ADDRESS BEFORE THE HOMfEOPATDlG MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. DELIVERED MAY 10, 1865. ■v/ By the President, HENRY D. PAINE, M. D., OF NEW YORK. ----**---- ALBANY: VAN BENTHUYSEN'S STEAM PRINTING HOUSE. 1865. f ADDEESS. It is one of the most remarkable things in the world, and at the same time, one of the saddest and most lamentable, that the practice of medicine, an art of daily necessity and of daily exercise, which most nearly affects the dearest interest of mankind, and to the improvement of which we are encouraged and impelled by the strongest motives of interest and humanity, of love for our neighbor and zeal for our profession—should, after a proba- tion of so long a period and a recorded experience of at least two thousand years, still remain, as it confessedly does in most respects, and as usually understood, an instrument of such doubtful and uncertain application. Admitting, as we must, that in the nature of things it in one of the most difficult of all arts—dealing with elements and phenomena the most complex, variable, subtle and uncertain—admitting all this, it must nevertheless, seem strange to the thoughtful mind, that with opportunities of daily ob- servation, continued through so many centuries, and by so many interested and anxious observers, there should be so little, either in matters of fact, or theory, that can be considered as settled and established. The phenomena of health and disease, and the effects of drugs and all other agencies capable of influencing the human sysiem, however intricate and obscure, are strictly matters of observation; and it would appear reason- able that in the course of time—longer or shorter—some fixed principles concerning the manner in which these phenomena and these effects occur, should have been evolved and established, and the relations between them so recognized and defined as to be made available in the cure of the sick, the relief of the suffering and the prevention of disease. That this expectation, both moderate and reasonable, has not been ful- filled in any satisfactory degree, so far, at least, as the dominant and hitherto prevailing systems of practice are concerned, is evident. Not only have the wits and satirists of every age found in the uncertainties, absurdi- ties and inefficiency of medicine, abundant food for their ridicule and their sarcasm, but thoughtful and philosophic men, both in and out of the pro- fession, have admitted and deplored its low estate and tardy progress. There is scarcely a point relating to the nature of any disease or its proper treatment—or the nature, effects, and use of any medicinal agent, upon which there is not to be found the greatest diversity of opinion and practice among medical men. Not only do the writers of one age or country controvert and oppose the views and practice of a previous era or another country, but cotemporaneous physicians of the same school and nation, of the same city or district, are far from being unanimous on these subjects. Nay, examples will readily occur to every physician here present, of pro- fessors in the same college, teaching doctrines and insisting upon principles utterly diverse and irreconcilable with each other. 4 Let us illustrate these remarks by an example. Among diseases that have been longest known and best described, none, perhaps, has received more attention, or been subjected to more extended observation, than Typhus Fever. A disease of acknowledged severity, of frequent occur- rence and well marked symptoms, it has ever been studied with the closest scrutiny, and its nature, cause and treatment subjected to the ordeal of the most critical investigation, and at times the sharpest controversy. The most learned physicians of every age have devoted their wisdom to its elucidation, and the volumes that have been written upon it in all languages would, of themselves, form an extensive library. The essential character and most appropriate treatment of a disease so long and thoroughly known, so important and so interesting, must, long ago, it would seem, have become so well understood as to leave little occasion for further investigation or discussion. But a brief citation of the various opinions that have succes- sively prevailed on these points, even within the last fifty or sixty years, will show that it offers no exception to the general statement respecting the instability of medical science. To avoid the suspicion of unfairness, I shall state the case in the language of one of the most candid and learned of Allopathic writers rather than my own: "At the termination of the last century," says Dr. Bostock,* "while the doc- trine of Cullen was generally embraced, Typhus Fever was called a disease of debility, and was, of course, to be cured by tonics and stimulants. No sooner was it ascertained to exist than bark and wine were administered in as large doses as the patient could be induced or was found able to take. No doubt was entertained of their power over the disease; the only ques- tion that caused