IS THE 
Homeopathic School Unsectarian? 
is its practice; 
BASED ON AN “EXCLUSIVE DOGMA”? 
H. M. PAINE, A. M., M. D., 
OF ALBANY, N. Y. 
BY 
REPRINTED, WITH EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS, FROM LTHEJ 
“ AMERICAN OBSERVER ” OCTOBER, 1878. 
ALBANY: 
WEED, PARSONS AND COMPANY, PRINTERS, 
1879. CONTENTS. 
Page. 
Are Homceopathists Sectarian ? 3 
Resolutions adopted by the Homoeopathic Medical Society, of the State of 
New York, February 12, 1878 3 
Resolutions adopted by the Homoeopathic Medical Society of Middle Ten- 
nessee 4 
Homceopathists are liberal and unsectarian 4 
Action of the New York County Homoeopathic Medical Society 5 
Two sorts of members in homoeopathic medical societies 5 
Present position, embarrassing 5 
The question, one of principle vs. expediency 5 
Homoeopathy an empirical rule of art 6 
Homoeopathy not the only law of cure 6 
Contraries contrariis also a law of cure 6 
The progress of homoeopathy hindered by its friends 6 
Homceopathists are not sectarian in practice 7, 8 
The homoeopathic system is not perfect 7 
Homoeopathy is occasionally insufficient 7 
Homoeopathic physicians divided into three classes 8 
Approximation of the allopathic and homoeopathic systems 8 
Homceopathists are not exclusively homoeopathic 7, 8, 9 
The resolutions demanded by public sentiment 9, 10 
The New York resolutions favorably criticised 9 
Homoeopathists desire to be recognized as physicians rather than homcepaths, 9, 10 
Extract from the code of ethics of the American Medical Association 9 
Protest of the Kings County Homoeopathic Medical Society 9 
Homoeopathy, a sectarian nickname 10, 11 
Resolution adopted by the American Institute of Homoeopathy 10 
Hahnemannians are supporting dead issues 10 
Halinemannians, a laughing-stock and stumbling-block ll 
Why homceopathists still retain a sectarian name 11 
Homoeopathy, the best of extant therapeutic creeds 11 
The name, “ Homceopathist,” not to be announced on cards or door-plates. 11, 12 
Present position of the homoeopathic school 12 
Homoeopathic medical societies, the homes of freedom 12 
All barriers to full professional fellowship should be removed.. 13 
Medical societies are formed in order that the public may be benefited 13 
Medical societies should promote the welfare of the people 13 
All arbitrary rules and creeds should be abrogated 13 
Declaration of Homoeopathic Principles 13 
Report of the Committee on liberty of opinion and action 13 
Criticism of the report of the committee. 15, 16 
Extracts from the Code of Ethics of the American Institute of 
Homoeopathy 16 
Extract from the Homoeopathic Times 16 Are Homceopathists Unsectarian? 
One of the questions regarding which homceopathists widely differ 
in opinion, has reference to the applicability of the principle or rule of 
practice on which the homoeopathic system of treatment is founded. 
One party holds that the principle similia, being an immutable law, is 
mandatory, is universally applicable, and is the only one by which cures 
are ever effected. Another party, while admitting the principle to be 
one of the more important of Nature’s laws, also acknowledges the 
existence and efficacy of others, which, like that of contraries, is, in 
some instances at least, quite as applicable and trustworthy. They 
regard the homoeopathic principle to be pre-eminently a rule of art, 
varying in the degree of its applicability, as experience shall demon- 
strate, rather than an absolute and unchangeable law of nature. 
One party is faithfully endeavoring to adhere strictly to the exclusive 
use of homoeopathic remedies; the other is as honestly applying them 
in a majority of cases, and also resorts to the occasional use of anti- 
pathic measures. 
These two parties have frequently expressed their sentiments in the 
form of resolutions formulated in such a manner as to set forth, more 
or less forcibly, their views of the principles underlying correct medi- 
cal practice. As a natural result the resolutions have embodied widely 
different opinions, and have led to prolonged and bitter discussions. 
