■*»„•'-fry,
         -: •..;.  ,   „ v.. |
..... .. - i^''''-.  *  ?::i'KSHSS
fe
 
 
HOMOEOPATHY
       AND
  ALLOPATHY.
 
 
fomteopattjg  an&  CMlopatyg:
REPLY
"AN EXAMINATION OF THE DOCTRINES AND EVIDENCES OF

               HOMEOPATHY*/"
       BY WORTHINGK
:&N HONKER, M.D."
        By E. E.  MAECY, M. D., ^---^
AUTHOR OF " THE HOMOEOPATHIC THEORY AND PRACTICE OF MEDICINE." ' O y^V
Hi
10

            " Nor stands a fact
 Less in repute, because an empty jest
 Has cracked thereon, and shown its hollowness."
                         Boker.

' No cheek is known to blush, or heart to throb,
 Save when they lose a question or a job."
                         Pope.
>RAl
              NEW-YORK:

WILLIAM  RADDE, 322  BROADWAY,

  C. L. RADEMACHER Jt SHEEK, 239 ARCH-STREET, PHILADELPHIA J
          OTIS CLAPP, SCHOOL-STREET, BOSTON ;
      J. G. WESSELH03FT, 64 FOURTH STREET, ST. LOUIS.
1852. 
W  B  J
 M 3£Zh
 1253,
        Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by
                        WILLIAM RADDE,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of New-York.
Anoell, Engel <fc Hewitt, Printers, 1 Spruce-st. 
^J*^
              ^*v
   WILLIAM CULLEN  BRYANT


            THE MOST ILLUSTRIOUS 07



       THE LIVING AUTHORS OF AMERICA,


              WHO HAS GIVEN THE


POWERFUL SUPPORT OF HIS GENIUS TO THE GREAT LAW OF



        "SIMILIA SIMILIBUS CURANTUR,"


    THIS REFUTATION OF A SUPERFICIAL AND MENDACIOUS

            ATTACK UPON THAT  LAW,


                   Is 3&«<p*ctfulls Imstrffirtr,


              BY HIS ADMIRER AND OBEDIENT SERVANT,


                            E. E. MARCY. 
 
PREFACE.
  The extraordinary advances made by the homoeo-
pathic principles of medicine, have induced  in  the
last two years an opposition unprecedented  for ac-
tivity, earnestness, and virulence.  On their first pro-
mulgation in America, while they had the character
of novelty, and few except disciples had any definite
acquaintance with them, two or three  of the leading
physicians of the allopathic school attacked them in
pamphlets, in one case at least remarkable for a ready
wit and most felicitous  manner.  It will be  under-
stood that we refer to Dr. Holmes. Since  the pub-
lication of his trifling, superficial,  but brilliant essay,
the master minds of the Old School, probably  from a
more familiar acquaintance with  the subject, and a
conviction that "discretion,"  in this case, was "the
best part of valor," have generally been silent, and
the attacks  upon the Philosophical Method of Cure 
X
PREFACE.
 have been  confined to the meaner and  least scru-
 pulous  allopathic physicians,  the class which in all
 professions, occupations,  and  conditions,  is  content
 for a small reward and a little notoriety to do  the
 baser work for which there is  supposed to be an oc-
 casion or a necessity.
   For a certain insolence of tone, rather than for any
 peculiar talent or freshness exhibited in it, a volume
 entitled " Homoeopathy: an Examination of its Doc-
 trines and Evidences, by Worthington Hooker, M. D.,"
 has recently attracted some notice.  It contains, in-
 deed", nothing  of fact, conclusion, or suggestion,  that
had not been said often before, and in a more pungent
and attractive manner, but—possibly for the fortunate
selection of  a publisher—the book has  had some cur-
rency,  and in the following pages we have taken the
trouble to answer it; not that it deserved for its own
qualities any such attention, but that in one exposure
this whole class of feeble, false, and malicious attacks
upon Homoeopathy might be refuted.
  The progress of Homoeopathy is  an  apparent and
altogether unquestionable fact  in the recent history of
civilization.   It is evident that this progress is not to
be retarded  by sneers, or calumnies, or the partisan
interference of universities, or even by  legislative 
PREFACE.
XI
injustice and  persecution.   The sentence, Magna est
Veritas  et prevalebit,  in  this  case  strikes  as much
terror into the hearts of the upholders of old abuses,
as the still more ancient judgment, Mene, mene, tekel,
upharsin, when written by the finger of the Almighty
on the walls of the Assyrian palace.
  But what can  the allopathists do?  They are com-
mitted to a system;  their daily bread or their luxuri-
ous life  is dependent on  its  ascendancy; and they
have no resort  but at all hazards to  oppose whatever
may endanger its popularity or stability.  And the
history of dogmatic controversy furnishes no parallels
for the uncandid, ungenerous, and altogether unwor-
thy methods resorted to by the  supporters  of the
ancien regime, in medicine,  against the  disciples of
Hahnemann  and the  great  masses  of intelligent
people who are  induced  by  the  constant successes
which  mark  the advance of  his theory to  accept
it as their law in cases of disease.
  The first, the greatest of all difficulties in the way
of a defence of the  allopathic practice  is, that that
practice  is  not  the  result of  a  system. There is
about it nothing of method,  or proportion,  nothing
philosophical; but the whole collection of its propo-
sitions is admitted, by its most eminent professors, to 
xii
PREFACE.
be incongruous, uncertain,  and entirely without any
pervading and  harmonizing idea.   Undoubtedly the
experience of two thousand years has been prolific of
facts, but no  one  has ever  pretended,  from  the
chaotic  accumulation,  to call into life an orderly,
symmetrical  and  philosophical system,  to reduce
the results of experience  and observation  in Allo-
pathy to  a science.   Homoeopathy has  this  great
advantage,  that, like Minerva, it  sprang  into  exist-
ence perfect in its grand  and beautiful  symmetry,
as complete in its parts and orderly in its movement
as that universe of which the secret flashed upon the
father of astronomy like a new and infinitely sublime
creation.
  The  reception of Homoeopathy  has been  in  a sin-
gular degree  parallel  with the reception  of  other
great truths, especially in the earlier years of their
promulgation.  The  educated and  thoughtful  per-
ceived their truth, or at least paused before  rejecting
it.  The ignorant, incapable from  intellectual weak-
ness or perverse  dispositions, rejected it with vulgar
abuse and  abortive wit.  Our readers  will perhaps
all remember a dialogue between a homespun farmer
and a young collegian, printed in some of the school
books  used a quarter of a  century ago, in which the 
PREFACE.
xiii
student is put down by logic something like what
follows:
  " James.  What's that you say ? this great masterly world is round,
and turns round every day ?  You're  a fool!  The world's as fiat as a
pancake.  "Why if what you tell is the case, how happens it that all the
water is n't spilt out of my mill-pond every night ? "
   Here was a show of logic, a show of wit; it was all
very plausible to the objector, and to persons of his
calibre;  it is parallel with the opposition to the prin-
ciple in medicine, similia similibus curantur, which
is above the comprehensions  of the vulgar,  as it is
destructive  of the  professional advantages and repu-
tations of the adherents of the rapidly decaying prac-
tice  of the immethodical, inconsistent, and dangerous
traditional dogmas which it  is destined to supersede.
   The following chapters have been very hastily pre-
pared, amid the anxieties of a  most arduous  profes-
sional occupation, but it will be found that they fully
meet,  and,  it  is  trusted, satisfactorily  answer  the
trivial criticisms and unscrupulous  misstatements of
an author who has chosen by exhibitions of audacity
and a want of conscience to  challenge such considera-
tion as he would in vain attempt to secure by a legiti
mate trial of his strength, in fair controversy.
   A Roman matron being inquired  of as  to  her 
xiv
PREFACE.
jewels, presented her  children.  We emulate  the
noble  example of Cornelia;  and  although  we have
condescended  for  once to  enter the lists with  a
Worthington Hooker, for the purpose of refuting his
calumnies, we have far greater  satisfaction  in point-
ing to the numerous families in which the Hahne-
mannic practice is accepted, for demonstrations, in
vigorous and unimpaired constitutions, of the  truth
of a system which preserves in their original beauty
and power natures which a  beneficent Creator  de-
signed for constant happiness and usefulness.

                         E. E.  MARCY,  M. D.
  New-York, March 20, 1852. 
CONTENTS.
                  CHAPTER  I.

  EXAMINATION OF  ATTENUATED SUBSTANCES IN
   CONNECTION WITH ALLOPATHIC ARITHMETIC.
                                                    PAGE
Progress  of Homoeopathy—Attacks  upon it—Infinitesimal
  doses—Other imponderables—Dr. Hooker on their weight
  and bulk—Allusion  to doses in  the Organon—Malaria—
  Contagious  particles — Electrical  molecules — Magnetic
  atoms—Physical and  chemical  characteristics  of these
  agents—Phenomena of catalysis—Views  of Liebig and
  Kane—Most powerful  substances in nature  imponderable
  —New discoveries measured by existing knowledge—Ex-
  amples of its  unreasonableness—Distinction between the
  homoeopathic law of cure and doses—Hahnemann's first
  ideas of medical reform    .     .      .     .       .19

                  CHAPTER  II.

  FALLACIES  OF DR. HOOKER  CONCERNING DRUG
                      PROVINGS.

Drug provings—Dr. Hooker's errors respecting them—Preci-
  sion of Hahnemann in conducting  them—Manuscripts of 
XVI
CONTENTS.
  Hahnemann—Provings by other homceopathists—Homoeo-
  pathic Materia Medica—Manner in which it is made up—
  Opposition of the old school to drug provings—Honorable
  exceptions—Dunglison—Pereira—Paris—Justness of their
■  remarks upon the subject  .      .       .      .      .36

                 CHAPTER  III.

  EXAMINATION OF  THE  HOMCEOPATHIC LAW OF
                          CURE.

Dr. Hooker's ignorance of  the homoeopathic system—Proofs
  of it—Action of drugs—Illustrated from  the Organon—
  Homoeopathy attacks diseased parts alone—Allopathy at-
  tacks healthy parts—Sydenham—His pathology and treat-
  ment—Ancient and modern Allopathy contrasted—Fallacies
  of Dr. Hooker respecting the use  of camphor in cholera—
  Misapplication of similia similibus curantur—Allopathic
  use of similia—Drug provings confirmed by pathological
  facts—Experiments of Flourens, Majendie, Brodie, Miiller,
  and Wilson—Homoeopathic law of cure claimed for Hippo-
  crates—Hooker versus Hahnemann, on the mode of con-
  ducting experiments—The working and the indolent men
  of the profession compared        .      .      .      .44

                 CHAPTER  IY.

     EXAMINATION OF DOCTRINES AND DOSES.

Susceptibilities of diseased parts—The  attenuations  to  be
  employed—Action of imponderables illustrated—A few of
  the precepts of Homoeopathy—Allopathic and homoeopathic
  practice contrasted—Range of doses employed by the two
  schools examined—Large and small doses—Mode of action
  similar—Identity of drugs never destroyed—Syllogism re- 
CONTENTS.
xvii
  specting raising a weight by a rope and an invisible fila-
  ment of  one—Anatomy, Physiology,  and Pathology—A
  knowledge of them essential to the homoeopath—Allopa-
  thic pathology not reliable—Reasoning on false  data—
  Contradictions of Dr. Hooker in commenting on crude and
  attenuated drugs—Use of camphor in cholera—Influence
  of Homoeopathy in reducing allopathic doses     .      .  60

                   CHAPTER   V.

 THE  INCONSISTENCIES  OF ALLOPATHY AND  HER
                      ADVOCATES.

Arguments against Homoeopathy—Their unique character—
  Wonderful medicine box found in New York—Two sides
  to it—Definition of modern Allopathy—Illustrations of it—
  Attempted appropriation of similia—Case of Dr. Rodgers—
  Different combinations of Allopathy brought into practical
  operation—Allopathy prescribes for the  name of the disease,
  Homoeopathy for symptoms—Good Allopathy and bad Al-
  lopathy—Who can distinguish them—Dr. Hooker's opin-
  ions  of  Homoeopathic  Physicians—Feelings which  have
  prompted it—Statistics  of homoeopathists—Their reliabil-
  ity—Opinion  of  Dr.  Forbes of Homoeopathy—Ex parte
  statement of M. Andral—His admirers advised to consult
  iEsop's Fables,—A course of study necessary in order to
  test Homoeopathy fairly.      ....     78

                  CHAPTER  VI.

  HOMOEOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY CONTRASTED.

Estimate of Hahnemann—Mode of making up this estimate-
  First appearance of Hahnemann—Condition of medicine at
  the time—Proneness of Allopathy to theorize—This course 
xviii
CONTENTS.
  avoided by Hahnemann—Experiments upon his  own per-
  son—Risks encountered in making them—Noble traits of
  Hahnemann—Opinion of able allopathists respecting him—
  Homoeopathy cannot be  amalgamated  with  Allopathy—
  Reasons why not—Allopathic verdicts upon  medical doc-
  trines—Remarkable illustrations of them—All innovations
  crushed—Baglivi and Hoffmann—Diversified combinations
  of allopathy exposed—Presentandpastopinionscompared—
  Inconsistencies  of  the  Old School—Allopathy  of 1587,
  1703, 1707, 1714, 1797, 1800,  1852—Instincts of modern
  Allopathy—Allopathic verdicts  declined—Other verdicts-
  Reasons why Homoeopathy is not universally investigated—
  Some Old School  gentlemen in  the  right track—Medical
  radicalism—What is it?—Political radicalism—Contrasted
  with medical radicalism.      ....      102


                  CHAPTER  VII.

            CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.

Intolerance of medical men—Slow advancement of medicine—
  Reasons for it—Medical inquisitions—Not now permitted—
  Points  at issue  between the  Schools—Misunderstood by
  Physicians—Homoeopathy especially noticed recently—Its
  condition in America now, compared with that of twenty-
  five years ago—Quotation from Dr. Curtis—Present condi-
  tion of Homoeopathy in Europe—Also in France, Germany,
  &c.—Dr. Tessier—Homoeopathy approved by the  Clergy—
  Reproaches for  exercising their own judgments  upon the
  subject.      .       .      .      •      •       •       136 
     REPLY TO DR. HOOKER
                  ON

HOMOEOPATHY.
                  CHAPTER I.

EXAMINATION OF ATTENUATED SUBSTANCES IN CONNECTION
           WITH ALLOPATHIC ARITHMETIC.

  Homoeopathy has now been  before the public for
more than half a  century.  It has been introduced
into  every part of  the civilized world ; its principles
have always  been clearly announced, and wherever
its practical value  has been  fairly tested, whether in
public hospitals or in private  practice,  the results
have uniformly demonstrated it to be more successful
than any practice of medicine which has hitherto ob-
tained.  The system has, gradually, but steadily, con-
tinued to  extend throughout the area of civilization,
until it has enlisted among its earnest advocates  a
very large number of the most intelligent of every
country.   Attacked, and misrepresented as it has ever
been, by the mercenary physicians and apothecaries of
                        2 
20         H0MC30PATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
the Old School,  it has still advanced triumphantly
through all the storms of calumny, bitter invective,
and malignant hate, which have been  continually
poured  upon it.  It will ever continue  to  advance
until its momentous truths shall be universally recog-
nised,  and  mankind be forever released  from  the
blighting  curse of Allopathy, and its death-dealing
poisons.
  Among the thousand and one attacks  which have
been made upon Homoeopathy and its advocates, we
have recently noticed one entitled, " Homceopathy, an
Examination into its Doctrines  and Evidences, oy
Worthvngton JTooker, M. DP   Like every  other
attack which has been made upon  the system, it is a
mere tissue of misrepresentations, and tricky artifices
to mislead the ignorant and unthinking from  its real
doctrines,  and  to divert attention from the  actual
points  at  issue between the schools.  With intelli-
gent minds, such poor  sophistries and silly attempts
at " reviewing evidences," of course carry with them
their  own  refutation,  and recoil upon  the heads
of those whose cupidity or malice have prompted them
to issue them.  But as  there is a class of persons who
may possibly peruse  this essay, under the supposition
that it  is  an honest  exposition of  the Homoeopathic
doctrine, we shall take occasion to strip the author of
the flimsy web with which he has invested himself, and
display  him to the world, a pettifogging perverter of
facts, a  calumniator of a large class of judicious scho-
lars, who are his superiors in all respects, and a mere
panderer to the hate, malice, and medical demagogism
of the more contemptible of his school. 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
21
  Like  all  other Allopathists  who  have  written
against  Homoeopathy, the gentleman from Connecti-
cut, Dr. "Worthington Hooker, has laid himself out
on infinitesimal- doses.  As many have  done before
him, he has entered into mathematical calculations,
of the high dilutions, and has attempted to be exceed-
ingly witty upon the absurdity of supposing the exist-
ence of power in imponderable substances.  Mark well
the point,  viz.,  Dr.  Worthington  Hooker, of Nor-
wich, Connecticut, asserts that he cannot figure up
the weight of the  molecules of certain imponderable
substances like the higher attenuations of Homoeopa-
thy, (he very shrewdly forgets to allude to other impon-
derables in the same connection, like miasmata, the
contagious particles of smallpox, scarlet fever, measles,
and certain  forms of typhus, the atomic particles
floating in the air of cholera-infected districts, mag-
netism,  electricity, light, caloric, etc. etc.,)  and there-
fore, that- these imponderables must  of necessity be
powerless.   The  astute  genius   of  Worthington
Hooker, M. D., has  figured it all out,  and has de-
monstrated with perfect transparency,  that Homoeo-
pathy is  absurd,  and that no one can reason upon
medical topics but allopathic physicians,  with intel-
lects as penetrating as his own.   It is  granted that
scientific men, clergymen, etc., may reason very logi-
cally upon all other topics but that of medecine ; this
is forbidden ground, because, in this field, their mental
vision  at once becomes perverted; allopathy appears
to them like a grim and terrible monster, glutted with
victims  of  two thousand years,  and  they turn in-
stinctively to Homoeopathy for relief to their sufferings. 
22          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

  Now, although we deny emphatically, that the sub-
ject of doses has any thing to do with the great ho-
moeopathic principle of cure, and while we assert that
the selection of doses always has been and always
will be  subject to  the judgment  of the practitioner,
who, whether he chooses a tincture or a dilution, may
still be  a consistent homoeopath, we shall, however,
take this close  reasoning gentleman, Worthington
Hooker,  M. D., of Connecticut, as we find  him, and
show him that imponderable substances, yea, impon-
derable quantities of vegetable, animal,  and mineral
substances, are not so entirely inefficient in impress-
ing the human body as he pretends to believe, but that
they do  possess powers, so wonderful and efficient
in their character,  that even his own comprehensive
intellect  can scarcely have a conception of their ex-
tent, much less of their mathematical, chemical, or
physical  properties.  Before proceeding with this sub-
ject, we  make  the  following  quotations  from the
writer, to show that he was perfectly aware of the fact
that even Hahnemann himself considered  the  ques-
tion of  infinitesimal  doses a matter totally distinct
from his  great principle of cure, similia similibus cu-
rantur.   Indeed, it is known by every student of me-
dicine, that Hahnemann  made use of medicines in
the usual forms  and  doses for a considerable period
after the announcement of his chief discovery, and it
was only from experience and  repeated experiments
that he  discovered the powers of  small doses during
disease.    But to the quotation :
  " I now invite the attention of the reader to an ex-
position of the system of Hahnemann, as developed in 
INFINITESIMAL DOSES.
23
his ' Organon,' a work which is universally regarded,
by homoeopathists, as the great text-book of medi-
cine" (page 15).
   The writer here gives a summary  of Hahnemann's
conclusions, and then observes that, " in this summary,
or analysis of the homoeopathic method,  (as he calls
it)  the reader will notice that there is nothing said
about infinitesimal doses.  And it is remarkable that
there is not the slightest hint upon thi8 subject in the
Organon, till  we reach the 204th page, though  the
whole  book contains but 300  pages, and then it  is
alluded to only in a note, and that merely incidentally.
Almost all he does say about it, from begining to end,
is said in notes.   In the text, it is not treated of at all
in  any  explicit  and circumstantial manner,  but  is
barely hinted at" (page  20).
   Why,  then, in the name of reason, with these facts
staring you in the face, have you taxed your calcu-
lating powers so enormously upon this "incidental"
and unimportant point?  Why have you not taken
the " great text-book of the homoeopath" as you found
it,  and  criticized  it  honestly and fairly, instead  of
selecting a proposition which is only " barely hinted at
in the Organon," to vent upon it your hatred against
a rival school ?
  We take the liberty of calling into requisition once
more the mathematical genius, the irresistible logic,
and the  wonderful acumen, of this shining light of
Allopathy, who presents himself so confidently as its
champion.   We desire  him  to take into  considera-
tion the  following substances,  which " homoeopaths,
scientific  men,  clergymen, etc.," really  believe  to 
 24:          H0M030PATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 possess some power of action on the human body, and
 to describe to us their weight and bulk, as well as their
 chemical and physical characteristics.  As the value
 or absurdity of all things is to be measured by  the
 " plain common sense," and the vast comprehension of
 this Connecticut gentleman, will he hasten to enlighten
 us upon these  subjects, so that we may no longer be
 deluded by absurd notions of such " loose reasoners"
 as Newton, Davy, Locke, Herschell, etc. ?
   1. It is well known that when vegetable substances
 are  subjected to a certain amount of heat and  mois-
 ture, the atoms or molecules of which they are com-
 posed are set free, and become diffused in infinitesi-
 mal proportions through  the atmosphere, for miles
 in extent, so that any individual  inhaling  this air,
 will get a dose  of  these atoms of sufficent strength to
 poison his body, and cause intermittent fever.  These
 are some of nature's high attenuations, and have been
 termed by medical writers, miasmata.
   We beg leave to summon this quick oracle, whose
 'close  reasoning," and  extraordinary mathematical,
 and chemical genius is  destined to direct the judg-
 ments of " intelligent scientific men, clergymen, etc.,"
 to display on this point all his calculating powers and
 to give us the weight in  figures  of a quantity of these
miasmatic atoms sufficient to infect a large army, or
if this  puzzles him, the inhabitants of the whole uni-
verse, with intermittent fever;  to inform us  of some
chemical test by which we may detect these atoms in
the immense space throughout which they are dif-
fused ;  to give us some tangible and  comprehensible
idea of their physical properties, so that we may really 
IMPONDERABLE  SUBSTANCES.          25
know that such things do exist as miasmata, and that
they are not the mere fanciful imaginings of a "ho-
moeopath, a scientific man, or a clergyman!"  Will
he put  them under the lens of his  most powerful
microscope, and  instruct us  "loose  reasoners"  re-
specting their size, shape, and general appearance ?
  What if such insignificant chemists as Lavoisier,
Berzelius, Davy,  Black, Dumas, and Faraday, have
repeatedly attempted to detect chemically these mi-
asmatic particles without success ? doubtless these men
were "loose reasoners," and were not blessed with
the keen,  analyzing  powers of the gentleman from
Norwich!
  What if such intelligences as  those of Newton,
Euler, Dalton and Euclid could not,  either by their
own, or even "Homoeopathic  arithmetic," calculate
their weight, dimensions, and shape,  and therefore
decided to consider and to call them imponderable,
(i. e. having no weight,)—why, let  it be remembered
that Worthington Hooker, M.D., of Connecticut, was
not then in existence!
   What if those half-learned astronomers, Herschell
and Chevalier, have no lenses sufficiently powerful to
see these vegetable atoms—nature's homoeopathic at-
tenuations—does it follow that the keen sight of the
Connecticut champion  of Allopathy should not  see
them ?  Before  his next essay appears, we may expect
that he will put a dose of a high homoeopathic attenua-
ation into one scale, and a dose of fever miasm into the
other, and gravely inform us which sinks the beam.
  But  suppose the gigantic intellect of  our  critic
should  fail  in  all  these tests—suppose his " arithme- 
26          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
 tic" stops short, and he becomes lost  in  a maze of
 miasms, what becomes of all  the preconceived ideas
 upon this subject ?  Why they are swept, of course,
 by the dictum and " close reasoning" of this gordian
 master in logic, into instant annihilation.   Can any-
 thing which he cannot " figure up," see, taste, smell,
 and handle, be aught  else than a humbug—the  off-
 spring of fancy and  " loose reasoning ?"   Wooden
 nutmegs and brass clocks forbid !
   2. We again invoke the arithmetic and chemistry
 of this champion of crudities.  In common with a large
 portion of the medical world,  we deluded homceopa-
 phists have always supposed that infinitesimal par-
 ticles were  constantly escaping from patients suffering
 from small-pox, scarlet fever, etc., and that these par-
 ticles, when introduced  into the blood through the
 lungs, were  capable of contaminating the human or-
 ganism with such maladies.
   Here  we beg the mathematical  gentleman  from
 Connecticut to bring again  his wonderful " arithme-
 tic" to bear, and give us some idea of the weight, or
 the chemical and physical properties of these conta-
 gious molecules?   Or if the result should not tally
 with the standard of power, as inculcated by Worth-
 ington Hooker, M. D.,  of Connecticut—if with his
 arithmetic he cannot cypher out their weight and bulk,
then let him with his mighty breath, blow the " absurd
bubble" out of existence, as a humbug which can only
entrap the  " homoeopath, the scientific man, and the
 clergyman."  Weigh us  out, we pray  thee, a  little
small-pox contagion, if it be only a millionth, or even
a sextillionth part of a grain!  Or, if your arithmetic 
            IMPONDERABLE SUBSTANCES.           27

