,WBJ
L4 2 5r

  1846
§«■■' ■'** .->*

LAWSON
a^jMfli       .; ^ ^ ":,^jp-i \i :^^>i n
 
 
A
             REV IEW





  \i '               OF






HOMCEOPATHY,  ALLOPATHY,





                 AND






          "YOUNG physic;'





                  BY



                IS''

       L.  M. LAWSON, M. D.,

   Professor of General and Pathological Anatomy and Physiology in
            Transylvania University.









                ■'■■ *i'b ■-■
             LEXINGTON, KY.
           Scrugham & Dunlop, Printers.
1 846 
I Hi
PREFACE.
  The importance of the subject discussed in the following pages, has induced
the writer to place this Review in its present form.  The work reviewed was
itself a Journal Review, but was subsequently published in pamphlet form,
both  in this country and in England; and in consequence of these several
forms of publication, it has  been  widely circulated, and its influence, it is be-
lieved, will be detrimental to medical science.   The Medical Press of the Uni-
ted States, moreover, has not generally Reviewed Dr. Forbes' Essay with that
care which its  importance demands;  and hence, an additional reason is found
for recalling it to notice. 
REVIEW,
Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and  "Young Physic."   By
  John Forbes, M. D., one of the Editors of the  "Cyclopaedia of
  Practical Medicine," Editor of the "British and Foreign Medi-
  cal Review," etc.  etc.   Philadelphia: Lindsay & Blackiston.
  1846.   12mo. pp.  121.*

  This work is a reprint from  an article  in the January No. of
the British and Foreign Medical Review, written by the editor, Dr.
Forbes, and  re-published in pamphlet form in England.  It evi-
dently belongs to a class of books calculated to exert an influence,
favorable  or  unfavorable,  on the interests of Medical science,
greatly beyond most of the productions  of the day.   Essays and
books illustrating or extending the ordinary principles of the
profession, are received and exert an  influence proportional to
their truth and  accuracy;  but those essays, of which the present
is one, that strike  at  great and  leading principles, and seek to
subvert long  cherished views and opinions, operate independently
of truth or merit, create doubts and misgivings in the  minds of
many, pass silently through every avenue, and, if false, insidi-
ously poison a whole profession.   Add to this, the weight of
character possessed by the  justly celebrated author, and we have
sufficient inducement to examine carefully the pages of the  work
before us.
  We desire  to state in  the beginning, that the author has most
unquestionably done injustice both to himself  and the profession
of which he is  a  member;  and it does not, in  the least, mitigate
the  injury inflicted,  to know that the writers  intentions  were
elevated  and honorable; but,  on  the  contrary, this very fact
aggravates the offence,  by placing one  of the lights of the pro-
fession  in deliberate and honest hostility  to its doctrines and
interests.
  Dr. Forbes' essay seems to have had  a triple object;  the  first
was  to review Homoeopathy, and place it in a true position; in the
second place, to review the present  condition  of Allopathy, and
to expose its imperfections; and lastly, to indicate a substitute

  * Western Lancet, Sept., 1846. 
4    Forbes' Homeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic"
 for the two former, which will be found in the person of " Young
 Physic."
   It is no part of our purpose in following the author,  to review
 Homosopathy, for we trust that  our readers are too well endowed
 with common sense, to be misled  by such a glaring imposition ;
 but our whole design is  to examine the opinions expressed by Dr.
 Forbes,  both in relation to  homoeopathy and allopathy, and to
 make such suggestions as  may occur during our progress.   Ex-
 tracts will  be  inserted  sufficiently  copious  to  convey a  just
 conception of the author's opinions;  and at  the same time, care
 will be  taken to avoid isolating  opinions and expressions, which
 might misrepresent the author.
   The  term "allopathy," as applied to  our system, is objectiona-
 ble ; but as our author has very freely employed the  term, it will
 be used  frequently in  the same conventional sense, in the course
 of the  succeeding  pages.
   The following extract will show the estimate which the author
 places on the character and attainments of Hahnemann:
  " No careful observer of his actions or candid reader of his  writings, can
 hesitate for a moment  to admit, that he was a very extraordinary  man,—one
 whose name will descend to posterity as the exclusive excogitator and founder
 of an original system of medicine, as ingenious as  many that preceded it, and
 destined, probably, to be the remote, if not the immediate, cause of more im-
 portant fundamental changes in the practice of the  healing art,  than have re-
 sulted from any promulgated  since the days of Galen himself.  Hahnemann
 was undoubtedly a man of genius and a scholar; a man of indefatigable in-
 dustry, of undaunted energy.  In the history  of medicine his name will appear
 in the same list with those of the greatest systematists  and theorists; unsur-
 passed by few in the originality  and ingenuity  of his views, superior to most
 in having substantiated and carried out his doctrines into actual and most ex-
 tensive practice."—p. 6.
   A portion of this extract we may readily admit; the remainder
 is more  than  hypothetical.  That  the system of Hahnemann is
destined "to be the remote, if not the immediate, cause of more
important fundamental changes in the practice of the healing art,
than have  resulted  from any promulgated since the days of Galen
himself," is an  assumption at variance  with every principle of
 truth and justice.   This  opinion, however, has reference to  the
negative influence of homeopathy; an  influence, which the author
 is of opinion, will advance medical science by  unfolding the powers
of nature; but even with this explanation,  which comes  in at an-
other part of the essay, facts contradict the  assertion.  As a substi-
tute for the above  extraordinary  sentiment, we would say,  that
the system of Hahnemann, so far as it can exert an influence on
practical medicine, is fraught with the  most destructive  conse-
quences; and to sustain this assertion before an enlightened medi-
 cal tribunal,  it is only necessary to state, that the system is tpkol/u
empirical, depending on the external signs of disease, without anv
 reference to  the pathological  changes  inducing these  external
signs.   This single position, independently of the absurd cabalia- 
     Forbes'  Homaopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."     5

tic "similia similibus curantur," and the ghostly influence of in-
finitesimal doses, will stamp the  system of homoeopathy as one
of the wildest  vagaries that ever disturbed the mind of man, and
its author little less than a lunatic.  The advantages, therefore,
arising to medical science from  such a miserable  deception, are
no where to be seen; indeed, the system is obviously a lie in  its
conception, practice and  assumptions, and truth will be impaired
whenever it meets with such a moral pestilence.
  The author's charity is quite equal to his sagacity; thus,  he
freely declares his opinion that, not only was Hahnemann "sin-
cere in his  belief of the truth of his doctrines,"' but that the sys-
tem itself " professes to be based on a formidable  array of facts
and experiments, and that these are  woven into a complete code
of doctrines with singular dexterity and much apparent fairness."
And it will  be seen hereafter, that Dr. Forbes  is ready  to yield
implicit  faith  in the reports of cures made by  homoeopathists.
  It may have escaped the recollection of Dr. Forbes, or he may
never have known it, that Hahnemann's true belief has recently
been  brought to light.  Dr. Schubert, a German  physician, has
published a statement in Casper's Wochenschrift, that from his per-
sonal intercourse  with Hahnemann, he learned; that this noted
theorist placed no confidence in  the  infinitesimal doses of medi-
cine, and that his system was merely aruse to amuse  the patient,
while nature cured  the disease.  So much  foj.'  the honesty  of
Hahnemann, which  Dr. Forbes  so freely endorses.   In  further
evidence of the credit attached by the  author to homoeopathic
testimony, we  adduce the following extract:
  " On these  grounds, then, it appears to us reasonable, that the claims of Ho-
moeopathy, regarded as a system of medical doctrine, ought to  be admitted so
far as to entitle it to investigation, at least; and in undertaking  such an inves-
tigation, we h.ave'no more right to reject the evidence supplied  in its favor by
its professors, than we have for rejecting any other evidence in favor of any
other medical doctrine, theoretical or practical "—p. 9.
  Against this special pleading in favor of homoeopathic honesty
and testimony,—a mode of argument calculated to forestall and
mislead  the readers  judgment, we  must  emphatically  protest.
Reasonable and probable statements,  those which do not contra-
dict the great  and leading truths of  human, evidence, may  ba
safely admitted on the  testimony of individual  experience and
observation: but when the alledged  facts are  opposed to the  ac-
cummulated observations of ages, and announce the  most hypo-
thetical  and improbable doctrines., it  were worse than  folly to
admit the testimony of interested and blinded partizans, to  the
detriment of long established and well tested principles.
  Passing rapidly through  the principles of the homoeopathic doc-
trines, Dr.  Forbes arrives at the following conclusions:
  " So far, it must be allowed, the doctrines of Hahnemann have either a show
of reason in  themselves, or, at  least, claim to, be  founded  on  grounds even
superior to reason—experience and experiment."—p. 24. 
6    Forbes' Homeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."
   Not satisfied, however, with the preceding opinion, the author
 introduces the following summary, shortly after the last extract.
   " We hold  the great alledged fact to be no fact at all."—"We
 affirm that a large  portion of  the  experiments performed by
 Hahnemann, and his friends,  with the object of ascertaining the
 therapeutic properties of medicine,  are altogether fallacious;"
 and it is also denied, that  the evidence is sufficient to prove  that
 homoeopathic  medicaments have any potency.
   Here is manifested a strong opposition to homoeopathy, which
 the  reader will regard, when contrasted with  other expressions,
 as very nearly approaching inconsistency; but it must be remem-
 bered that  Dr. Forbes is laboring to prove a particular point, to
 establish  which, requires  these  extraordinary  concessions, and
 subsequent  maledictions.   The following reference to the mode
 of preparing  homoeopathic remedies, furnishes a still  more de-
 cided denunciation.
   "Altogether, it must be admitted, that  the  whole complexion of the thing
 bears a much closer resemblance to what we have heard or seen of magical
 ceremonies and the tricks of conjurors, demonstrations for effect and to pro-
 duce an impression, than to any operation of a scientific or bona fide charac-
 ter."—p. 42.
   After these downright  acknowledgements of the demerits of
 this  ghostly homoeopathy,  the  following half eulogistic extract
 comes in with bad grace ;  the  author seems determined to argue
 both sides of the question :
  " But homoeopathy comes before us in a much more imposing aspect, and
 claims our attention on grounds which cannot  be gainsaid.  It presents itself as
 a new art of medicine,  as a mode of practice utterly at variance with that long
 established in the world ; and claims the notice of mankind on the irresistible
 grounds of its superior power of curing 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, famous, and triumphant.  The disciples
 of Hahnemann are spread over the whole civilized world.  There is not a town
 of any considerable size in Germany, France, Italv,  England, or America,
 that does not boast of possessing one or more homoeopathic 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 Homoeopathy 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
 of s:tSai\s^^m phrases'but in the hard words a"d hard- fip«-

