dr. Hooker speaks, and endeavor to
ascertain.what class of physicians are really entitled
to the appellation of" medical radicals."
The term radicalism is usually applied to any extreme
theory, which recognizes no fixed laws, and which
appropriates to itself hypotheses. from  all sources,
without proofs to substantiate their validity, and without any regard to logical induction. A system, therefore, which is constantly changing its, ground-which
advocates one thing to-day and another thing to-morrow —which professes theoretical ideas of the most ultra,
diverse and contradictory character, while in practice
it recognizes a mode of treatment founded: upon an
universally conceded absurdity, may with great justice
be termed a radical system.
Let us now make an application of Dr. Hooker's
definition of Allopathy, and see whether or not the
"' coat fits."'" But what is Allopathy? Is it one thing
-one mode-one sy..tem? By no means. This term
is applied to all kinds- of practice pursued by all regular physicians; It is a very extended, and very diversified combination. It includes much that is-good,
and much that is bad. And the practitioners of this
Allopathy are, some of them,. bad practitioners."
(p. 100.)'Here is" radicalism in medicine" with a vengeance.
It has not even the saving virtue of being entitled to




MEDICAL RADICALISM.          133
the rank of a specious and plausible radicalism; for it
has no limits, it recognizes no bounds, but appropriates " all modes-all systems-all things, and all
kinds of practice," from the heroic and humoral remedies of the fathers of ancient Allopathy, Hippocrates and Galen, down to the " viper's grease " and
" powders of old hat," of the fathers of modern Allopathy, iHelmont and Sydenham.
It is conceded on all hands that Allopathy has no
fixed and permanent basis, either in theory or practice,
and therefore, that each medical man must exercise
his own private judgment respecting the -nature and
treatment of each case to which he may be called.
The very- largest liberty is allowed him in forming his
opinion, and therefore, he -explores the whole boundless universe of Allopathyf from the foundation of
medicine to the present time, selecting here an idea
and there an idea, as best suits his particular fancy,
and then brings these scattered and arbitrary notions
to bear in treating the sick. To-day one theory and
one kind of practice prevail: to-morrow an ingenious
theorizer brings forward a new set of views, and a
new mode of practice, and -the doctrines of yesterday
are overthrown. Changes, innovations, and radicalism,
of the most ultra description have been eminently
characteristic of Allopathy, from the abandonment
of the Hippocratic and Galenic pathology, to the
present moment.- The human stomach has been
looked upon and used by this school, as an experimental laboratory wherein her advocates mighti practically test their numerous and contradictory hypotheses. In carrying out such experiments, she has




134        HOM(EOPAThY VS. ALLOPATHY.,
always had the shrewdness to operiate- upon the sick
only, so that all unfortunate results like ruined constitutions, and deaths, caused by enormous quantities of
drugs, could be placed to the account of natural disease. In this way the direful effects of this medical
radicalism  have; -to a certain extent, been kept from
the public.  Let the impartial reader look- into those
families of his. acquaintance which have been subjected -to this radical system of drugging for a considerable period, and see how few he can find upon
whom the blighting marks of Allopathy are not permanently impressed. Let him consider the pale and
sickly features, the' fetid brea hs, the black and carious teeth, the trembling, stiff and painful limbs, the
nervousness,- and- the morbid sensitiveness of the victims of.- mercury': or the waxen faces, the bloated
forms, and indurated -livers of those who have been
poisoned with quininee: or the unfortunate dyspeptics
and hypochondriacs whose lives have.been made
wretched by cathartics': or the impaired and sickly
constitutions of those who have been habitually bled
and narcotized with opiates: or the organic disorders
of the heart and lungs, which-have been produced by
tartar emetic and copaibme: or any of the numerous
medicinal diseases under which so many over-drugged
mortals are suffering, and then' decide whether this
-system is not one which- is eminently entitled to the
appellation of" medical radicalism," and whether-its
practitioners are not "~ radicals of the most dangerous
character."
The political radical, who believes, in the doctrine,
"yproprijte' c'est le'vo,'" and who contends for a divi