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

 the " arithmetic" will prove successful,  or electricity
 must henceforth be  considered a " humbug," and all
 those old fashioned individuals who believe in it, like
 Franklin, Dufay, Priestley, Gay Lussac, Yolta, Morse,
 and Page, must be ranked with those " deluded loose  .
 reasoners," the " homoeopathists,  scientific men, and
 clergymen."   Come, O  " close  reasoning" champion
 of Allopathy, weigh us out the charge of electricity it
 would require  to rend  a world to fragments.  You
 have presumed to reduce all phenomena within the
 scope and appreciation of your own infallible intellect
 —you, who deny the existence of power in attenuated
 atoms, unless  you can  see them, smell them, taste
 them, weigh them, and  clutch them  in  your brawny
 hands, tell the " loose reasoning" and  benighted world
 something about the physical qualities  of these elec-
 trical molecules!
   Would you prefer to experiment on the particles of
 matter which are continually escaping from the mag-
 net ?  Baron Reichenbach, an allopathist, who has re-
 cently published a very learned work upon this subject,
 not only asserts that magnetic atoms continually escape
 from  magnets in definite  directions, but that  these
 atoms may actually be seen in a dark room, by sensi-
 tive persons.  We beg leave to ask the mathematical
 gentleman of Connecticut to reply in his next attack
 on homoeopathy, to this reasonable query: Suppose a
 million, a billion, or a sextillion of the most powerful
 horseshoe magnets ever made, should be kept in full
operation for a period dating from the creation of Adam
to the probable final destruction of the world, and that
all the magnetic atoms escaping them should be col- 
CATALYTIC ACTION.
29
 lected together, what, according to your " arithmetic,"
 would be their weight and bulk ?
   If the gentleman from Norwich will take his com-
 pass and go to any part of the world, he will find the
 needle invariably pointing towards the magnetic pole,
 thus showing that the molecules which escape from
 this great magnetic  deposit pervade the whole uni-
 verse, exercising an attraction under all circumstances
 towards the parent source.   At the pole itself,  it was
 ascertained by  Sir John Ross, that the needle uni-
 formly points directly downward, or  perpendicularly
 to the surface of the  earth.  At every other point on
 the globe, the needle forms some  sort  of an  angle
 with the pole, unless  affected by local causes.  Will
 this monster of science inform us how much this uni-
 verse of molecules weighs ?
   While  our allopathic  opponents  are  attempting to
 ridicule the  idea of power in imponderable agents,
 and other phenomena which they cannot understand,
 and which their heathen idols, Hippocrates and Ga-
 len, forgot to teach, why do they not  cry out, " hum-
 bug,"  against  another mysterious  and  inexplicable
 force which has recently been introduced to the scien-
 tific world by Liebig and his cotemporaries, and which
 has been termed catalysis f  Why  do they not per-
 persuade some of their mathematical geniuses to " cy-
pher"  on the subject, so that we  may comprehend
 the rationale of catalytic action ?
  Modern chemists have ascertained that the  mere
 contact or  presence of minute quantities of certain
 substances, with indefinitely large proportions of other
 substances, communicate to  the  latter  entirely new 
30          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

and  potent  qualities.  In  this process  the acting
agent loses no appreciable weight and undergoes no
apparent change, and yet results of the most impor-
tant character are manifested.
  " The active force in a compound," according to
Liebig,* " depends on a certain order or arrangement,
in which  its elementary particles  touch each other."
" The chemical  force of  sulphuric acid is present in
sulphate of lime as entire as in oil of vitriol.  It is not
appreciable  by  the  senses ;  but if the cause be re-
moved which prevented its manifestation, it appears
in its full  force in the compound in which it properly
resides."
  " In compounds of this kind, in which the free ma-
nifestation of the chemical force has been impeded by
other forces, a blow, or mechanical friction, or the
contact of a substance, the particles of which are in a
state of motion (decomposition,  transformation,) or
any external cause,  whose activity is added to the
stronger attraction of the elementary particles in ano-
ther direction, may suffice to give the preponderance
to this strongest attraction, to overcome the vis iner-
tice, to alter the form and structure of the compound,
which are the result  of foreign causes, and to produce
the resolution of the compound into one or more new
compounds with altered properties."
  " In examples  of this  class,  an infinite variety of
new forces are developed from apparently  inactive
substances, by the invisible operation  of  elementary
particles contained in these  substances.  Mere  fric-
tion or contact of a  small quantity of one substance
                * Animal Chem., page 62. 
CATALYTIC ACTION.
31
with another, effects transformations and  developes
new properties  in the latter without the slightest ap-
preciable loss of weight, bulk, or chemical properties
of the former.
  " It  is  remarkable,"  says  Kane, " that this law of
catalysis,  of  which the simplest expression  is,  that
where  two chemical substances are  in contact, any
motion occurring among the particles of the one may
be communicated to the particles of the other, is of a
more purely mechanical nature  than  any other prin-
ciple as yet received in  chemistry; and when more
definitely established by succeeding research, it  may
be the basis of a dynamical theory in chemistryP
  " We must, at least, look upon these actions of ca-
talysis, as tending towards a change in our ideas of
the nature of chemical affinity, which may before long
remodel the whole constitution of the science."
  We might extend our queries, and  " put sums" ad
infinitum, but knowing that  there are limits, even to
such  comprehensive and analytic  intellects as that
of  Worthington  Hooker,  M. D.,  of  Norwich,  Con-
necticut, we pause, for the present, for replies to those
already offered.
  But seriously, is not that man a pitiable object, who,
at this enlightened  period, has the presumption  and
folly to measure the powers and properties of sub-
stances by bulk and weight ?  When the most obtuse
intellect, by moderate observation and reflection, may
see that nearly  all of the most active and potent mate-
rial agents with which we  are acquainted are impon-
derable—absolutely incapable of being appreciated by
any mathematical, chemical,  or other material test— 
32         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
 is it not singular that an individual, who is recognised
 as a member of a learned profession,  can be found,
 who, coolly and over his own signature, attempts to
 convince the public that attenuated and imponderable
 substances are inert,  powerless, and unworthy of con-
 sideration ?  While I am penning this very paragraph,
 an important  communication is  brought me from a
 distance of more than 1000 miles, in an instant of
 time, by a  few imponderable atoms of electricity!
 Their function is accomplished,  and they are  dissi-
 pated, perhaps to take a prominent part in some living
 organism, or perchance to convey again, on their quick
 wings, some communication—perhaps  to Worthing-
 ton Hooker, M.D., of Norwich, Connecticut.
  It is melancholy to witness the extent to which the
 prejudices  of individuals will carry them when  their
 interests are at stake.  They find no  difficulty in un-
 derstanding and acknowledging that all classes of im-
 ponderables (except  that class pertaining to homoeo-
 pathy), whether originating from the animal, vegeta-
 ble, or mineral kingdoms, are powerful morbific, re-
 medial, and chemical agents, and they would  no  more
 think of bringing " arithmetic" to bear  upon them,
 than of entering into a  mathematical calculation to
 ascertain the weight of the " vital principle which
 presides over the operations of the body, in. sickness
 and in health."
  Men have ever been prone to measure every new
 discovery and every unusual phenomenon by  existing
knowledge, or by their own limited capacities, and to
pronounce everything absurd and a " humbug" which
they could not at once comprehend and  appreciate. 
IMPONDERABLE AGENTS.
33
The vast discoveries of Galileo, Columbus, Newton,
Harvey, Jenner, and Fulton, were first laughed at by
the world, and met with all kinds of silly falsehoods
and inuendoes by the " material headed" pamphlet
writers of different periods.  And where stand now
the authors of these discoveries, and where their piti-
ful revilers ?  When our own Fulton first announced
the powers of steam as a propelling agent, his scheme
was regarded as absurd, and he himself was denounced
as a visionary madman!  Now the name of Fulton is
immortal, while those of his aspersers have long been
sunk in oblivion beneath the contempt of the world.
So, when the powers of imponderable  agents shall
have become universally acknowledged  and appreci-
ated, will such  " material headed reasoners"  as  this
champion of Allopathy sink into merited obloquy,
or rather, absolute oblivion.
   From  the  few examples which we have adduced,
we think it will  be  evident to the meanest capacity
that  infinitesimal atoms  of vegetable,  animal,  and
mineral substances, when introduced into the  human
organism, are capable of producing effects of great im-
portance, and of almost infinite variety.  Whether
these substances have been reduced to  their  condi-
tion  of infinitesimal subdivision by a natural or an
artificial process, can be a matter of no  consequence,
provided  the  attenuations  are effectually  accom-
plished in either instance.
   Notwithstanding, however, the self-evident fact of
the efficacy of  imponderable quantities of matter, a
fact  which has  been recognised by nearly all of the
most eminent philosophers  and  chemists of the 18th 
34         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

and 19th centuries, we again deny most emphatically
that it has any necessary connection with  the great
homoBopathic law of cure, similia similibus curantur.
The question  of doses was a mere matter  of experi-
ence on the part of  Hahnemann, gradually acquired
by a long series of observations, some time after the
discovery and public announcement of the main doc-
trines  of Homoeopathy.   Hahnemann witnessed and
deplored the general routine of  indiscriminate drug-
ging, with mixtures composed of almost every variety
of  poison,  and endeavored to lessen the evil and to
attain more accuracy and certainty, by proving drugs
on healthy persons, in order to ascertain their specific
action, and then  to prescribe  them  singly.  Until
the time of Hahnemann physicians had striven with
each other for the palm  of giving the largest quan-
tities of drugs, the more powerful the better, without
absolutely destroying their poor patients.   The  dis-
coverer of homoeopathy adopted the opposite course,
and used all his  sagacity  to ascertain how small  a
quantity of medicine would suffice to cure  a disease.
In accomplishing this object, he  had no hypothesis to
sustain—no ancient heathen dogma to bolster up—no
prejudices to gratify  ; but his sole  objects were truth,
and the welfare of his fellow creatures.  Guided by
such laudable  motives,   and uninfluenced  by  the
jealousies and  calumnies of professional rivals and in-
terested apothecaries, he devoted his whole energies
mental and physical, to the accumulation of facts,
with the view of  establishing a rational system  of
medicine.   How much he has done towards attain-
ing his end, we leave for others to decide. 
VIEW OF HOMOEOPATHY.            35
  In perusing the  mendacious  attack of this Con-
necticut defamer, the uninformed reader is-induced to
suppose that he may be honest, and that he really
aims to give the public a true representation  of the
homoeopathic  doctrine and its evidences.   With  a
degree of hypocrisy which would  do credit  to the
most shrewd Jesuit, and with a considerable amount of
poor cunning, the author has selected a few isolated
passages from the writings  of  Hahnemann,  which
have no bearing upon his doctrine of cure, and held
them up as  a " view  of Homoeopathy."   He like-
wise professes to give a view of the system, as an-
nounced by other standard  authors.  Farther  on we
shall quote from these Avriters  proofs of  the  entire
lack of foundation for these assumptions. 
CHAPTER II.
FALLACIES OF DR. HOOKER CONCERNING DRUG PROVINGS.

  The second  chapter  of the " doctrines and evi-
dences" is chiefly devoted to the provings of drugs,
on persons in health, with reference to their applica-
tion in disease,  and  to the " manner in which little
doses cure."
  The writer calls attention to the " manner in which
homoeopathists  discover to what disease any remedy
has that peculiar affinity, which is an  essential condi-
tion of its curative power.  It is done," he says, " in
this way : the remedy is given to persons in health; the
symptoms which follow in them are carefully and mi-
nutely noted down;  after making out this group  of
symptoms,  you may be sure, as  they say,  that  in
whatever case you find a similar group of  symptoms,
there  you have  the disease which this  remedy, in in-
finitesimal doses, will cure."
  In conducting these provings the writer asserts that
there  is " no formal set  of rules prescribed, and that
there  is nothing very' definite in regard to the she of
the doses used."  The utter absurdity of these asser-
tions will of course be apparent to all who are in the
slightest degree familiar with homoeopathic writings • 
PROVTNGS OF HAHNEMANN.
37
but as they may be seen by some who are ignorant
of the doctrines of Homoeopathy, we deem it proper
to refute them at the onset.
  The present writer has personally beheld and pe-
rused a large number of original provings by Hahne-
mann, in his own handwriting, detailing minutely the
circumstances under which the different drugs were
taken, the exact sizes of the doses used, and the symp-
toms arising from these  doses. All these facts are de-
scribed  by Hahnemann in their regular order, and
with a systematic precision and minuteness unparal-
leled  in such  investigations.   In  these provings the
drugs were employed  both  in the  crude form,  in
large  doses, and in an attenuated state, in order that
their  entire effects might thus be  thoroughly dis-
played.   Indeed  we were repeatedly informed by
Madame Hahnemann, the wife of the founder of our
system,  that  her husband had often been made seri-
ously ill for months at a time in consequence of his
experiments with large doses of crude drugs.  Nearly
all  of his  earlier  provings  were made with  crude
medicines,  in various doses ; but afterwards reflecting
that the efforts of nature are  always  directed to the
speedy  expulsion  from  the system  of noxious sub-
stances,  by vomiting, purging, or some other excre-
tory process,  he deemed it essential that small doses
should also be employed, in order that they might be
retained for a longer period, and thus afforded time
to manifest their entire pathogeneses.
  Hahnemann has always inculcated the importance
of proving drugs, in both a crude and attenuated state,
and in a variety of doses.  In every proving which 
 38         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 he or his disciples have ever made,  these forms and
 doses have been most accurately specified, as the ex-
 periments advanced; but the impropriety of includ-
 ing all these details in a Materia Medica, and the im-
 possibility of  pointing  out beforehand  the  exact
 quantity of each drug to be taken, in a work like the
 Organon, will be apparent to every  man of common
 sense.   The rules which we find in the Organon are
 as precise as  can be embraced in any work of this
 character, as the following quotations will show :—
   " Thus there is no safer or  more natural method of
 discovering the effects of medicines on the health of
 man than by trying them, separately and singly,  in
 moderate doses,  upon healthy individuals,  and ob-
 serving what  changes they  create in the moral and
 physical state ; that is to say, what elements of disease
 these substances are capable  of  producing."—(Or-
 ganon, p. 136.)
   " In studying the effects of medicines upon healthy
 persons,  it must not be forgotten  that even  the ad-
 ministration of moderate  doses of the  so-called he-
 roic  remedies  is  sufficient to produce modifications
 in the health of the most  robust individuals.  Medi-
 cines that are more gentle in their nature ought to be
 given in larger doses if we would likewise prove their
 action.    Finally, if  we would  try the effects of the
weakest  substances,  the  experiment must  be made
upon persons  only  who  are,  it is  true,  free  from
disease, but who, at  the same time, are possessed  of
a delicate, irritable and sensitive constitution."—(Or-
ganon,  p. 142.)
  " Each of  these medicines ought to be taken in its 
MODE  OF PROVING DRUGS.
39
simple and pure form.  As to indigenous plants, the
juice is expressed  and mixed with a small quantity
of alcohol, in order to preserve  it from corruption.
With regard to foreign plants they are  to be pulve-
rized or prepared as spirituous tinctures, and mixed
with a certain quantity of water previous to adminis-
tration.   Salts and gums, however, ought not to be
dissolved  in water till the moment  they are to be
used.   If a plant cannot be procured but in its dry
state, and if its powers are naturally feeble, it may
be tried in  the form of an  infusion; that is to say,
after having cut it up small, boiling water is poured
upon it in order to extract  its virtues.   The infusion
ought to be  drunk immediately after  its preparation,
and while it is still warm, because all  the juices of
plants, and all vegetable infusions to which no alcohol
is added, pass rapidly into fermentation and corrup-
tion, and  thereby lose their medicinal virtues."—(Or-
ganon, p.  143.)
  " Sometimes a person apparently delicate is not at
all affected by a medicine that  is known to be  very
powerful,  though  administered  in moderate  doses,
while other  substances that are much weaker make a
tolerable impression on him.  At the same time there
are individuals of robust constitutions who experience
very considerable  morbid symptoms from medicinal
agents that  are apparently mild, and, on the  other
hand, they are  likewise but  little  affected by others
that  are powerful.   But as it can never be known be-
forehand  which of these  two cases will occur,  it is
proper that each should commence with a small dose,
and be afterwards  increased  progressively if deemed 
40          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

requisite.  Advancing, from day to day,  to  higher
and still higher doses."—(Organon, p. 145.)
  So far then as the provings of Hahnemann  are
concerned, although they were chiefly made  some forty
years ago, when Homoeopathy was in its infancy, it is
evident that the statements  and inferences  published
by Dr. Hooker are utterly false and  contemptible.
The writer even contradicts himself upon  this point
as he  does  upon  many others.   On  page  33,  he
remarks in regard to the provings that "there is  no
formal set of rules prescribed, and we are left to infer
for the most part what the principles are which govern
observers in conducting  these ' provings,' as they are
termed."
  On page  51, we find,  "All agree as to the mode of
conducting the provings."
  We  have personally seen and  examined carefully
the greater part of Hahnemann's original manuscripts,
which  are still in possession of his wife, at  Paris, and
can therefore vouch for the  several facts to which we
have alluded.
  In regard to the vast number of provings made by
the disciples of Hahnemann, within the last  fifty years,
we  have only to  remark, that it is  a  fact perfectly
well known to those who have taken  any pains to
investigate the subject, that in all instances the doses
have  been  specified, the symptoms have  been care-
fully noted  as they occurred,  and all  circumstances
connected with the experiments have been minutely
detailed.
  With reference to the symptoms which  have been
adopted into our Materia Medica, the following course
has been pursued: 
          HOMOEOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA.         41

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

 ers who flourished during the dark ages.   The idea of
 administering medicines singly, and in a pure form, is
 supposed to be particularly absurd and  unscientific,
 and is  sneered at  accordingly.  So  thought those
 respectable  ancients who  founded  Allopathy,  and
 who deemed  it essential to mix together as  many
 articles as possible in one prescription, in  order  that
 some one of them should hit the disease!  One very
 scientific modern Allopathic physician had a favorite
 recipe consisting of 100 different ingredients of every
 possible description; like  opiates, cathartics, tonics,
 antiphlogistics,  stimulants, sedatives, acids, alkalis,
 etc., all mixed together with thd most perfect disre-
 gard of every chemical or other rule.   His argument
 was, that " out of so many dissimilar and potent drugs,
 there must surely be one which would hit the nail on
 the head and cure  the malady."
  The same theory is now practically adopted by the
 great body  of Allopathists.  They scout the idea of
 ascertaining the pure effects of  medicines upon  the
 human  organism,  but  prefer random shots with a
 great number  of  articles,  with  different  properties.
 By this  course, they are pretty sure to hit the patient
 effectually, whether the disease is reached or not.
  We have  the pleasure, however, of recording the
truth, that many distinguished Allopathists  have, in
late years fully recognised  the  importance  of drug
provings on the healthy, as a  guide to their appli-
 cation in  disease.   Such facts are of course  bitter
pills for such  medical bigots as  Dr. Hooker, but we
proceed to administer them, as follows :
  Professor' Dunglison, in his work on " New Reme- 
           IMPORTANCE OF DRUG PROVINGS.         43