any doubt in the mind of the practitioner was, whether the patient could bear the quantity that would be necessary for the cure. To this treatment succeeded that of cold affusion. The high character and literary reputation of the individual who proposed this remedy, its simpli- city and easy application, bore down all opposition, and we flattered our- selves that we had at length subdued the formidable monster. But we were doomed to experience the ordinary process of disappointment—the practice, as usual, was found inefficient or injurious, and it was after a short time supplanted by the lancet. But this practice was even more short lived than either of its predecessors; and thus, in a space of less than forty years we have gone through three revolutions of opinion with respect to our treatment of a disease of very frequent occurrence, and of the most decisive and urgent symptoms." And it may be added, that the treatment of the disease referred to has not become a whit more settled and satisfactory since the above melancholy exhibit was written. Within the memory of most of us the calomel treat- ment, the beef-steak treatment, the saline treatment, the turpentine treat- ment and the do-nothing treatment, has each had its day of popularity and its zealous advocates, and its equally earnest opponents. What is true in regard to Typhus Fever might also be said with equal truth of almost every other disease with which humanity is afflicted. Con- siderations such as these have drawn from the most reputable writers * History of Medicine. 5 mournful concessions of the general defects of the so called art of cure. Says Boerhaave: " If we compare the good which half a dozen true disci- ples of ^Esculapius have done since their art began, with the evil which the immense numbers of doctors have inflicted on mankind, we must be satisfied that it would have been infinitely better for mankind if medical men had never existed.'' The late lamented Dr. Abercrombie has well stated the case in the fol- lowing remarkable language, which, although often quoted, deserves the serious attention of the contemners of medical reform and innovation: "Since medicine was first cultivated as a science," says he, " a leading object of attention has been to ascertain the characters and symptoms by which internal diseases are indicated, and by which they are distinguished from other diseases that resemble them. But with the accumulated expe- rience of ages bearing upon this important subject, an extended observa- tion has only served to convince us how deficient we are in this department, and how often, even in the first steps of our progress we are left to conjec- ture. An equal or even more remarkable uncertainty attends all our re- searches on the action of external agents upon the body. These engage our attention in two respects, as causes of disease and as remedies, and in both these views the action of them is fraught with the highest degree of uncertainty." And again, as with the keen edge of his truthful satire, he lays bare the weak foundations of professional assumption, he coutinues: "When in the practice of medicine we apply to new cases the knowledge acquired from other cases, which we believe to be of the same nature, the difficulties are so great that it is doubtful whether in any case we can pro- perly be said to act upon experience as we do in other branches of science. * * * The difficulties and sources of uncertainty which meet us at every stage of our investigation, are, in fact, so great and numerous that those who have had the most extensive opportunities of observation will be the first to acknowledge that our pretended experience must, in general, sink into analogy, and even our analogy, too often, into conjecture." It would be easy to fill many pages and to occupy the whole time of this address with similar extracts from Allopathic writers of the highest repu- tation of different periods. But these already quoted are surely a sufficient confirmation of the assertion that the boasted experience of the old systems has not, so far, resulted in the discovery and recognition of any fixed and settled principles of medical philosophy. And since medicine had a litera- ture there never was so little unanimity in the teaching or practice of the profession as in our own day. There was a time, extending over hundreds of years, during which there was universal acquiescence in one system of phi- losophy, one doctrine of pathology, and one rule of practice. The writings of Hippocrates were, during those ages, held to contain the sum and sub- stance of all medical knowledge, and he was the best physician who under- stood best and adhered most closely to the teachings of that " father of medicine." The medical writers of those days never ventured to controvert in the slightest degree his opinions or his statements. To explain, to enlarge upon, to illustrate them, was considered all that the wisest and the most experienced of his successors might presume to do. When at length it came to pass that