   The meaning of all this  will  be more  apparent in the sequel;
 for the present, we  leave  the  author in  the  enjoyment of these
opposing opinions.
   Another extract  brings  us to  a new position, gradually  ao-
proaching a preconceived doctrine, which will finally be develop-
ed.  Regarding  homoeopathy as an established form of practice
the author says:                                        »   V/Utt,»
  " The subject here to be considered  naturally divides  itself into two parts: 
     Forbes' Homcsopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."     7

1st. As to the absolute power of homoeopathy to cure diseases ; 2dly.  As to
its power relatively to that of allopathy."—p. 46.
   The first proposition is  thus summarily disposed of:
  " In regard to the first head of the inquiry, we think we are justified in stat-
ing that no unquestionable evidence exists as to the absolute power of homoeo-
pathy to cure diseases."
   In discussing the second division, as to the power of homoeo-
pathy relatively to allopathy, our author certainly is not very or-
thodox ; but we will not anticipate the interesting denouement, but
permit the authors own  words to introduce his clever heresy.
   " On the second head of the  inquiry, our evidence is very different both in
character and amount.  Here homoeopathy can  adduce evidence of precisely
the same kind as allopathy."—p. 48.
   The author is forced to admit, however, that the evidence is
not quite sufficient to  establish the equality of homoeopathy; but
with that  extraordinary amount of charity which was so conspicu-
ous in a former part of the work, he adds:
   " Nevertheless, it would be surely most  unwise, and even unphilosophical,
to come to  the conclusion, that, because we are not yet in a position to  decide
the question absolutely and definitely, we should therefore refuse to entertain
it at all."—p. 49.
   Had  the author remembered and acted on his own admission,
viz:  that  homoeopathy was impotent, this  sage  inquiry into  its
capability of curing diseases would have been unnecessary;  but
not  so,—a definite object is  to  be subserved—particular views
must be established;  and  hence, even at the risk of palpable in-
consistency, the subject is gravely  approached and  learnedly
discussed.
   We next  approach a very important part of Dr. Forbes' essay,
to which  we would invite  particular attention.  With the view of
determining the  exact results of homoeopathic practice, that  is,
to what extent patients recover under this system, the author in-
troduces  an account of the Hospital of  Charity in Vienna, under
the care  of one Dr. Fleischmann, a homoeopathic  practitioner.
From 1835 to 1843, the total number of patients treated in this
hospital, are reported at 6,551, with the following general results:
      "Remaining from 1834.....-    27
        Admitted........6524
        Cured.........5980
        Dismissed uncured......]}■*
Died
407
            • •                                           "in "
       Remaining  -------           *J".
  But to make  the  conviction still  stronger,  Dr. Forbes  intro-
duces more specific testimony to prove the undoubted success of
this system; or, what is perhaps a more correct expression, that
a large proportion of patients recover  under  its administration;
that  testimony  is found in the following table : 
8     Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and " Young Physic.
'	Admit'd.	Cured.	Uncur.	Died	Recov.
Abscess of the brain -	3	-	-	3	
Apoplexy - -	9	4	2	3	
Cancer of the stomach and uterus -	5	—	2	3	
Amenorrhoea and Chlorosis	90	89	-	-	1
Ascites - - - - -	14	10	1	3	
Diarrhoea ------	114	112	-	2	
Dysentery -	44	42	-	2	
Erysipelas of the face - - -	181	177	1	2	1
Fever, excluding typhus	1036	1007	1	17	11
Typhus, abdominalis -	819	669	2	140	8
Influenza - - - - -	52	51	-	1	
Dyspeptic affections - - - -	173	172	-	-	1
Gout, acute and chronic	102	97	1	4	
Headaches, various - - - -	61	61			
Articular inflammations	211	203	_	2	6
Meningitis -	17	15	1	1	
Bronchitis - - - - -	15	15			
Ophthalmia -	51	50	1		
Endocarditis -	29	29			
Pericarditis - - - - -	2	2			
Enteritis -	6	1	_	5	
Pneumonia -----	300	280	_	19	1
Peritonitis .....	105	100	_	5	
Pleuritis ------	224	221	_	3	
Measles -	25	23	_	2	
Phthisis......	98	_	27	71	
Rheumatism, acute and chronic	188	188			
Scarlatina -----	35	31	_	2	2
Small-pox - - - . .	136	120	_	11	5
Tonsilitis -	300	299	-		1
  The comments made by Dr. Forbes on the above report, show
most conclusively, that he admits it as true in every particular.
  Thus:

  " We do not,  however, mean to say that such lists as those of Dr. Fleisch-
mann s are unworthy of notice and incapable of furnishing any information of
consequence.  This is not the case.  Although yielding us no positive  results
or such data as science demands, they unquestionably furnish us with  isolated
tacts of great value, and even supply materials which may be worked into such

SLrPPTh^  /T.'^f1™^; &S medrne haS' alas>been too  long  content
wUhaL  These  tables, for instance, substantiate this momentous fact, that all
our ordinary curable diseases are cured, in a fair proportion, under thehoWo
pathic method of treatment.  Not merely do we see thus cured a 1 the suXter
diseases, whether acute or chronic, which most men of experience knot ?« hi
readily susceptible of cure under every varietv nTr«tln«P  a nce,know  to be
ment at all; but even all the severer Ldrnolilreatmenj and under no treat-
physicians,'of whatever choo  ! ha^e beenaccustoXT     T' Which  m°St
needing the interposition of art ^^L^i^XVS^t^n ?°*  *"£?
and speedy termination, but demanding thpll,  g!g*        favorable


  Again :

  " Dr. Fleischmann is a regular, well-educate nt,,™,;,.-
iug  a true diagnosis as other practitioner!",?MK?Sk2LSTbl°f f°rm-
know h,m as a man of honor  and re^t^^l^&  o'f aU^g °a 
      Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."    9

falsehood.  We cannot, therefore, refuse to admit the  accuracy of his state-
ments as to matters of fact."—p. 53.
  Another opinion  is thus expressed :
  " No candid physician, looking at the original report, or at the small part of
it which we have extracted, will hesitate to acknowledge that the results there
set forth would have been considered by him as satisfactory, if they had occur-
red in his own practice."—p. 54.
  But to  silence all cavil on the subject, and to show that the
cases were not slight, the following testimony is  adduced :
  " It would be very unreasonable to believe that, out of 300 cases of pneumo-
nia, 224 cases of pleurisy, and 105 cases of peritonitis, (in all 629 cases), spread
over a period of eight years, all the cases, except the fatal  ones, (27  in num-
ber), were  slight, and such as would have seemed to us hardly requiring treat-
ment 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."—
p. 55.
  In further corroboration of the truth of Dr. Fleischmann's sta-
tistics, Dr. Forbes  declares that  the report has been  confirmed
by the testimony of a physician, (not a homoeopath), who attend-
ed Dr. Fleischmann's wards for three months.   This gentleman,
it is  said, traced the progress of several cases of pneumonia, by
the  physical  signs, through the  stages  of congestion, hepatiza-
tion, and  resolution, up  to  a perfect cure.   After  all this, the
following emphatic  opinion expressed  by our author, may be  re-
garded as conclusive in relation  to his opinions:
  "In examining Dr. Fleischmann's report, the sagacious physician will  not
fail to be struck by the fact, that the relative proportion of cures, and the rela-
tive mortality of the different diseases, one to another, are precisely the same
as he is accustomed to see in his own practice."—p. 56.
  All this is very fine and very logical, and therefore very convinc-
ing.    And let us now inquire, is  the reader convinced that homoe-
opathy, as a system of medical practice,  is true?   Is he prepared
to admit that the decillionth attenuation of silicia, charcoal, oyster
shell, &c.,—in  figure  thus:  1,000000,000000,000000,000000,-
000000,000000,000000,000000,000000,000000.000000,000000,—
or any other infinitesimal dose, is sufficiently potent to cure any
form of  disease?  If he is prepared to admit such an  absurdity,
he is not in company with  Dr. Forbes!  Strange  as it may seem,
after all of his admissions, commendations  and arguments on  the
subject of homoeopathy, the author utterly repudiates that system.
He distinctly avers the belief that infinitesimal doses of medicine
are wholly inert, and that the  results growing out of their  ad-
ministration, as explained  by the  advocates of  this system,  are
fallacious.
  With the preceding plain declarations, therefore, first attesting
the truth  of homoeopathic statements as to  the amount  of cures un-
der  their system;  and, in the  second  place,  distinctly and une-
equivocally  denying to infinitesimal  doses the slightest  possible 
10   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