At first absolute confidence was expressed in the universality of the 
homoeopathic principle ; but of late years more liberal views are freely 
and frequently expressed. 
The following resolutions embody the sentiments of the liberal and 
rational party: 
Whereas, *There are some physicians, who, by injudicious action 
have bred dissension in our ranks, in which the utmost liberty of opinion 
and action should always prevail; and 
Whereas, We deprecate such action as neither conducive to profes- 
sional harmony, nor tending to the advancement of medical science ; 
therefore 
Resolved, That in common with other existing associations which 
♦Adopted February 12 1878, by the Homoeopathic Medical Society of the State 
of New York. 4 
have for their object investigations and other labors which may con- 
tribute to the promotion of medical science, we hereby declare that 
although firmly believing the principle “ Similia Similibus Curantur ” 
to constitute the best general guide in the selection of remedies, and 
fully intending to carry out this principle to the best of our ability, 
this belief does not debar us from recognizing and making use of the 
results of any experience, and we shall exercise and defend the inviol- 
able right of every educated physician to make practical use of any 
established principle in medical science, or of any therapeutical facts 
founded on experience, so far as in his individual judgment they may 
tend to promote the welfare of those under his professional care. 
“ In view of the evident misunderstanding of the true sphere and 
therapeutic requirements of the homoeopathic law, and the discords 
arising therefrom, notably in the Societies of New York : 
Resolved. * ist — That we affirm and publish our full confidence in 
the law similia as the paramount guide in special therapeutics, where 
pathogenetic means alone are to be employed. 
2d. — That we also proclaim our reliance upon the laws of chemistry, 
mechanics and hygiene or physiology, as guides in the use of means 
not pathogenetic, and in the adoption of measures to correct the excess 
or deficiency of things requisite in health, and to remove the known 
causes and products of disease. 
3d — That we deprecate all efforts on the part of Societies to adopt 
creeds and platforms, limiting the freedom of educated medical men, 
believing as we do that the responsibilities of the practitioner are 
essentially personal, and that the art of healing is yet imperfect and 
progressive.” 
These resolutions were intended to fairly represent the present 
advanced sentiments and practice of a portion of the membership of 
the homoeopathic school. They distinctly set forth, that the homoeo- 
pathic system alone is insufficient in a portion of cases met with in 
ordinary practice; and that, in some instances at least, recoveries are 
more prompt and satisfactory when supplemented by palliatives, adju- 
vants and even antipathic remedies. While expressing entire confi- 
dence in homoeopathy, whenever applicable, they substantially declare 
that homoeopathists are not practicing an exclusive system of treatment, 
and ought to be regarded as liberal and unsectarian physicians. 
It is very probable that these resolutions will not at first be received 
with favor by many homoeopathists. The New York resolution was 
twice adopted and then rescinded by the Homoeopathic Medical Society, 
of New York county. It was offered and tabled at the annual meeting 
of the Illinois Homoeopathic Medical Society. One remonstrance to it 
has been made by the Kings County Homoeopathic Medical Society, 
and one by the Homoeopathic Medical Society of Chester and Dela- 
ware counties in Pennsylvania. Nevertheless, these resolutions plainly 
indicate a growing sentiment in opposition to the assumption of the 
* Adopted by the Homoeopathic Medical Society of Middle Tennessee. infallibility and universality of the homoeopathic principle. And it 
is to be hoped that this liberal element will ultimately prevail. 
The following extract, from the Medical Record of December 21, 
1878, page 493, plainly states the question at issue, 'and forcibly 
expresses sentiments of disapproval of the course adopted by the exclu- 
sives: “At the recent annual meeting of the Homoeopathic Medical 
Society of the county of New York, there was a fresh struggle between 
the liberals and exclusives. The occasion was a proposed amendment 
to the constitution of their society. The change sought was the removal 
of the clause which virtually binds its members to an exclusive homoeo- 
pathic practice, and declares to the world that such is the practice of 
its members. It being generally admitted, however, that the great 
majority do not confine themselves thus strictly, an effort was made 
by some of the more intelligent, and, we may say, honest members by 
public declaration, to place the matter in its true light before the pro- 
fession and the public. This effort was defeated. / 
“ The present position of affairs, therefore, seems to be that the 
Society in question contains two sorts of members, those who desire 
emancipation from the thraldom of dogma, and the acknowledged right 
to practice as their judgments dictate, and second, those who practic- 
ally do the same, but are not willing that the public should know it. 