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

  In this chapter Dr. Hooker professes to " examine
the doctrines of Homoeopathy;" and it is here that he
displays, in a most pitiable manner,  his utter igno-
rance of the whole system as taught by Hahnemann
and his  followers.  For example, he  says  "if the
doctrine, similia similibus curantur be the sole  law
of therapeutics,  the totality of effects produced by
any article in the healthy, should be a sure indication
that this article will relieve a similar set of symptoms
whenever they appear in the sick.   For  example,
opium produces in the healthy a state of insensibility
and somnolency, and ipecac, produces nausea  and
vomiting.  Therefore, if the homoeopathic law be the
sole law of cure, opium should invariably relieve
insensibility and somnolency in the sick, and ipecac.
should  invariably relieve nausea and  vomiting.  It
matters not that they sometimes do this in some  par-
ticular cases:  to prove  the law to be  the  sole law
they should always do it." (p.  54.)
  According to the writer's own confession a remedy
in  order to be truly homoeopathic in disease, must
be selected which will cover the totality of the symp-
toms.  In other words that that medicine alone is ho- 
HOMCEOPATHIC LAW OF CURE.          45
mceopathic, which produces in the healthy a totality
of symptoms closely resembling those of the disease to
be cured.  Suppose then we have a case of insensi-
bility and somnolency, with a dozen other important
symptoms which  opium does not produce  in  the
healthy, does  opium  correspond to this  totalit/y of
symptoms, and is it  perfectly homoeopathic  in  this
instance ?   If  the totality of the symptoms consists
only of insensibility and somnolency, like that which
opium produces when taken in health, then will opium
most assuredly cure, and that too " invariably."
  Ipecac,  "invariably" cures nausea with eructations,
and accumulation of saliva in the mouth during the
nausea, and vomiting of mucus or the ingesta, because
it produces  these symptoms  in the healthy; but it
does not always cure nausea and vomiting, attended
with violent pains in the  stomach, internal burning
heat, intense thirst,  dryness of the mouth and throat,
and great  tenderness of the stomach on  pressure, be-
cause  these  symptoms  are  not  caused  by ipeca-
cuanha when taken in health.  In this case, arsenicum
corresponds to the totality of symptoms,  because it
does produce  these symptoms in the healthy, and it
will therefore cure.
  For cases of nausea and vomiting accompanied by
different trains of symptoms, such as neither of the
above medicines produce in health, other drugs, which
will accurately correspond to these groups, will alone
prove efficacious.
  "Beyond the  totality of the symptoms there is
nothing discoverable in diseases by which  they could
make  known  the  nature of  the medicines  they 
46          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
stand in need of, and we ought therefore  to  conclude
naturally that there can be no other indication what-
ever than the ensemble of the symptoms in each in-
dividual case to guide us in the choice of a remedy."
(Organon, p. 86.)
  This  language is  clear and explicit.  It is not by
one or two symptoms of a disease that we are  to be
guided in the selection of the  appropriate remedy, but
by the ensemble—the grand total.
  This is the doctrine inculcated by Hahnemann, and
if Dr. Hooker had given the subject ordinary atten-
tion, he would never have advanced so " shallow and
contemptible" an argument against it.
  Further on we  find the following :  "If similia
similibus curantur be the sole  law of cure, then a
remedy  should never produce in  the sick effects simi-
lar to those which it produces in the healthy."
  In making this observation  it is quite evident either
that  the writer has intentionally endeavored to de-
ceive his reader, or that he has never read the Organon
or the other  works, with which he professes to be fa-
miliar.  Had he consulted these works he would have
learned  that it is a fundamental  principle of the ho-
moeopathic theory and practice, to create with the me-
dicine an artificial disease similar to the natural one,
but a little stronger, for a brief period, which shall su-
persede  and annihilate it.  He would have learned fur-
ther that natural diseases are prone to run on until dis-
organization occurs—the reactive forces of the system
exercising comparatively little influence  over them ;
while medicinal diseases, when not excessive, are
temporary,  and yield readily  to  the  recuperative 
                ACTION OF MEDICINES.             47

powers of the organism.   He would also have learned
that  drugs  produce primitive and secondary effects,
the first of which, in  the  case  of homoeopathic rem-
edies, are like the natural disease, but of short dura-
tion ; while  the last  are  of  a  character directly op-
posite, or curative,  and permanent.
   " Every agent that  acts upon the human economy,
every medicine produces more or less some notable
change in the existing state of the vital  powers, or
creates a certain modification in the health  of man for
a period of shorter or longer  duration ; this change is
called the primitive effect. Although this is the joint
effect of both a medicinal and a vital power, it belongs,
notwithstanding,  more particularly  to  the former,
whose action is exercised upon  the body.  But our
vital  powers tend always to oppose their energy to
this influence  or  impression.  The effect that results
from  this, and which belongs to our conservative vital
powers and their automatic force, bears the name  of
secondary effect or reaction."
   " So long as the primitive effects of artificial mor-
bific  agents (medicines) continue their influence upon
a  healthy body,  the  vital power appears to play
merely a passive part, as  if  it  were compelled to un-
dergo the  impression of  the medicine that is  acting
upon  it from without. But, subsequently, this also
appears in  a manner to  rouse itself.  Then, if there
exists any state  directly contrary to the primitive
effect, the  vital  power  manifests  a tendency  to
produce  one  that  is proportionate  to   its  own
energy, and the degree of influence exercised  by the
morbid or medicinal  agent; and if there exists no 
48          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
state in nature that is directly contrary to this primi-
tive effect, the vital power then seeks to gain  the  as-
cendancy by destroying the change that has  been
operated upon it from without (by the action of the
medicine), for which it substitutes its own  natural
state {reaction)."
  " For example, somnolence and stupor are primi-
tive effects of opium, which continue ten, twelve, or
more hours, according to the size of the  dose; sleep-
lessness and nervous excitement always succeed this
state,  constituting the secondary effect of the drug."
" Constipation, excited by opium (primitive effect), is
followed by diarrhoea (secondary effect) ;  and evacu-
ations  produced by purgatives (primitive effect), are
succeeded  by costiveness  which  lasts  several  days
(secondary effect).  It is thus  that  the vital  power,
in its  reaction,  opposes to the primitive effects of
strong doses of medicine which operate powerfully
on the healthy state of the body, a condition  that is
directly opposite, whenever it is able to do so."
  " It is true that even small doses produce primitive
effects that are  perceptible; but  the reaction made
by the living organism  never exceeds the degree that
is requisite for the re-establishment of health."  (Or-
ganon, p. 112-13.)
  The homoeopath, therefore, always attacks the dis-
ease itself, by producing with his remedies, such im-
pressions upon the disordered  structures  as shall  an-
nihilate  the original morbid action, and substitute in
its stead a temporary drug action, which  the  recupe-
rative  forces of the system always  speedily remove,
if the malady be curable.  The causes of disease are, 
ACTION OF MEDICINES.
49
for the most part, subtile, imponderable, and in many
instances absolutely immaterial,  like  sudden news,
grief, fright, anger, and other mental emotions ;  and
it is not surprising that infinitesimal doses of drugs,
when properly selected, may uniformly operate in such
a manner  as to overcome these first causes,  and
occupy their places.  In effecting his object, the ho-
moeopath sometimes produces a  temporary aggrava-
tion of symptoms with his remedy, but  this is al-
ways of short duration, and is invariably followed by
a  curative and permanent reaction  of  the system
against the effects of the drug, which supersedes the
disturbed equilibrium, and secures  health.  But if a
sufficiently small dose of the medicine be employed,
this aggravation, or primitive effect,  will be nearly,
and perhaps entirely imperceptible, and  the curative
reaction, or  secondary effect,  will commence almost
immediately.
   By  experimenting with drugs in  health, the ho-
 moeopath knows precisely upon  what structures they
 act specifically, and what symptoms  they produce.
 He knows that disease, irritation, inflammation, and
 nervous erethism, render the tissues affected morbid-
 ly sensitive to impressions of all  kinds, so that things
 which were  salubrious  and  agreeable in health be-
 come  then sources of the most  exquisite pain, and
 often actually intolerable.  He knows  that if brandy,
 or meat, or condiments, be introduced  into an  in-
 flamed stomach, the life of the patient is endangered.
 He knows if he exposes a patient with ophthalmia to
 the bright sunlight, or permits him to read and write
 by gaslight, that disorganization  and loss of sight will 
 50         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 be likely to ensue.   In a word, he knows that  nearly-
 all diseases render  the parts  affected so extremely
 susceptible to impressions of every kind, that even in-
 finitesimal doses of  specific medicines produce mani-
 fest primitive effects, and therefore if he  administers
 his remedies in a crude state, he is almost certain to
 produce too violent  effects,  in the forms of medi-
 cinal aggravations, like those which Hahnemann first
 observed  from the  use of ordinary doses  of crude
 drugs.   From  necessity,  therefore,  and  not  from
 theory, the believer in Homoeopathy uses small doses,
 in order to avoid the most serious medicinal actions.
 In regard to the doses, one  rule  obtains among all
judicious  homoeopathists,  viz.: to give'  a sufficient
 quantity of the drug to  cure the disease, with  as
 little detriment to the healthy parts, and to the gene-
 ral system,  as  possible.  The homoeopath has medi-
 cines of every grade of strength, from  the saturated
 tinctures  and alkaloids to the highest dilutions ;  but
 as he has  to deal with morbid  conditions, totally dif-
 ferent from those in health, and with inflamed tissues,
 so  refined in  sensibility that  light, noise, or even
 mental emotions, become powerful disturbing agents,
 he finds it  necessary, from experience, to  adapt his
 doses to the altered sensibility of the disordered parts,
 that he may avoid unnecessarily active influences.
 Is not this philosophical, reasonable, and perfectly in
 accordance with common sense ?
   If allopathists, with their empirical,  contradictory,
 and pernicious notions, choose to combat diseases by
 inflaming healthy parts,  and  filling the  systems of
 their patients  with  large  quantities  of  deleterious 
ANCIENT ALLOPATHY.
51
drugs, of which they know nothing with certainty,
and which they never presume to take themselves, when
sick, we can only say, God help the poor victims, their
patients!  If they prefer to adhere to a school which
has no fixed principles of theory or practice ;  a school
which has successively adopted for  a  time, and then
abandoned as worthless, more hypotheses and modes
of treatment  than could be even enumerated in a vo-
lume ; a school abounding in professors who nearly all
differ in opinion,  (both theoretically and practically,)
and who very generally quarrel when called together
in consultation; a school eminently ill defined, unsuc-
cessful, and which is entirely destitute of the confi-
dence of many of its own most learned and accomplish-
ed adherents—we can only say, God is kind to them,
in rendering their reminiscences of practice oblivious!
  Among the numerous theoretical  and practical
tenets which  have been  in vogue in  this  school, we
quote  the following from a "Practice of  Physic, or
Dr. Sydenham's Processus Integri,  translated out of
Latin into English, with large Annotations, Animad-
versions and Practical Observations on the Same, by
William Salmon, M. D.  London: 1707."  And let it
be remembered that Sydenham was not only a standard
allopathic author at the date of this performance, but
that he now ranks as one of the fathers of  Allopathy,
whose name  and memory are held in veneration by
its modern disciples.  Whether the  latter have really
improved upon their illustrious predecessor is a matter
of doubt, which future generations will have to decide.
Selecting the chapter  on Pleurisy  as a fair sample
of the book, we present the writer's views respecting
                      3* 
52          HOMCBOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
 the cause of the malady, which he says consists of a
 "preternatural fermentation of the blood extravasated;
 in which fermentation, the sharp particles do by their
 points or acrimony, vellicate  the membraceous parts,
 and being intimately fixed in the nervous  fibres, they
 make  a  concussion therein, which because it is con-
 tinued to the origination of the nerves, a sad sensation
 or pain  does arise, which is various,  dull, pungent,
 rending, throbbing, distending, corroding, &c, accord-
 ing to the nature of the part affected, quality of the
 spirits, and  concurrent particles of the  blood and
 humors" (page 52).
  In regard to the treatment of Pleurisy, we quote
 the following from  page 53:  " Bleed on the  affected
 side three or four times, and take away ten ounces of
 blood.   The  juice  expressed  out of horse-dung, with
 water  drawn from  ox, calves, sheep, or hog's blood, is
 commended as an excellent thing, because it imbibes
 the pleuritic acid.  Helmont rejects bleeding  as an
 accursed remedy; because a pleurisy, cured by bleed-
 ing, often leaves a  consumption behind it; and that
 they who use bleeding much do often fall into this
 disease:  He  commends powder  of stag's  tail, which
 may be drank to a drachm at a time;  so  also goafs
 blood, taken liquid and warm, or dried  and given in
 powder to a drachm or more.  Powder of bulVs tail is
 also good, and of a boar's tooth.  Or, take  powder of
goafs blood,  and of stag's  tail, of each one scruple;
red poppy-water an ounce and a half; mix for a dose.
 Or, take flowers of red poppies, and of daisies, leaves
of wild chicory, of each a handful; horse-dung an
ounce and a half; boil m barley water a sufficient 
          ANCIENT AND MODERN ALLOPATHY.       53

quantity, strain,  and sweeten with syrup of red pop-
pies : of which let the sick take a draught now and
then."  Yarious other remedies are  advised to cure
this complaint,  like  the  " spirit, or volatile salt  of
man's blood, and of vipers, crab's eyes,  etc." which
are recommended as " incomparable things."
   This, it is true, is the allopathy of  1707,  but as the
chief argument which at the present day is adduced
in favor of the school, is its antiquity, and the great
mass of facts, and of theoretical and practical  obser-
vations, which have been handed down in it from the
venerated fathers of Allopathy, it would be unfair to
leave the doctrines of these periods unrepresented.
   But,  what real  improvements has modern Allopa-
thy made over ancient Allopathy ?  Are the violent and
heterogeneous  compounds of the moderns any more
successful in curing diseases, than the more harmless
compounds of the ancients ? Are the random and hap-
hazard  formulae  of the  one  any more  definite and
satisfactory in their  effects, than  those of the other ?
Is the " volatile spirit of vipers, or of man's blood " any
less indicated in pleurisy, than the " spirits  of nitre, or
of minderiri ?" Are the powders of " stag's  tail,  boar's
tooth, goat's blood, and crab's eyes," any less efficient
in  combatting this malady  than Dover's powders,
James's powders, and calomel powders ? If we may
believe the published reports of old allopathists, their
treatment was more successful than that of their modern
descendants ; upon the principle, probably, that their
remedies opposed fewer obstacles to the kindly opera-
tion of the vis medicatrix natural, than do  those of
young  Allopathy.  Will Dr. Hooker, and  his con-
freres of 1852, with their spirits of nitre and minderiri, 
54          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

and their powders of calomel, opium, etc., pretend to
cure pleurisy as speedily and as safely, as did Dr.
Sydenham and his associates of 1700, with " spirits of
vipers  and of man's blood," and " powders of stag's
tail, boar's tooth, and crab's eyes ?"  So far as we can
ascertain the facts in the case, the balance of evidence
is in favor of the old practice, and on all his own prin-
ciples,  we may insist on its adoption by Dr. Hooker.
  At page 56, our candid and logical critic intimates
that  " Hahnemann and his followers  assert  most
stoutly, that camphor removes the totality of symp-
toms called cholera."  Where, among the writings of
Hahnemann and his  followers, has Dr. Hooker ever
seen any assertion of this kind ?   Where can he point
to a single passage from which even an inference might
be drawn, that camphor alone covers and  removes all
the symptoms of cholera ? In what homoeopathic work
has he ever seen it advised, except for certain specified
symptoms,  which may  or  may  not  be  present in
cholera ?
  Here again, Dr. Hooker has either made a wilful
misrepresentation of the doctrines of Homoeopathy, or
he has never read the books he professes  to criticize.
Neither Hahnemann nor his disciples, have ever  pre-
scribed for the name of a disease, but always for symp-
toms alone.  Camphor produces in the healthy a few
symptoms which frequently, but not invariably, oc-
cur during  certain  stages  of cholera; and it is for
these symptoms alone  that it is a  specific remedy, and
not for cholera as a unit, or a " totality of symptoms."
Every  one who has ever looked into a homoeopathic
work on practice, is  perfectly aware that there are
quite a number of remedies not  less important th an 
             SIMILIA STMTLD3US CURANTUR.          55

camphor, in the treatment of cholera, and that these
remedies are always selected in accordance with the
symptoms present in any given case.   The most chari-
table construction,  therefore, which can be put upon
this part of the " examination of the doctrines of Ho-
moeopathy,"  would  be of ignorance  and stupidity on
the part of the  writer.
  Again, on page 56, Dr. Hooker remarks : " If simi-
lia similibus curantur be  the sole law under which
cures are effected, then we should be able to prove,
either that the vital powers are never competent to cure
disease  alone and unassisted by remedies, or, that they
do it in conformity with the homoeopathic law."
  By referring to a quotation from Hahnemann* on
page 112-13,  the reader will at once appreciate the so-
phistry  of this mode  of  reasoning.   Hahnemann
everywhere declares that there is always a reaction of
the vital principle  against all deleterious influences
acting upon the body, whether morbific or medicinal;
and that it is through the instrumentality of this  re-
action alone  that cures are effected.   It is true that
morbific influences are often so intense in their  ef-
fect  as to resist the  natural  curative reaction of the
vital force ; and it is in cases of this kind that new me-
dicinal  impressions must be created  in the place of
the  natural  disease, in order that the vital  powers
may react successfully and thus induce a cure.   If
the morbific action has  been slight this natural reac-
tion will be sufficient to restore the disordered tissues
to health ; but if the action be more intense it must
be changed  to a healthy  medicinal action before a
cure can take place.
                     * Organon. 
56          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
   After commenting upon the fallacy of trusting to hy-
 potheses and theories in founding a system of medical
 practice—a course which  has been pursued up to the
present moment by allopathists—the writer proceeds:
 " Not only is it untrue that similia similibus curantur
 is the sole law of therapeutics, but there is no proof
 that it  is even one among the many  laws of cure
 which are employed in the removal of disease."
   If  Dr. Hooker will examine the standard authors
 of Allopathy  he  will find that opium and  alcoholic
 stimulants,  when used to  excess by the healthy, pro-
 duce  delirium tremens; and if he continues his ex-
 amination he will see that these are the chief allopa-
thic remedies for the cure of that disease.   If Dr.
Hooker will swallow an allopathic dose of rhubarb in
health, he will experience, in a few hours,  a perturba-
tion in his bowels, attended by copious, loose evacua-
tions, with a sour smell,  etc.; if he consults his books
he will  observe that  rhubarb is highly commended
for diarrhoeas of this character.   If Dr. Hooker will
drug himself for some time with mercury  he will get
an ulcerated mouth  and throat, pains in his bones,
foul breath, augmented sensibility of  the body, etc.;
if he again consults his books he will see that mercury
is the only specific advised for the same group of symp-
toms which arise from syphilis. If Doctor Hooker will
experiment  upon himself with  30 or 40 grains  of
ipecacuanha, he will  probably  feel a nausea at the
stomach which will cause him to expel  the  article
with profound indignation ; his allopathic  authorities
will inform him that this drug,  in doses of one-sixth
of a grain, is one of the most important remedies to 
             ALLOPATHIC USE OF SIMILIA.          57

cure nausea and vomiting.  If Dr. Hooker will take
large and repeated doses of balsam copaibse in health
he will experience symptoms  quite similar to gonor-
rhoea : can  he ever have heard of this as an allo-
pathic remedy for that malady ?  Calomel, in repeated
allopathic  doses, causes, according to Pereira, dark
or greenish mucus, and bloody stools, with griping
and tenesmus : is there any medicine more frequently
used by old-school practitioners to cure  these symp-
toms than  calomel ?   Topical applications to  the
healthy  urethra of  a  strong solution of  nitrate of
silver give rise to symptoms which can scarcely be
distinguished from gonorrhoea : if Dr. Hooker con-
sults his " Eicord" he will find that this is the most
prominent  local remedy for the cure of that disorder.
This same  homoeopathic law of  similia applies with
full force to the topical treatment now so generally
adopted by allopathists for the cure of diseases of
the mucous membranes of the throat and bronchia,
and of the  utero-genital structures.
   We might  multiply such examples  ad  infinitum,
and prove, from the best  old-school authorities,  not
only that  these homoeopathic remedies produce in
health  symptoms similar to those which  they cure,
but that they give rise to pathological changes similar
to  those caused by the action of natural diseases.
Those who are familiar with  the physiological re-
searches of Flourens, Majendie, Brodie, Miiller and
Wilson, with reference to  the  specific operations of
opium, belladonna, mercury,   stramonium,  alcohol,
etc., upon  men and animals, will  at once recognise
the truth of these remarks. 
58         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
  From the few examples just enumerated, in which
our opponents employ the homoeopathic law of cure,
it is quite evident that they practically recognise its
truth.  Indeed, some allopathic writers, " taking the
bull by the horns," concede its importance as a thera-
peutic law, and claim it as a discovery of Hippocrates.
Not so, however, with the vindictive conservatives of
the school, who cannot, or rather will not, see any proofs
in science, except such as have the very mold of an-
tiquity about them.   These redoubtable oracles are
regular descendants of  the wise doctors who for so
long a period and with  such virulence ridiculed the
discoveries of Harvey and Jenner.
  In  one  part  of his essay Dr. Hooker  denounces
" provings" of all kinds,  and seeks to ridicule the mi-
nute directions given by Hahnemann  for conducting
them; and in referring  to them again,  on page 65,
he dilates upon the importance of minuteness and pre-
cision, and informs us how in his opinion they should
be managed.  It is amusing to observe the grave assu-
rance with which he writes of  the " loose reasoning"
and " loose analogies" of Hahnemann, who was so pre-
eminently a man  of facts, accurate in his data and
logical in his deductions, and  who has elicited the
highest encomiums from men  like  Hufeland  and
Forbes for his genius and metaphysical acumen.  It is
certainly  very  laughable to behold  a  man  of Dr.
Hooker's calibre seeking to pit himself against an in-
tellectual giant like Hahnemann; to see his few sense-
less phrases thrown at the great structure of Homoeo-
pathy, with about as much effect as a ragged urchin
would produce in storming Castle Garden with snow- 
         HOMCEOPATHIC MATERIA MEDICA.          59

balls; and then to suppose that his misrepresentations
and flimsy sophistries will have the least weight or ef-
fect with any one in the wide world, if we except those
allopathic physicians whose ideas and whose reason-
ings lie in their  pockets.   It is easy for an ape to
chatter  and make up faces  at a lion, or  for a cur
dog  to bark at the moon; and it is  not difficult for
small men to cry out continually, " quack,"  " im-
postor,"  " cheat," or to  sustain these demolishing
" arguments" by making mouths at the greatest and
best of mankind.
  When it is remembered that nearly  every drug con-
tained in the homoeopathic Materia Medica has been
repeatedly proved, in every variety of form and dose,
by  numerous  medical men in various parts  of the
world, with uniform results, and that the pathological
changes which have been  observed by allopathists in
those who have  been poisoned by these  drugs, fully
confirm the records of provings, no candid man can
doubt  their truthfulness  and  reliability.  Some of
the  provers  have sacrificed  health, comfort, and
years of time, in such hazardous  and laborious in-
vestigations,  which will ever stand recorded as  un-
dying monuments of  honor to these practical amelio-
rators  of human  danger and  suffering.  Indolent in-
dividuals who have themselves accomplished nothing
in the field of science, and who lack the energy or ta-
lent to appreciate the works of others, may look wise
and cry out " humbug and delusion!" but the great
public, who are guided by facts and results, notwith-
standing  all  mercenary  attempts  to mislead, will
receive the truth and be benefitted accordingly. 
CHAPTER IY.
       EXAMINATION OF DOCTRINES AND DOSES.