POLITICAL RADICALISM.           135
sion of property, a plurality of wives, and for the
appropriation to his own purposes of everything which
happens to'suit his fancy or convenience, is certainly
a dangerous member of community, and his principles, were they generally carried out, would undermine the foundations of society, and lead directly to
3ocial anarchy and confusion. He believes himself
mntitled to the.largest kind of liberty, both in theory
ind practice, and explores the entire records of his-;ory for precedents to sustain his views, from the poly-,amous Solomon of old, to' the — social and varietyoving Mormon of the present day.  Dr. Hooker's
lefinition of modern Allopathy applies admirably to
his contemporary political system which has, been anLounced by Proudhom and Joseph.Smith.  Like its'rototype, it is not "one thing-one mode-one sysam: by no means. This term (socialism) is applied to
11 kinds of practice pursued by all regular physicians
Socialists). It is a very extended and a very diversi-'ed combination. It includes much that is good, and:uch that is bad. And the practitioners of this'Alloathy (socialism) are, some of them, bad practitionBut if the political radical, in- practically testing
is eclectic and empirical views, endangers the insgrity and purity of the social fabric, what shall be
lid of the medical radical 4who practically experi-,ents, with his equally empirical processes upon the
iseased human- fabric?  The socialist radical con-,minates and impairs the principles of men; the.edical radical poisons their bodies. The course of
-e one leads to immorality- and vice, that of the other
permanent illness, suffering, and premature death.




CHAPTER VII.
CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.
FRom the foregoing observations, the profession and
the community will remark that the Hippocratic
school of the present day is actuated by the same intolerant spirit which has always characterized it
since the days of Hippocrates and Galen. The very
distinction of the subject of medicine-the uncertainty
and mystery pertaining to the intimate nature of disease, and the modus operandi of remedial agentsthe proneness of mankind.to measure all things by
previous knowledge-the influence of long established
dogmas,-and the deeply-rooted prejudices they have
engendered-the momentous interests at stake in
connection with the practice of the art, have each
tended to encompass the subject with difficulties, and
th~us enable the intolerant, the bigoted, the selfish,
and the designing of the profession to exercise an
undue influence over the general mind. Whenever
an original.idea has been advanced which has happened to clash with any of the " accumulated facts
of ages," the m'edical rabbis who preside over the
shrine of ancient Allopathy, have ever been on the
alert, and by denunciations, persecution, and various




SLOW ADVANCEMENT.OF MEDICINE.    137
forms of oppression, have. generally -succeeded in
crushing all fresh investigation at the onset.
From these circumstances the reader may understand why medicine has made so little progress in
comparison with other sciences, until the time of
Hahnemann.' While anatomy has unfolded the intricate structures of the human organism, and physiology has explained the functions of its different
parts-while chemistry has developed, from the hidden treasures of the animal, vegetable, and mineral
kingdoms, substances both ponderable and imponderable, possessed of properties of the most potent efficiency-while botany, mineralogy, the microscope,
and a philosophical mode of induction, have all been
made available, within the past century, for purposes
of-scientific improvements in every branch of human
knowledge, the healing art has slumbered on in its
prolonged sleep of-centuries, disturbed only by the
occasional nightmare of an original- idea which hasby. chance flitted before it..Instead of examining,
and of endeavoring to appreciate the delicate and
subtile phenomena of the human body in health and
in disease, and the almost unlimited powers of imponderable agents in modifying the condition of all
its parts, at all times, and under all circumstances,
Allopathy has chosen to retain the material -and gross
ideas of antiquity as her guides in the treatment of
disease. Precisely the same remedial means are employed now, empirically and at random, it is true,
which were used by the heathen allopathists twentytwo hundred years ago, when alchemy, sorcery and
astrology held the rank which chemistry, anatomy and