agency in the cure of disease;  upon what principle does the au-
thor explain these discrepancies, and how does  he account for
the success of an inert system of practice?   The explanation is
easily  given.  He believes that nature cures the  disease wholly
INDEPENDENT OF ANY MEDICAL AGENCY.                  _     # _
  Here the author's principles  are fully developed;  his opinions
have been brought to a focus, and we can now explain the ground
of his  extraordinary admissions in favor of homoeopathy.   It  is
important to remember, however, in immediate connection with
the assumption that nature is the efficient agent in these homoeo-
pathic  cures, that Dr. Forbes has fully  admitted, and distinctly
declared, that the results of this system are quite as favorable as
those  belonging  to  allopathic  practice; hence the  unavoidable
inference, that he regards the  practice  of medicine in no sense
superior to  the operation of natural  causes!   In  truth, the fore-
going being admitted, medical science sinks infinitely beneath the
natural system or homoeopath}-.   This  point, however, we can-
not now pursue further, but leave it and follow the author in his
somewhat tortuous course; and  attempt by additional extracts  to
develope still more fully  his  views.  After pursuing the subject
for some time, and  proving,  as is supposed,  the  undoubted  suc-
cess of homoeopathic practice,  the author makes the following
issue:
  " What, then, it will naturally be asked, is the explanation of the moment-
ous fact we have announced, that a considerable  number of diseases have been,
and perhaps continue to be, treated as  successfully by homoeopathists as by allo-
pathists?  Is it, that the one kind of treatment is as good as the  other?
Is IT, THAT HOMCEOPATHY IS TRUE?"--p. 78.
  To both  of these interrogations, the  author returns an  "une-
quivocal and decided negative;" and yet, in the next breath, the
following escapes him:
  "We may, indeed, have proof sufficient to satisfy any reasonable mind, that
the theory or doctrines, or principles of homosopathy are false; but as yet we
have no demonstrative evidence that it is false in its practical bearings—false,
that is,  powerless, as a means  of curing diseases. It will not be disputed  by
any one conversant with the history of medicine, that these  two things are not
only distinct, but independent of each other.  We can, however, assert with
the greatest positiveness, that,  as far as the evidence supplied by the documents
now before us, or the evidence we have been able to gather from  other pub-
 ished writings of the new school, goes—there exists not a tittle of actual proof
that homoeopathy is true in  this aspect."—p. 79.
  Which, then, let  us  ask, is the  better system?  We  are  told
by  Dr. Forbes that homoeopathy cures as many  cases  as allo-
pathy; that homoeopathy cures none at  all. and hence the corol-
 ary that allopathy is no  better.  And yet, in direct contradiction
to his  own admissions,  and the  common-sense of every physician
we are sagely informed that there is "no demonstrative evidence
that it [homoeopathy] is false in its practical  bearings;''  and
yet, he  adds  "there  exists not  a  tittle  of actual prIof  that
homoeopathy  is  true  m  this  aspect."  The  emphasis on the 
Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and " Young Physic."    11
 periments by physicians; 9. That old physicians abandon ener-
 getic measures.
   The preceding catalogue presents a truly formidable array of
 arguments, and it shows  that  Dr. Forbes has entered into the
 subject with a very zealous spirit; nevertheless,  a little scrutiny
 will probably lead to the  conviction, that these illustrations  are
 more specious than real.
   1.  The cure of diseases among uncivilized nations is urged by
 Dr. Forbes in favor of his theory.  Almost  every nation, how-
 ever rude, has some system of curing disease;  and whether  this
 consists ostensibly in magic,  incantations, charms, amulets, or
 similar means, it is nevertheless true, that some sort  of actual
 medicinal agents are generally administered at the same time ;  and
 the remedies thus given, having been, like all therapeutical sub-
 stances, derived  from experience and observation, it may be ra-
 tionally presumed that they can, and do, empirically  cure  dis-
 eases, to a limited extent.   The savages, therefore,  have a sys-
 tem of medical practice, based  on their rude and imperfect  ex-
 perience,  but which  may, in truth, cure some  or many of their
 maladies.   But when  we add to this very reasonable opinion  the
 more- important fact, that the diseases ofuncivilized life are com-
 paratively few and simple, and  therefore  require but little arti-
 ficial  aid, we  can have no difficulty  in understanding that  the
 powers of nature may be, in many instances, fully  adequate to
 resist the malady. The inference, therefore, which Dr. Forbes
 draws from these facts, must be regarded as wholly gratuitous.
  The 2d and 3d  propositions,  that diseases  were  cured in  the
 ruder and simpler times of physic, and that numerous instances
 are on record where diseases terminated favorably without medic-
 inal treatment, proves nothing in the premises.   In the first place,
 Dr. Forbes has adduced no evidence to show, nor is there any on
 record, that this  primitive state of medical practice was as suc-
 cessful  as it is at the present  period, in an equal number of
 equally violent diseases; and in the second  place, it is not con-
 tended that all diseases are necessarily mortal; on the contrary it
 is freely admitted, that many of the lighter attacks, and some of
 the severer ones, may  be successfully resisted by the powers of
 nature.   But even in these fortunate issues it is highly  probable
 that a judicious course of medication would abridge the duration
of the  disease, and in all  similar cases  render the issue  much
 more safe and less painful.
  4. The'.expectant system is appealed to in favor of the sanative
powers of nature.  What  exact idea  the  author attaches to the
phrase "expectant system" is not very apparent; it may signify the
absence of all medicinal agents, and the substitution of a DaLv
course; or it may be employed  to mean remedies designed^ to  aid
nature in certain  supposed  critical evacuations, without active
means  at any  other  period.  It is probable,  however^U Jhe 
12   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

word proof is by the author.  Now, if homoeopathy is not only not
proven to be false in its practical bearings, but, on the contrary,
diseases  are known to abate under  its employment, the system
must be admitted as true to a greater or lesser extent, competent
to cure disease, and therefore superior  to allopathy!  To save
Dr. Forbes from the imputation of lunacy, we must, in a spirit of
charity, suppose he was dreaming when this book was concocted.
  Finally, after innumerable turnings that would bewilder a fox,
and  not a few contradictory  expressions and assumptions;  now
being the  advocate of homoeopathy, and again giving it deadly
thrusts;  in one breath  pleading slightly {very slightly)  for allo-
pathy, and in the  next sinking it below homoeopathy, and after
arguing  in a complete  circle, and exhibiting a fair specimen of
logical gyromancy, the author suddenly ushers before us the fol-
lowing seeming ultimatum:.
  " But, such being our estimate of the character and powers of homoeopathy,
on what principle can we explain the fact above admitted, that diseases have
been  cured  and continue to be cured, alike under its ministration as under that
of ordinary practice?   Is it, that allopathy is also false?  Or is it, that, to ob-
tain an explanation of the fact,  we must pass by both, and fix on some third
power, coincident with both, yet belonging to neither."—p. 81.
  Ah! this third power; that is the agent which secures the tri-
umps to both allopathy  and homoeopathy.  But Dr. Forbes is not
willing to  say  that the common  practice of  medicine is  wholly
false; he  has too much regard for his standing as "Physician in
ordinary  to Her Majesty's Household, and Physician extraordi-
nary to His Highness  Prince Albert," to allow such an  odious
opinion  to escape him;   but let us  look a little  beyond the
flimsy reservations which  are thrown around his opinions, and
learn how the matter stands.   On page 82; we are told that  allo-
pathy is true in a limited sense, but that " it does not cure a great
proportion of the diseases it is supposed to cure."   Now, if we
bear in mind a former declaration, viz:  that homoeopathy cures
as many diseases as does  allopathy; and that the former cures
none at all, it requires  no great  skill to cypher out the naught
which remains for the achievements of allopathy.   It would make
an arithmetical problem thus: If  homoeopathy cures 0, and allo-
pathy has just the  same success, how  many cases will the latter
cure?   This  limited success, therefore, of allopathy, admitted
by Dr. Forbes,  is so very "limited" that its quotient is naught.
  Wc next reach that portion of  the work where the author en-
ters  boldly  upon the proof of his dogma, that nature is fully com-
petent to  the cure of diseases.   The following points are adduced
to sustain his position:  1.  The cure of diseases among unciviliz-
ed nations; 2.  The general  treatment of diseases in the  ruder
times of physic; 3. Cases recorded in  which no medical treat-
ment was instituted; 4. The expectant system; 5. The success
of hydropathy;  7.  The cure of diseases by Mesmerism; 8.  Ex- 
     Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."   13

term is used in the present instance to represent a passive or neg-
ative course of treatment, in which all active  remedies are pro-
scribed.
  Now we would  ask Dr. Forbes, in all  candor, what evidence
exists to prove that this much talked of "expectant, system" is any
system at all,  or that it shows  any comparatively  favorable re-
sults?  What  series of  accurate and  extensive  experiments can
be adduced to sustain this opinion?  Is it  not true, that what has
been denominated the expectant treatment has been, to a very
considerable extent, accompanied by the administration of various
remedies, more or less active, and which  could exert at  least
some influence over disease?  If this be true, surely Dr. Forbes
cannot rely on what has heretofore occurred, to prove that na-
ture, unaided, is competent to relieve,  as a general rule, severe
diseases; and if not competent as a general rule, the vis medica-
irix natura. cannot be  relied upon to the exclusion  of positive
medicinal agents.
   It is true, statements from  time to time have  been made, that
formidable diseases  have passed off without the interference of
medicines, and it was claimed as a just inference that nature pos-
sesses a superiority over art; but let us inquire, where are the
fruits of this system?   Are there any physicians in  enlightened
society  attempting to follow  this system, and  to  cure diseases
without  remedies? Ps it so in France?  Is it so any where?  To
these interrogatories we must respond in the negative.  Surely,
then, the expectant  system cannot  be  the most successful and
rational, or the extensive trials of its powers which Dr.  Forbes
speaks  of, would have gained it some  adherents,  and  given it
some notoriety.  We  are  of opinion, therefore, that all  candid
readers  will agree with us, that the expectant system proves noth-
 ing for Dr. Forbes.
   5. Another plea brought forward to prove that nature is supe-
 rior to  art, is  the extensive  employment  of quack  medicines!
 This argument might justly  cap the climax of absurdity, were
 there  not others to follow equally preposterous.   Dr.  Forbes
 surely  is aware, that a very large proportion of these quack rem-
 edies, as proved by actual analysis, possess very active properties-.
 Now what is the result?   It  is a familiar fact  that these reme-
 dies are given almost indiscriminately, and  therefore are produc-
 tive of much  harm; but it  cannot be denied that occasionally they
 receive a proper  application,  and, by  chance,  really cure some
 cases of disease.  Strange  that Dr. Forbes should have brought
 forward such an argument to sustain his position.   Active medi-
 cines, given by chance, generally misapplied, constantly  tending
 to impair the natural powers, are supposed to prove that  nature
 is  superior to  art!   If it  prove any thing, is  it not that  quack
 remedies are superior  to  the regular system!
   6. But not satisfied  with one quackish  illustration, hydropathy
                                2 
 14   Forbes' Homoeopathy,  Allopathy, and "Young Physic'

 next comes up  before the author, and  he presses  into  hiss*''
 vice another convenient argument.   Two facts will demolish this
 watery argument.   The first is, there is no  authentic testimony
 to prove that hydropathy does, as a common result, cure violent
 forms of disease.   It  is much more certain that its indiscriminate
 employment kills  many patients.   The second  fact is, that the
 application of  water is  universally recognized, by the whole pro-
fession, as affording  valuable curative means.  Will Dr. Forbes
 assert that it is inert?   Dare he say that it has no effect?  Surely
 not.   If, then, it operates as  we  suppose, arouses  the nervous
 system and induces healthy reaction, or under other circumstan-
 ces carries off superabundant heat, does it not become as directly
 nn artificial agent—a  medicine—as  calomel, or opium, or any
 other  remedy?   But we must permit Dr. Forbes,  on this point, to
 speak for himself,  which he does in the following extract:
   "An intelligent and well-educated hydropathical physician, on whose testi-
 mony we can entirely rely, informs us, that in a great many cases that have
 come under his care in a hydropathic establishment, he has observed the symp-
 toms amend on the first commencement of hydropathic remedies, with a sud-
 denness and speed which he could not conscientiously ascribe to the influence
 of the means used, but which rather appeared to result from the abandonment
 of injurious drugs which the patients had previously been in the habit of tak-
 ing.  In some cases, to test this point, the physician purposely abstained from
 treating the patient at all, and yet witnessed the same marked amendment.—
 Our informant points  out  to us another natural field pf observation in this line,
 in the numerous patients  discharged, cured, or relieved, from hydropathic es-
 tablishments, almost all of whom carry with them such a horror of drugs that
 they never have recourse  to them, if it can be helped, afterwards.  Yet these
 people recover from their subsequent diseases—even without Hydropathy!"
   Surely Dr.  Forbes'  company  is not  very select.  It appears
 that he not only receives as a. friend a •' hydropathical physician,"
 but he is so charitable as to admit this •' hydropathical "  testimony
 in condemnation of the  regular  profession; and this condemna-
 tion, by an interested witness, is introduced  to sustain one of his
 most important doctrines.  What a predicament!.   A  physician
 of Royalty consulting with a quack to put down the  medical pro-
 fession!   But there is another feature in the above  extract still
 more odious.   This " intelligent and well-educated  (did  he say
 honest?) hydropathical physician, •• on whose testimony we can en-
 tirely rely," informs Dr. Forbes that the patients cured  at hydro-
 pathic institutions, "carry away with them such a horror of drugs,"
 that they never take  arty afterwards;  and yet,  Dr. Forbes with
 great  naivette adds,  "these people recover from subsequent dis-
 eases."  If this statement is strictly correct, then is hydropathy
 infinitely superior to  allopathy, and the sage (?) of Graeffenberg
 is more to be revered than the sage of Cos.  This is surely the
 meaning of the language quoted, if, indeed, it have any meaning.
   The 7th and  8th propositions deserve no comment.  Mesmer-
 ism  and Experiments may leave a disease to nature, and the in-
 valid may recover, but it proves nothing beyond the result in that
 individual  case. 
     Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and •' Young Physic."   \5