  In his fourth chapter,  Dr. Hooker again throws
himself into an extraordinary state of indignation re-
specting homoeopathic  doses.   He  is  exceedingly
provoked   that  homoeopaths  generally  recognise
different degrees of susceptibility in the sick organ-
ism, and that they have the obstinacy to select medi-
cines of such strength as  may  appear most appro-
priate to induce a cure speedily and safely.
  He observes, at page 72, " if medicines produce in
infinitesimal  doses  such  effects  as  are  attributed  to
them, and  if there  be such wide differences in the
susceptibilities of the sick,  it must be very important
to fix upon exactly the right dose in each case.   And
if an infinitesimal dose of a medicine, carefully pre-
pared, with just the  right  amount of agitation and
trituration, be appropriate to  a  case, then  it would
certainly be  very injurious to the  patient to give a
million of such doses at once."
  The shallowness  and  sophistry of this entire ex-
tract  renders a  refutation  almost superfluous,  as 
PHILOSOPHY OF DOSES.
61
will  be evident to all who reflect upon the operation
of morbific substances upon the human body.   Thus,
a single inhalation of the  atmosphere of a  room in-
fected with infinitesimal  atoms of smallpox or scarlet
fever contagion, is capable of giving rise to  either of
these maladies in their full force: according to Dr.
Hooker, "a million of such inhalations"  ought to
demolish the  unfortunate breathers!   A small parti-
cle of the virus of chancre, or of a  smallpox pustule,
placed upon a denuded surface,  produces the syphili-
tic ulcer or  the  variolous pustule,  with  all  its at-
tendant symptoms, but according to the " logical and
close-reasoning" Dr. Hooker, a  million  times this
amount of virus placed  upon an exposed part, ought
instantly to convert the strongest man into a " grease-
spot."   An  individual passing rapidly through a
marshy district infected with infinitesimal miasmatic
atoms,  becomes  affected  with  intermittent  fever:
 according to  the philosophical  critic, should this
 individual  by  chance  be detained  in this infected
 region for several weeks, he would get an intermittent
 fever of such awful intensity that he would evaporate
 into thin air by  spontaneous combustion,  or  else be
 converted into a human icicle from the severity of his
 chills!
   But it is unnecessary to multiply examples to show
 the absurdity of the modes of  reasoning adopted by
 our disingenuous opponents.  If they would devote but
 a tithe of that time to a candid  and honest investi-
 gation  of the great truths of the homoeopathic  doc-
 trine which they now expend in racking their brains
 to raise false issues  and to invent sophistries and cal- 
 62         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 umnies against it, they might perhaps meet with some
 degree of respect from the public, instead of that con-
 tempt which they now receive.
   If these gentlemen will really examine the doctrines
 of Homoeopathy, they will find among them the fol-
 lowing plain and incontrovertible precepts:
   1. The conservative forces of the organism are  al-
 ways brought to bear against all deleterious influen-
 ces acting upon the tissues.   If  the  disturbing cause
 be slight, nature  alone suffices to bring about a cura-
 tive reaction;  but when the morbific impression is so
 intense as to  resist the restorative efforts of nature,
 the homoeopath deems it necessary to call in the  aid
 of medicines.
   2. In his remedial measures the homoeopath recog-
 nises but one  law of cure, viz., similia  similibus cu-
 rantur.  But while he distinctly avows  this doctrine
 so  far as the  application of drugs is concerned, he
 nowhere asserts, as Dr. Hooker  falsely pretends, that
 the restorative efforts of nature are not alone sufficient,
 in many cases, to cure disease.
   3. The only real  cures ever  made  by drugs,  are
 accomplished  in  accordance with the homoeopathic
 law, whether made by physicians  of the old or the
 new school—by crude drugs or by dilutions.
   4. No two diseases, whether morbific or medicinal,
 can affect the same structure at the same time.
   5. The vital force  reacts  with much  less*^ power
 against impressions made by morbific  agents, than
 against those caused by specific medicinal influences.
Disorders, therefore, caused by  the  former,  tend  to
run on to the  disorganization of the affected parts, 
HOMOEOPATHIC TENETS.
63
while those produced by the latter, speedily result in
spontaneous recoveries.
  6. Homoeopathic  medicines  expend their  entire
forces upon those parts  alone which are actually  dis-
eased ; and it is for this reason that very minute doses
are adequate to produce those impressions which re-
sult in spontaneous curative reactions.
  7. A medicinal  action,  sufficient  to cure disease,
may be produced either by the tincture or by a  dilu-
tion of  the  appropriate  remedy,—our only object
being, to substitute a healthy drug  action  in the
place of a  morbid one.   Experience,  however, has
amply demonstrated, that  in a majority of instances
diluted drugs act  more mildly,  more  speedily  and
more safely in provoking curative reactions, than crude
medicines, the  first impressions  of which are more
active than is absolutely necessary for curing, although
not usually so active as to  give rise to serious results.
  Drugs never loose their  identity,  individuality, or
specific modes of action, whatever may be the  form
they are made  to  assume.  The word dose is a rela-
tive term, depending upon  the nature and form of the
drug, the sensitiveness of the patient, and the amount
of inflammation or nervous erethism present in  each
case.   If one grain of tartar emetic in solution, or
twenty grains of  ipecacuanha be introduced into a
vein of one of the extremities of a  healthy individual,
the specific effects of these drugs  upon the stomach
and skin, will speedily become manifest by vomiting
and perspiration.  If 3'otn of a grain of tartar emetic,
or one half a grain of ipecac, be injected into the
blood of the same individual their specific  actions 
64          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
will still be maintained, although neither vomiting nor
perspiration will be produced.  But if the stomach or
skin be affected with inflammation,  or  other morbid
sensibility, the last  named doses will  then manifest
their entire  specific  action in  the form of nausea,
vomiting, sweat,  etc.  If a given dose  of medicine
were administered  to one hundred individuals, it is
probable that no two of them would be affected with
precisely the same  symptoms ; although the charac-
teristic specific impressions of the drug would be pro-
duced in all, with different degrees of intensity.   It
is for this reason that homoeopathists, from the time
of Hahnemann to the present day, have employed, in
their provings of drugs, every variety of form and
dose, and numerous experimenters of different ages,
sexes,  temperaments, countries, and occupations, in
order that the most complete pathogeneses might be
obtained.
  The susceptibilities of the tissues of the organism
to medicinal impressions, are  proportionate to  the
amount of inflammation, irritation,  or nervous ere-
thism present in each case ; and as no two maladies
or groups of symptoms ever  correspond precisely in
all respects, it follows that a great variety of strengths
may be  employed  with advantage in our remedial
applications.
  10. In regard to doses, the homoeopath has but one
object  in view, viz., the selection of that strength or
attenuation  which  will  most  safely, mildly  and
speedily cure the disease.  As this is purely a matter
of experience and of facts, and not at  all  connected
with the homoeopathic theory of  cure,  its entire 
THE TWO SCHOOLS CONTRASTED.         65
reasonableness  must  commend  itself to  the  judg-
ments of candid men.
  Let  us now briefly contrast  these homoeopathic
precepts with  those  generally adopted by our Allo-
pathic  opponents in the treatment of disease, and see
on which side  reason and truth lie.
  Homoeopathy addresses her remedies to those parts
alone which are actually diseased : Allopathy, in her
remedial measures,  operates upon parts which  are
healthy.
  Homoeopathy seeks to cure disease with as little
medicine as possible, in order that the organism shall
not suffer from serious medicinal diseases: Allopathy
employs  enormous quantities of poisonous drugs  for
the express purpose of creating  artificial diseases in
healthy parts.
  Homoeopathy prescribes only for  symptoms which
really  exist: Allopathy prescribes for various groups
of symptoms under the same general name.
  Homoeopathy employs only those medicines which
have been carefully and repeatedly proved upon the
healthy :  Allopathy prescribes her violent drugs in
accordance  with  the  traditions which  have been
handed down  from the sorcerers, the alchemists, and
the humoral pathologists of old.
  Homoeopathy recognises only  a single law of cure,
and upon this law her whole system is founded: Al-
lopathy announces  numerous  and contradictory laws
both of  theory and practice,  but in her  vague, and
empirical routine, adopts none of them.
  Finally, Homoeopathy relies solely upon the suc-
cessful cures she accomplishes, for her prosperity and 
^Q         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

advancement: Allopathy, with no sound arguments to
sustain  her, haunted  by the ghosts of innumerable
victims  which she has sent out of the world prema-
turely, and execrated by thousands of haggard living
beings whose  constitutions have been ruined by her
destructive  poisons, relies upon misrepresentations,
calumnies, collegiate  persecutions, and impotent de-
nunciations, to arrest the progress of her increasingly
powerful rival, and to retain the small influence  she
still maintains over a portion of the lower classes.
   After commenting at considerable length upon the
wide range of doses employed by the homoeopath, and
endeavoring  to similate the laws which govern  the
operations of imponderable  agents with those which
pertain  to crude substances, Dr. Hooker arrives at the
sage conclusion that " the range of doses in Allopathy
is  somewhat smaller  than the range of doses in ho-
moeopathic practice."
   We freely concede the truth of this observation,
and shall endeavor to adduce some reasons for this  dif-
ference  in " ranges."
   We take it for granted that every man of common
sense acknowledges the vast powers of imponderable
agents, whether of vegetable, animal, or mineral ori-
gin. We suppose it will also  be conceded, that  the
laws which govern the actions of these agents, whether
operating chemically, morbifically, or medicinally, are
as yet entirely unknown, although ample  observation
has demonstrated that they are as strongly pronounced
as those which we observe in the reactions of ponder-
able substances.
  The absurdity  and sophistry, therefore, of entering 
LARGE  AND SMALL  DOSES.
67
into arithmetical calculations, and of alluding to dif-
ferences in weight and  bulk, when treating upon im-
ponderable substances of all descriptions, will be ap-
parent to the commonest intellect.  We  should consi-
der the man an idiot who would be guilty of such folly
when writing or speaking of contagious or epidemic
substances,  malaria,  or  the  molecules  of  electricity,
caloric, and air; and he would certainly  be no less
foolish  who would attempt to bring  his  arithmetic  or
his chemistry to bear upon other matters in this kind.
   If, then, experience has taught the homoeopathist
that a wide range of imponderable attenuations may
be used with advantage in his various  therapeutical
measures, what sensible man will have  the presump-
tion to  gainsay the principle's  utility ?   Because the
crude doses of Allopathy,  which act mechanically,
chemically, or as corrosives, upon the delicate  struc-
tures of the body, absolutely require to  be limited  in
range, does it follow that the subtile and imponderable
doses of Homoeopathy should be subjected to similar
regulations ?
   By sad experience, the old  school physician finds
that he cannot give  more than 30 or 40  grains of qui-
nine, daily,  for several successive days, without killing
his patient.   If he prescribes only three or  four grains
a  day, he does not often cure, but establishes a new
disease in the liver, which is superadded to that he at-
tempts  to cure.  The process in this case is analogous
to that adopted in France,  in stuffing geese, so that
their livers may become enlarged sufficiently to make
pate defoi gras.  His range of doses is thus necessa-
rily limited, for it would be beneath his dignity to use
                         4 
 68         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 quinine in smaller doses than one grain, and he knows
 it is pretty certain to kill  if he exceeds thirty grains.
 It would perhaps afford  him infinite pleasure if he
 could  cram his patient  with the entire contents of
 an apothecary's  shop, but  when he contemplates
 such a course, a skeleton flits before him, and he de-
 sists.
   In his use of calomel, the allopathist allows himself
 more freedom.  In New England,  doses as small as
 one-tenth of a grain are employed, and ten  grains are
 considered a  full dose; but  at the South and West,
 calomel is given in doses of sixty and seventy grains,
 and often repeated, until five and six hundred grains
have been taken,  or  until the patient is destroyed.
This is a pretty wide range, considering the nature of
the drug; and the  discrepancy  in  the doses of the
northern and  southern allopathists, is somewhat no-
table ;  but the argument  of the South is, that these
large doses are not so apt to get  into the blood as the
smaller doses of the North, and that therefore they are
less annoyed with those dreadful cases of necroses of
the bones, mercurial palsy, rheumatism, nodes, ulcer-
 ation, gangrene,  and sloughing  of the gums, mouth,
 and throat, loss of teeth, mercurial erethism, mercurial
 dysentery, etc., than are their northern brethren.
  The allopathic range then,  in  the case of calomel,
is from one-tenth of a grain to sixty or seventy grains.
He cannot descend lower than the sixteenth of a grain,
because it would indicate a leaning towards homoeo-
pathic  doses, which would ill become him; and he
 cannot advance in the other direction  for fear of mur-
 dering his patient.  Professional expediency on the 
CRUDE AND ATTENUATED DRUGS.         69
one hand, and  necessity on the other, again govern
him.
  With respect to other medicines, he is restrained by
the same causes.  On one side he beholds the  small
doses of Homoeopathy, and his self-conceit, his pride,
and his ignorant dislike  of  everything pertaining to
the new system, deter him from making any innova-
tions in this direction.  On the other hand, the strin-
gent laws against direct murder and manslaughter,
serve  to keep him just within certain prescribed
bounds.
   On page 76, we find this statement: " If both ordi-
nary doses and infinitesimal ones  cure disease, they
must obviously do it in different ways.   The action
of the  potentized infinitesimal upon the system must
be regulated by different principles  from those which
govern the action of the same article in its crude form."
  The absurdity of the assertion will at  once be  ap-
parent, on the examination of a single  substance, as
mercury, for example.  This mineral in any  of its
ordinary crude forms, and in  ordinary doses, causes
salivation,  foetid breath, pains in the bones, etc.; if
it becomes  diffused through the atmosphere in the
form of infinitesimal atoms, and these are taken into
the blood through  the lungs, the same phenomena as
in the first instance present themselves—salivation,
foetid breath, etc.
  Drugs,  as we have before remarked, never lose
their identity or specific modes of operation upon  the
human tissues.  By effecting changes in the forms of
drugs, we often develop latent properties, and thus
add much to their curative spheres ; but during this 
 70          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 process they lose nothing of their individuality, or of
 their  specific  therapeutical properties.  Symptoms,
 therefore, derived from ordinary doses of crude medi-
 cines,  are as  characteristic of their specific actions
 upon the organism, as  are  those produced by infini-
 tesimal doses of the same substances.
   It is for this reason that every article  in the  ho-
 moeopathic  Materia  Medica  has  been  repeatedly
 proved in both its  crude  and attenuated forms,  and
 doses of almost every variety.
   The  only attempt at proof which Dr. Hooker has
 made to sustain the last quotation,  is as follows :  If
 both a rope,  and an invisible filament of one, be sup-
 posed to raise a heavy weight, they must do it, accord-
 ing  to  Dr. Hooker, on  different principles;  and,
 therefore,  crude  doses  and  infinitesimal ones must
 cure diseases on different  principles.  This syllogism
 is about as logical and sensible  as the one that, " Man
 is an animal and a horse is an animal—therefore a
 man is a horse."
   The idea of likening the  laws  which govern the
 subtile  operations of the  living body, and the medi-
 cines acting upon it under the various  circumstances
 of health  and disease,  to  those which  preside  over
 inanimate matter, in lifting a  weight  with  a rope,
must have been borrowed from that notable allopathist
 of the  last century, who invented  the " powders of
 bull's tail, man's skull and goat's blood," as sovereign
remedies  in  pleurisy.   We are  daily expecting
another essay from  Dr. Hooker denouncing the vis
medicatrix naturce as a fallacy and humbug,  because
he cannot tie it  to a heavy weight, and raise it into 
ANATOMY, PHYSIOLOGY AND PATHOLOGY.     71
 the air, or " trot it out" and make it perform accord-
 ing to his allopathic notions.
   Again, at page 79, Dr. Hooker remarks : " They
 (the homoeopathists) as a body wholly neglect the study
 of Anatomy, Physiology,  and  Pathology.  These
 have no place in the science of their therapeutics."
   Of course  Dr. Hooker knew, when he penned this
 calumny, that he was uttering a very absurd as well as
 wicked falsehood.   On  the very pages of most of the
 homoeopathic authorities  he professes  to  have exa-
 mined, " Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology" are
 constantly treated  of, and are always  alluded to as
 important auxiliaries in elucidating the homoeopathic
 theory and practice.  Dr. Hooker knew that one of
 the most eminent homoeopathic physicians in Europe,
 Professor Henderson, actually occupied the chair of
 Pathology in the  University of  Edinburgh, at the
 time he made this infamous assertion.  In the two
 homoeopathic medical  colleges of this country,  at
 Philadelphia and Cleveland,  "Anatomy, Physiology,
 and Pathology"  are as thoroughly taught and  are
 deemed as important to the student, as they are in
 allopathic colleges, and portions of the homoeopathic
 journals from which he quotes are devoted to these
 very subjects;  but in the face of all these palpable
 facts, Dr. Hooker  has the assurance to publish such
 a libel!
  In order to put the honesty of Dr. Hooker to the test,
we hereby offer to stake $1000, for the benefit of the
poor of New York, on the result  of an examination
of the  following proposition.  We  will designate four,
six, or  more,  if desired, of the very youngest homoeo- 
 72          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 pathic physicians in New York city, and display the
 knowledge  of any one of them against that  of Dr.
 Hooker, in  the above named branches—the examina-
 tions to be made, and the verdict to be rendered, by
 any three competent  and impartial scholars.  Let us
 see if the gentleman is  as bold in testing facts as he
 is in making this sort of assertions. We do not believe
 that a single homoeopathic  physician can  be  found,
 either in this country or in Europe, who does not esteem
 a knowledge of Anatomy, Physiology, and Pathology,
 not  merely important, but  absolutely essential  to  a
 proper appreciation and practice of his profession.
   In his pathological investigations, the homoeopathist
 does not indeed place much reliance upon the autopsi-
 cal appearances presented  by those who have  died
 under allopathic treatment, on account of the difficulty
 of distinguishing between the changes  which have
 arisen from  the natural disease, and those which have
 been caused by the poisonous drugs employed  during
 the treatment.  In a majority of the cases  of death
 under allopathic management, it  is always  a  matter
 of much difficulty to  determine whether the disease,
 or the treatment of it, has contributed  most towards
 the  fatal  issue; and it  is on this account  that  the
 pathology of Allopathy is so defective and unworthy
 of confidence.  But  in  all cases where individuals
 have died from natural disease alone,  or from poison-
 ous  doses of drugs, homoeopathists  have uniformly
 placed a high estimate upon pathological investiga-
 tions.
  The few last pages  of Chapter IY. are made up of
•a series of misstatements, and an absurd exhibition of 
IDENTITY OF DRUGS.
73
special pleading respecting what are impudently styled
the " inconsistencies" of homoeopathic provings  with
crude and attenuated medicines, doses, etc.
  It is amusing  to witness the  flippancy with which
the writer seeks  to pervert the ideas of Hahnemann
and his followers, by  inventing  his own data, and
then arguing against Homoeopathy on the strength
of the positions  which he  falsely attributes to  Hah-
nemann.  For example,  he everywhere implies that
according to the homoeopathic doctrine,  drugs lose
their identity, and become so altered in all respects
by the process of attenuation, that  entirely new and
opposite properties are developed  in them, so that
their modes of action must be directly the reverse oi
what they were in the crude state !  Thus, at page 89,
we find the following: " They (homoeopathists) record
in their collections of provings, indiscriminately, symp-
toms occurring under the use  of both crude drugs and
dynamized  infinitesimals; though they assert that
the latter act upon  the system by virtue  of a new
power given  to them in their preparation, and of
course cannot produce effects  analogous to those of
the former."
   To prove the utter mendacity of the last part of this
quotation,  we copy this statement from page 136 of
Hahnemann's Organon:  " It is necessary to know the
full extent of the power by virtue of which each  medi-
cine excites disease. In other terms,  it is requisite
that all the morbid symptoms and  changes of the
health which their action individually  is  capable of
producing in the economy shall  have been observed, as
closely as possible, before any one can hope to be able 
 74         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 to find or select  from among  them  homoeopathic
 remedies that are appropriate to the greater  number
 of natural diseases."
   In no work on Homoeopathy has Dr. Hooker ever
 seen a single observation  from which it could be in-
 ferred that the effects  of crude and attenuated drugs
 upon  the organism,  are  not analogous.   He  has
 everywhere seen, that by the process  of attenuation,
 latent properties of drugs become developed, in such
 a manner that their entire specific effects may become
 manifest  upon the human body; but he has never
 seen it stated that drugs  lose their individuality and
 specific  kind of action  under any circumstances, or
 that new and opposite properties are communicated to
 them by the process of attenuation.
   " The entire curative virtues of medicines  depend
 solely upon the power they have of modifying the
 state  of health." (Organon.)  It matters not whether
 this " modification  of the state of health" be pro-
 duced by  a  large  or  small  dose, or by a crude or
 attenuated medicine; it is the  correspondence  of the
 primitive symptoms caused by the drug, with those
 of  the  natural  disease,  to which  the homoeopath
 looks in the selection of his remedy.  This is his
 great therapeutical law, and this his chief guide in the
 treatment of diseases.
  The homoeopathic Materia Medica  is made up of
 primitive symptoms, derived from very numerous ex-
 periments made by men of undoubted  integrity, with
 both crude and attenuated medicines.   In conducting
these  experiments the  utmost regularity, accuracy,
 and care have always been observed, and those symp- 
              SCALE  OF ATTENUATIONS.            75

toms only retained which have  repeatedly and uni-
formly been experienced by different experimenters,
in different countries, at  different periods, and under
a great variety of circumstances.   Nearly all of these
provings have likewise been corroborated by cases of
accidental poisonings reported by our opponents, and
by pathological facts.  What more than this can be
reasonably required  to substantiate  the reality  and
the perfect accuracy of the facts  under consideration.
   Throughout the whole of his  essay the writer is
constantly working  himself into  a  passion, because
Hahnemann and  his disciples, in carrying out their
therapeutical law to its full and legitimate extent, have
deemed it proper  to make use of medicines of a great
variety of strengths,  from the mother tinctures up to
very high dilutions.  In commenting upon this subject,
Dr.  Hooker involves himself in repeated contradic-
tions ; for while he concedes that Hahnemann, in the
first instance, practised  in accordance with similia
with ordinary doses  of crude medicines,  he  is con-
stantly pretending that only infinitesimal doses are
really homoeopathic,  and  in accordance  with  the
doctrines  of Hahnemann.  Why did the author of
Homoeopathy direct  the  preparation of a variety of
strengths  of drugs, from the strongest tinctures up to
the thirtieth dilutions, and point out examples in
which these different preparations should be employed,
unless he  considered this  scale of strengths harmoni-
ous  with  his great  law of  cure, and of practical
utility?  Why has he so repeatedly inculcated the
importance of selecting remedies  of such strengths as
shall be most appropriate in each case,  in  order that
                       4* 
76          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
the curative reactions may be no more violent than
necessary to restore the disordered parts ?  We reply,
for the almost universally conceded reason that the
tissues of the human organism, during disease, are sub-
ject to a very great variety of degrees of susceptibility
to medicinal impressions.  Dr. Hooker may affect to
despise this self-evident fact, both in theory and prac-
tice, and continue to dose his patients indiscriminately,
as heretofore, with scruple doses of calomel and jalap,
etc., but Heaven help the delicate  human structures
thus empirically assailed.
  Allusion is  made at page 90, and in other places,
to the employment of " allopathic doses" of tincture
of camphor in cholera, by Hahnemann  and his fol-
lowers.  This, like most of the other assertions in the
book, is  simply false.   Dr.  Hooker knows  that he
cannot point to a single homoeopathic writer who has
ever advised camphor or any other medicine in " al-
lopathic doses."  Tincture of camphor  has been pre-
scribed in cholera  by homoeopathists, in doses of one,
and possibly two drops, but never in the usual allo-
pathic doses of fifty or sixty  drops.   In all the in-
stances, therefore,  where he has spoken of the use of
" allopathic doses," in  disease, by homoeopathic phy-
sicians, the  reader may rest assured that he has pub-
lished what he knew, while writing it, to be untrue.
We are aware that allopathists have been forced, by
the great influence of Homoeopathy upon the  public
mind, and by their  lack of confidence in their sys-
tem, to diminish their  doses to a very great extent,
but this significant fact does not justify the calumny
to which we have just referred.  Our amiable  oppo- 
DISCOVERERS  LN SCIENCE.
77
nents would doubtless be very glad to restrict Homoe-
opathy, by defining what particular dilution shall  be
exclusively adopted ; and also to appropriate, as many
of them have already attempted to do,  our therapeu-
tical  law, similia similibus curantur.  But  when
future generations shall look back upon  the records of
those who have made  the most important discoveries
in medical science, the name of Samuel Hahnemann
will stand foremost in the  list, while those who now
asperse him and his doctrines will be among jests and
wonders that are half forgotten. 
CHAPTER  Y.
    THE INCONSISTENCIES OF ALLOPATHY AND  HER
                   ADVOCATES.