The position of these gentlemen is too obvious to require lengthy 
comment. It is simply an example of the apparent dishonesty and 
fraud which we have, perhaps, too universally charged against homoeo- 
pathists in general 
“The position, however, of the so-called liberal homoeopaths — those 
who believe that many drugs can be usefully applied according to 
homoeopathic principles as formulated in the proposition “ Similia,” 
etc., but who do not regard this principle as always available — in the 
present aspect of affairs, must be somewhat embarrassing. If they 
remain members of their County Society, they are viutually participentes 
criminis of false pretenses. If they resign, they, in a measure, lose the 
political (medical) rights which they now enjoy, and with no assurance 
that they can acquire new ones. The question, then, seems to become 
one of principle vs. expediency. Which will probably yield the most 
satisfactory results in the end we leave them to determine.” 
The following extended quotations are intended to show that the 
leading members of the homoeopathic school in this country and in 
England occupy this advanced, liberal and rational position. 
Dr. Richard Hughes, in his admirable reply to Dr. P. P. Wells, pub- 
lished in the North American Journal, November, 1878, page 253, says: 
“ I submit, therefore, that Dr. Wells is not justified in denouncing it as 
a crime to represent the homoeopathic principle as a rule of art rather 
than as a law of science. In propounding the latter position as one of 
5 6 
obligation, he seems to me going beyond the facts, as he is certainly 
unwarranted by any authority. This being so, I cannot feel the force 
of his protest against the attitude which the great majority of our school 
assume with regard to similia simihbus, and which seems to me well 
expressed by the New York Homoeopathic Society.* 
“ If in homoeopathy, as propounded by Hahnemann, we recognized 
a law of nature, such as Newton propounded under the name of gravi- 
tation, we should have nothing to do but to obey it and utilize it as best 
we could. But accepting it as he gave it us—as an empirical rule of 
art, deduced from observation, it is for us to work it wherever appli- 
cable, and to suffer it to find its own place among other rules similarly 
obtained. ‘ Let contraries be treated by contraries,’ is one of these, not less 
potently accredited and more obviously reasonable. We have observed 
and experimented with the two, and have concluded—as Hahnemann 
did—that the method of contraries is that of temporary palliation, that 
of similars of permanent cure. 
“ But it is quite conceivable—and, as, I think, demonstrable—that 
there are some morbid states which are so temporary, and at the same 
time so distressing, that antipathic palliation is all they require, and 
that by giving the patient the benefit of this, you do best to help 
him in his need. If this be so, and it is purely a question, of experience 
—we are bound to avail ourselves of contraria contrariis. We, there- 
fore, decline to bind ourselves beforehand by any obligation to follow 
a certain method to the exclusion of all others. The method in ques- 
tion must find its predominance in our practice by its own inherent 
merits, not by the adventitious weight of prescription and authority. I 
can conceive of no other position than this, which it is legitimate for a 
physician to take up.” 
Dr. J. P. Dake, in defense of resolutions adopted by the Homoeo- 
pathic Medical Society of Tennessee,! of similar import to that pre- 
viously adopted by the New York State Homoeopathic Medical Society, 
tersely concludes an article in the January number of the American 
Observer, page 43, as follows: 
“ Claiming all that is due to the law similia, we are ready to accord 
to other laws and practical guides what truly and clearly belongs to 
them. ‘ If this be t> eason, make the most of it.' 
“Groundless assumptions as to the scope and applicability of that law 
{similia), claiming for its dominion all the wide fields of human ailments, 
all the subtle affinities of earth, and the measureless mysteries of the 
heavens, have done more to hinder the progress of homoeopathy and to 
disgrace its advocates, than the most determined assaults, made upon it, by 
all its enemies.” 