  9. But the most conclusive testimony, the author believes, has
been reserved  for the las!, viz:  that  old  physicians "abandon
much of the energetic and perturbating medication of their early
practice;"  and, we may add, they abandon most  other energetic
thoughts and actions.  Can the author attribute this want of en-
ergy solely to an  improved judgment, or will he, with all mankind.
regard  it as a natural loss of  the powers of the mind?   We leavvi
him to  decide.   To  make this statement  available, the author
should  have some such tables as those of Dr. Fleischmann; statis-
tics showing the relative  mortality under the practice of physi-
cians of different ages;  what  occurs  at 25,  30, 40, &c.   This
should  prove that the Grand  Climateric—the multiple of 7 by 9—
was in  truth a period of entire renewal, at least of the brain, and
that a new judgment usurped the place of the old.  One practi-
tioner is mentioned,  an aged and learned  physician of Edinburgh,
who said in reference to  the  curative  powers  of infinitesimal
doses,  "this is  no peculiar cause  for boasting, as  he himself had,
for the last  two years, been  curing his patients  with e^en less.
viz : with nothing at all."  Now with such sentiments, we would
say to  Dr.  Forbes, go thou and do likewise.
  Notwithstanding Dr. Forbes urges the preceding  points to sus-
tain his opinions, it is abundantly obvious, that he relies mainly
on the statistical  reports of Dr. Fleischmann, to prove that na-
ture is  fully competent to cure disease; it therefore  becomes
necessary, before dismissing  this part of the  subject, to call up
these noted tables, and to determine, as far as possible, to  what
extent  they are entitled to credit.
  In estimating the  value of these  tables, it  is important to re-
member, that they rest alone on  the statements of Dr. Fleisch-
mann.   Are we bound by any principle of courtesy,  philosophy
or justice to admit the ipse dixit of this unknown homceopathist,
when his statements stand directly  opposed to the  united  expe-
rience and observation of almost  the whole world, and which not
only contradict well known  facts  and principles, but, in truth,
outrage common  sense!   But more especially is it  absurd to ad-
mit such testimony,  as Dr. Forbes has  done, when a revolution in
science is  to follow  their reception, and a new system is  to  bu
based upon their  assumptions.
  Every principle of philosophy and prudence will dictate, that
new doctrines or statements which  contradict long  received and
acknowledged principles, cannot be admitted  without strong evi-
dences of their truth ;  and to entitle such statements to our con-
fidence, they must be the result either of observation and  expe-
rience, of demonstration,  or of such clear and obviously true in-
duction as  to leave no question in relation  to their  authenticity.
  We  inquire,  then, in  the first place, to what extent these sta-
tistics are established by observation and experience.  The first
inquiry, that naturally suggests itself in this and similar instances, 
Id   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."
relates to the competency and integrity of the witness.  As  a gen-
eral rule, homoeopathists arc disqualified on both of these grounds.
It is certainly a very rare event to meet with one who possesses
a sufficient acquaintance with the profession, to make a diagnosis
entitled to  our confidence.  How far this  objection can be ap-
plied to Dr. Fleischmann, is not certain; but it may be regarded
as a general rule, with but few exceptions, that those physicians
who are so visionary  as to embrace homoeopathy, or similar de-
lusions, have either an imperfect  elementary medical education,
or that their credulity so  far outweighs the judgment,  that but
little reliance can be reposed in their statements.   In view of
these facts, it becomes the duty of a prudent inquirer, when pro-
positions are made by persons of the above  character, which con-
travert common experience and observation, to exercise a rational
scepticism, until the points  are established  by the most indubita-
ble  proof.  To apply these principles to  Dr. Fleischmann,  we
would say, that his avowed belief in such a monstrous absurdity
;is that of homoeopathy, and a declaration that infinitesimal doses
have, in  his  hands, cured  the  most formidable acute diseases,
will surely  exert no small  influence  to invalidate his testimony.
Dr. Forbes himself fully admits^that Fleischmann was mistaken
in supposing that infinitesimal doses cured any of his numerous
cases;  and if he was wholly deluded for a series of years in hos-
pital practice, what evidence have we that he was not  quite  as
much mistaken on other equally important points?  His testimony
on this score, we are decidedly of opinion,  should go for naught.
  In the next place, what can be said of the integrity of this  wit-
ness?   On this subject we  have  no desire  to be exclusively per-
sonal, for we have really no knowledge of the author further than
what can be derived from general circumstances, and we there-
fore speak  of the characteristics of the class.  This whole ques-
tion being  placed in a dubious aspect, we  are warranted in  de-
manding the most full and conclusive proof.  In  all instances
where a fair and  impartial trial of homoeopathy  has been made,
and the result correctly reported, the system has entirely failed.
Thus, in Paris, at the Hospital de la Pitie, Andral put it to a fair
test, but the results were entirely unfavorable.  In Berlin, the
government authorized professed homoeopathists to make trial of
their system : and in every instance they failed to cure their  pa-
tients.   In Russia, where the  homoeopathists were permitted to
make extensive trials in a military hospital, for the express pur-
pose of testing its success as compared with the common practice
the result was unfavorable to the infinitesimal system.  After  an
extended trial  of two months, it  was found  that  homoeopathy
was much  less successful  than  allopathy, and the experiments
were consequently ordered to be discontinued.   At other places
homoeopathy has been equally unsuccessful.  Are we justified  in
the  face of these facts, to admit Dr. Fleischmann's report on  hia 
      Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."   17

own unsupported assertions, while it is opposed  by so many im-
portant considerations?  Surely Dr. Forbes cannot be  so lax in
his mental discipline as to admit such flimsey testimony in such
an important case.  Had Dr. Forbes preserved his usual sagacity
in this instance, such  as was  manifested in his detection of Mes-
meric delusions, we believe his conclusions would have been very
different from those here  presented.  It will not obviate the ob-
jection to say, that Dr. Forbes admits the cures  reported by  Dr.
Fleischmann, upon the ground that they are the results of the
powers of nature and not infinitesimal doses; if this were a just
palliation,or an accurate conclusion,in other words,if Dr. Fleisch-
mann's reports were true, nature should  have been equally  suc-
cessful in France, in  Russia, and other places.  Analogy, there-
fore, would lead to a  rejection of these reports.
   But there is another reason of a very  important character, why
we should be permitted to discredit  these extravagant  homoeo-
pathic statements, which is, that homoeopathic practitioners very
commonly do not  adhere  to their  system.  Mr. Lee,  an authen-
tic English writer, states that during  his visit to Germany in
1840, he  found homoeopathy essentially dead in its native land;
at Leipsic, its head-quarters, the hospital contained but eight beds,
and these were not. all filled.  The house surgeon became  con-
vinced of the absurdity of the system and gave up his position.
And he also adds, that one of the principal practitioners at Leip-
sic candidly acknowledged that he gave allopathic remedies, and
that he was in the habit of asking  his patients which system  they
preferred, as they were both equally good!  According to  our
own observation this  course  is not confined to Leipsic.  We be-
lieve it can  be established that the homoeopathic practitioners of
this country very frequently give medicine  in  allopathic doses;
we have heard this opinion generally confirmed by those who had
the best opportunities of learning the facts,  and we fully credit
the statement.  And  yet, all that recover under this practice are
claimed for homoeopathy, while Dr. Forbes  claims them for na-
ture.  Now, who will undertake to say that Dr. Fleischmann  was
an exception to this course?   We most assuredly cannot, and as
it is more than probable that Dr. Forbes cannot, the question
must be considered, at least, sub-judice.
   The preceding considerations  render it sufficiently obvious,
that individual testimony cannot be relied upon to sustain homoeo-
pathy.   This being admitted, it is equally true, and of necessity
follows, that the system cannot be proven by demonstration.  And
finally, induction cannot prove it, for there  is  nothing to reason
from.   The system  is conceived in a lie, and  all  the induction
that follows is worse than the system.
   The preceding arguments  have been  brought forward to prove
that Fleischmann's statements are not  sufficiently authentic to
be received  as true;  and while we disarm the  homocopathist of
                             2* 
18   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and " Young Physic."