the Hippocratic doctrine lost its 6 hold upon the minds of men, and other systems and methods succeeded it, the profession, till then a unit, began to break up into schools and sects, each claiming for itself a superiority over all others, and too apt to denounce such as dared to think, or teach, or practice differently from the received authority. And the disintegration has gone on, in a sort of geometrical ratio, till in these latter days every physician claims to be independent, and prides himself upon the originality and peculiarity of his views. Every doctor forms his own theory and builds up his own! system to suit himself, according to his preconceived ideas, or, as he believes, from his own expe- rience; and one who should not profess to hold some notions different from his brethren would, very likely, be set down as a wiak and servile imitatoi\ If in this we see good reason for congratulation that modern physic is emancipated from the clogs and trammels of ancient prejudice, and undue subjection to authority, we cannot but allow, at the same time, that it still exhibits a state of sad unsettledness and confusion.' These remarks and animadversions have special reference to what may be called the practical departments of medical science—those, namely, of Pathology, Therapeutics and the Materia Medica. :For as they are of most immediate interest and concernment to us in the daily duties of our calling, so unfortunately, it is in regard to them that we have most to lament the lack of well defined and established principles. This is the more remarkable when we consider the great progress made in such auxiliary sciences as anatomy, chemistry and physiology, as are em- braced in the idea of a complete medical education. For of them it cannot be said that they have not partaken of the impulse of modern investigation and discovery, or that their earnest cultivation has not been fruitful of grand results. No btanches of natural or experimdntal science have been, within these fifty years, more assiduously and successfully studied than these. The anatomist is no longer content with a knowledge, however full and exact, of the more obvious structures of the body, the bones, muscles, blood vessels, nerves, viscera, &c, in all their various relations, but pursues his investigations into the deeper recesses of their organization, with a zeal that can only be appreciated by those who know something of the difficul- ties to be encountered. There is no artery but has been followed to its farthest ramification; no nerve but has been traced through all its delicate thread-like windings; no tissue, or membrane, or fibre but has been sepa- rated and displayed, and the form and arrangement of its ultimate struc- ture determined. Where the eye and the scalpel have failed, chemistry and the microscope have been summoned to carry out the inquest. Micro- scopical or minute anatomy has, in these later years, almost reached the dignity of a distinct science, wonderful in its accomplished revelatious, but promising still greater results in the future. The achievements of modern chemistry, from their character and their extensive relations with other branches of science and the arts, are more generally understood and appreciated. They have, indeed, been of the most surprising description, and have elevated the science to a position as much superior to the alchemy of the middle ages, as modern astronomy is *o the astrology of the same dark period. I 7 If as much cannot be said of physiology, it is not from the want of dili- gent and enthusiastic cultivation, but rather from the difficulties inherent in the science itself and the later period when correct principles of investi- gation were applied to it. It is indeed but a few years since a high autho- rity on this subject felt warranted in using such language as the following: " Would that I could say of physiology—in the language of Bacon, 'the science of ourselves'—that it has pursued the same course and undergone the same metamorphosis, as the physical sciences. But unfortunately this is not the case. Physiology is still in the minds of many, and in some of our books a mere work of the imagination. It has its different creeds, and opposite and contending sects * * * In a word, it may be said to be the frame-woik of a religion strangely filled with scientific terms." But under the influence of a more careful observation and rigid scrutiny of facts, physiology is rapidly taking rank among the most progressive of its sister sciences. The functions of many organs and tissues have been ascertained—the circulation and composition of the blood—the seat and channels of sensation—the power and direction of the muscular forces— the phenomena of nutrition, secretion and reproduction—the processes of decay and transformation, have been demonstrated and described. But while we gratefully recognize the progress which these important sciences have made, and admire the proud position they have reached, so much more marked is the contrast between them and