Dr. Dake further states in the Homoeopathic Times, December, 1878, 
* Resolutions, pages 3 and 4. 
t Page 4. 7 
page 199, Cl For more than thirty years I have been a homeopathist, so 
far as homoeopathy has to do with human ailments; but I have con- 
sidered myself, at the same time, as something more than a homoeo- 
pathist. 
“ I have been a mechanic in adjusting broken bones and in removing 
foreign and morbid bodies when injuring my patients; a chemist in 
using antidotes for poisons, and in all approved measures for disinfec- 
tion ; a hygienist in prescribing change of air, of business, or of habits, 
for those requiring such change alone for the recovery of health ; a pari- 
siticide in the employment of means to destroy the parasites, which, let 
alone, injure health and destroy life; and an allopath in the exhibition 
of palliatives, in cases where destruction of tissue or exhaustion of 
recuperative power renders a cure out of the question, and where great 
suffering exists, or a speedy death may occur, without them. 
“ But I am reminded that I have been no more than any other good 
homceopath; that all homoeopaths resort to the outside means which I 
have referred to, as occasion requires, and that there is no need of 
special comments on the subject. 
“Why, then, allow me to ask, do we read and hear so much about the 
all-sufficiency of the law similia, and the utter folly and madness of con- 
sidering any other principle in the wide domain of therapeutics? 
“ Are we to employ means of cure in our daily practice, outside of the 
sphere of the homoeopathic law, without regard to the laws which gov- 
ern there ? 
“ Are such things to be seized upon, and used, and tossed away, as 
simple ‘ adjuvants ’ when successfully employed in cases where they 
alone are called for, and where homoeopathic remedies are utterly use- 
less ? ” 
Homoeopathic Medical Societies bear a sectarian name, and, on that 
account are liable to be considered sectarian societies, and by inference, 
their members sectarians in medicine. Now it is a notable fact, one 
recognized by both the profession and the public, that a majority of 
homoeopathists are not sectarian in practice. They are not sectarian 
because they have found by experience that the homoeopathic system is 
not perfect, and is occasionally insufficient. 
Dr. Dudgeon, in the article previously quoted, says: “ If the chemist 
and the optical scientist would indignantly reject a name derived from 
their theoretical views, why should we eagerly assume one derived from 
the latest and most advanced rule for therapeutic treatment, which may, 
perhaps — for it is not perfect and infallible, as we all know— be super- 
seded by something better ? ” 
Dr. Dunham, in his admirable address before the American Institute 
of Homoeopathy, delivered in June, 1870, on ''‘'Freedom of Medical 8 
Opinion and Action • a Vdal Necessity and a Great Responsibility,” divides 
homoeopathists into three classes : 
First. “ The strict followers of Hahnemann ; ” 
Second. Those “ who take the name of homoeopathic physicians, but 
do not accept the homoeopathic law as of universal application in thera- 
eutics, or who do not accept the peculiar mode of practice generally- 
known as homoeopathic ; the single remedy, for instance, and the mini- 
mum dose; ” 
Third, And those “who mix remedies in their prescriptions, who 
alternate and rotate remedies, and whose massive doses would sometimes 
astonish the Old School itself.” 
The two classes last referred to are members of our societies and are 
representatives of the homoeopathic system of practice, and they will 
remain in our fellowship. We cannot expel them ; we cannot convert 
them into the first class named. Moreover, the practice of these last 
two classes, which constitute the major part of the membership of the 
homoeopathic school, has approached so closely to that of the Old 
School; or, the practice of the latter having of late years been greatly 
changed is now so nearly like that of our own, as to have created an 
impression, on the part of the public, that practically the two systems 
are essentially identical ; that is, both employ remedies to relieve and 
cure the sick without producing medicinal disturbing influences, and 
both use palliatives and adjuvants in common. 
Regarding this point, Dr. Dudgeon in an article entitled “ Physician 
or Homoeopathpublished in the American Observer, August, 1878, 
page 405, says : “ Circumstances are completely altered since the time 
when homoeopathy was first introduced into this country. Then the 
prevalent practice was so entirely different from what it is now, and 
consequently from the homoeopathic, that there was no apparent point 
of contact between the two * * But in these later years we 
have witnessed a gradual approximation of the practice of the dominant 
majority to the homoeopathic. The points of contact between them are 
many ; the methods of the new school have been adopted to a very con- 
siderable extent by the old.” 