this vaunted success, Dr. Forbes is equally prevented from bring-
ing it forward to prove  that  nature is so universally successful.
What unbiassed mind can admit, that recoveries took place under
homceopathic medicines in 42 out of 44 cases of dysentery; in  15
out of 17 cases of meningitis; all of 31 cases of endo  and peri-car-
ditis;  in 280 out of 300 cases of pneumonitis;  in 100 out of 105
cases of peritonitis; 221 out of 224 cases of pleuritis; all of 188
cases of acute rheumatism; 31 out of 35  cases of scarlatina, &c.
Pliant indeed must  be that faith, and  broad that charily, which
could admit  such  marvelous  statements.   Dr. Forbes,  however,
is willing to endorse these reports to the  fullest extent!   He be-
lieves, however, that nature, and not the little globules, cured the
diseases.   If this  were true,  Dr. Forbes  need go no farther; his
labors in translating Laennec  might have been spared  him; the ink,
paper and time consumed in sustaining  the British and Foreign
Medical Review have all been useless; his office  as  physician to
Her Majesty's Household, &c, should immediately be abandoned,
for neither he, nor any other physician can obtain a higher  rate
of cures than those reported by Fleischmann;  and  as  these are
presumed to be the work of nature,  Dr.  Forbes should at  once
resign his Royal  patients to the  more  kindly  hand of natural
causes.   And it is upon these very uncertain statements of Fleisch-
mann, that  Dr. Forbes  builds  his equally uncertain hypothesis.
Strange  infatuation!   The  same  sort  of evidence  that proves
the  truth of Fleischmann's reports, would establish  the efficacy
of every quack system and remedy in Christendom.
  Ths following paragraph  closes that part of the  essay  which
relates to homoeopathy :
  " But while we are  thus- exalting the powers  of nature at  the expense of
liomreopathy, are we not, at the same time, laying bare the nakedness of our
own cherisher allopathy?   If it is nature that cures in homoeopathy, and if
homoeopathy (as We have admitted) does  thus cure, in certain cases, as well as
allopathy, do we not, by this admission,  inevitably expose ourselves defence-
loss to the shock of the tremendous inference,—that the  treatment of many
iriscases on the ordinary plan must, at the very  best, be useless; while it  in-
flicts on our patients some serious evils that homoeopathy is free from, such as
the swallowing of disagreeable and expensive drugs, and the frequently  pain-
ful and almost always unpleasant effects produced by them during their opera-
lion?  This inference, and the dilemma it involves, are always  held up by  the
homoeopathists in terrorem to  any allopathist who should think of using  the
argument of nature's autocrateia  against  their system?  and  they think  the
threat too terrible ta be encountered witli disregard, much less with defiance,
by any man in the actual practice of allopathy."—p. 93.
  There can no longer be any  rational   doubt in relation to the
author's opinions.   It is true, that on page 95, he says, that not-
withstanding he admits the general proposition  referred to, he still
adheres  to allopathy, and regards it as being capable  of  indefinite
improvement.   What improvement,  let us enquire,  does he  ex-
pect?   Does he anticipate a state of medicine  that  will secure
greater  trwmptrs than those of Dr. Fleischmann?  Nothing short 
Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."   19
of universal success, which he  cannot hope for, can eclipse the
triumphs  of Fleischmann.   It is evident,  however,  that  Dr.
Forbes places homoeopathy and allopathy on precisely the same
ground as to .their curative agencies, viz:  that nature, in either
case, effects the cure.   But instead of leaving them on this ap-
parent equality,  he elevates homoeopathy  infinitely  above its
rival, because, he says, by adopting that system we escape "the
swallowing of disagreeable and expensive drugs, and the frequent-
ly painful and almost always  unpleasant effects produced by them
during their operation."   Absurdity and heresy can go no  far-
ther.
   In concluding our observations on that part of the essay which
relates to homoeopathy, it is but just to remark, that Dr. Forbes is
wholly opposed to  the system of Hahnemann ; and it is deeply
to be regretted  that the author has been tempted to use expres-
sions and commendations apparently  in  its  favor; for however
much they  may be  explained and modified by subsequent decla-
rations, they will  be quoted  as allopathic testimony going to  sus-
tain homceopathic practice.   The author's entire object has been,
not to favor homoeopathy,—for that he utterly repudiates,—but,
on the other hand,  to degrade  allopathy ; and this is done to es-
tablish individual views of his own.   For the purpose of sustain-
ing his doctrine that nature cures disease, he very graciously ad-
mits the accuracy of homceopathic reports of cures;  this proved,
in his opinion,  the  triumph of  nature;  and then, by admitting
homoeopathy equally successful with allopathy, it seemed to  be
a fair inference that nature here was equally successful, and that
the  common practice of medicine is, to say the least, useless.
This is the  extremity to which Dr. Forbes is driven in an attempt
to sustain  his  doctrines.  Every lover of medical  science will
sincerely regret the false position in which  the author has plac-
ed himself;  false as it respects himself, and  equally  false in ref-
erence to that  profession of which  he is a  member, and  which
has thus far sustained  him.
   The second part of the essay consists of what the author terms
" a few momentous words on allopathy."   A few extracts from
this part of the work will be  sufficient to place the reader in pos-
session of the author's particular  views  in reference  to the effi-
cacy and soundness of medical science.  The following proposi-
tions embody very  fully his  opinions on this subject:
   « 1. That in a large portion of the cases treated by allopathic physicians, the
disease is cured bv nature, and not by them.                  .
   «? That in a lesser, but still not a small proportion, the-d.sease ,s cured by
 nature in spite of  them; in other words, their interference opposmg, instead of

 a33^inFrh^te  consequently, in a considerable proportion of diseases, it would
 fare as wen," or beS  wilh patients, in the acfuafcondition of the medical art,
 ul nTregenerally practised, if all remedies, at least all active remed.es, es-
 pecially drugs, were abandoned." p.— 98, 
20   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."
   On  another page the following is found :

  " What, indeed, is the history of medicine but a history of perpetual changes
 in the  opinions and practice of its  professors, respecting the very same sub-
 jects—the  nature and  treatment of diseases?  And, amid all these changes,
 often extreme and directly opposed to one another, do we not find these very
 diseases, the subject of them remaining (with some exceptions)  still the same
 in their progress  and  general event?  Sometimes, no doubt, we  observe
 changes in the character and event, obviously depending on the change in the
 treatment,—and, alas,  as often for  the worse as for the better; but  it holds
 good as a general rule, that, amid all the changes of the treatment, the propor-
 tion of cures and of deaths has remained nearly the same,  or,  at least, if it
 has varied, the variation has borne no fixed relation to the difference of treat-
 ment."—p. 99.

   The following sentence is equally strong:

  " Who among us, in  fact, of any considerable experience,  and who has
 thought somewhat as well as prescribed, but is ready to admit that,—in a large
 proportion of the cases he treats, whether his practice, in individual instances,
 be directed by precept  and example, by theory,  by observation, by experience,
 by habit, by accident, or by whatsoever principle of action,—he has  no posi-
 tive proof, or rather no proof whatever,  often  indeed very little probability,
 that  the remedies administered by  him  exert any beneficial influence over
 the disease?"—p. 103.

 ^  The preceding extracts  very   conclusively show, that  Dr.
 Forbes entirely  condemns the practice of medicine as it now  ex-
 ists; he controverts its success and efficacy in the most decided
 and  positive language belonging to his mother tongue, and  de-
grades it to an equality, or even below the senseless empiricism of
 homoeopathy.   It is true, that  an intimation occasionally escapes
him that  he does not  denounce all medical practice, and  we  are
left to infer that  a certain class of perfectionists exist, those  old
practitioners who administer little or nothing, it may be, who may
do some  service ; but with all these feeble explanations and seem-
 ing reservations, we are still  left in possession of the strong and
 undisguised  language above quoted, which can admit  of but one
construction, and leaves no doubt as to  the  author's  uncompro-
mising hostility to the present  practice of medicine.
  Two points  are brought prominently  into view in  this  essav,
to  which  we invite particular attention ; the first is, that medicine
as now practiced is no more effective than it was at the earliest  period
of  its existence;  secondly, that nature is fully competent to  secure
all that is supposed to be accomplished by practical medicine.   The
fairest mode of elucidating this subject,  will be by a brief  refer-
ence to some points in the history of medicine
  The practice of medicine was introduced into Greece  by JEb-
culapius, who  had  received some  instructions from the centaur
Chiron, a  Ihessahan  who  lived  about  the  13th century, BC
That^Esculap.us made some  proficiency  in the practice  of  his
profession, is fully attested by  the divine honors which were oa d
him  by his countrymen; but  it is  very  annaront  th»t      P •
the time of his sons Machaod  e^M?^™^?™ 
     Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."   21

fession  of the  father  was  transmitted,  remedial efforts  were
chiefly  directed to surgical affections.  Indeed, iratemal diseases
being ascribed  to a direct infliction by the Deity, remedial meas-
ures were regarded as nugatory, if not positively interdicted, and
were therefore not applied.
  This  was the beginning of medical science; it was  restricted
almost exclusively to the  treatment of external  injuries; and as
the remoteness of the period precludes the possibility  of obtain-
ing statistics, we are compelled to draw comparative conclusions
in relation to medical practice then and  now, from the state of
knowledge as it existed at  the two  periods.  Every intelligent
reader will at once conclude, that little could have been accom-
plished during this infancy of science ; indeed, so self-evident is
this supposition, that it would be derogatory to common  sense
to enter into an argument to prove it.  And yet, Dr. Forbes thinks
medical practice has not  improved!
   For several centuries succeeding the period to which we have
alluded, no evidence is on record  that any  substantial improve-
ments were made ;  indeed, the Asclepiades, who united the offices
of priest and physician, for  a very considerable  period, did little
to improve the art which had been transmitted to them by iEscu-
iapius.   The  sects  of the  dogmatists and  empirics,  that were
founded about this period, were measurably occupied in visionary
speculations or delusive observations.
   During  the 5th century, the investigation of medical science.
 became more philosophical; the researches of Pythagoras, though
 not a physician, and others, aided the progress of science by a-
 dopting a more rational mode of reasoning; but with all these ad-
 vantages, no important or permanent improvements are recorded
 even up to the time of Hippocrates.   Dr. Forbes, however, would
 induce us to believe that, during all this period, medical practice
 was as successful as it is  at the present time!
   When  we approach the period of Hippocrates himself, who  is
 usually styled the Father of Medicine, but little  will be  met
 with, that can, with any  degree  of  justness, be compared with
 modern medicine.  It appears that Hippocrates had the good for-
 tune to perceive, that medical practice must rest on the observa-
 tion of facts;  and there can be no reasonable doubt,  that many
 important truths were discovered by him and applied to practice ;
 but when it  is remembered that almost nothing,  at  that early
 period, was known of anatomy, physiology, and pathology, we
 need not argue how imperfect must have been  the  principles  of
 even  the sagacious "Father  of Medicine."   To  illustrate the
 imperfection  of his  elementary knowledge, we may  mention,
 that he adhered to the school  of Pythagoras, who believed that
 fire was  the origin and essence of all matter; and from the mo-
 bility  of this  material,  the "four  elements"  were  produced.
 This is the origin of the pathology  adopted  by Hippocrates.  It 
 22   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