those branches of learning which are properly embraced in the term "Practical Medicine," which have to do with medicine as an art and a profession, and to the per- fection of which those auxiliary and collateral studies are, or ought to be subservient. The value of anatomy, chemistry, botany, pharmacy, and other kindred branches, to the practising physician, consists in the advan- tage he derives from them in relieving and curing his patients in the surest, safest and easiest way. It is to this end and for this purpose that he has spent his years of pupilage in the laboratory and the dissecting room, and mastered the hard, dry technicalities of the schools. However interesting these studies may be in themselves (and none are more deserv- ing of cultivation), how immeasurably more important would they be to us as practising physicians, if by their means we were taught the mysteries of disease—its secret causes and its essential nature—or the most potent agencies for its removal, and the restoration of the sick to health and vigor. But it must be admitted that no such advantages to practical medicine have followed from the labors of the anatomist, the chemist, or even the physiologist, as might naturally have been expected. Though they have wonderfully enlarged the boundaries of our knowledge in other directions, yet in the one point of greatest interest to us as a profession having the charge and responsibility of the sick upon our hands, they have almost entirely failed to enlighten us. The most accomplished anato- mist has not yet been able to discover the essential nature—the proximate cause—of a fever, an inflammation or a neuralgia. The most expert chemist cannot conjecture why one drug acts upon the nerves and another on or through the blood, nor why two poisons which may be almost identical in composition produce such varied effects. Nor can either of them answer 8 one in a thousand the questions that concern the relations which drugs and other agents bear to the human system in health and disease. So, while all other sciences grow apace, and in their progress and results excite our constant admiration, the science of Therapeutics and the art of cure yet linger far behind. The cause of this tardy advance in an art the most needful and the most important of all that relate to this life, may be found in the neglect of a true system and course of observation. Not but that there have always been anxious watchers of the phenomena which sickness, disease and death furnish to the world daily. But it is the misfortune of our profession, that in it there has ever been a supremacy of theory over fact, and a loose col- lation of experiences, not for the purpose of laying the foundation of a le- gitimate practice, but rather with the object of building up and fortifying systems preconceived. It is as true now as it was thirty or forty years ago, when it was asserted by the learned Dr. Todd that he felt himself " fully warranted by long and ample experience, in affirming that whether it be considered in its scientific relations, or in its practical details, no department of knowledge so urgently demands the wholesome reform of a close and scrutinizing induction." Or, as Dr. James Johnson asserts,* "much of the uncertainty, obscurity and difficulty which is encountered, has arisen, and continues to flow from the irrational manner in which medicine has been taught and studied. This no one can deny who is capable of forming any opinion upon the matter. * * * General inferences are drawn from particular premises—individual cases are made the models of entire epidemics—effects are confounded with causes, and causes with effects, the sequent with the antecedent, and the antecedent with the sequent—resemblances are discovered where none exist, and points of difference are detected where more minute inquiry would have found nothing but accordance." If medicine is less a science of experience than other sciences, is it not owing to the fact, admitted by many candid writers, that the instrument and art of experience have never yet been properly applied to it ? There certainly does seem to be no reason why the medical facts that have been accumulating since the fall and to which each day adds a larger store, should not be subjected to the same rigid scrutiny, and brought within the grasp of inductive reasoning, and made to stand on the same footing as those of other sciences of observation and experiment. It will not be denied that there are some impediments in the nature of the case, that render the application of these rules to medicine peculiarly difficult, but these can be overcome, it cannot be doubted, by the repeated labors of many, honestly and truly undertaken and persevered in. " If the method of observing was reformed, and the observation subjected to the assay of a searching induction," hopefully says Dr. Todd, " it is impossible to foretell what might be the happy results ; and certainly not before such a trial has been fairly made, is it allowable to say that medicine cannot be elevated to the rank of the other sciences." p]ven before these words were written, was this necessary and dosired reformation begun. For already was the foundation laid, and even the • Med. Chi. Rev., xvi, 38. 