138        HOMCEOPATHY- VS. ALLOPATHY.
physiology now hold. The crude notions of these
early physicians are excusable, on the ground of their
utter ignorance respecting the phenomena of life, and
of the vast powers of imponderable agents in their
chemical, morbific, and remedial operations upon m-aterial structures; but the obstinacy and Wilful blindness of their modern brethren, with regard to these important; subjects, is not only inexcusable, but deserving of the severest censure.
No class of men, however strong their position may
have become from circumstances which have long
been in operation, has the right to trifle with human
life and human happiness, by endeavoring to repress
investigations which threatento clash with their antiquated prejudices, or to overthrow their preconceived
dogmas. No body of men has the right, or will be
permitted, at this enlightened period, to act as. judges
and dictators of tlle opinions of others, or to exercise
any permanent influence against an opponent by private calunnmies, collegiate persecutions, or legislative
enactments. The -days -of the inquisition have long
since fled, and no medical Loyola can now plot and
conspire against the promulgation of knowledge and
truth. The, ideas of Homceopathy may still be assailed by the impotent denunciations and the senseless
ridicule of the ignorant and conceited of the Old
School; as heretofore, but iHomeopathy will continue
to advance until the crumbling fabric of Allopathy
shall be prostrate, and the only rational system of
medicine established in its place.
From much observation during a practice of fifteen
years, first as an allopathist and then as a homceopath



POINTS AT ISSUE MISUNDERSTOOD.       139
ist, we are quite satisfied that the practitioners of the
Old School, as a body, are entirely ignorant of the doctrines of Homceopathy. This is daily illustrated' in
their constant assertions that the remedies of the two
schools are the same, and that the only difference consists in the fact that the allopath uses these drugs in a
crude state, while the homceopath uses theih in an infinitesimal form.  In their allusions to the subject,
they almost invariably leave out of the question the
real points at issue between the two systems, and confine themselves to the incidental point of doses. How.
often do we hear the remark by the Old School physician that this or that medicine is allopathic, without
any reference to the disease or symptoms for which
it is employed; thus leaving the impression that both
schools administer the same remedies in the same
diseases!  How studiously do they conceal the fact
that one class of practitioners doctor the stomach, intestines, and skin, for nearly all diseases, while the
other class direct their remedial applications to diseased parts only. With how much' assumed importance and gusto do the smaller men of the profession
presume to sit in judgment on Hahnemann, and with
sardonic grimaces discharge their intellectual popguns at infinitesimal doses, while the towering citadel of similia similibus curantur receives not a single
paper wad. Occasionally, however, a man of extraordinary courage, like Dr. Hooker, dares to notice our
law of cure. But even in these instances we regret
to perceive that the spirit of the homceopathic principle is entirely misunderstood'and -misrepresented.
These writers have evidently given only a superficial




140        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
glance at the therapeutical law of Hahnemann, without any desire to understand and appreciate its importance, but for the express purpose of opposing and
ridiculing it. It is for this reason that all of their attacks upon the subject have proved futile, and, for the
most part, unworthy of consideration.
It is only within the past year or two that Homceopathy has been considered worthy of any extended
notice. For more than twenty years its opponents
have constantly asserted that it was losing ground
everywhere, and that it would speedily be forgotten.
It is even implied by our cyphering friend, Dr. Hooker, that IHahnemannism  is going down both in this
country and in Europe, and now, since the profession,
through him, "has passed its verdict -against it," that
it will soon be blotted out of existence. If collegiate
oppressions, printed and oral calumnies, and such
influences as the most vindictive hatred of the old
school profession can suggest, can retard its progress
and extinguish its utility, these predictions may be
verified; but asI Hahnemann and his disciples have
not committed t.he guardianship of their system to
their bitter enemies, but to an intelligent and discriminating public, we entertain no misgivings respecting its ultimate destiny.
It is scarcely twenty-five years since the homeopathic mode of practice was introduced into America.
Then, a single physician in New York was its only
representative; but, to quote from Dr. Curtis's Inaugural Address, of January 14, 1852:
"Between this single, voice then raised in its favor,
and the present response, what a contrast!  Fifteen