 is true, he had some idea of certain physiological  laws,—some
 notion of a general principle pervading and influencing all parts
 of the body,  denominated "nature," and inferior agents,  called
 " powers," which preside over  the  functions of the individual
 organs; and  moreover,  he  may have understood  some of the
 more general phenomena of the  laws of life; but in general his
 knowledge was confined  to  the  more obvious conditions of the
 body, and but rarely extended to that minuteness of detail which
 the  modern  physiologist regards  as essential  to the  science.
 Possessing little or no knowledge of pathological  anatomy, we
 find  Hippocrates a Humoral pathologist, and ascribing all diseased
 action to the  fluids; and this doctrine was not merely  a specula-
 tive  theory, but, in truth, the foundation of his  therapeutics.
   One important  principle entertained by  Hippocrates was his
 doctrine of crises; and for the purpose of promoting these criti-
 cal discharges it was deemed only necessary to assist " nature;"
 hence his principle object was  to  watch nature, and to aid  or
 suppress her  operations, as circumstances might  indicate.  Here
 is  the system of  nature, which  Dr.  Forbes  so  inconsiderately
 advocates; a system substituted for the want  of anatomical,
 physiological and  pathological  knowledge, and  which  was  not
 overthrown until these substantial departments were more accu-
 rately cultivated.  This is  what some  call the "Expectant"
 practice.
   This somewhat inert course of practice  was, no doubt, well
 adapted  to the knowledge possessed  by  Hippocrates, and was
 more safe  than a  heroic course ; but who  will  predicate upon
 this  instance  of necessity a general doctrine which shall extend
 through  all time;  and who will  attempt to stay the  hand of the
 more energetic  practitioner, when elementary  knowledge  has
 emerged from almost total darkness,  and is  now comparatively
 perfect?  Hence it is obvious,  that  a temporizing  course with
 Hippocrates  was   highly commendable, bu,t  in  the  nineteenth
 century the same would deserve unmitigated  condemnation.   It
 must be remembered, however,  that  even Hippocrates  was  not
 always inert; his evacuants  to assist the morbid discharges  were,
 indeed, occasionally somewhat active, but were not governed  in
 their application by any enlightened knowledge  of pathology.
   What now  can  be said of the comparative state  of ancient
Hnd  modern  medicine?   Dr. Forbes  says that amid all the
changes  in   medicine that diseases  remain "still the same  in
their progress and general  event; and that  when  changes do
occur, they are "as often for the worse as the better;" and that
"amid all  the changes  of treatment, the proportions of  cures
and  of deaths has remained nearly  the same."   We are  of
opinion, however, that the impartial" reader who will  look into
the past and present  condition of  medicine,  will neither  yield
the  palm to  the ancients, nor to the modern Bahne-mama,   If 
Forbes' Homoeopathy,  Allopathy, and "Young Physic."   23
there is truth on earth, medicine is now as much superior to  its
ancient state, as are any  of tho  other departments of science
and art.   In truth, Hippocrates pursued the same general course,
and with the same general objects  that physicians  now  have in
view;  the great difference consisted  in his want of that knowl-
edge which has been accumulating for twenty centuries; and  if
we can be convinced that no progress has been made during  this
long period, then may  it be said  that Dr.  Forbes' declarations
are true, and medicine remains in its primitive state.   But if this
be not so, and the attestation of universal experience proclaims
its falsehood, then have we a right to claim for modern medicine,
a rapid and undoubted  approach towards perfection.
  It  would be quite superflous to enter into  a prolix  account of
the progress of medical science down to the dark  ages, and to
the re-establishment of the Hippocratean school in the sixteenth
century.  Many important  facts  were  no doubt discovered and
applied, but as a lohole, medicine remained  in its  infancy.  And
what are the facts in  reference to the practice of this period ?
Hippocrates was, no doubt, quite  as  enlightened in practice, as
his successors ; let us  see  how he  compares with the  present
period.  In an article on vital statistics, by Mr. Palmer, published
in the  Medico-Chirurgical Review, 1837, it is stated that in the
London Fever Hospital the mortality was one in  seven, and  in
Dublin up to 1812, one in twelve, but that Hippocrates lost one
half of his fever cases.  This  is precisely the result we would
expect the preceding historical facts to develope.  Hippocrates was,
as a matter of necessity, comparatively ignorant of the elements of
medicine, and he surely achieved as much as could be anticipated
when he cured one half of his patients;  and  when  we reflect
that  modern physicians cure  even a much higher  percentage
than is named by Mr.  Palmer,  it  is just what we  would expect
from the improvements in  modern medicine.  Yet, Dr. Forbes
wishes us to  believe that practical  medicine has  made no im-
provement!
  Viewed in  all its aspects, medical science  must be admitted  to
be progressive; and the progression rests on no  narrow limits,
doubtful evidence, or obscure data;  it is  not the  visionary im-
provement of the theorist, or the illusions of the systematic parti-
zan, but it rests on broad grounds, and is proclaimed  by indubitable
testimony.   As we trace it through the seventeenth,  eighteenth,
and  up to the present period of the  nineteenth century, it will
be observed  that in  proportion  to  the advances  of anatomy,
physiology, pathology, therapeutics  and the collateral depart-
ments so  does the whole  science become  enlightened, efficient,
and  certain.    From  the time of the  "English  Hippocrates,'
Sydenham, to the present moment, the science, as  a whole, nas
gradually but steadily  advanced; and notwithstanding sects and
errors have been numerous at every period,  and false doctrines 
24   Forbes'' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

gained extensive  credence, yet important facts  and principles
have  been regularly accumulating, until  now the  enlightened
physician can  rely with  great  certainty on  the truth of hie
pathology, and the power of his remedies.   Restless critics may
fret and denounce the regular system, and excuse or half com-
mend empiricism; but the  true philosopher  and discriminating
practitioner,  regardless of these narrow views, relies on  the
evidences of his  own senses, and  the  united observations of
mankind; and  this  evidence  shows  him  that, however much
parts may be criticised and condemned,  as a whole  the science
has rapidly advanced.
  If the attentive observer will contrast  the state  of medicine
in the nineteenth  century, with its condition in  any period  ante-
rior to near the termination of the  eighteenth  century,  he  will
not fail  to perceive the broad and palpable distinctions that exist
between ancient and modern practice.  The first  period, embra-
ces much  that is  true, and towards its close made very  rapid
improvements; but  such  an  amount of error was intermingled
with truth that its utility was greatly impaired; but during  the
second period, although not perfect in its results,  science has so
far triumphed over error, and such a  state of  precision  and
accuracy  has  been attained, that its pre-eminence is too obvious
to require proof.   Within the  latter period, Physiology, Pathol-
ogy, Histology and Organic Chemistry have, as it were, sprung
into  existence; new lights have  blazed  forth  into  every path,
and important facts  and  principles of which  our  predecessors
were ignorant, have been discovered and  plaoed firmly upon  the
common basis;  and not only  isolated facts and principles have
been  brought to  light, but  these  have  been connected   and
arranged, and  now  whole  sciences  suddenly burst upon  the
world.
  The modern cultivation  of pathological  anatomy and  general
pathology, has resulted in  an extended and minute knowledge of
disease  never  previously  attained;  and  these  improvements
alone would stamp upon the present  age  a glorious  superiority.
But add to this, as preparatory  to  the study  of physiology and
pathology, the  altogether unprecedented  achievements in  the
department of histology, and we are presented  with  a  group of
improvements  substantial  as they  are brilliant,  and useful as
they are  substantial.  Who can  contemplate  the  modern  im-
provements of histology, without an involuntary  exclamation of
astonishment at the important  results.
  Did the ancients  possess any of these gems of  knowledge?
Did Hippocrates,  or Galen, or even those of a  more  modern
date, entertain any conception  of these stupendous truths? If
not, with what assurance can  Dr. Forbes assert  that medicine
has not improved; that it is no more perfect in its therapeutics
now than in its earliest days! 
     Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."    25

  Has Dr. Forbes forgotten the grand modern discovery of phys-
ical diagnosis?   Does his memory not extend back to  his own
translation of Laennec ?  We have not the slightest hesitation
in affirming, that this single discovery has lessened,  to  a  very
considerable extent, mortality; and this has been the result of
more accurate diagnosis, and consequently  improved therapeu-
tics.  It must be remembered, that the results of medical prac-
tice do not depend alone on therapeutics; but the physician must
first learn what the disease is, before he can  rationally apply
remedies.  These facts show  very clearly  that  diagnosis  is of
the first importance; indeed, examples will generally prove, that
medical practitioners are more frequently mistaken in their diag-
nosis than deceived in therapeutics.  With  these  admissions,
and they are too palpable to be denied, it ceases to be a question
that modern therapeutics has a  wider range, more accurate  ap-
plications, and of necessity, more favorable results, than attended
the earlier periods of practice;  or, indeed,  of any period  ante-
rior to the nineteenth century.   The light shed upon  diagnosis
by improved histology, physiology, pathology, but more especially
by physical signs of disease, constitutes a broad line of distinc-
tion between ancient and modern physicians; and  just as cer-
tainly as man has improved in his knowledge of science in  gene-
ral, or as surely as have barbarians emerged into civilized life,
so certainly has our knowledge of disease become more accurate,
which has secured a proportional certainty  in therapeutics.
   But in the face of this full  blaze of light, Dr.  Forbes utters
the  opinion that modern therapeutics is  no better than that of
the ancients, and not superior to homoeopathy!   Can  it be that
no truth has followed the labors of modern philosophers.   What
of the researches of Bichat, Bell, Flourens, Magendie, Rolando,
Muller,  Gerber,  Wagner,  Hall,  Barry,  Andral, Cruveilhier,
Carswell, Hope, Johnson, FORBES, and a host of names, belong-
ing to every department of  the  science,  and the sons of every
nation.   Will   Dr. Forbes  rise  up [in the face  of these  ten
thousands, and in contravention of his own'labors, and still pro-
test that modern medicine is not superior to ancient delusions,
and no more capable of curing disease than that crazy German
transcendentalism, homoeopathy !
   Equally obvious and important have been the improvements
in therapeutics.   No candid observer can for a  moment doubt,
that  the discovery and application of quinine to the cure of
disease, has greatly lessened mortality.   The advantages which
this  single remedy affords  the  modern physician, would, we
doubt not, exhibit a decrease of mortality in fevers, could accu-
rate statistics, ancient and modern, be obtained.  And the ad-
vantages of modern therapeutics are  scarcely less remarkable in
the extended knowledge of the various preparations of opium,
mercury,  iodine,  of  tartar  emetic, arsenic, blood-letting,  and 
 26   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