0 superstructure had taken shape, of a system of practical medicine built upon pure observation and a rigid analysis. Discarding all preceding theories and divesting his mind, as far as possible, of all merely hypothetical preconceptions as to the nature of disease, and the relations of remedial agents to the human system, Hahnemann devoted his great genius to the development of a therapeutic law from a cautious comparison of authentic facts sifted from the husks and chaff of theory and conceit. It does not fall in with my design to entertain you with an account of the rise, history and progress of Homoeopathy, or an exposition of its prin- ciples and peculiarities. The life and character of Hahnemann—the gradual unfolding of his great discovery—the painful trials and impediments with which the new method has had to contend, and its present favorable position, would each be a fitting theme for the present occasion. But the discussion of these topics has so frequently engaged your attention both in the pro- ceedings of the Society and in the standard publications of our school, that I forbear to occupy your time on this occasion, with a repetition of state- ments and arguments with which my audience are already familiar. I shall content myself with saying, in this connection, that we claim for Homoeopathy that it fulfills the required conditions of that long desired reform in medicine more completely than any system of treatment that has gone before it. It stands upon the platform indicated by the most candid and thoughtful minds, namely: that of a pure, cautious and repeated observation, systematically pursued, and tested by experience. As the result of proceedings so conducted, under the guiding genius of Hahnemann, has been evolved, that beneficent law of cure, expressed in the brief but comprehensive formula, Similia Simiubcs Curantur, and which is destined to accomplish, sooner or later, a complete revolution in medical philosophy and medical methods. It is no mere hypothesis first formed in the mind of the proposer and then defended by a partial and imperfect selection of proofs, like the multitude of fanciful systems that preceded it; but a legiti- mate deduction from authentic facts well weighed and compared. The announcement of a discovery so important and fraught with conse- quences so momentous to medical science, by a man of the acknowledged high character and reputation of Hahnemann, could not fail to attract attention. But it was not to be expected, considering the usual fate of similar discoveries, that a principle and the system built upon it necessarily involving a complete reconstruction of the art of healing as heretofore established, would be accepted without opposition, denial and even ridicule. What treatment it has experienced at the hands of the profession, both in the old world where it was first promulgated, and in this free land under more liberal and, as we claim, more enlightened political institutions, is well known to all. Xot only has the system itself been assailed with ridicule, but its advo- cates and practitioners have been subjected to obloquy, professional discourtesy, and all the enginery of vindictiveness. While we cannot pause to disprove every false allegation, or to confute every sophistical impeachment that our opponents may bring against us, it seems fitting on this occasion to notice an assault made by the Allopathic Medical Society of this State, speaking through its president, Dr. Thomas [H. D. P.] 2 ./ 10 Hun, and published in a late volume of the " transactions" of that society. In his annual address delivered before the society in 1863, upon the " Influ- ence of the progress of Medical Science upon Medical Art," Dr. Hun recognized the fact " that a great revolution in medical practice is going on; that the notions which have prevailed, and to a great extent do still prevail, as to the objects and limits of our art, require great modifications, and that our pretensions in the healing of disease must be far more humble than they have been." He exposes the false and mischievous assumptions of the " regular" profession, and speaks of its "errors and impostures" in language that would be considered as abusive if employed by one of another school. He justifies the ridicule of the satirists and the criticism of the grave, which have served, as he declares, "to expose our exaggerated pretensions in the cure of disease, and to show on how slight a foundation our routine of practice reposed." While he deplores "what has happened in the dark paths which we and our predecessors have trod," he is not less emphatic in asserting the necessity for a complete reconstruction of the old systems of Therapeutics. It may readily be believed that the bold and emphatic expression of sen- timents like these from one holding so