IOMCEOPATHY IN EURoPE.         141
hundred physicians of our land now own its worth
and dispense its resources. It is the just panegyric of
our school that these are not- adventurers, who have
overleaped the walls of privilege and the qualifications' of teaching, but, with the rarest exceptions, men
of accredited ability in the received systems of medicine, who, from a catholic regard for truth, have embraced Homeopathy, and brought their badges of
professional merit as a graceful offering to its superiority; their verdict for it is the voluntary suffrage of
adepts. And who are the non-professional advocates
of the new method? They are a large and brilliant
clientage, who have brought Homeopathy to the
touchstone of experience, and whose culture, judgment and liberality are its pride and hope."
And what shall be said of the present condition of
Homoeopathy in Europe?  Within -the last year the
University of Edinburgh has established a medical
inquisition, for the purpose of excluding from its
privileges all those students who may dare to think or
form their own opinions upon medical subjects. The
allopathic professors! of this institution have assumed
to themselves the attributes of medical infallibility,
and now essay to violate the intelligences of their
pupils by forcing upon them, nolens volens, their ci-n
contradictory hypotheses, to the absolute exclusion
of every idea which smacks of Hahnemannism.
Other medical schools are also on the qui vive, and
are only deterred by public opinion from issuing their
bulls of excommunication against all who presume to
differ from them in opinion. Medical journals which,
a few years since, scarcely deemed the New School




142        HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
worthy of a passing inuendo, now teem  with sophistries and calumnies against it of the most Jesuitical and vindictive character.
In London two respectable homieopathic hospitals
have been established within the past year under the
patronage and management of such men as the Duke
of Beaufort, the Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Robert
Grosvenor, and the Marquis of Anglesey. Other
hospitals have also been- ounded in several of the
larger towns of England under the auspices of the
most noble and -intelligent of the land. Numerous
dispensaries likewise distribute their blessings in
every quarter, and_ by their successes in practice,
contribute much towards the extension of the system.
In France, one of the most learned and intelligent
medical men of Paris, Dr. Tessier, physician to the
Hopital Sainte 2fazrguerite, (one of the hospitals connected with the Hlotel Z)ie:u, and containing one hundred beds,) after a careful preliminary study of the writings of Hahnemann, and a rigid practical investigation respecting their truth at the bedside of the sick,
for a period of more than two years, has publicly announced the vast superiority of this mode of practice
over the antiphlogistic measurbs of the Old School.
When it is known that the principal diseases treated
by Dr. Tessier were pneumonia (lung fever) and
cholera, the importance of the result will be better
appreciated.
With respect to' the gentleman himself, who has
thus been converted to Homceopathy, the simple fact
of his appointment to the post of physician to a hospital like that of Sainte Mlarguer~ite, proves the esti



CLERGYMEN ADOPTING HOMCEOPATHY.    143
mation put upon his talents while an allopathic practitioner, but now, as he has changed his opinions
uponi medical topics,'he will of course be clasaed
among the "deluded," "loose reasoning," "uneducated and irresponsible" followers'of Hahnemann.
In Austria, Russia, and several other countries of
continental Europe, well endowed homceopathic hospitals are in successful operation, and the practice is
everywhere extending'among the intelligent classes.
It is a fact eminently worthy of notice that the
patrons of Homceopathy are among the most intellectual and well-educated of every nation.
Dr. Hooker has chosen to refer in terms of reproach
to the clergy for the willingness they have evinced to
accept the doctrines of the philosophical school in
medicine, and he has expended besides abortive wit,
no inconsiderable amount of contumelious invective
against this class, which, to say nothing of the consideration in which it should be held, for its sacred
functions, embraces a larger amount of learning, talent,
and logical acumen, than. any other in the world.
We-may, confess that we are proud that the members
of a profession so intelligent, learned, and conscientious, have so generally examined and approved the
homceopathic theory, and adopted its practice; but
would it not have been'more appropriate for Dr.
Hooker to have discussed the more material'and important fact, that of the thoroughly educated, rightminided, and successfulpractitioners of the Old School,
so large a number have been converted to th6e doctrines of Hahnemann?  This is the exciting cause of
the indignation, jealousy, and mortification. of the




144       HOMCEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
allopathic practitioners, and for this they can offer
no plausible reason, except the apparent and overwhelming truth of our system.
We have hastily and imperfectly, yet we trust
satisfactorily answered the so-called " examinations"
of Dr. Worthington Hooker; and we think we have
shown him to be as deficient in common honesty and
conscience as he.is in a knowledge and fit judgment
of the true principles of cure. With a worthier
antagonist, and more time, we. might have entered
into a more elaborate, perhaps a more satisfactory
investigation of those great principles in medicine,
which are destined to have supreme acceptance and
the most satisfactory influence among the intelligent
classes of mankind.
For the present, we have, done.