 many others,  the  properties of  which  have been  accurately
 tested and fully appreciated.
   Thus  armed with therapeutical agents of  tried virtues, and
 guided by a greatly advanced knowledge of pathology, especially
 of acute diseases, modern medicine possesses  a confidence, and
 secures  results, superior to any  preceding  age.   The  modern
 improvements  in .pathology, diagnosis and treatment of diseases
 of the heart and lungs,  is  of more palpable benefit to mankind,
 than any single event  that has preceded  it.   But Dr. Forbes  is
 so blinded and  mystified with his own abstractions, that nothing
 good can he  discover in modern medicine.
   But if these  general facts be  not sufficiently definite,  we
 can avail ourselves of statistics.   It has been abundantly proven
 by statistics, that mortality has  greatly decreased in  the British
 Empire.   According to  the  researches of Mr.  McCulloch, the
 mortality has decreased in  almost every disease, during the
 present  century, while  the  aggregate  is equally  favorable to
 modern results.   Thus, the mean annual deaths from small-pox
 from 1660 to 1780, ranges from 417 to 502;  while the same dis-
 ease from 1831-35, shows a mortality of only 83 in 100,000,
 which was the basis of the estimate.   It may be urged, however,
 that the common resort to vaccination is quite sufficient to ex-
 plain the disparity between the two periods. This, we admit, may
 have some influence, but that this supposition  is not conclusive,
 will be sufficiently manifest from the following statements made
 by Mr. Palmer in 1837.
   "From 1794 to 1798, the mortality  at the Small-pox Hospital
 of London, was 32 in 100, or nearly 1  in 3; but had diminished
 in 1834,  to 13 in 100, or nearly 1  in 8, a diminution  that  must
principally be ascribed to the improved medical  treatment to which
 the patients are subjected. "
   Other  diseases in the same table exhibit an  equally favorable
 state of modern results, and which must be  chiefly ascribed to
 improved modes of treatment.
   We know of no evidence to prove that  the  actual amount, of
 disease is less now than it was  at former periods; indeed, the
 crowded  conditions of large cities, together with want  and other
 causes that impair health and produce sickness, have, no doubt,
 caused a  larger amount  of disease in modern times.  Under this
 supposition, we  can ascribe the diminished mortality to no other
 cause than improved  medical treatment.
   On the authority of Dr. Hawkins it is  stated,  that the  total
 number of deaths in  London, during  1697 were  about 21,000,
 but in 1797, they amounted to only 17,000, notwithstanding the
 rapid increase of population.  In the middle of the last century,
 the mortality was 1 in 20, but at  that  period (1829), it was  only
 1  in  40—reduced one-half.   The same researches  show an
 equally remarkable  decrease of mortality in  France; thus, in 
Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."  27
the 13lh century the mortality in Paris is estimated at 1 in 16 or
17; in the middle of the last century, 1 in 25. In the whole popula-
tion of France, the mortality in 1781 was 1 in 29; in 1823,1 in 40.
Other statistical accounts show that in Great Britain from 1787 to
1789, the mortality was  1 in 43; within the 19th century 1  in 58.
  These are important facts which the "momentous words" of
Dr. Forbes cannot invalidate.  Here we are taught that  small-
pox has not one half of  its former mortality, and other similar
instances  exist.    There can be no reasonable 'doubt that the
mortality in fever generally, and in puerperal  inflammation in
particular, has been equally reduced.   But notwithstanding  all
these " momentous words," Dr. Forbes believes practical med-
icine has not improved in modern times,  and that it would fare
as well or better with patients if left to  themselves.
  It is unnecessary, however,  to  pursue this  subject further,
our object being to establish the  main  fact, that  mortality has
greatly decreased within  the  present  century;  and this de-
crease we feel warranted in ascribing,  measurably, to improved
methods of  medical treatment.
  In concluding this subject, we  add a few thoughts on the com-
parative power of nature on the  one hand, and the present sys-
tem of medicine on the other, to cure disease.  Dr. Forbes has
maintained that the present  system of medical  practice accom-
plishes no more cures than  nature alone,  and is,  therefore, of
necessity, productive of  more evil  than  good; for its  effects, if
any, are all evil.  But facts and  Dr. Forbes are at issue on this

Point-                       •                 i i     u
  Gravely to argue the  questioiv just  propounded, would seem
to be not only superflousrbut absolutely derogatory to the com-
mon sense of the profession, were it not  for the  fact that  a high
authority, no less name than that of Dr.  Forbes, gives the  weight
of  his  talents and influence against the  medical profession.   If
the simple question were propounded to the whole profession,  a
united  voice  would  proclaim  an  undivided  sentiment on this
subject.   But this great  unanimity  of opinion on  the one part,
does not prevent the necessity of repelling the positive denun-
ciation from a single  individual on  the other, for the  name and
influence of the  assailant,  and the specious  grounds  assumed,
constitute a sufficient apology for attempting to prove what is, in
truth,  self evident.                                   ,    ,
   We annrehend that a  mischievious error lies  concealed under
the fascinating phrase  of  the  powers  of nature   Hippocrates
recognized  th! powers  of  nature in warding  off disease, and
Cullen brought  forward more   prominently  the vis  medicatrix
naur*, as  a process of relieving disease.   It  is an  important
enauirv, however, whether the idea conveyed by the expression
fhat nature cures  disease  is strictly correct?   It seems more
philosophical to express  it that nature resists disease.  The term 
28   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

cure, always suggests to the mind of a physician, some medicinal
interference, the substitution of a new  action  or process, and
the removal of  a diseased  state by  some extraneous aid.   It
cannot be said,  however, that nature accomplishes  any  thing
of this sort; on the contrary, her ordinary operations continue
except when perverted  by  disease  or  violence;  and  if  that
disease  or violence does not overcome the powers of  nature,
the disease  may be  finally  worn  out, and the natural  powers
of the system resume their ordinary course.    But  in  all this
there is nothing accomplished on the  part of nature, except a
successful resistance to the diseased action.
  The preceding proposition being admitted,  the next  inquiry
is, whether with our present knowledge of the nature of disease
and the effects of remedies, nature can be sustained  in  her re-
sistance to disease,  or in another sense, whether the diseased
action can be subdued by artificial means, so that oppressed and
perverted nature  may be liberated  and  restored  to ordinary
healthy action.   Dr. Forbes, we  have seen, advances the opin-
ion,  that  so imperfect is the present state of medical science,
and so uncertain its  results, that art is incapable of aiding or
sutaining nature, or in other words, of curing disease.
  It is not possible at this time,  nor has it ever  been, and in all
human probability never  will be, to appeal to accurate statistical
facts  with the  view  of  settling the  question;  no experiments
have been performed on  a sufficiently extended  scale to author-
ize the  conclusion that  nature  is  competent  to cure  disease
equally with art; and such is the nature of the subject that we
need  hope for no such evidence.  Human life is too sacred to be
bartered  for  such hypothetical  opinions.   In the  absence,
therefore, of direct proof, we are  forced to rely on evidences
drawn from  every day occurrences, and  to deduce  conclusions
from  facts and  observations of  a general character.   To be
more systematic, however, we may draw arguments  and  con-
clusions from the following sources:  1.  From high  authority;
2. From common observation and the concurrent testimony of
the profession;  3.  From  the nature and fitness  of things.
  In the first place, it is fully attested by  the  highest authority
in the profession, that medicinal agents exert a  direct and  con-
trolling influence over diseased action.  And in  accordance with
this opinion, particular rules are laid  down by systematic writers
for the guidance of practitioners  in the  treatment of diseases;
and these  rules  are usually derived  from observations  made  at
the bedside.  These  results grow out of a just and accurate
comparison between different modes of treatment, and are, indeed,
nothing more than a preference for the  one which  has proved
most successful.   In arriving at these conclusions, the successful
mode of treatment has frequently been  contrasted with others
nearly or  quite inert, and which  act so feebly that the result may 
Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."   29
be regarded as a contrast between art and nature.   Take  for il-
lustration the treatment of puerperal fever.  How  common it is
for this formidable disease to escape the attention of friends, the
patient having no treatment except it may be  inert ptisans; and
how constant the result in such instances, that the case  proves
fatal.  Or, to state the question more directly, the same disease has
been treated  at former periods, with remedies, if  not  wholly
inert, at least those that exercised so little  influence  that  they
scarcely disturbed nature, and  certainly did not cure the disease.
Now contrast these two conditions, that is, either inert or inap-
propriate treatment, with the results of a timely, bold and ener-
getic antiphlogistic course, and then let Dr.  Forbes, or any other
advocate of the do-nothing-system, decide, if he dare, in favor of
a temporizing course.
   In 1750 at the British Lying-in Hospital,  1  woman  out of 42
died, and 1 child out of  15;  in the same  institution  in  1800,  1
woman out of 288 died,  and 1 child out of 77.   It is stated in Dr.
Gordon's treatise, that in 1750, at Paris,  none who were seized
with epidemic puerperal fever recovered. In one hospital in Lon-
don, 32 patients were  seized within the space of two months, and
all but one died.  In another hospital 13 out of 19  died.  In Ed-
inburgh, all who were attacked during the epidemic season died.
This led a professor  of Edinburgh  to  declare  that  the  disease
was incurable.   In  another  part of his  essay, Dr.  Gordon re-
marks: "There is, perhaps, no disease in which less  is done by
nature and  more by art.  For,  though I have mentioned a few
wonderful cures by nature, yet,  in general,  her efforts were inef-
fectual; whereas, when early  recourse  was had to  the  skillful
assistance of art, the  disease, in most instances, was very speed-
ily and effectually  cured. "  Again : "All the  patients who were
early and largely bled, and plentifully purged, recovered."
   What can  Dr. Forbes oppose to these  strong  declarations?
Does he  suppose that the decillionth of a grain  of aconite, or
nature, would have controlled this giant  disease?   We suppose
 the do-nothing disciples would stand by, passive witnesses of the
 fatal progress of this  destructive malady.   Has modern thera-
 peutics not advanced!
   Here the instructions of high authority are conclusive and
 not to be disregarded; and this is but one  of numerous  equally
 striking instances.
   Important conclusions, showing  the comparative  efficacy ot
 nature and of art, can be drawn from epidemics.   In almost all
 epidemics that have  from time  to  time  appeared, various and
 often  conflicting modes of treatment have been devised, at their
 onset- some of  these prove inert, others positively  wrong; but
 during their progress, the eagle-eyed observer dilligently watches
 the result  of the different modes of medication : these are care-
 fully  summed up, the inert, pernicious and the successful, and, 
 30   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

 the recorded  results establish a true system.   Here is a broad
 contrast, not only between modes of active  medication, but not
 unfrequently  also between those and inert remedies, or the powers
 of nature.   And this high authority, and these numerous, impar-
 tial, and competent observers testify, that art is competent to as-
 sist nature, that medical practice is a science, and that its exer-
 cise has greatly diminished the mortality of diseases.
   Such is high authority;  and we might thus argue  on through
 the  entire  range of practical medicine; but these illustrations
 are  sufficient for  the  present  purposes; the proof is  abundant
 and conclusive.   Can  it be that amid this light, Dr. Forbes  pro-
 claims the inefficiency of medical practice !
   In the second place, the same facts are abundantly established
 by the  concurrent testimony of  the  profession.   The  humblest
 member of  the profession  is fully competent  to  prove, by daily
 observation  and experience, that remedies, in many instances,
 exert a positive control over disease.  All practitioners testify
 to the  same  fact;  all agree that certain  therapeutical means
 relieve  particular diseases; and amid this universality of attes-
 tation great  certainty is attained.  Another point which the con-
 current testimony of the  profession establishes  is, that in  epi-
 demics,  and acute diseases generally, the efficacy of remedies
 is proportioned to  their  early  application.   In  all acute  dis-
 eases  there is  a stage in  which remedies may be  effective,
 but after that stage  has passed,  neither nature alone nor aided
 by the  most judicious  medication,  can  prevent a fatal  issue.
 Indeed, as  a general  observation,  it  is assuredly true,  that
 acute diseases  are  curable in  proportion  to the timely  appli-
 cation of remedies;  and it is equally certain,  as  established by
 the great body of the  profession, that in these acute  diseases
 nature is incompetent to repel the violence of the  attack, and if
 unaided, sinks; while it is  equally well established, that art can,
 and often does, prevent this fatal result.   This is true of nearly
 all the  phlegmasia?.  Look at the results  of puerperal fever, as
 portrayed by Gordon, Hey, Armstrong, and  others; and witness
 thousands of other instances recorded on every page of medical
 works.   Who can estimate the mortality of endo and peri-cardi-
 tis, when, anterior to  the  discovery of physical  diagnosis,  they
were not detected and consequently left to nature, or inappropria-
 tely treated.  Is it still contended that nature is  equal to  art,
 and that medicine has not advanced ?
  Another  fact  may here  be introduced, and indeed is  of itself
conclusive, viz.  the treatment of diseases in southern latitudes.
 Here, violent  forms  of fever prevail in which  the cold  stage
 proves speedily fatal, if not arrested  by the timely  intervention
of medical aid.  This  is known to every practitioner; and  it is
equally  well known that remedies can, and in  a vast proportion
 of cases do  relieve this condition, and thereby  preserve the  pa- 
      Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and " Young Physic."   31