  In chapter Y. of the " evidences," it is asserted that
all cures which take place under homoeopathic  treat-
ment are attributable  to the kindly operations of the
vis medicatrix natures, and that the numerous deaths
which  occur under  allopathic  treatment must be
placed to the account of " bad Allopathy."
  From these luminous " evidences,"  the reader  is
left to infer that Homoeopathy has only been tested in
a " few families," and in a  few " chronic cases,"—
that its advocates are quacks,  fools, liars, artful, disho-
nest, impudent, altogether destitute of judgment.  To
support these astounding " evidences" the writer has
advanced two most noticeable confirmations, viz.: 1st,
his own assertion; and, 2d, a wonderful medicine box
which was picked up in  New-York  many years ago,
containing calomel, morphine, tartar emetic, &c, with
a number of homoeopathic phials containing pellets !
  These potent" evidences" are so ably enforced by the
constant use of the classical epithets above alluded to, 
BOX WITH TWO SIDES.
79
and by such assumptions of wisdom and talent on the
part of the author, that a  reply seems to be  almost
out of the question.  What can be said, when physi-
cians of such disinterested benevolence, and such utter
disregard of their own interests as Dr. Hooker  and
his "judicious allopathists," choose to constitute them-
selves judges, and assume to themselves all the talent,
all the acquirements, all the honesty, and all the discre-
tion, in medicine, and to denounce all  other men and
all other systems ?  Does it not become all the rest of
the world—who cannot appreciate facts of a medical
nature,  who are  "loose reasoners," " deluded,"  etc.,
etc.,—to bow in  humble submission to the imposing
dictum, and to  the  disinterested dictation  of these
medical oracles ?
   With  respect to the " box," it has two sides to it,
one of which only has been displayed by Dr. Hooker.
We shall expose its other side.  It is a fact which is
perfectly well  known, that many allopathic practi-
tioners  are in the constant habit of using homoeopa-
thic medicines by stealth,  and of giving the credit of
the  cures  thus made  to Allopathy. The sale of ho-
moeopathic medicines to  allopathic physicians has
been for a number of years past a source of no incon-
siderable income to the homoeopathic pharmacies, and
we  are  credibly informed  that  this traffic is rapidly
increasing. Now, is it strange that these allopathists,
who thus  secretly  employ our remedies, should  con-
tinue to retain among their newly acquired treasures,
a few of their stereotyped drugs, like calomel,  mor-
phine,   and tartar emetic?   The allopath to whom
this  mysterious "box" probably  belonged,  might 
80
HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
 have been floating about in the dusky mazes of eclec-
 ticism, delirious, and frightened hither and thither by
 the delusive phantoms of ancient Allopathy, but yet
 possessing an instinctive consciousness of the truth of
 Homoeopathy, when he dropped his prize.
   We know that it would have been a very easy mat-
 ter, and quite in character, for some of our unscrupu-
 lous opponents  to have  prepared a box like the one
 referred to, and to  have dropped it, designedly, in
 order to manufacture  from the circumstance "argu-
 ments" and " evidences" against our system, but upon
 the whole, our charity inclines us to adopt  the first
 hypothesis as the most probable one.
   On page 100, we  find  a phenomenon in  medical
 literature, in the form of a definition of modern Allo-
pathy.  In its line  it  is remarkably unique, and il-
 lustrates most  forcibly the definiteness, uniformity,
 precision, clearness,  and  beautiful  simplicity of the
 " regular"  old-school  system.   We quote: " But
 what is Allopathy ?  Is it one thing—one mode—one
 system ?  By no means.  This term is applied to  all
 kinds of practice pursued by  all  regular physicians.
 It is a very extended, and a  very diversified combi-
 nation.   It includes much that  is good, and  much
 that is bad.  And the practitioners of this Allopathy
 are,  some of them, bad practitioners."
   Let us illustrate  this  subject, as defined by Dr.
 Hooker.  That  Allopathy is  a mere hotch-potch of
 vague ideas, of  the  most diverse and contradictory
 characters,  derived  empirically from   all sorts  of
 sources, and, as a consequence,  possessing  nothing
 definite or certain either in  theory  or  practice, we 
DEFINITION OF ALLOPATHY.
81
have for a long time been fully aware ; but we con-
fess we were not prepared to see the crumbling skele-
ton exposed to the gaze of the world by an allopathist.
From its extraordinary comprehensiveness, it is emi-
nently  worthy  of the paternity of the prescription
alluded to in another part of this essay, containing
100  different and  contradictory ingredients.  With
such a " very extended and diversified  combination of
modes  of practice," all  tastes can  surely be suited,
from the blood-letting Sangrado, and the heroic dispen-
ser of calomel and opium, to the mincing gum-water
expectant, and the  scientific prescriber of " powders
of bull's tail, boar's tooth, and man's skull,"  or the
" spirit and volatile salt of  vipers, and man's blood."
Indeed, so  "very extensive and diversified" is  this
" combination  which  constitutes  Allopathy," that
within  the  last few years, the homoeopathic law of
cure  has  been added  to the list, with many of its
principal  remedies, and its  drop doses!  It  is true
that  these  men of "very  extended and  diversified
combinations " consider  it beneath their propriety to
learn the  actual  nature  of  homoeopathic drugs,  and
their   applicability  in  disease,  but  prefer  to  em-
ploy  them  empirically,  as  the gambler  throws   his
dice,  trusting to " luck and chance"  for the result.
With these " diversified combinations "  allopathists
can pander  to the fancies of " all kinds of men and
the advocates of all kinds of systems."
  The  attempted introduction of the  homoeopathic
law,  with  its  remedies and doses  into  Allopathy,
affords  an  excellent illustration of the consistency,
honesty, and disinterestedness of the practitioners of 
82
HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
the  old school.  Fifty years  ago this doctrine of
similia similibus curantur, and such medicines as aco-
nite for fevers, belladonna for scarlatina, arnica for me-
chanical injuries, etc., encountered the ridicule and
bitter opposition of the entire body of our opponents,
and the very idea of prescribing any of these tinctures
in single drop doses was scouted as especially absurd
and unscientific.   But modern Allopathy, with her
bony arms  extended wide,  is attempting  to  grasp
these heresies in her slimy and deadly embrace, like
a  false fiend  of  darkness  in pursuit  of beauty and
truth.  The genius of knowledge, however, is destined
to triumph over the demons of error and bigotry, and
truth, in the contest before us, will prevail.
   We  could cite  numerous examples  to demonstrate
the " very extended, and  very diversified combina-
tions " of principles by which different practitioners
of the  old school are guided in the treatment of dis-
ease ; but we shall  confine ourselves  to a brief de-
scription of a case of recent occurrence in this city,
as a fair sample  of the  practical  operation of the
" different modes, systems, and  kinds of practice"
now so much in vogue with the " regular physicians."
We allude to the  case of the late J. Kearney Rodgers,
M. D.
  For  the facts  in the case, we  are indebted  to  a
pamphlet by Alexander E. Hosack, M. D., of  New-
York, with the following title :  " History of the case
of the late John Kearney Rodgers, M. D., addressed
to the profession."  (C. S. Francis & Co., 282 Broad-
way, New-York.)
  According to the records of Dr. Hosack, it appears 
CASE OF DR. RODGERS.
83
that Dr. Rodgers was taken ill on the 9th of October,
1851, with a  slight chill,  nausea, uneasiness in the
right side, and slight pain in the bowels.
  On Saturday, the 11th,  Dr. Dubois  called in and
prescribed a Seidlitz powder.
  On Sunday, the 12th, Dr. Wilkes was consulted,
and,  regarding the disease " functional  disorder  of
the liver," administered two pills  of blue mass,  to
be followed by a Seidlitz powder.
  On the 13th and  14th, Dr. Hosack attended and
found him free from fever,  with  a white, slightly
coated  tongue with a dingy hue at the base,  pain
in the  bowels, slight uneasiness  in the  hypochon-
driac region, full  and slightly  accelerated, compres-
sible  pulse.   " Regarding these  symptoms as  in-
dicative of a  biliary congestion" Dr. H.  "". is.ed an
emetic or ten grains of calomel, which, L^vvever, were
declined by the patient.  On the evening of this day
Dr. Dubois was  called in consultation  with Dr. Ho-
sack, and pronounced the symptoms " bilious remit-
tent fever."
  On Wednesday, the  15th, these two  "regular"
gentlemen again  met in consultation, one  of  them
naming the  symptoms  " congestion of the liver,"
and the other  calling them " bilious remittent fever."
Here we  have a  commencement of the  " extended
and diversified combination" of practical Allopathy.
  Dr. Delafield was added to  the consultation  on
Friday  evening, Oct.  17th, and declaring the disease
to be "bilious remittent fever,"advised a  disconti-
nuance  of the mercurial pills  which had been pre-
scribed  by Dr. Hosack on the 15th,  and a substitution 
84          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

of the " usual febrifuge medicines."  Here again we
have a beautiful practical illustration of the " diversi-
fied combination" system of Allopathy.   According
to one gentleman's " system" or " mode"  of practice,
the patient had  a liver complaint, and  required calo-
mel :  according to the system of the other gentleman,
the patient  was  affected  with  " bilious  remittent
fever," and required the " usual febrifuge medicines."
If still another " regular" had been added to the con-
sultation he would also have taken  advantage of the
" very extended and very diversified combination of
systems  which constitute  Allopathy," and  named
the symptoms  typhoid fever,  for which  opium  and
bark would  have  been appropriate.  Another, who
had made diseases of the kidneys a  speciality would
have  termed it nephritis, and prescribed bleeding,
leeching, nitrate of potash, &c.  Another, from his
veneration of his illustrions predecessors, might have
attributed the symptoms to a" derangement of the
humors," and ordered " powders of  bull's tail, crab's
eyes,  and goat's blood, or volatile spirit  and salt of
vipers, and man's blood."  Another, if he had recently
returned  from Paris, would have called the malady a
gastro-enterite,  and insisted on the leeching and gum-
water " mode."
  These are only a few of the " very diversified com-
binations" which might be adduced to illustrate the
certainty and precision of Allopathy. As we advance
with the  case under consideration it  will be observed
that  Homoeopathy  has not escaped,  but has been
mixed up in admirable confusion with the " combi-
nation." 
CASE OF DR. RODGERS.
85
  From the 17th to the 22d of October the symptoms
were about as follows : " General restlessness, imper-
fect sleep, depression of spirits, anxious countenance,
slight fever,  increased sallowness, accelerated pulse,
and at times moderate perspiration."  During this en-
tire period the " usual febrifuge medicines" were em-
ployed, and it was not until frequent rigors set in, fol-
lowed by  profuse perspirations,  that this "kind of
practice"  was  abandoned  and  "another  mode"
adopted,  consisting of  " quinine in ten and five
grain  doses, at  intervals of  several hours, which
was continued for several successive  days.  The  posi-
tive effect of quinine was in due time  made  mani-
fest by ringing in the  ears  and  almost total deaf-
ness ! "
   The " very extended, and very diversified combina-
tion" practice stands out again most prominently.  But
why the attention of these gentlemen  should  have
been directed to the ears of their patient, we cannot
imagine.  Why  the auditory  structures should  be
treated to cure a " bilious fever," must puzzle all but
 such " close reasoning" prodigies, as the author of the
 " Evidences."
   According to Dr. Delafield, however, this particular
 " combination," or " mode," or " system," was produc-
 tive of no benefit, as the patient continued to get worse.
 And the learned doctor now ascertained "that there was
 something in the case that he could  not understand !"
 There was no difficulty in understanding the " ringing
 in the ears," and the " almost total deafness," and if the
 gentleman had consulted a homoeopathic Materia Me-
 dica,  and examined the proving of  quinine, he would 
86         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
 have had no difficulty in comprehending most of the
 other symptoms of the case.  Were an individual to ad-
 minister to a stout mastiff, ten grains of quinine every
 few hours, for six days in succession, and the act could
 be proved against him, he  would be  indicted and
 punished for wanton cruelty to animals.  But dog doc-
 tors are not "regular," they have no "very extended
 and very diversified combinations," and they  cannot
 trace their origin beyond the dark ages—therefore,
 dog and horse doctors should be  held responsible for
 their poisonings.
   At this stage of the case, it was deemed expedient
 to try a new " mode," a new "system,"  a new "com-
 bination," and accordingly, " tincture of aconite was
 prescribed in doses of one drop each," in alternation
 with large doses of aromatic sulphuric acid.  The acid
 was given for the avowed " purpose of  arresting the
 excessive sweats," but no reason was ascribed for the
 employment of homoeopathic doses of a homoeopathic
 remedy.   The legitimate inference,  therefore, is, that
 aconite was brought into requisition on account of its
 general  use in fevers, by homoeopathic practitioners.
 This must  be  true, because, in no allopathic work is
 this medicine advised as a remedy in " bilious remit-
tent," or other fever.  We are aware that this is only
 carrying out the " diversified combinations" so naively
 described by Dr. Hooker in his  definition of Allopa-
thy, and it is probable  that the remedy would have
proved successful, if the disease  had really been a
" bilious  remittent fever."   But in justice to Homoeo-
pathy, we are compelled to declare, that there was not
a single symptom from the commencement to the ter- 
               CASE OF DR. RODGERS.             87

mination of the case of Dr. Rodgers, for which aco-
nite was indicated, therefore its inefficiency, and  the
propriety of ranking it with the empirical remedies
which were so freely employed in the case.   Respect-
ing the allopathic dose  of tincture of aconite, their
most  reputable  pharmacopoeias place  it  at  fifteen
drops,  to  be  gradually increased  as  circumstances
require.  We leave the reader to draw his own infer-
ence in the matter.
  October  24th, 25th, 26th, 27th, and 28th, passed by
without any amendment of the symptoms, the patient
having taken, during this period, occasional doses of
quinine and purgative pills.
  The  drop closes of aconite were resumed again on
the 29th, and continued, witU elixir vitriol, quinine,
laudanum,   nitro-muriatic   acid,  and   effervescent
draughts, up to November  5, when  the aconite  was
discontinued,  and  the  unfortunate  gentleman gra-
dually sunk into death under  the use of quinine,
laudanum, and brandy and water.
  According to Dr. Hosack's " system" of Allopathy,
the malady was a liver  complaint, for which emetics
and calomel were  the specific  remedies ;  and  this
physician is quite satisfied, that  if his mode of prac-
tice had been pursued, the patient would have re-
covered. According to the Allopathy of Dr.  Delafield,
the disease was " bilious remittent fever," for the cure
of which  a "very  extended, and very diversified
combination" of remedies was necessary, like febri-
fuge medicines and  quinine in ten grain doses;  aro-
matic sulphuric  acid in large doses, and tincture of
aconite in single drop doses; cathartic pills and lauda- 
88          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

num in teaspoonful doses; effervescent draughts and
elixir of vitriol.
  What particular "system" or " combination" of Al-
lopathy the other medical  gentlemen would  have
adopted if they had  been allowed to exercise their
own unprompted judgments in the case, we cannot
imagine,  but there  is  every reason to suppose that
they would not have confined themselves  to  " one
thing—one mode—one  system," but that " all  kinds
of practice," and the  most " diversified combinations"
would have been called into requisition.
  It may  be  urged that  homoeopathic  physicians
might  also have mistaken this case, and we concede
the  validity of the argument, if it is merely intended
to apply to the classification of the symptoms under
some particular name.   But the homoeopathist  never
prescribes for  groups of symptoms as  a ,unit.  He
never regards the name which may be given to  a dis-
ease, in the selection  of his remedy, but each indivi-
dual phenomenon connected with the case commands
his  special attention,  and is  taken into consideration
in making up his prescription.   It is in no degree  of
consequence to him whether the disease is designated
by this or that name; he looks only at symptoms, and
endeavors to combat them as  they arise, by appro-
priate medicines.
  Not so, however, with the allopathist.  His venerated
medical fathers have taught him  that every malady
and every group of symptoms  must have some  parti-
cular name, and that his remedial measures must be
directed  with  reference  to  this name,  and not  to
symptoms.   His first care, therefore, is to ascertain 
GOOD AND BAD ALLOPATHY.
89
what  especial appellation best fits his case, and then
to search his authorities for the appropriate remedies.
Should the symptoms not be fully developed,  and he
gives  them a wrong name, as is so often the case, the
most fearful practical results often ensue.
  Dr. Hooker speaks of " good Allopathy" and " bad
Allopathy," of " judicious allopathists and injudicious
allopathists."  Now as this gentleman has constituted
himself judge and arbiter of everything pertaining to
medical science, will he inform the world who, of all
the eminent  physicians who attended Dr. Rodgers,
were judicious and who injudicious, and which of the
" modes" suggested was " bad Allopathy" and which
" good Allopathy" ?  As human life is of some conse-
quence, and as Allopathy consists of so many different
" things, modes, systems, combinations, and kinds of
practice," and as eminent physicians constantly differ
so widely in the  diagnosis and treatment of disease,
will the medical dictator  point  out some way of dis-
tinguishing " judicious Allopathy" from " bad Allopa-
thy ?"   Will he  tell  us in what cases  " powders of
bull's tail, and volatile salt of vipers" should be given
—when drop doses of tincture  of aconite should be
prescribed—when the gums, mouth and throat should
be made to mortify and slough  from mercury—when
" ringing in the ears and almost total deafness" should
be produced by quinine—in what stage  of bilious fe-
ver laudanum should  be administered  in teaspoonful
 doses—whether  opium and brandy, or venesection,
 calomel and antimony, should be relied on in typhus
 fevers—whether single drop doses of the tinctures of
 camphor, aconite, etc., in cholera and fevers, are alio- 
90          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
 pathic or homoeopathic ;  and if the former, from what
 old school authority, besides the " evidences" of Dr.
 Hooker,  are  these minute doses derived—whether
 bleeding  and calomel, so boldly employed by some
 old school gentlemen in cholera, do really kill or cure
 patients;  or whether opium,  or rhubarb, or  astrin-
 gents, or gum-water, or the ethers, or brandy, or Hah-
 nemann's specific, camphor, in drop doses, all of which
 are used by different practitioners, should be employ-
 ed in this fearful malady—when shall we prescribe
 according to the contraria contrariis opponenda, when
 according to similia similibus curantur, when accord-
 ing to the antipathic, or the expectant, or the Brumo-
 rian, or any of the other "diversified combinations"
 which go  to make  up Allopathy. Will Dr. Hooker
 have the kindness to put himself into a pair of very
 high-heeled boots with red tops, mount the town-pump
 of Norwich, Connecticut, inflate his cheeks to the full-
 est capacity, and announce to our deluded human na-
 ture, who, beside himself, can  distinguish " judicious
 Allopathy" from  " bad Allopathy " ?   After accom-
 plishing this duty, will he be pleased to  set his arms
 akimbo, advance one foot forward, d la Napoleon, and
 issue another decision declaring who, in addition to his
 modest self, may be considered " practitioners of a ju-
 dicious Allopathy ?"  These requests are made for the
benefit of allopathists alone,  for  the decree has  al-
ready gone forth respecting those homoeopathists who
have been converted from Allopathy.  We, deluded
converts, of  course bow in abject submission before
the majesty of  genius—the extraordinary judgment,
the  vast knowledge, the wonderful  "mathematical 
HOMOEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS.
91
powers," the " close reasoning," the " very extended,
and  very diversified combinations," the honesty, in-
tegrity, disinterestedness, charity, morality and piety
which pertain to Dr. Hooker, et id, omne genus.  His
peculiar acumen and  " close reasoning"  have taught
him  that such men  as Henderson,  Joslin, Tessier,
Croserio,  Roth,  Teste,  Dudgeon,  Drysdale, Laurie,
Russel, Currie, Ruse,  Gross, Stapff, Fleischtnann, Ra-
pou,  Molin, Madden,  Scott,  Quiun, Simon, Black,
Bayard, Gray, Metcalf, Cox, Kitchen, and the many
thousand other converts from the " diversified combi-
nations which constitute Allopathy," are all  either
knaves and fools, or actuated by " pecuniary consider-
ations !"   How unfortunate that these  deluded and
unhappy  gentlemen  had  not  been  blessed  with a
moiety of the penetration, the profound sense, the ho-
nesty, and the disinterestedness of Dr. Hooker!  How
unfortunate that this brilliant sun of Norwich did not
shine at the commencement, instead of  the middle of
the nineteenth century, so that the  petty  labors of
such  an intelligence as that of Samuel  Hahnemann
might have been annihilated in the beginning!
   It is by no means a pleasing task toVade through
the mass of silly fallacies,  and mean misrepresenta-
tions which everywhere pervade Dr. Hooker's labored
essay, and we shall not therefore weary the reader by
noticing  all of his  unfair assertions,  and his im-
potent  denunciations  of Homoeopathy  and its  advo-
cates.  It would be an  easy thing to prove nearly the
whole publication, page by page, a tissue  of flimsy
sophistries respecting the homoeopathic system, and of
unfounded accusations against its advocates, but they
                       5 
92          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