The impression, therefore, prevails-on the part of the public, that we 
are not consistent; that in practice we are not strictly homoeopathic, as 
in truth, we are not. 
Dr. Dudgeon in the article previously quoted, says : “Still there is some 
force in the objection that by the assumption of the name of homoeo- 
path, we imply that we will treat patients only by homoeopathy, 
whereas we actually do treat them to the best of our judgment, and in 
many cases, as I have shown, by remedies that are not homoeopathic at all.” 
To pretend to be exclusive homoeopathists, and at the same time 
engage in mixed practice, is not creditable to our school. We are 9 
homoeopathists but not exclusively. Hence the propriety and the 
exceeding fitness of adopting the resolution in question. 
Taking this view of the sentiments embodied in these resolutions 
their adoption appears to be demanded by the public. They comport 
with our practice, and indicate a degree of fairness on our part which 
is highly commendable, and is recognized and very favorably criticised 
by the public. Many of the daily papers in New York, and several 
allopathic medical journals commented on the passage of the New 
York resolutions, in terms of decided approval. 
The Medical Record, Vol. 13, p. 212, says : “It would appear that 
the large majority of the members of that sect in this city, and through- 
out the State, desire to be considered physicians rather than homoeopaths, 
and to avail themselves of all, rather than a portion only, of the 
resources of medical science. That this is the only proper ground upon 
which men claiming to be scientific should stand is self-evident.” 
The resolutions recognize and express the right of private judgment 
on the part of the members of the Society. Abstractly, neither a 
minority nor majority in any scientific association has a right to make 
arbitrary rules which interfere with freedom of opinion and action. 
The code of ethics of the American Medical Association* assumes 
to control this prerogative, and it sadly interferes with public interests, 
and is condemned by public sentiment. 
Those who oppose the resolutions claim that there is no necessity for 
their adoption; that we are now, while claiming the name homoeopathists, 
at liberty to apply any and all methods of treatment extant. And, in fact, 
a circular has been issued by a committee of the Kings County Homoeo- 
pathic Medical Society protesting against the resolution, “ as uncalled 
for by any facts or interests pertaining to any branch of medical science, 
and as calculated to degrade the law of healing practically, whenever, 
and wherever they have influence.” f 
We reply that, while the membership of our societies is made up of 
the three classes of homoeopathists previously described, and while we 
*ArticIe IV, section i. A regular medical education furnishes the only presump- 
tive evidence of professional abilities and acquirements, and ought to be the only 
acknowledged right of an individual to the exercise and honors of his profession. 
Nevertheless, as in consultations the good of the patient is the sole object in view, 
and this is often dependent on personal confidence, no intelligent tegular prac- 
titioner who has a license to practice from some medical board of known and 
acknowledged respectability, recognized by this association, and who is in good 
moral and professional standing in the place in which he resides, should be fas- 
tidiously excluded from fellowship, or his aid refused in consultation, when it is 
requested by the patient. But no one can be considered as a regular practitioner 
or a fit associate in consultation, whose practice is based on an exclusive dogma, to the 
rejection of the accumulated experience of the profession, and of the aids actu- 
ally furnished by anatomy, physiology, pathology, and organic chemistry, 
f American Observer, October, 1878, page 480. 10 
are members of a society bearing a sectarian “ nickname,” the very con 
dition exists which calls for an expression of the sentiments embodied 
in the resolution. We grant that, if all the members were of the first 
class named, i. e. strict Hahnemannians, the declarations set forth in 
the resolutions would be unnecessary and harmful; but, under existing 
circumstances, they are exceedingly appropriate and timely. 
So much has been said and written of late regarding exclusivism and 
sectarianism in medicine, that a declaration of some sort from homoeo- 
pathic societies seems desirable, in order to correct an erroneous im- 
pression which appears to prevail, that there is a want of conformity 
between our profession and our practice. 