distinguished a position in the Allopathic ranks, would not fail to excite among his brethren feelings of dissatisfaction and alarm, as savoring over much of professional insubordi- nation and an implied approval of Homoeopathy. So marked, indeed, were the signs of disapprobation in certain quarters, that in order to counteract the not Unnatural " misconstruction," which he admits some have fallen into, and to set himself right upon the record as an orthodox Allopathist, the doctor deems it necessary to append to his published address at attack upon Homoeopathy and its friends, in the form of a note, in which, among other things, he gravely discusses the important question, " Is Homoeopathy quackery?" Of course, the anticipated answer to the question thus pro- pounded could only be in the affirmative, else why should it have been obtruded into the discussion; but those who heard or have read only the address, will be interested to learn by what peculiar line of argument the predetermined result is reached. It is foreign to my inclination to reply to attacks of this nature, and under ordinary circumstances I should pass this one by unnoticed; but the position of Dr. Hun, as presiding officer of the Allopathic State Medical Society, and his general reputation for liberality and learning, invest his specifications with an importance which they would not otherwise possess, and seem to render some rejoinder desirable. I propose, therefore, to occupy the remainder of the time assigned to me by a review of the assumptions of Dr. Hun in regard to Homoeopathy, as the latest phase which the opposition to our science has assumed. The animus of the assault deserves only a passing notice, as we can afford not to reciprocate it, but the logic emploved by Dr. Hun and the concessions made by him, are note-worthy indications of the present atti- tude of that controversy which agitates the medical world, and which especially keeps the old schools of practice in a ferment of uncertainty and misgivings. 11 Dr. Hun admits the errors and impostures of the "regular" profession; he admits that Ilomoeopathists, as a class, are not chargeable with that sort of quackery which consists of dishonorable and indecorous profes- sional conduct; he admits that most of them "have gone through a regular course of instruction, and have been pronounced by the proper boards qualified to practice," so they cannot be charged with gross ignorance; he admits that there are many "eminent lawyers, learned divines, shrewd and prudent merchants, who conduct their affairs with discretion," who are capable of " forming a sound judgment on any subject, and who yet adopt the Homoeopathic system of practice for themselves and their families;" he admits that "a great many recoveries take place under Homoeopathic treatment," and he allows also that " there is no fixed orthodoxy in medi- cine," and that, within Allopathic limits, "the common sense of the profes- sion does not call a man a quack nor exclude him from association, simply because he is thought to be absurd and wrong-headed, nor even because he promulgates a system, which, like the exploded system of Brousais, is deemed false in reasoning and pernicious in practice." As Homoeopathists we may feel under no particular burden of obligation for these concessions, extorted as they are by palpable facts from lips all too reluctant to praise and all too ready to censure; but the "general world" of mankind may well adopt a vote of thanks to Dr. Hun for his exposure of what is not deemed quackery inside of the " regular profes- sion;" and it goes very far towards neutralizing all testimony from the same source against what may be denounced as quackery outside of the said " regular profession." For, l>3' the showing of Dr. Hun, a man may adopt and propagate a system which is regarded by his brethren as " false in reasoning and pernicious in practice," i. e., injurious or fatal to the patient; and yet the common sense of the profession will not suffer him to be called a quack, nor exclude him from association and recognition as a " regular," so long as he sails under Allopathic colors and maintains pro- fessional decorum. He is thus obliged to say, in substance, we cannot stigmatize any physician as unworthy of public patronage and professional confidence, merely because he is so wrong-headed as to persist in a method which we see kills instead of cures, for then we should be obliged to brand a portion of our own number as quacks—nothing is quackery which is scientific, and nothing is scientific unless it is Allopathic. What then, it may well be inquired, are the grave delinquencies of a system which, like Homoeopathy, is adopted and approved, and trusted by educated and conscientious men, (which, so far from being "pernicious and injurious," has proved to be eminently safe and successful in practice) that it should be proscribed as quackery, and its practitioners denied the common courtesies of the profession that are freely accorded to the " absurd and wrong-headed " Allopathist? Dr. Hun holds the following language: "Though great latitude of opinion is tolerated in medicine, yet, to this, there must be some limits. The most opposite doctrines may be promulgated; the most opposite modes of practice may be proposed, and yet neither party claim the right to turn the other out of the profession; but, after all, there must be some show of sense or reason in these doctrines or this practice. There must, in fine 12 be some limits to the absurdities which a man maybe allowed to maintain. Now, Homoeopathy passes those limits." Very good; there is such a thing as quackery; and both the profession and its patients have good cause for a wholesome horror of it. But what are those limits, beyond which if a physician passes he becomes a quack? Since, in Dr. Hun's opinion, mere fatal error, or the habitual sacrifice of the patient's interests to a false and pernicious system, does not militate against good fellowship with the profession; since "the most opposite doctrines may be promulgated, and the most opposite modes of treat- ment may be proposed," without incurring the terrible charge of quackery, where is the boundary line? Dr. Hun proposes to find it at the point of self-evident absurdity, and he declares that Homoeopathy is justly obnoxious to the charge of quackery, because it passes beyond those limits It has no " show of sense in its doctrines, or of reason in its practice." " It is so absurd and illogical that its refutation is difficult, only because logic cannot grasp propositions so utterly unreasonable." This is the dire offence which, in the judgment of Dr. Hun, merits so severe a sentence. Not because Homoeopathy is unsuccessful or injurious; not because its practitioners are ignorant or uneducated; nor because they resort to dishonorable or unprofessional ways of attracting attention or extending their practice, for none of these things are charged against us; but because it is self-evidently absurd. It might be unfounded iu right reason, and unsafe—even "pernicious"—in practice; but if there were only some plausibility in it—" some show of sense or reason," it might still have escaped the censure so glibly passed upon it. But "absurdity" is such high treason against the whole medical fraternity, as at once to deserve the forfeiture of all professional rights. If any complain that an unwarranted discrimination is thereby made against us and our system, while " in the past we find many absurd pretensions to blush for," as well as "many fatal errors to deplore," which, nevertheless, did not debar their authors from professional comity and respect—if any think it a little hard that we should be worse treated than the disciples of Brousais who, "although their master was called absurd and wrong-headed," and his, now exploded, system was denounced as " false in reasoning and pernicious in practice," were never called quacks, nor excluded from association with the rest of the profession; they should remember the important and "self- evident" distinction that those absurdities were not Honuropathie. That makes all the difference. At least I think it would be difficult u» discover any other. The charge of " self-evident absurdity," although a convenient method of avoiding discussion, is not always conclusive as to the final judgment of mankind. It has often before been made in reference to ideas, discoveries and inventions, the truth and value of which time and experience have ultimately demonstrated and confirmed. In these days especially, when the developments in science and the arts are constantly obliging us to modify or completely change our former views, it behooves' us not to be too bold in our denials, nor too hasty in denouncing as absurd, every thing that appears new or unusual. 13 Dr. Hun compliments Homoeopathy as having been " for twenty-five years the prevailing medical heresy." He allows that its practitioners have, as a class, "gone through a regular course of instruction, and have been pro- nounced by the proper boards, qualified to practice." He admits, as we have already seen, that " there is a class in which are found eminent law- yers, learned divines, shrewd and prudent merchants, who conduct their affairs with wisdom and discretion, and who yet adopt the Homoeopathic system of practice for themselves and their families ;" and he might have added, that in every community, where the system has been fairly repre- sented, its chief adherents and supporters are of that class. It is not among the ignorant and the uncultivated that it makes its first and its firmest converts. It is only by slow degrees that it gains the confidence of the lower classes, who are much more likely to estimate the value of a pre- scription according to its size, the number of its ingredients, its nauseous- ness, or the immediate impression it makes upon the patient. But Dr. Hun knows perfectly well, or he may know if he will take a little pains to in- quire, that the patrons and upholders of Homoeopathy are everywhere, those who are not only "eminent," "learned" and "shrewd" in their several professions and conduct their own affairs " with wisdom and dis- cretion," but that their very habits of weighing evidence, examining testi- 1110113', looking after their interests and regarding all subjects from a prac- tical, utilitarian and common sense point of view, enables them to form as sound a judgment on medical matters as those whose prejudices, instincts or interests lead them to adhere to the old routine. Now, is it altogether modest in Dr. Hun, or any man, to pronounce the sentence of " self-evident absurdity" upon a doctrine science, or practice, that is accepted, believed in, and trusted by men of this class ? Nay, is it not the height of presumption ? For twenty-five years Homoeopathy has been the " prevailing medical heresy." Its practitioners are men of regular medical training, have observed all the legal and usual requirements, have been pronounced by proper (Allopathic) judges qualified by education, moral character and decorous deportment, to assume the duties and respon- sibilities of a profession scarcely inferior in importance to any other. Who shall say that they are less qualified than others to form opinions on sub- jects of controversy, or that in changing their views or adhering to this practice they7 have been influenced by more unwoi 'thy motives than those who, with or without examination of the subject prefer to remain Allopath- ists ? Dr. Hun concedes the right of every man who has learned his pro- fession "to form opinions and adopt a practice according to the best light he can find." Is it not to be presumed that Homoeopathic physicians have exercised this right conscientiously and intelligently? For a quarter of a century, and more, many " learned," " shrewd," " emi- nent," "wise" and "prudent" men have been treated according to the method of this " prevailing heresy "—they have preferred it for themselves— they have trusted to it those more dear than themselves—but they have not yet discovered its " self-evident absurdity." And is it not somewhat remarkable that a system so far "beyond the reach of logical refutation" because of its utter absurdity, without any unprofessional or indecorous propagandism on the part of its advocates, without resort to dishonorable 14 and clap-trap expedients to gain popularity, and in spite of the persistent opposition of the so-called "regular" profession, should for so many years from A .r 7 ltS 10M "POn ^^ COtlfidenCe °f thG PUbHc> mtiki1^ C^rts from Allopathic ranks, extending itself in every civilized country, estab- lishing its dispensaries, hospitals and schools, gaining in strength and in- fluence where ,t has been longest known, and yet at this time be more than ever, the prevailing medical heresy ? That the system is safe, efficient and reasonable, we have the evidence of thousands of scientific, shrewd and thoughtful men, who have tried it in the crucible of actual experience ^of Df iJuT That * " "^^^ 'W - hav/the as- That large and respectable portion of the non-medical public-that it is both large and respectable is conceded-wbo, after more or less experience and observation of its benefits discard the old system-who so far agree with Dr. Hun as to believe it " unworthy of the age and the present con- sul,° r^'" and,chooseH^oeoP^y instead as being more safe and successful-are excused for their defection on the general ground of ign0- ranee, notwithstanding their learning, their shrewdness, their prudence in ordinary affairs ; in regard to the merits of medical systems they are st angely uninformed and indifferent. "The truth is," says our author these men neither believe nor disbelieve in the system. They have not, taken the> pains to examine into it, and do not know exactly what it is J nst as this same class of men is in general, unacquainted with the medi- cal doctrines of the regular profession." What is it then that induces these otherwise discreet and prudent people to forsake the good old ways of Allopathic orthodoxy for this'silly de usion his 'prevailing heresy" of Homoeopathy ? What strange haUucination begui es these usually sensible men to trust their dearest uaterest" *su h a so lenVofentL dSm f ^ "f MOt g° bey°nd thls — add— *> of it 'That V w?1 ^ , rUS hear°Ur Iya™«d author's explanation of it That which they do believe," says he, -is that sick persons when treated according to the Homoeopathic system, recover at least as we1 as when treated according to the regular practice, thus found ngthi d" Z beSta fruit ' ^™M~[the SyStem' UUt °n What ™™ toSefa ™ ,♦ a T '■ ' 1S "^ that a roaso,ltlbIe foundation for their iud*- nient ? And ,s not even the unlearned and way-faring man comp te to Ubited But Dr. Huu has more to say on this subject. " It is within the recollection and experience of most of those here present thV ,1 whatever might be his age or circumstances, ,a aTlo "d b^ is ohv ' o go through an attack of measles or scarlet fever chZ5 «'v ^ this mediciim was 1»^ Homoeopath st, in similar mhpq i« ■ , ,w . '"J wr ^toty. ^ow the 7"