are so palpable and absurd in their character, and the
vindictiveness, envy, and spite of  their author are so
apparent, that such a course is not necessary.  We
shall therefore only  allude  particularly in our  re-
maining paragraphs to a few of  those "towering"
statements, upon which considerable stress is laid.
  Several pages of the present  chapter are devoted to
Dr. Hooker's  own assertions  respecting the incompe-
tency of homoeopathic  physicians, or of laymen, to
judge of facts in  medical science, and it is most ear-
nestly advised that the people who had the profound-
est interest in the  subject should rely solely upon the
superior wisdom, keen penetration, and peculiar tact
of such  " close reasoning " philanthropists as himself.
He informs his readers that the statistics of homoeopa-
thic practice are of no account, because homoeopathic
families have  scarcely any acute diseases, but such as
are, for  the most part, either chronic or imaginary ; or
if, by chance,  a grave disorder  should  happen  to ex-
ist, that an allopathic physician is instantly sent for!
A reply to such an absurd assertion as  this would of
course be superfluous.
  But in  alluding to statistics, the writer  very stu-
diously  avoids all mention of the  homoeopathic hos-
pitals of Europe, several of which have for many years
been open to all observers.  We shall  in some mea-
sure supply this omission by the following brief quo-
tation from Professor Henderson's reply to Professor
Simpson's pamphlet on Homoeopathy :
  " Dr.  Fleischmann, of the  homoeopathic hospital of
Yienna, at various periods, has  published the results
of his treatment of inflammation of the lungs between 
STATISTICS.
93
the years 1834 and 1848—the latter being the last pe-
riod for which his statistics have reached me. Dr. Reiss,
of the homoeopathic hospital at Lintz, Dr. Schweitzer,
of the homoeopathic  hospital at Kremsier,  and Dr.
Tessier, of the hospital of Sainte-Marguerite of  Paris,
also have published the statistics of their homoeopathic
treatment of the same disease, and the collective re-
sults are as follows:—728 cases of inflammation of the
lungs, 35 deaths, or one  death  in 21 cases;  less than
five per cent.   In my letter to Dr. Forbes, I have
given an account of  the  comparative success, in the
same disease, of the best hospital physicians, who use
allopathic remedies, in Paris ;  they furnish  531 cases,
of which 81  died, or one in  six and two-thirds,  or
about fifteen per  cent.  In the ' Introduction  to the
Study of Homoeopathy' (to which, and to the letter to
Dr. Forbes, the reader is referred for a more detailed
discussion of this most important subject) various al-
lopathic authorities  are referred to  as furnishing 909
cases of this disease, with 212 deaths, or  23.32 per
cent.; nearly one death in every four cases.  In the
same work is contrasted the mortality  under each sys-
tem of treatment, in pleurisy and peritonitis, and the
same vast superiority of the homoeopathic practice is
exhibited—the mortality of the former disease  having
been in Fleischmann's practice, among 224 cases, only
 one in 72, and  of the latter, among 105 cases, one in
 21; while under  the ordinary system, the mortality
 was from 8 to 16 times greater.  The absence of suffi-
 ciently large statistics on the allopathic side, renders
 these  last comparisons less satisfactory than  in the
 instance of inflammation of the lungs ; and in regard 
94
HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
to other acute inflammations, we have no  data what-
ever from Allopathy to enable us to form an estimate
of its  inferiority.   I may add, however, that besides
the  diseases  mentioned above, Dr.  Fleischmann's
table for  the eight years prior to  1844,  shows 181
cases of erysipelas  of the face, and  only two deaths ;
31 cases of inflammation of the membranes of the
heart, without a single death; 44 cases of dysentery,
and  two deaths;—results which are far beyond the
reach of any other known method of treatment." *
  " Dr. Forbes, apparently surprised at the results
published in one of Dr. Fleischmann's tables, yet com-
batting the notion that the cases must have been slight
which  recovered under what are commonly believed
inadequate means, observes, ' It would be very unrea-
sonable to believe that, out of 300 cases of pneumonia
(inflammation of the lungs), 224 cases of pleurisy, and
105 of peritonitis (in all 629 cases), spread over a pe-
riod of eight years, all the cases, except the fatal cases
(27 in  number), were slight, and such as would have
seemed to us hardly requiring treatment of any kind.
In fact, according to all experience, such could not be
the case.   But independently  of this a priori argu-
ment, we have sufficient evidence to  prove that many
of the cases of pneumonia, at least, were severe cases.
A few  of these cases are reported  in detail by Dr.
Fleischmann himself, and we have ourselves had the
statement corroborated by the  private testimony of a
physician (not a homoeopath) who attended Dr. Fleisch-

  * " Since 1844, the German hospital statistics give us 164 cases of ery-
sipelas, without a death ; 84 of peritonitis, with 4 deaths; 75 of pleurisy
with one death." 
STATISTICS.
95
mann's ward for three months.' *  And he says of Dr.
Fleischmann, that  he  ' is  a regular, well-educated
physician, as capable of forming a true diagnosis as
other practitioners,  and he  is  considered  by those
who know him as a man of honor and respectability,
and incapable of attesting a falsehood.'  Of the whole
728 cases to which I have alluded above, 616  occurred
in the hospital of this trustworthy observer.  From my
own  experience  in  the treatment of inflammation of
the lungs, and other  acute diseases,f I have not  a
doubt of the thorough accuracy of the accounts given
us  by the physicians to whom I have referred.  But
how do allopathic physicians get rid of these remark-
able statements?  Some by  denying  their truth  (for
there are men who will deny anything),  and some,
Dr. Forbes among them, by ascribing all to the boun-
tiful hand of Unassisted Nature!  If  this  latter view
of  the  subject be the  correct one, then it is obvious
that the medical men who believe it to be so should
cease from  all medical treatment in  acute  diseases.
That it is not, however,  the correct view of the matter,
appears very clearly  from the cases published by M.

  * "Brit, and For. Med. Rev., p. 243, No. 41."
  t"I have treated homoeopathically throughout 16 cases of pneumonia,
with one death :  10 cases of croup, without a death ; besides a few cases
of pericarditis,  pleurisy, peritonitis, and many of dysentery, bronchitis,
and erysipelas, with only two deaths, one from dysentery in an old man
long in bad health, the other from general bronchitis in an infant. In one
case only was  blood-letting  adopted.  Of  other acute diseases, I have
treated homoeopathically 39 of measles, without a death ;  45 of hooping-
cough, with one death ; and 36 of scarlet fever, with two deaths. Among
the last 2 deaths, one is included of a gentleman who, having recovered
from the fever, was  seized with  inflammation of  the  chest, and was
treated  during  the  greater  part of that,  his  last illness, by Dr.
Alison." 
96
HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
Grisolle.  He left eleven mild cases of inflammation
of the lungs to follow  their natural course,* and we
find that the  consequences of the  disease were not
gone in any till the end of the third, and in some not
till the  end of the  fourth week, whereas, under the
homoeopathic treatment, every trace of the disease is
usually gone,  in  severe  cases too, in a third of that
time,f proving that Homoeopathy  is not a merely
passive system."
  With regard to the great number  of cases here ad-
duced in illustration  of the vast superiority of homoeo-
pathic  treatment in the diseases under consideration,
let it be observed  that  nearly  all of them occurred in
public  hospitals which have always been open to the
inspection  of  physicians  of every  school; that the
symptoms and treatment of each case were minutely
recorded from  day to  day; that these records were
constantly open to the  investigation  of all who chose
to examine them ;  and that critical  investigation has
always  been solicited by the physicians  of these hos-
pitals.   In view of these circumstances, and of the in-
controvertible fact that a majority of these  cases were
treated under the immediate observation of allopathic
physicians, who have vouched for their accuracy and
fairness, it is evident that none but the most ungene-
rous and uncandid would ever presume to deny their
entire correctness,  or to decry the  reputations of the
distinguished gentlemen who have charge  of these
institutions.
  Throughout the whole of his unscrupulous tirade
  * " See Letter to Dr. Forbes."
  + " See for ample details, ' Recherches Cliniques,' par J. P. Tessier,
Paris, 1850." 
HOMOEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS.           97
against Homoeopathy,  Dr. Hooker  has constantly
evinced the quality of his  spirit, by imputing a lack
of fairness, lack of talent, lack of education, lack of
social position, and lack of responsibleness, to homoeo-
pathic physicians.   He has  evidently  no  personal
knowledge of a single member of our profession, nor
has he any data on which to form an opinion respect-
ing the abilities or integrity of its advocates, yet like
the cornered reptile, he bites at everything within his
reach.
  With regard to this subject, we  take the occasion
to inform Dr. Hooker and his coadjutors that men of
real knowledge, and talent, and who firmly believe
in  the  truth  of  doctrines  they profess, are  never
obliged to misrepresent  the  opinions,  or  to  write
falsely of  the  characters  of those who  differ  from
them.  Such a course is not only an indication of in-
tellectual weakness and vindictiveness, but it goes far
to prove inherent  defects  in  views they  advocate.
Those  who are confident in the soundness of  their
doctrines, and actually possess  knowledge, and critical
sagacity, are not  apt to assume  to themselves these
qualifications, and  constitute  themselves judges of
others, but they prefer that those who are disinterested
should decide in the matter.
  That the public may not be misled by  the  false
assertions of  our opponents, we deem it proper to de-
clare, that no man is recognised as a homoeopathic
physician who has not received  a thorough medical
education in some legally authorised institution, and is
in possession of a proper diploma constituting him a
doctor of medicine.   We have had much intercourse, 
 98          HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 both as an  allopathic  and as a homoeopathic practi-
 tioner, with the members  of both schools ;  and so
 far as our observation  has extended, the practitioners
 of the new school compare favorably, in  all respects
 to say the least, with those of the old school.  In the
 present  condition  of  Homoeopathy,  with its  vast
 array of intelligent and discriminating supporters, it
 appears  almost superfluous  to  refute these malicious
 imputations of a certain class of our enemies, but as
 falsehood often repeated, and  uncontradicted, may
 sometimes pass as truth, we have alluded  to the sub-
 ject, and take the  liberty of subjoining the opinion of
 a liberal and enlightened opponent, the distinguished
 Dr.  Forbes, formerly editor  of  the  British  and
 Foreign Medical Review, as  an offset to the uncalled
 for and unsubstantiated denunciations of  the  gentle-
 man from Norwich, Connecticut.
   "No doctrine, however ingenious, not based on posi-
 tive demonstrable  facts, will any more be regarded
 but as a  piece of poetical  speculation, which  may
 indeed amuse the fancy,  but  can  never influence the
 conduct of scientific men, much less of practical phy-
 sicians.  But Homoeopathy comes before us in a much
 more imposing aspect, and  claims our attention on
 grounds  which cannot be  gainsayed.   It presents
 itself as a new  art of medicine, as a mode  of practice
 utterly at  variance  with that long established in the
 world; and claims the  notice  of mankind on the
 irresistible ground of its superior power of curing dis-
eases   and preserving  human  life.  And it  comes
before  us now, not in  the garb of  a  suppliant,
unknown and helpless,  but as a conqueror, powerful, 
CLAIMS OF HOMOEOPATHY.
99
famous, and triumphant.   The disciples of Hahne-
mann  are  spread over the whole civilized world.
There  is not  a town of any  considerable size  in
Germany, France, Italy, England or America, that
does not boast of possessing  one or more homoeo-
pathic 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 abun-
dance from  the press; and journals,  exclusively
devoted to its cause, are printed and widely circulated
in Europe and  America.  Numerous  hospitals  and
dispensaries for the treatment of the poor, on the new
system, have been established, many of which publish
reports blazoning its successes,  not merely in warm
phrases,  but in the hard words, and harder figures of
statistical tables."
   On the last pages of this chapter we find a repeti-
tion of an old ex parte statement, made some fifteen or
 twenty years ago, by M.  Andral of Paris, (a bitter
opponent of Homoeopathy,) respecting a trial which he
made with homoeopathic  medicines, in one of  the
, Parisian hospitals.
   That M. Andral was entirely ignorant of the doc-
 trines of Hahnemann, and of the pathogeneses of the
 drugs he made use of in this pretended trial, is clearly
evident  from  his own description of the experiment.
 This fact was conclusively proved at the time,  and
 no one in Paris believed for an instant, that Andral
possessed  either the knowledge  to employ homoeo-
pathic remedies properly, or the moral  honesty to
 administer them fairly if he had  possessed this know-
                        5* 
100         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
 ledge.  We  suspect that Andral's Homoeopathy was
 very much like that of  Drs.  Delafield & Co., in the
 case  of the late Dr. Rodgers, when they prescribed
 " aconite  in  single drop doses,"  in  alternation  with
 " large doses of aromatic sulphuric acid."  We  sug-
 gest  to M. Andral  and his admirers the study of
 the following fable:
  " Once upon a time," says iEsop, " a man and a lion
 were journeying together, and came at length to high
 words as to which was the braver and stronger creature
 of the two.  As the dispute waxed warmer they hap-
 pened to pass by,  on the road-side, a statue of a man
 strangling a lion.  "  See there," said  the man, " what
 more undeniable proof can you have of our superi-
 ority than that ?"  " That," said the lion, " is  your
 version of the story; let us be sculptors, and for one
 lion  under the  feet of a  man, you shall have twenty
 men-under the paws  of the lion."
  If M.  Andral had invited a competent  homoeo-
 pathic physician to prescribe for the cases to which
 he alludes, the results would have been  marked, and
 satisfactory;  but it  was more agreeable to  his in-
 terests and  to  his preconceived  notions that the ex-
 periment  should fail, and he therefore selected him-
 self as physician, and prescribed a few homoeopathic
 medicines in  an allopathic  manner, viz. : by  the
 " diversified combination "  system of random guesses
respecting their applicability in each case.
  The practice of Homoeopathy does not consist  of
a vague and indefinite system of  " guessing," which
 can be intuitively adopted by the  allopathic followers
of routine, without study ; but it is a system founded 
ANDEAL'S EXPERIMENTS.
101
exclusively upon facts, and therefore requires a long
course of observance, and  the  most patient  and ac-
curate investigation, in order to apply its therapeuti-
cal resources properly.   Whenever Andral, or  any
other allopathic physician,  chooses  to  learn the doc-
trines  taught by Hahnemann, and then to employ his
specifics honestly and fairly, he will have no reason
to doubt the truth  of the former, or the  great cura-
tive  powers of the latter. 
CHAPTER VI.
     HOMOEOPATHY AND ALLOPATHY CONTRASTED.

  In this  chapter Dr. Hooker professes  to  give his
readers an " estimate of Hahnemann."  Before mak-
ing up this curious " estimate," the writer must have
dosed himself largely with some of the " accumulated
facts" of Allopathy, in the form of " volatile spirit and
volatile salt of vipers," for we do  not believe there
can be found, in the entire annals of medicine, a more
offensive and pitiable exhibition of vindictiveness, or
more utter disregard of the common decencies of life,
than are here presented.  The only  " arguments" or
"evidences" which are adduced in this mendacious
chapter to illustrate the character and labors of Hah-
nemann,  are derived from  the  morbid  imagination
of  the  writer  himself,  and are  such as :  " cheat,"
"medical fanatic," "wild dreamer in science,"  "ab-
surd theorizer," " scientific  fool,"  " flimsy reasoner,"
" prone to  delusion," " quack," " mongrel,"  " fan-
tastic," " radical," " fanatic,"  etc.   These  are the
" arguments," the " evidences," and the " close reason-
ings," indulged by our opponents; this is the kind of
logic employed by modern allopathists to  injure a ri-
val method.  We have  no means of knowing whe-
ther this Hippocratic oracle  " made up faces," or " tore 
HAHNEMANN AND HOOKER.         103
his hair" while giving expression to these stupendous
" evidences," but we have no doubt that he required
several  of the " powders  of bull's tail  and man's
blood,"  so highly commended by the great modern
light  of his  school, Dr. Sydenham, in his "Processus
Integri," before his equilibrium was restored.
   But seriously, who can imagine a more disgusting,
and yet ludicrous spectacle, than  is presented by an
individual of such limited capacities, and such palpa-
ble dishonesty as the author of the " Evidences, etc.,"
endeavoring to injure the character of Samuel Hahne-
mann !   On the one hand we have  an intellectual
giant, whose vast general erudition, profound know-
ledge of medical science, skill in logic, and laborious
personal researches in  regard to the nature of drugs,
have elicited the highest admiration and respect from
every able  and honorable allopathist who has ever
written respecting him:  on the other hand, we have
an impotent medical charlatan, who has wasted some
fifty pages  in  efforts to " figure up" the  weight of a
class of imponderable substances, and about as many
more in calling hard names, and making up mouths
 at Homoeopathy!  The  scene reminds  us  of a Tom
 Thumb challenging Lord Bacon to intellectual contro-
 versy, or of any ridiculous display of weakness against
 power.
   For a period of more than fifty years,  Hahnemann
 devoted his entire energies, mental and physical, to
 the advancement of medical science.  With a mind
 amply stored with the medical literature of past  and
 contemporary times, reasoning powers  of the high-
 est  order,  and a benevolence  and devotion towards 
104         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

his fellow  men, unparalleled in the history of any
science, he entered  upon his glorious  mission.  At
this  period, there were no fixed  and generally re-
ceived ideas upon medical topics, but everything was
vague, indefinite, and unsatisfactory.  Opinions that
were deemed orthodox in one country, were denounced
as erroneous in another.  Hence arose a great variety
of modes of practice, of the most contradictory cha-
racters, each sustained by its array of strenuous advo-
cacy, but all of them  founded  upon conjecture,  or
derived from the absurd dogmas of antiquity.
   And this was no new state of  things,  for the whole
history of Allopathy  had thus far consisted of nothing
but a continued succession of changes in theory and
practice.  Each generation had continued to advance
new ideas respecting the nature and treatment of dis-
eases, and  to look back with pity or  contempt upon
the ages which had gone before.
  With all those changes, however,  the mortality of'
the sick had not at all diminished.  Patients continued
to sicken, to be drugged, and to die,  as before, whe-
ther under  the antiphlogistic, the expectant, the Bru-
nonian, or  other mode of treatment.  The  medical
world had so long regarded  the  doctrines of  the  an-
cients  with veneration,  that nearly all  the practical
results of these doctrines were retained,  although the
theoretical  parts were rejected as absurd.  Let it ever
be impressed upon the mind, that blood-letting, eme-
tics, purgatives, sudorifics, etc., originated legitimately
and naturally from the " humoral pathology."
  Hippocrates  announced that the existence of  the
four humors, viz.: the blood, the phlegm,  the yellow 
HUMORAL PATHOLOGY.
105
bile, and the  black bile, in proper proportions in re-
spect to " quantity, quality, and mixture," constituted
the healthy condition ; and that any variation in the
quality or in the proportions  of these  humors, occa-
sions disease.
  His treatment consisted in  expelling from the body
by bleeding, purging, sweating, etc., a certain amount
of any humor which might exist  in excessive quan-
tity, and thus restore those proportions which consti-
tute health. If the theoretical opinions of Hippocrates
had been correct, if those humors had been actually
destined to play the part in  the organism which was
attributed  to  them, and if the true cause of  disease
had consisted  in  an excess of one or more of them,
then the evacuation and correction of these  deranged
fluids would have  been a reasonable, and, perhaps,
successful  mode of practice.
  For many centuries the humoral pathology prevailed
almost universally, and the treatment which had been
legitimately  deduced from  this  pathology was  of
course recognised  as the  chief [means of cure.  But
when  totally  new  ideas  obtained theoretically, and
the humoral doctrines of the ancients were  discarded
as fanciful and absurd, it was reasonable to suppose
that new theories of cure and new systems of practice
would be adopted ; but strange as it may be deemed,
such was not the fact.
  Fifty years  ago, the medical world was divided into
numerous sects, such as the vitalists, the solidists, the
eclectics, the  Brunonians, the expectants,  etc., each
of which entertained peculiar views in regard to the
causes and nature of disease; but  singular enough, in 
106         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

their practical deductions, all harmonious—all accord-
ing to the method inculcated by Hippocrates and his
heathen cotemporaries,  2000 years before!   One at-
tributed disease to a derangement of the " vital pro-
perties"  of the parts affected, but still persisted  in
punishing the stomach,  bowels, and skin, with eme-
tics, drastics, and sweats !  Another ascribed disease
to disorder in the solids, but still prescribed the same
treatment!  Still another recognised only two classes
of diseases, the sthenic and asthenic, and yet the same
general remedies were  adopted!  Others still were
floating about, entirely undecided in their opinions, but
none the less intent on  doctoring the poor  stomach,
bowels, and skin, for the ills of the whole body !
  In the midst of such an array of discordant opinions,
and such a  confused mixture of modern  hypotheses
with ancient dogmas, the founder of Homoeopathy dis-
covered his theory of cure, similia similibus curantur.
Perceiving at a glance that the errors of those who
had preceded him had arisen from too much theorizing,
and too great a proneness to substitute hypotheses for
facts, he resolved at the onset to rely solely upon facts
to substantiate or disprove the idea he had conceived.
With this view he originated  the proving  of  drugs
upon healthy persons, in order that their specific ef-
fects might be fully investigated, and that a founda-
tion might thus be laid  for a  scientific and  rational
system  of  practice.   And he most nobly and faith-
fully carried out his conception—not by drawing upon
his imagination,  as  preceding writers had done—not
by referring to the accumulated absurdities  of anti-
quity—not  by assuming data on insufficient grounds 
HAHNEMANN.
107
—but by a long series of painful and hazardous  ex-
periments with drugs in different forms  and different
doses, upon his own person.  During the course  of
these experiments, Hahnemann was not  unfrequently
made seriously ill for weeks together,  often noting
with feverish brow and trembling hand,  each painful
symptom as it occurred.
  When examining, a few years since, at Paris, the
original provings of Hahnemann, in his own hand-
writing, we were filled with astonishment and vene-
ration, at  the contemplation of the  immense labor,
disease, and pain, which all these provings must have
cost their author, and of the active benevolence which
must have  prompted them.  While tracing the differ-
ent kinds of writing, here bold and plain, there timid
and tremulous, now irregular, and in some cases nearly
illegible, we could almost fancy this benefactor of his
race in the midst of his trials and his sufferings.  When
remonstrances were  offered  by his wife and friends,
against  the risks to which he  continually exposed
himself in  his  experiments, his  noble reply was,
" What is the comfort or happiness of one  man, in
comparison with the future welfare of thousands and
perhaps millions ? or what the  life of a single indi-
vidual, compared to the well-being of generations of
men ?"
  No one  ever knew Hahnemann, but to  love  his
personal traits,  to admire his  brilliant  genius  and
talents,  and to revere  the benevolent impulses which
inspired all his vast efforts in behalf of medical sci-
ence. Even his strongest opponents, (we mean those
who have any pretensions to  ability, or are recognized 
108         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

as gentlemen,) have always awarded him a high meed
of praise for honesty, genius, talents, and unwearied
industry in the investigation of facts.   While respect-
fully differing with him in  opinion, they have freely
acknowledged his integrity,  his profound  learning,
and his disinterested benevolence.
  So far as relates to the great  homoeopathic law of
cure, and  to the  practice of medicine founded upon
it, no " theorizing "  ever has been, or ever can  be
indulged in.  It is a  law which was logically deduced
from  absolute facts  connected  with  specific  effects
of drugs, and which has since been firmly establish-
ed in science by facts alone.  It is  not a time-serving
law, it admits  of no amalgamation  with any other
hypothesis,  " system," " mode," or " combination of
practice,"—it recognizes no preconceived  or  hypo-
thetical data, but  it must stand or fall on  demonstrat-
ed truths.   If Homoeopathy is  true, Allopathy must
be false, and vice  versa.
  Some of our opponents have inquired why Hahne-
mann and his disciples  have  not sought to amalga-
mate their  doctrines with those  of  Allopathy, as
Brown, Broussais  and others  have  done ?  We reply,
for the same reason that the Christian religion should
not be amalgamated with Mohammedanism, or truth
with error.
  " Homoeopathy,"  says  Dr. Hooker,  " has  been
fairly before medical men for  fifty  years ; and the
profession has passed its verdict upon  it in  the most
deliberate and positive manner.  Some are disposed
to think that this verdict  is good for nothing, and
openly charge medical men, as a body, with a wilful 
ALLOPATHIC VERDICTS.
109
blindness  to the truth of  Homoeopathy.  If  this
charge be well founded, the medical  profession are
governed  in relation to this doctrine by a spirit alto-
gether different from that which they have manifest-
ed  towards all  other  new doctrines and opinions.
Look over the whole history of medicine, and observe
the course which the profession have pursued, in re-
gard to the numberless doctrines and theories  which
have arisen from time to time.  As they have passed
away one  after another, they have been examined and
sifted by medical men, and while much has been re-
jected, much has been retained and added to the per-
manent treasures of our science."  (p. 128.)
  We do  not  remember  ever to have witnessed a
more supremely ridiculous  delivery,   than this of
Dr. Hooker, respecting the " verdicts  of allopathic
medical men."  If any one will take  the trouble to
" look over the whole history of medicine, and ob-
serve the  course which the profession have pursued,
in regard to the numberless doctrines and theories
which have arisen  from time to time," the pitiable
absurdity of Dr. Hooker's  reasoning  upon this sub-
ject, will be apparent.
   Some twenty-two hundred years ago, a doctrine was
announced, that the  human  body contained  four
different  humors.   Health was supposed to obtain,
when  these  fluids were  all  right  with respect to
"quantity,  quality, and  mixture;"  while diseases
were supposed to be produced by any  alterations in
the proportions or quality of  these humors.   Upon
this hypothesis, a treatment was adopted, as we have
already intimated,  for the  purpose of "purging off" 
 110        HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