 tient's life.  Here is a fair  contrast between nature and  art;
 numerous cases prove that the  former is incapable  of resisting
 the overwhelming disease, but that art, coming to her aid,  pre-
 serves the vital powers and the patient is saved.  These are facts
 indubitable as the rising sun, clear  as  the  meridian light, and
 attested by the  concurrent testimony of the  whole profession.
 And these results attend the administration of  remedies on strict-
 ly scientific principles, now well known  and acknowledged to be
 true; and such results the same science  secures  in  its general
 application.  Here are noble  results; we are not listlessly  wait-
 ing for new light; or, like Dr.  Forbes, agonizing under  the af-
 fliction of " hope deferred ;" nor are we longing for some Utopian
 system, that, like the universal elixir, shall  not  only cure but
 render youth perpetual.   The true philosopher, on the contrary,
 will dilligently and carefully apply the light already  given;  add
 new facts as they are developed, and in future, as with the  past,
 favorable results may confidently be  looked  for and as certainly
 obtained.
  In the last place, we argue  that, according  to the  nature  and
 fitness of things, art can be advantageously applied for the relief
 of nature.  Since the world  began,  man has sought to  relieve
 the pains  of his fellow man.  Rude and simple in the beginning,
 the mere  instincts of our nature have been gradually expanded,
 until they are developed  into  unequalled  intellectual achieve-
 ments ;  fact upon fact, and principle  after principle have  been
 discovered and recorded, until finally  a  science, lasting as  time
 itself, occupies the former  place of a rude and uncertain  empir-
 icism.   But to accomplish  all  this, man  in  health, disease,  and
 death must be studied; his structures, living actions, diseases,
 and morbid appearances after death, must  become the subjects
 of extended and accurate investigation.   All this has been done;
 every age of the world since  the epoch of iEsculapius, has given
 birth to those who have consecrated their lives to  the investiga-
 tion  of this vast  subject;  and  the  results  exhibit  a degree of
 success equal to the hopes of  the most sanguine.   Under  the
 guidance  of such philosophers, we  find anatomy now  almost
 perfect;  histology, physiology  and pathology occupy places, if
 not among the exact sciences, at  least as certain as any other
 department of natural science; disease  has  been faithfully  ob-'
 served during life, and carefully investigated after  death;  and
 the result of the whole  is, an accuracy of knowledge in the  ele-
 ments of science of the most  brilliant and substantial character.
  In connection with these indubitable evidences of the advances
of the elements of medical science, what can be said of therapeutics?
 Has this important  department  remained stationary during the
lapse of centuries?  Have  the cultivators of medical science for
so many ages, worn  out their lives in the pursuit of elementary
branches as a mere matter of idle curiosity?   Are they no more 
32   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

familiar now  with the  properties and  applications of medicinal
agents than were the primitive physicians?  And finally, are the
combined and progressive observations for ages, duly recorded in
books, deserving of no more consideration, and do they possess
no more accuracy, than the tablets of record erected in the jEs-
culapian temples?  Such assumptions are wholly gratuitous.  The
truth is,  the  primitive  observations, and those which were no
doubt suggestive of medicine as a science, were  made  in the de-
partment of therapeutics;  and this branch has at all times, in all
ages, and under all circumstances, advanced, pari passu, with each
and every other department; and the diminished mortality of the
nineteenth  century proclaims its triumphs.
  It  is high time that  the finger of  derision should cease to be
pointed at the profession, especially by  its guides; it were enough,
in all conscience, to endure the jeers of unprincipled quacks and
deluded people.   The blaze of light  that gleams from every de-
partment,  should be sufficient to protect us from the charge of
damnable  ignorance.   It will require  more logic than man can
command to convince the  practitioner that he does not know, as
the result of principles and observations, the effects of blood-letting,
of opium, of tartar emetic, of mercury, and numerous other agents
and  means belonging to the  materia medica.  These  agents are
well  known to produce particular effects, under  given circum-
stances; and  these results are sufficiently certain to constitute a
science. In addition to the results of internal medication, we are
furnished  with  demonstrative proofs of the curative  effects  of
remedies in cutaneous affections;  and that, too, after nature had
failed for years.
  But  enough.   It were bootless to  argue these points further,
or to plead for  positions  attested by a world of  witnesses.  We
prove from all  high authority, except Dr. Forbes,  that medicinal
agents do overcome diseases wherein nature fails;  we prove by
the  concurrent  testimony of the whole  profession, except Dr.
Forbes, that art has a direct and positive control in many diseases
in which nature does not and cannot  cure; and finally, we prove
by the nature and fitness of things, by the observation and com-
mon sense  of every man, except Dr. Forbes, that medicine, as
now  practiced, is  certain in  its  results, and sure and  safe in its
administration.
  A  remark in relation to "heroic"  and "expectant"  practition-
ers and systems, will be in place  here.   No  physician  can be an
exclusive  heroic  or expectant and be  a  philosopher.  Medical
practice should  always be relative;  it  must be  proportioned to
the violence of disease and the powers of resistance on the part
of the  constitution.  This is true eclectic  practice; all  else is
empiricism.
  It is, perhaps, unnecessary to add, that we do not regard med-
cal science as perfect; it is progressive, and every hour becoming 
     Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."   33

more perfect.   But we do regard it as sufficiently certain to be of
vast utility;  certainly far above unaided  nature, or deceptive
homoeopathy.                                           ^
  In conclusion, we desire to add, that we entertain the highest
respect for the candor, honesty, and  intelligence of Dr. Forbes;
his objects were  elevated, and his  sincerity beyond  all doubt;
and hence  his  errors  are the more deplorable.  In the present
instance, he has been peculiarly unfortunate; and should he feel
called  upon to continue the same course, he will contribute more
to the depression of medical science, than any one man can do to
elevate it.  We beg him to remember, that  such opinions as he
has expressed set men to doubting, and unstable judgments wan-
der entirely out of the sphere of truth.  We ask him to remem-
ber the defection of the Professor  of Pathology at Edinburgh,
Dr. Henderson, who has united his influence with the homoeop-
athists ; and that of Mr. Mayo, who, it is understood, has yielded
his faith to hydropathy.   How  far  these secessions may have
been the result  of  such opinions  as  those expressed  by Dr.
Forbes, we leave him to determine.
   Dr.  Forbes surely could not have perceived the full force and
bearing of his opinions, nor the exact import of the denunciations
of the  regular  practice ;  otherwise, we are constrained to believe,
his language and sentiments would have been more guarded, and
less calculated  to give offence to  the profession and support to
empiricism.  We speak decidedly on  this  subject,  for we feel
much; and whatever antithetical opinions we may express, must
be ascribed to a strong  sense of injustice,  rendered peculiarly
forcible by surrounding circumstances.
   The United  States, however much we may admire its institu-
tions and economy, must be  regarded as  the  very  elysium of
quackery; here, unrestrained, they  assume an equality, and in
point of law  possess it, with the most enlightened  and scientific;
and by fraud  and deception, too frequently triumph and grow
rich, where wiser and better men scarcely escape  starvation.
   It is no uncommon event to witness an outlandish  homoeopath
rivalling whole communities of the most enlightened  and worthy
practitioners;  and this does not result from any  defect  of  the
common system, but depends more immediately on the gullibility
of the world  in general, and of our communities in particular.
These practitioners, cunning and ever on the alert, have already
seized on Dr. Forbes' concessions in favor  of their success,  and
with triumphant jeers throw them into the very teeth of the reg-
ular school.
   The steam doctor, and  other grades  of botanical practitioners,
(a class unknown in England,) come in for a large share of glory ,•
and these men, too, lug  in Dr. Forbes' opinions to sustain their
limber-jack, rickety concern.  The following language, extracted
from an article just  put forth, under the auspices of the botanical
association, may serve to show the state of things : 
 34   Forbes' Homoeopathy, Allopathy, and "Young Physic."

   " It has been clearly proved, and admitted by the Editor of the British and
 Foreign Medical Quarterly [Medical Review] that homoepathy [homoeopathy]
 has been quite as successful in the treatment of all variety of diseases as the or-
 thodox system, and although he does not admit its superior success, there are
 many practitioners who have tried both'systems and who confidently assert its
 superiority.   If the old  system, with all its resources, cannot confessedly ac-
 complish more than a system which is considered entirely negative and void of
 effect, it is surely time that  our colleges were looking out for reform.  As a
 pioneer in this cause, we hail the new Cincinnati School."
   This "new Cincinnati School," we wish Dr. Forbes to under-
 stand, advocates a system  of botanical practice,  excluding  all
 minerals, general  and local bleeding; and as a substitute, offers
 a false system of pathology, and a system of therapeutics more
 monstrous than that  of Brown.  This is the reform we are prom-
 ised.
   Thus we see homoeopathists and steam doctors, and doubtless we
 shall soon hear of faith doctors and  Mesmerizers, hydropathists
 and chrono-thermalists  each claiming support from this unfortu-
 nate essay.
   It may be said, however, that Dr.  Forbes is not answerable for
 these results; that he not only has the right, but it is his imper-
 ative duty  to speak the truth,  regardless of  the sect on which
 it may fall  most heavily.  This may be; but he has told not only
 the truth, but much more  than the truth ;  and it is this superabun-
 dance of expression, and these ultra and unguarded opinions,
 that will work such unfavorable results for the profession.  This
 ultra course wilt wholly fail to improve  the profession,  while it
 will do  more to build up and  sustain  downright quackery, than
 half a century of labor  by those friendly to these false systems.
 An opponent's favorable testimony is always laid hold of,  and ex-
 erts unbounded influence.
   In view of these lamentable results, we are grieved that Dr.
 Forbes was not more  just and philosophical in his views, less cen-
 sorious of the true  system and  less lenient to quackery ; and how-
 ever much his opinions  may be bolstered  up by a few  members
 of the profession, we  warn him now, that in this country, and we
 doubt not throughout the enlightened world, the great mass of
 the profession will utterly condemn his  doctrines  and expres-
 sions.
   Finally; the  worthy  author has our best wishes  for a speedy
 delivery from his present delusions;  and we sincerely hope that
 he may not  again contribute, even by indirection, to depress true
 medical science, and thereby to the elevation of empiricism.  We
will only add, that it has been  our desire in this review to avoid
misconceptions of the author's  opinions; and upon reviewing his
expressions and our own comments,  we think his language is too
plain, and  too often  repeated, to admit  of erroneous construc-
tion. 
 SPEEDY BINDER
^3  Syracuse. N. Y.
^E  Stockton, Calif. 
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE
NLfl ODTAATSb  b
NLM009889566