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

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

that most of the  ills of humanity are  dependent on
gastro-enterite, and the practical  " verdict" is, leeches,
and gum-water ; and the " verdict" of another college
may be in  favor of the  excitement and collapse, or
the  sthenic  and  asthenic  theories, and direct  its
students to beware of any " very diversified combina-
tions" in their practice, but to confine their treatment
to stimulation and exhaustion.
   Other schools lecture about all theories,  believing
in no one  of them; but as their perplexed pupils must
have some  method of treating  disease, they render
their " deliberate  and positive verdict" in favor of the
bleeding,  vomiting, purging, sweating, and blistering
system, which was derived from the  exploded humo-
ral pathology.  Whether any of these schools include
among their remedies, the " volatile spirit and salt of
vipers," or the " powders  of bull's tail, bore's  tooth,
crab's eyes, and man's blood," we are not informed ;
but we find these  remedies most highly recommended
in the treatment  of pleurisy, and other maladies, by
one of the  most eminent of modern allopathists, Syden-
ham, the " English Hippocrates." *
  Allopathic " medical men," required two thousand
years to " examine, sift, and form their deliberate and
positive verdict " respecting the utter absurdity of the
theoretical tenets  of Hippocrates—the humoral patho-
logy.  If arithmetic be invoked,  according to the cus-
tom of our opponents in regard to imponderable  doses,
it will probably be ascertained that eighteen or twenty
additional centuries will be  required to enable these
* Sydenham's Processus Integri, London, 1707, p. 53-4. 
ALLOPATHIC VERDICTS.
113
profound and " close reasoning " individuals to " ex-
amine, sift,  and pass their deliberate and positive
verdicts " upon the absurdity and destructiveness of
the humoral treatment  to which this pathology gave
rise!  Some of these deliberate gentlemen have firmly
believed for two hundred years, that diseases consist in
derangements of the vital properties of parts, and that
the exciting causes of these derangements are for the
most part dynamic, infinitesimal, and imponderable.
In view of these doctrines, it would be natural to sup-
pose that dynamic, infinitesimal  and  imponderable
remedial agents would be selected to act on such vital
properties, and to  counteract such  subtile exciting
causes !  But no, Allopathy  deliberates slowly, and
as the humoral practice  of  blood-letting, vomiting,
purging, sweating, blistering, together with Dr. Syden-
ham's redoubtable " powders of bull's tail," &c, and
the  " volatile spirit and  salt of  vipers " are quite
as important, and demand as  close " examination and
sifting" as the remarkable theory respecting the " four
humors,"  above mentioned, a "deliberate and posi-
tive verdict" cannot reasonably  be  expected until
about the year of grace,  4,000.  Then, if the final
conflagration shall not have converted this world into
infinitesimal  molecules, including the very material
and substantial  Dr. Hooker  himself, a more  appro-
priate dynamic system  of treatment  may be  antici-
pated, such  as should legitimately be deduced from
a vital theory of diseases.
  We  have remarked that a few of our  opponents,
after abandoning the humoral pathology  which had
served them for two thousand years, became vitalists 
114        HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

in theory.  They now suppose that most diseases are
produced by derangements of certain spiritual pro-
perties pertaining to the organism—derangements of
the vital  principle.  Respecting the nature of this
principle, and the manner in which derangements of
it operate in causing disease, their ideas are as vari-
ous as  they are vague  and unsatisfactory.  It is  a
theory which admits of Dr. Hooker's " very extended,
and very diversified combination" of explanations,
and which serves most admirably for  the indulgence
of the wild and reckless  spirit of theorizing which is
so characteristic of Allopathy.  By its aid, all things
can be  explained, all  contradictory opinions can be
reconciled, and all questions of a difficult or compli-
cated nature can  be readily solved.  Thus, a dyspep-
tic desires his physician to inform him of the nature
of his malady ; and he  receives  the  highly satisfac-
tory reply that there is  an " impaired condition of the
vital powers of the stomach," and the inquisitive hypo-
chondriac is  informed that his  " nervous  system is
laboring under a loss of vital energy "—that his head-
ache and bad dreams proceed from " disorder of the
upper sympathies," while the weakness and  trembling
of his limbs are dependent on " derangement of the
lower sympathies."
  We doubt whether any means could have been de-
vised, so well calculated  to  cover over the ridiculous
inconsistencies of Allopathy, as this arbitrary assump-
tion of an immaterial and  intangible principle.  It
admits of a " very extended and very diversified com-
bination" of significations, from  nothing at all up to
the infinite variety of opinions entertained  by this 
OLD SCHOOL TENETS.
115
portion of the Old School.   But it must be admitted
that this is a very convenient theory, especially when
patients are too inquisitive in  regard to the nature of
their ailments.
  With respect to the other theoretical tenets pertain-
ing to Allopathy, they are quite too numerous and too
indefinite to render an enumeration of them  at  all
interesting or feasible.  To do this subject justice, it
would  be necessary to record  the individual opinions
of every gentleman of the school, as no two of them
entertain precisely the same views respecting the inti-
mate nature and  treatment of disease.  We see this
truth verified in the wranglings and dissensions which
are constantly occurring in their colleges, societies,
conventions, and private consultations.   Much  care is
generally taken to keep  their differences of opinion
from the public, in order that the system may not be-
come  universally distrusted;  but now and then  the
" cloven foot" appears, as in the case of Dr. Rodgers,
and the disgusting empiricism of Allopathy is fully
displayed.
   That the public may be furnished with a few relia-
ble data on  which to found an opinion respecting the
competency of our  opponents  as a class to  act as
arbiters concerning the truth or falsity of medical doc-
trines, we subjoin a few of the  theories which have
met their approbation since the abandonment of the
humoral pathology.  The works from which we quote
were standard allopathic treatises on theory and prac-
tice at  the different periods alluded  to, viz.: 1587,
 1679,  1703, 1707, 1714, 1797, 1800, 1852.
   1. Allopathy of 15S7.  "Angina is the Latin word.
                        6 
116         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

In English it is named Quincy, the which is an im-
posthume in the throte, the which doth let a man to
swallow either meat or drink.

           " The cause of this infirmitie.

  "This  infirmitie doth  come of  reume  ascending
from the head to the throte.  And it may  come of
vaporous humours, discending from the stomache to
the throte.

                   "A remedie.

  " Three things is requisite to help these infirmities:
The^rs^ is letting of blood in a vayne named Cepha-
lica.  The second is to purge the head with the pilles
of Cochee.  And the third is to  use gargarices, and
to take a little piece of porke or bacon, or else a little
piece of a sponge, and enoint it in oyle olive, and tie
about any of these things  a  strong thred, and let the
patient swallow in this matter and by and by pull it
out againe, and be sure of the thred that he that shall
do this feate, in holding  fast the thred, doe pull it
out againe quicklie."  (The Breviary of Health, dec,
compyled by Andrew Boord, Doctor of Physicke: an
English-man.   Imprinted at London,  by  Thomas
East.  1587.)
  In writing of pleurisy  the same author remarks :
" In English it is named  a pleuresy, which is an im-
posthume in the ceneritie of the bones,  but there be
two kinds, the one is inward, and the other is in the
gristles of the bones,  and  the other is in the lacertes
in the brest, and Isaac saith that it is an hot impos- 
ALLOPATHY OF 1587.
thume that is ingendered  in the  midriffe named
diaphragme."

           " The cause of this infirmitie.

   " This infirmitie doth come  of a furnish blood, and
of an hastie heart, which doth perturbate either the
joynts, or else the heart and stomache with the brest.

                    " A remedie.

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

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

    * Praxis Medica, of Sydenham, London, 1679, p. 451-2-4-6. 
ALLOPATHY OF 1679.
119
hog's lice, serpents, and toads : or skins of hens' giz-
zards, and of their feet, skins of geese feet, of each in
powder, a drachm :  volatile  salts of urine, of earth
worms, and  of millepedes, of each a scruple : saffron
in powder, 15 grains;  mix them for four doses, to be
given in  extract of juniper berries, every morning
fasting: or the  ashes  of sparrows' feathers, brain of
partriges, lice, hog's lice, galls  of hogs, and  powders
of viper's flesh, is approved by  Ilelmont as a most ex-
cellent thing.   Paracelsus especially commends " the
juice extracted from the excrements of animals, mixed
with  white  wine, and given as a  drink."  " Willis
highly commends lice (though a nasty medicine) to
be given  alive, nine at a time, because they are full
of volatile animal saltP  " Silvius commends the vo-
latile spirit of urine, as a specific in jaundice."
  These  distinguished allopathists  do  not  by  any
means omit emetics and cathartics in their treatment
of jaundice, but they prescribe these " evacuators " in
the first instance, in order  to prepare the system for
the  reception  of the  above enumerated " specifics
which restore and fix the animal salt."
  Respecting the causes and pathology of jaundice,
the respectable father  of  modern Allopathy, Syden-
ham, " dissents from  all authors, both  ancient and
modern, who  have written  before him."  He parti-
cularly  condemns the " Galenic pathology, which as-
cribes its cause to choler."
  Allopathy of 1703-7-14.  " Palsy proceeds from the
obstruction of the passages, and the impotency of the
animal spirits, as they  are either narcotically  affected, 
120         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

or being small in quantity, do not exert themselves
with vigor enough."
  The chief remedies advised are, " mercurial purga-
tives, powder of viper's flesh and viper's bones, vola-
tile salts of earth worms, man's hair, and of dried hu-
man flesh, (which is inferior to no  other  medica-
ment)." (Dr. Sydenham's Processus Integri, p.  177.)
  In the same work we find the following prescription
for  epilepsy: " Native cinnabar, man's skull filed, or
philosophically calcined, elk's hoof, of each a drachm,
powder of the heart and lungs of a mole, a drachm and
a half, bezoarticum lunae,  crab's eyes levigated, of
each a drachm, saffron a scruple, ambergrise, volatile
laudanum, of each 5 grains ; mix them—dose from a
scruple to  two scruples,  according to age, in water of
lilly convally flowers, and syrup of citron peels.  Earth
worms dried and powdered, and given  to half a
scruple, have been experimented effectual;  so also the
ashes of a  mole given in like dose."  (Ibid, p. 86.)
  The following powders are highly  praised as a re-
medy for bleeding at  the nose, and haemorrhages of
different kinds : " Take of powder of man's blood, and
of man's liver,  dry'd, of each an ounce;  powder of
dry'd earth worms, and of  catechu, of each half an
ounce ;  ashes of an old hat, or so roasted that it may
be rubbed to powder, hog's excrements,  dry'd and
powdered, of each one drachm; mix and divide into
five powders for use."  (Ibid, p. 255.)
  From a  standard allopathic work on the practice of
medicine,  we extract the following recipes : " Powder
of wood lice prepared  9 iv, white  poppy seed 9 i, 
ALLOPATHY OF 1714.
121
powder of vipers 9 ii, mix—this is a powerful lython-
triptic medicine, and ought to be had in estimation of
all troubled with that disease; give the foresaid quan-
tity at once in broth." (Collectanea Medica, London,
1703,  p. 86.)
  In  the  same  work we find  the following external
application for quinsey:  " One swallow's nest, album
graBCum, Sjss, roots  of  althea, and of white  lillies,
of each one oz., figs and dates, of each three, boil them
in water, and then add oyl of violets, three drachms,
chamomile  flowers, meal of Fenugreek-seed, linseed,
wheat, of  each  six  drachms,  cat's  brains,  four
drachms, powder of  an  owl burnt,  of  swallow's
burnt, of each  two drachms,  one yolk of an egg,
saffron, one scruple,—make a cataplasm.  This cures
a desperate quinsey."  (p. 104.)
   For colic, the writer  recommends  laudanum,  and
" drachm doses of powder of wolf's gut in wine," as
 a sovereign remedy.
   In a standard  French work on surgery, written in '
 1714, " by M.  Le Clerc, physician  and surgeon to
the French King," we find the following prescriptions
for cancer, which are declared specific :  "A decoc-
tion  of vipers,  crab's- eyes,  adders and  toads, may
 serve to  bathe them, and some of it  may be taken
 inwardly."  The powders of mcles, toads, frogs, and
 crabs calcin'd, cleanse  the ulcers perfectly well."
 (p. 166.)
   Dr.  Le  Clerc speaks  highly of  calomel,  and
 " viper's grease in doses of half a drachm," in syphi-
 lis.
   During the  early part of  the  18th century,  the 
122         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
metaphysical  views of Stahl were " examined  and
sifted" by  the  profession, and  received their  " de-
liberate  and  positive  verdict"  of approval.  This
sect was recognized under the name of Ammists or
Spiritualists.  Taking into consideration the fact that
solids and fluids when connected  with the living body,
are not subject to putrefaction, dissolution, and other
ordinary laws of matter as when  disconnected  with
it, Stahl  superadded a spiritual principle  which he
termed anima, which was supposed to act in  " oppo-
sition  to  the physical poweis  of matter,  and to
which the   body  owes  all   those properties   that
are strictly denominated vital.   He supposes  this
principle to possess peculiar qualities,  distinct  from
those which belong to  matter; and he especially en-
dowed it with a species of intelligence, or  even  con-
sciousness, by which it acts the  part  of a rational
agent, and is the general director of all the  corporeal
operations."
  Among the distinguished  physicians  of  the  eigh-
teenth century, who took a prominent part in  sealing
the " deliberate and positive verdict " in favor of the
Stahlian hypothesis, were Sauvages, Whytt,  Nicholls,
Gaubius, Alberti, and Junker.
  During the last  half of the eighteenth century, an-
other  hypothesis was " examined and sifted" by this
" close reasoning" profession, and a " deliberate and
positive verdict" was rendered in favor of the "vital
theory."   " They have professed to ascertain the laws
of the animal economy by actual observation, and by
this  means  to  discover what  are  the appropriate
powers or qualities of the living body, and in  what 
      ALLOPATHY OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.   123

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

 another sect denounced this treatment as fatal, and
 commended  stimulants;  another  class  prescribed
 chemical alteratives;  another emetics and diaphore-
 tics ;  another  opiates and gum-water,  and so on ad
 infinitum.
   Thus has Allopathy continued  up to the present
 moment—a gigantic  system of theorizing from  ab-
 surd and imaginary data.  During the  two thousand
 years in which the allopathic " verdict" was fixed in
 favor of the humoral pathology, this reckless spirit of
 theorizing was expended in experimenting upon poor
 humanity with  almost  every conceivable  and outre
 substance,  from blood-letting and physic, down to
 toads, adders, bull's  tail, man's scull, and viper's
 grease.  But  from the middle of the seventeenth
 century to the present time,  the " most extended and
 diversified combination  of systems—modes—and
 kinds  of practice," have been  pursued by our oppo-
 nents  that can  possibly  be conceived of, so that
 human life has been made the play-thing  of various
 sects of legalized empyrics.   Ever ready to practically
 test their absurd hypotheses, and their guess-work
 prescriptions upon others,  it is  a notorious fact that
 they have very rarely had the courage  or we should
 rather say desperation, to  try the same experiments
 upon themselves or their families.
  Assuming to  herself vast  knowledge and respecta-
bility—denying  the ability  of  the public  to  judge
respecting  medical matters—boasting  of her great
antiquity, and of her  accumulated facts of  two thou-
sand years, modern Allopathy has entrenched herself
behind  her enormous  self-conceit,  surrounded  by 
MODERN ALLOPATHY.
125
envy, hate, malice,  and vindictive slander, as body
guards.   She has indeed grown hoary and withered—
spotted all over with the errors and fallacies of many
centuries; but her past history and her past deeds do
not elicit any marks of respect or gratitude from the
world, or give rise  to  any agreeable  reminiscences;
but innumerable phantoms, pale, haggard, and sepul-
chral, ever hover around her, fit emblems of her past
and present existence.  Under the accumulated weight
of  so many  mistakes  and  inconsistencies, she tot-
ters and trembles, and her  former boldness is gone;
but she  still survives, the shameless wreck of  numer-
ous exploded systems of absurdities .She still survives
—her destructive instincts  still remain, and she still
glares around in search of more  victims, but modern
science is rapidly extracting her fangs and impairing
her pernicious influence.
  In regard to the inuendoes, and " the very extended,
and very diversified combination " of epithets, denun-
ciations, and false accusations so freely indulged in
by her unamiable satellites towards homoeopathic phy-
sicians and their numerous  and intelligent patrons,
we might retort by resorting to counter denunciations
and counter accusations, but such a course would  de-
grade us to a level with our allopathic traducers, from
which may the Lord ever deliver us.  The veriest vaga-
bond at the Five Points can call as hard names, and
make as false  assertions, as even the author of  the
" Evidences " himself, and we have no doubt that both
would exercise about  an  equal  amount of influence
upon the public mind.  Homoeopathists prefer that
intelligent  laymen, who are  the parties chiefly  inter- 
126         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
ested in the matter,  should decide  respecting  the
comparative merits of the two classes of practitioners,
confident that the verdict will not be in favor of those
who boast  most of their own qualifications,  or  are
most lavish in the use of vulgar abuse.
  We ask, then, if it is proper that medical doctrines
should be submitted to the advocates of Allopathy for
a "verdict"?  Is it reasonable to suppose that Hah-
nemann and his followers would  submit their theory
of cure to the tender mercies of their opponents, after
a single glance at the past  history of medical doc-
trines?  The Hahnemannian principle strikes at the
foundation  of the whole allopathic fabric, and  the
points at issue involve the very existence of one or the
other method.  There can be no mixing of practices,
no  " very  extended  and very diversified combina-
tions"  of principles, and no compromise of  any de-
scription between the two schools,  for their doctrines
are directly  opposite to each other, so that one  side
must of necessity be all  wrong.   For this  reason we
should as soon think of placing the Christian religion
before Satan for approval, as of submitting the truths
of  Homoeopathy to  the  judgment of an Old School
tribunal.   These  self-constituted judges  may,  for
aught  we  know,  be competent to deliberate upon
their own  doctrinal points,  and  form " positive  ver-
dicts" as to whether " maniack persons be possessed
of devills," and whether the best treatment consists  in
putting them into the " white marble  pillar of St.
 Peter's church at Rom?.," in order that the jurist may
 quiz the devils so closely as to induce them  to  take
 " French leave" of " he or she that be possessed  ;" or 
JEWISH VERDICTS.
127
they may constitute a very appropriate medical jury
to decide respecting the merits of the " volatile spirits
and volatile salt of vipers, man's blood, urine," &c,
and the " very extended and very diversified combi-
nation" of powders peculiar to Allopathy, like those
of " bull's tail, dried toads, adders, wolf's gut, crab's
eyes, old hat, earth  worms,  man's skull, hog lice,
wood lice, human flesh, human  liver," etc., etc., but
we most emphatically deny  their competency,  both
intellectually and morally, to render a just opinion
respecting the merits of Homoeopathy.  The followers
of Hahnemann will continue,  therefore, to decline all
these very kind offices of their vindictive opponents,
and  trust, as usual, to the spontaneous verdicts which
are daily being rendered by a discriminating public.
   Dr. Hooker asserts  that only a few of the eminent
men of his school have  embraced Homoeopathy, and
that this is presumptive evidence of its unsoundness.
This mode of  combatting truth is not new, as any one
may be convinced by looking back upon all past dis-
coveries of any real value.  When Christ and his hum-
ble  disciples  proclaimed to  the world  the glorious
truths  of  the Christian religion, nearly  all of the
learned and powerful  men of that period, especially
the priests and  other members  of the " clerical pro-
fession," denounced our Saviour as an impostor, and
his doctrines  as fallacies.   After he  had continued
his mission through a long series of years, and multi-
tudes of the people had been convinced of the truth
of what he taught, the argument of this " profession"
then was,  " behold our  rabbis,  our priests, our wise
men, our men in authority,—do not they adhere  to 
 128        HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

their ancient gods, their idols, and their accumulated
facts of centuries ? "   " Have they not passed  their
verdict against the religion of Christ in the most de-
liberate manner ? and can such an holy, learned and
ancient profession  be wrong ?"   These  allopathic
rabbis  and their abettors carried  out their verdict in
a practical manner by  nailing  our Saviour to the
cross ;  but all of their persecutions and false accusa-
tions  did not for  an instant arrest  the diffusion  of
the Gospel among the people.
  The same  rabbinical motives now actuate  the pro-
fessors of Allopathy in their  opposition to Homoeo-
pathy.  The  most eminent of  them are in receipt of
large incomes from extensive practices, from profes-
sorships in medical  colleges, from  positions in hos-
pitals,  and from other lucrative offices, and they cannot
afford  to acknowledge the truth of Homoeopathy, for
by so doing they would be cast out of the  allopathic
synagogue, with a prospect  of loss of business, and
starvation staring  them  in  the  face.  These distin-
guished Old  School gentlemen are altogether human
and prudential—they know their own interests too
well to forsake their ancient idols—they prefer to re-
main sleek and comfortable, and to  be drawn about
the streets  by pairs of good-blooded and comfortable
horses, rather than to run the risk of being nailed to an
allopathic  cross.  And then  these well-conditioned
gentlemen  are quite aware of  the  time  and labor
it would require to learn the homoeopathic doctrines so
as to be able  to practice them properly, and this again
deters  them from even an investigation of the subject.
So likewise, pride of opinion, long standing and deep- 
ALLOPATHY OF 1852.
129
rooted prejudices, and reverence for ancient names
and ancient doctrines stand in the way, as formidable
barriers against all novel ideas and all original thought.
And again it requires a large amount of moral  cou-
rage to meet the sneers, the ribald  imputations,  and
the reckless slanders of the baser members of the pro-
fession, who make it a point to assail every one  who
dares dissent from the abominations of the Old School.
Timid and sensitive men,  therefore, not unfrequently
persist in upholding doctrines which they know to be
erroneous, through dread of the attacks of these medi-
cal Jesuits.
  At page 140, Dr. Hooker observes:  " If we com-
pare the therapeutics of the present day  with  that
which prevailed fifty or a hundred years ago, medica-
tion is vastly more cautious  and discriminating  than
it was then, and the movements of nature, in the  cure
of disease,  are much more narrowly observed.  And,
at this time, there are multitudes of minds in the pro-
fession on the right track in their inquiries; and we
have  reason  to anticipate  that great  advances  will
now be  rapidly made in the practical  part of our
science."  The evidences  of this are daily witnessed
in the sly adoption  of homoeopathic remedies into al-
lopathic practice.  Even so late as ten years ago, the
use of aconite, in bilious remittent,  and  other fevers,
of belladonna in scarlatina, of camphor in cholera,  of
arnica in mechanical injuries, and oirhus in erysipe-
las, would have been deemed rank heresy by our
opponents; but if we examine  the allopathic " thera-
peutics  of the present day," we shall see that all of
these homoeopathic specifics are now in common use, 
130         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
and that they are highly commended in some of their
journals, as new and important allopathic discoveries !
  It is difficult to believe that a learned profession
can  descend to such meanness as to steal, in cool
blood, the discoveries of another, and  seek to appro-
priate them to its own credit, while at  the same time
it has the insolence to denounce  their  author as  a
" quack," a " dreamer in science," etc.
  There  is no  doubt that the celebrated Liston was
" on the right track in his enquiries," for several years
previous to his death, as his frequent employment of
belladonna and rhus in erysipelas, and a variety of
other homoeopathic  medicines in  different  diseases,
amply prove.  There  is  no  question but  that Dr,
Lyon,  physician to  St. Bartholomew's  hospital,  of
London,  is "on the  right track,"  if we  may judge
from  his  excellent paper in  the  " Lancet,"  of  the
----------, on  the value of belladonna as a specific
in scarlet fever.  There is no doubt but that all of
those  Old School gentlemen " are on the right  track,"
who at the present time so often employ aconite  in
fevers, coffea, mix vomica, belladonna, and aconite, in
neuralgic affections, ipecac, in  asthma and nausea and
vomiting, phosphorus in pneumonia, etc.  For their
own sakes, and  for the welfare of their patients, we
sincerely congratulate these enquirers  of the  profes-
sion upon this tendency they now  evince, of placing
themselves upon the " right track" in therapeutics.
A little more moral  courage, a little  more  indepen-
dence  of thought, and  a little  more industry,  gentle-
men eclectics, and you mr.y 3'et  get entirely into the 
MEDICAL RADICALISM.            131
 " right track," and become useful members of the ho-
 moeopathic profession.
   In the last pages of his essay, Dr. Hooker alludes to
 Homoeopathy as a  system of "medical radicalism,"
 and to her advocates, as " radicals in medicine," and
 like a starving mendicant, implores  "the intelligent
 and influential in the community " not to encourage this
 radicalism, but to " throw around his profession all
 those safeguards which are needed  to secure  its ad-
 vancement."  In lieu of any arguments to sustain his
 assertion, or of any  reasons why his modest request
 should be granted, he resorts to the same wise and
 profound philosophy which pervades  his entire attack,
 in  the form of the most " extended and diversified
 combination" of epithets, that  we  have ever  seen
 strung together.
   His style of logic is something like this : " Homoeo-
 pathy is a system  of medical radicalism," and there-
fore " medical  delusion,"  " fallacy,"  " quackery,"
 "imposture," " absurdity," " ephemeral folly,"  " pa-
 tent nostrums,"  "fantasies,' "fanatical,"  "loose rea-
 soners,"  etc., etc.  The advocates of Homoeopathy pos-
 sess the very spirit of radicalism," therefore, " quack,"
 impostor,"  " ignoramus,"  " dreamers,"  " scientific
 fools,"  " loose analyzers," " cheats," " uneducated,"
 " irresponsible,"  etc., etc.
   It is certainly  a novel if not  a conclusive  mode of
 attacking a rival system, to make an arbitrary asser-
 tion, and then to ransack Webster's dictionary for abu-
 sive words with which to sustain it.  This may be a
 very shrewd " Yankee trick" in medical dialectics, but
     ill not suit the intellectual palates of the " intelli- 
132         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
gent and influential in the community," any better
than the equally ingenious " trick"  of palming off
wooden nutmegs and wooden hams,  as genuine arti-
cles, would agree with their gustatory faculties.
  But  let us briefly examine this " medical radical-
ism " of which Dr. Hooker speaks, and endeavor to
ascertain what class of physicians are really entitled
to the appellation of " medical radicals."
  The term radicalism is usually applied to any extreme
theory, which recognizes  no fixed laws, and  which
appropriates  to  itself hypotheses  from all sources,
without proofs to substantiate their validity, and with-
out any regard to logical induction. A system, there-
fore, which is constantly changing its  ground—which
advocates one thing to-day and  another thing to-mor-
row—which professes theoretical ideas of the most ultra,
diverse and contradictory character, while in practice
it recognizes  a mode  of treatment founded upon an
universally conceded absurdity, may with sreat justice
be termed a radical system.
  Let us now make  an application of Dr. Hooker's
definition of Allopathy, and  see  whether or not the
" coat  fits."  " But what is Allopathy ?  Is it one thing
—one  mode—one system ?  By no means.  This term
is applied to all kinds  of  practice pursued by all re-
gular physicians.  It is a very extended, and very di-
versified combination.   It includes much that is good,
and much that is bad.   And the practitioners  of this
Allopathy are,  some  of  them,  bad  practitioners."
(p. 100.)
  Here is " radicalism in medicine" with a vengeance.
It has  not even the saving virtue  of being  entitled to 
MEDICAL RADICALISM.
133
the rank of a specious and plausible radicalism;  for it
has no limits, it recognizes no bounds, but appro-
priates " all modes—all systems—all things,  and all
kinds of practice," from the heroic and humoral re-
medies of the fathers of ancient Allopathy,  Hippo-
crates  and Galen, down to the " viper's grease " and
" powders of old hat," of the fathers of modern Allo-
pathy, Helmont and Sydenham.
   It is conceded on all hands that Allopathy has no
fixed and permanent basis, either in theory or practice,
and therefore, that each medical man must  exercise
his own private judgment respecting the nature and
treatment of  each  case to which he may be called.
The very largest liberty is allowed him in forming his
opinion, and therefore, he explores the whole bound-
less  universe  of Allopathy,  from the foundation of
medicine to the present time, selecting  here  an idea
and there an idea, as best  suits his particular fancy,
and then brings these scattered and arbitrary notions
to bear in treating the sick.   To-day one theory and
one kind of practice prevail: to-morrow an ingenious
theorizer  brings forward a new set of  views, and  a
new mode of practice, and  the doctrines of yesterday
are overthrown. Changes, innovations, and radicalism,
of the most ultra  description  have been  eminently
characteristic of Allopathy, from the  abandonment
of the Hippocratic and Galenic pathology, to the
present moment.   The human  stomach  has  been
looked upon and used  by  this school,  as  an experi-
mental laboratory wherein her advocates might prac-
tically test their numerous and contradictory  hypo-
theses.  In carrying out such experiments,  she has 
134         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
always had the shrewdness  to operate upon the sick
only, so that all unfortunate results like ruined con-
stitutions, and deaths, caused by enormous quantities of
drugs, could be placed to the account of natural dis-
ease.  In this way the direful effects  of this medical
radicalism have, to a certain extent, been kept from
the public.   Let the impartial reader look into those
families  of  his acquaintance which have  been sub-
jected to this radical system of drugging  for a con-
siderable  period, and see how few he  can  find upon
whom the blighting  marks of Allopathy are not per-
manently impressed.  Let him consider the pale and
sickly features, the fetid  brea hs, the  black and cari-
ous teeth, the trembling, stiff and painful  limbs, the
nervousness, and the morbid sensitiveness  of the vic-
tims  of mercury :  or  the waxen faces,  the  bloated
forms, and  indurated livers of those  who  have been
poisoned with quinine : or the unfortunate  dyspeptics
and  hypochondriacs whose  lives have  been  made
wretched  by cathartics:  or  the impaired and sickly
constitutions of those who have been  habitually bled
and narcotized with opiates : or the organic disorders
of the heart and lungs, which have been produced by
tartar emetic and copaibas :  or any of the  numerous
medicinal diseases under which so many over-drugged
mortals are suffering,  and then decide whether this
system is not one which is  eminently entitled to the
appellation of " medical  radicalism," and whether its
practitioners are not " radicals of the most  dangerous
character."
  The political radical, who  believes  in the doctrine,
"propriete c'est le vol" and who contends for a divi- 
               POLITICAL RADICALISM.            135

sion of property, a plurality of wives, and for the
appropriation to his own purposes of everything which
happens to suit his fancy or convenience, is certainly
a dangerous member of community, and his princi-
ples, were they generally carried out,  would under-
mine the foundations of society, and  lead directly to
social  anarchy and  confusion.   He believes himself
entitled to the  largest kind of liberty, both in theory
and practice, and explores the entire records of his-
tory for precedents to sustain his views, from the poly-
gamous  Solomon of old,  to the social and variety-
loving Mormon  of  the present  day.   Dr. Hooker's
definition of modern Allopathy applies admirably to
this contemporary political system which has been an-
nounced by Proudhom and Joseph Smith.   Like  its
prototype, it is not " one thing—one mode—one  sys-
tem : by no means.   This term (socialism) is applied to
all kinds of practice pursued by all regular physicians
(socialists).   It is a very extended and a very diversi-
fied combination.  It includes much that is good, and
much that is bad. And the practitioners of this Allo-
pathy  (socialism)  are, some of them, bad practition-
ers."
   But if the political radical,  in practically testing
his  eclectic  and empirical views, endangers the in-
tegrity and  purity of the social fabric,  what shall be
said of the medical radical who practically experi-
ments, with his equally empirical processes  upon the
diseased human  fabric?   The  socialist  radical con-
taminates and  impairs the principles  of  men;  the
medical  radical poisons their bodies.  The  course of
the one leads to immorality and vice, that of the other
to permanent illness, suffering, and premature death. 
CHAPTER VH.
             CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS.

  From the foregoing observations, the profession and
the community will remark  that the Hippocratic
school of the present day is actuated by the same in-
tolerant sjririt  which  has always  characterized  it
since  the days of Hippocrates and Galen.  The very
distinction of the subject of medicine—the uncertainty
and mystery pertaining to the intimate  nature of dis-
ease, and the modus operandi of remedial agents—
the proneness of mankind to measure  all  things by
previous knowledge—the  influence of long established
dogmas, and  the deeply-rooted prejudices they have
engendered—the momentous  interests at stake in
connection  with the practice  of  the art,  have each
tended to encompass the subject with difficulties, and
thus   enable the intolerant, the bigoted, the  selfish,
and the designing  of  the profession to exercise an
undue influence over the general mind.   Whenever
an original idea has been  advanced which has hap-
pened to clash with any of the " accumulated facts
of ages," the medical  rabbis who  preside over the
shrine of ancient Allopathy, have ever been  on the
alert,  and  by denunciations, persecution, and various 
          SLOW ADVANCEMENT OF MEDICINE.      137

forms  of  oppression, have  generally succeeded  in
crushing all fresh investigation at the onset.
  From these circumstances the reader may under-
stand why medicine  has  made  so  little progress  in
comparison with  other  sciences,  until the time  of
Hahnemann.   While anatomy  has unfolded the in-
tricate structures of the imman organism, and physi-
ology  has explained the lunations  of its different
parts—while  chemistry has developed, from the hid-
den  treasures of the animal, vegetable, an  mineral
kingdoms, substances both ponderable and imponder-
able, possessed of properties of the most potent  ef-
ficiency—while botany, mineralogy, the microscope,
and  a philosophical mode of induction, have all been
made available, within the past century, for purposes
of scientific improvements in every branch of human
knowledge, the healing art has  slumbered on in  its
prolonged sleep of centuries, disturbed only by the
occasional nightmare of  an  original idea  which has
by chance flitted before it.  Instead of examining,
and  of endeavoring to appreciate the delicate and
subtile phenomena of the human body in health and
in disease, and the  almost unlimited powers of im-
ponderable agents in modifying the condition of  all
its parts,  at all times, and under  all circumstances,
Allopathy has chosen to retain the material and gross
ideas of antiquity as her guides in the treatment of
disease.   Precisely the same remedial means are em-
ployed now,  empirically and at random,  it is true,
which were used by the heathen allopathists twenty-
two hundred years ago, when alchemy, sorcery and
astrology held the rank which chemistry, anatomy and 
138         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
physiology now hold.  The crude notions of these
early physicians are excusable, on the ground of their
utter ignorance respecting the phenomena of life, and
of the vast powers of imponderable  agents in their
chemical, morbific, and remedial operations upon ma-
terial structures; but  the  obstinacy and wilful blind-
ness of their modern brethren, with regard to these im-
portant subjects, is not only  inexcusable, but deserv-
ing of the severest- censure.
  No class of men, however strong their position may
have become  from circumstances which  have long
been in operation,  has the right to trifle with human
life and human happiness,  by endeavoring to repress
investigations  which threaten to clash with their anti-
quated prejudices,  or to overthrow their preconceived
dogmas.   No body of men has  the right, or will be
permitted, at this enlightened period, to act as judges
and  dictators of the opinions  of others, or to exercise
any  permanent influence against an opponent by pri-
vate calumnies, collegiate  persecutions,  or legislative
enactments.   The  days of the inquisition  have long
since fled, and no  medical Loyola can  now plot and
conspire against the promulgation of knowledge and
truth.  The  ideas  of  Homoeopathy may still  be as-
sailed by the impotent denunciations and the senseless
ridicule of the ignorant and conceited of the Old
School, as heretofore,  but Homoeopathy will continue
to advance until the  crumbling fabric  of Allopathy
shall be  prostrate, and the only rational system  of
medicine established in its place.
  From much observation  during a practice of fifteen
years, first as an allopathist and then as a homoeopath- 
          POINTS AT ISSUE MISUNDERSTOOD.        139

ist, we are quite satisfied that the practitioners of the
Old School, as a body, are entirely ignorant of the doc-
trines  of  Homoeopathy.   This  is daily illustrated in
their constant assertions that the remedies of the  two
schools are the same, and that the only difference con-
sists in the fact that the allopath uses these drugs in a
crude state, while the homoeopath uses them in an in-
finitesimal form.  In  their allusions to the subject,
they almost invariably leave out of the question  the
real points at issue between the two systems, and con-
fine themselves to the incidental point of doses.  How
often do we hear the remark by the Old School phy-
sician  that this or that medicine is allopathic, without
any reference to the disease or symptoms for which
it is employed ;  thus leaving the impression  that both
schools administer  the same remedies in the same
diseases!  How studiously  do they conceal  the  fact
that one class of practitioners doctor the stomach, in-
testines, and  skin, for nearly  all  diseases, while the
other class, direct their remedial applications to  dis-
eased parts only.  With  how much assumed import-
ance and  gusto do the smaller men of the profession
presume to sit in judgment  on Hahnemann,  and with
sardonic  grimaces discharge  their intellectual  pop-
guns at infinitesimal doses, while  the towering cita-
del of  similia similibus curantur receives not a single
paper  wad.   Occasionally,  however,  a man of extra-
ordinary courage, like Dr. Hooker, dares to notice our
law of cure.  But even in these instances we regret
to perceive that the spirit of the homoeopathic prin-
ciple is entirely misunderstood and  misrepresented.
These  writers have evidently given only a superficial
                        7 
140         HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

glance at the therapeutical law of Hahnemann, with-
out any desire to understand  and appreciate  its im-
portance, but for the express purpose of opposing and
ridiculing it.  It is for this reason that all of their at-
tacks upon the subject have  proved futile, and, for the
most part, unworthy of consideration.
  It is only within the past year or two that Homoeo-
pathy  has  been considered  worthy of  any extended
notice.  For more than  twenty years  its opponents
have constantly asserted that it was losing  ground
everywhere, and that it would speedily be forgotten.
It is even implied by our cyphering friend, Dr. Hook-
er,  that Hahnemannism is  going  down both  in this
country and in Europe, and  now, since the profession,
through him, " has passed its verdict against it," that
it will soon be blotted out of existence.  If collegiate
oppressions, printed and oral  calumnies, and  such
influences as the most vindictive hatred  of the old
school profession can suggest,  can  retard its progress
and  extinguish its utility, these predictions may be
verified ; but as Hahnemann  and  his  disciples  have
not committed  the guardianship of their system to
their bitter enemies, but to  an intelligent and discri-
minating public, we entertain  no misgivings respect-
ing its ultimate destiny.
  It is scarcely  twenty-five  years since the homoeo-
pathic mode of practice was  introduced into America.
Then,  a single physician in New York was its only
representative; but, to quote  from Dr. Curtis's Inau-
gural Address, of January 14, 1852 :
  " Between this single voice  then raised  in its favor,
and  the present response, what a contrast!   Fifteen 
HOMOEOPATHY IN EUROPE.
141
hundred physicians of our land now own its worth
and dispense its resources.  It is the just panegyric of
our school  that these are not adventurers, who have
overleaped the walls of privilege and the qualifica-
tions of teaching, but, with the rarest exceptions, men
of accredited ability in the received systems of medi-
cine, who,  from a catholic regard for truth, have em-
braced  Homoeopathy, and brought  their  badges  of
professional merit as  a graceful offering to its superi-
ority ;  their verdict for  it is the voluntary suffrage of
adepts.  And who are the non-professional advocates
of the new method?  They are a large and brilliant
clientage,  who  have brought Homoeopathy to  the
touchstone of experience, and whose  culture,  judg-
ment and liberality are  its pride and hope."
   And  what shall be  said of  the  present condition of
Homoeopathy in  Europe ?  Within the last year the
University of Edinburgh has established  a  medical
inquisition, for the purpose of  excluding from  its
privileges all those students who may dare to think or
form their own opinions upon medical subjects.  The
allopathic professors of  this institution have assumed
to themselves the attributes  of medical infallibility,
and now  essay  to violate the intelligences of their
pupils by forcing upon them, nolens volens, their own
contradictory hypotheses, to the absolute  exclusion
of  every  idea   which   smacks  of  Hahnemannism.
Other medical schools are also on the qui vive, and
are only deterred by  public opinion from issuing their
bulls of excommunication against all who presume to
differ from them in opinion.  Medical journals which,
a few  years since, scarcely  deemed the New School 
 142        HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.

 worthy of a  passing  inuendo,  now teem  with so-
 phistries and calumnies against it of the most Jesuiti-
 cal and vindictive character.
   In London two respectable homoeopathic  hospitals
 have been established within the past year under the
 patronage and management of such men as the Duke
 of Beaufort, the Archbishop of Dublin, Lord Robert
 Grosvenor, and the  Marquis  of  Anglesey.  Other
 hospitals have also been  founded  in several  of the
 larger  towns of England  under the auspices  of the
 most noble and intelligent of the  land.  Numerous
 dispensaries likewise distribute  their  blessings in
 every  quarter,  and by their  successes in  practice,
 contribute much towards the extension of the system.
  In France, one of the most learned and intelligent
 medical men of Paris,  Dr. Tessier, physician  to the
 Hbpital Sainte Marguerite, (one of the hospitals con-
 nected with the Hotel Dieu, and containing  one hun-
 dred beds,) after a careful preliminary study of the writ-
 ings of Hahnemann, and  a rigid practical investiga-
 tion respecting their truth at the bedside of  the sick,
for a period of more than  two years, has publicly an-
nounced the vast superiority of this mode of practice
 over the antiphlogistic  measures of the Old School.
When it is known  that the principal diseases treated
by  Dr. Tessier were  pneumonia  (lung fever)  and
cholera, the importance of the result will be  better
 appreciated.
  With respect to the gentleman  himself,  who has
thus been converted to Homoeopathy, the simple fact
of his appointment to the post of physician to a hos-
pital like that of Sainte Marguerite, proves  the esti- 
CLERGYMEN ADOPTING HOMOEOPATHY.     143
mation put upon his talents while an allopathic prac-
titioner, but  now, as he  has changed  his  opinions
upon medical topics, he  will of course be classed
among the " deluded,"  " loose  reasoning,"  " unedu-
cated and irresponsible" followers of Hahnemann.
  In Austria, Russia, and several other countries of
continental Europe, well endowed homoeopathic  hos-
pitals are in successful operation, and the practice is
everywhere extending among the intelligent classes.
  It is  a  fact eminently  worthy of notice  that the
patrons of Homoeopathy  are among the most intel-
lectual and well-educated of every nation.
  Dr. Hooker has chosen to refer in terms of reproach
to the clergy for the willingness they have evinced to
accept the doctrines  of the  philosophical  school in
medicine, and he has expended besides abortive wit,
no  inconsiderable amount of contumelious  invective
against this class, which,  to  say nothing of the  con-
sideration in which it should be  held, for  its sacred
functions, embraces a larger amount of learning, talent,
and logical acumen,  than any  other in the world.
We may confess that we are proud  that the members
of a profession so intelligent, learned, and  conscien-
tious, have so generally examined  and approved the
homoeopathic theory, and adopted  its practice; but
would it  not have been more appropriate for Dr.
Hooker to have discussed the more material and im-
portant fact, that of the  thoroughly educated, right-
minded, and successful practitioners of the Old School,
so large a number  have been converted to the  doc-
trines of Hahnemann ?  This is the exciting cause of
the  indignation, jealousy, and mortification of the 
144        HOMOEOPATHY VS. ALLOPATHY.
allopathic practitioners, and  for this they can offer
no plausible reason, except the apparent and over-
whelming truth of our system.
  We  have hastily and  imperfectly,  yet  we trust
satisfactorily answered  the so-called  " examinations"
of Dr. Worthington Hooker; and we think we have
shown him to be as deficient in common honesty and
conscience as he is in a knowledge  and fit judgment
of the true principles of cure.   With  a worthier
antagonist, and more time, we might have entered
into  a more elaborate, perhaps a  more  satisfactory
investigation of those great principles in medicine,
which are destined to have supreme  acceptance and
the most satisfactory influence among the intelligent
classes of mankind.
  For the present, we have done.
 
 
 
 
NLM009889312