When the New York resolution was under consideration the second 
time by the New York county society, only three or four out of about 
forty physicians present declared themselves exclusive homceopathists. 
Therefore, while it may not be expedient at present to drop the distinctive 
name of our State and local societies, it is eminently proper and is required 
by the exigencies of the time that at least a qualifying and explanatory 
statement like the resolutions in question, unequivocally defining our 
position, should be made public and permanently placed on the records 
of the Society. 
It is quite probable that an expression of sentiment in the form of a 
resolution will be scarcely considered sufficient; something more than 
this is necessary, viz., the incorporation into the by-laws of a declara- 
tion to the effect that, although members of a society bearing a secta- 
rian name, we desire to be recognized as physicians in a truly catholic 
sense, and to discard all association with sectarianism and exclusivism 
in medicine. 
It is evident that the true position of our State associations should be 
as liberal and noble as that taken by the American Institute of Homoeo- 
pathy, as set forth in its resolution adopted June, 1871, as follows : 
11 Resolved, That the interests of the cause of truth and the interests 
of humanity rise higher than the distinctive lines of medical schools, 
and we hold it to be the duty of medical men to disregard such dis- 
tinctive lines where these higher interests can be subserved thereby.” 
This resolution was intended to rebuke sectarianism in the so-called 
regular school; its application at the present time seems very appropri- 
ate on account of the exclusivism of strict Hahnemannians, those mal- 
contents in our school who are still diligently nursing the theory of the 
universality of the rule similia, the theory of the minimum dose, and the 
theory of dynamization, dead issues, which have been long since discarded 
by a majority of homceopathists. 
Dr. Dake in the article published in the Homoeopathic Times, pre- 
viously quoted, concludes as follows : “ I must express the hope that 
those in our ranks who are so ready to censure and denounce their 11 
brethren (referring to the Kings county circular,) for not appreciating 
the homoeopathic law, and for recognizing other laws in the wide 
domain of therapeutics, may study more successfully the methods of 
scientific discovery, and the origin and scope of what are known as 
natural laws and principles, to the end that they may be wiser and 
more useful, and less a laughing-stock to the world and a stumbling-block 
in the way of intelligent medical men.'' 
Why Homceopathists Still Retain a Sectarian Name. 
The following quotations from the recent writings of two prominent 
English homoeopathic physicians very satisfactorily state the reasons 
why homoeopathists still remain in fellowship with societies bearing a 
sectarian name. 
Dr. Dudgeon, in the article previously referred to, says : “ There 
remains, then, this question : Shall we call ourselves ‘ homoeopaths, 
‘ homoeopathists,’ or ‘ homoeopathic physicians ?’ We are called so by 
our differently thinking colleagues, and by many of our patients, but 
the application in these cases is used as a nickname, or to avoid circum- 
locution, just as we speak of our misbelieving colleagues as ‘ allopaths,’ 
a title they would most certainly refuse to adopt, and very properly so. 
Why then should we, because by means of Hahnemann’s discovery we 
have rendered rational the hitherto irrational therapeutic part of 
medicine, assume an appellation indicative of the therapeutic principles 
whereby this has been effected ? Would a chemist who had adopted the 
atomic theory of Dalton call himself an ‘ atornist ?’ or an optical physicisl 
who believes in the undulatory theory of light, call himself an ‘ undu- 
latist. If not, then neither should a physician, because he has adopted 
the latest and best — theory shall we say ?— no, it is hardly that— rule, 
for the employment of drugs in disease, call himself by the name of 
this therapeutic rule. * * * * Medical theories and 
therapeutic rules are changeable and transitory, but the physicians who 
adopt or renounce them remain physicians through all the changes of 
their theories or systems. 
“ It seems ludicrous, because we hold what we know to be the best 
of extant therapeutic creeds, to assert that we have reached finality in 
therapeutic science, and to barter our glorious name of physician, 
which we have borne through all the vicissitudes of medical beliefs, 
for a mere nickname, derived from the latest outcome of medical 
practice. 
“ If it is right to call ourselves homoeopaths, it cannot be wrong to 
announce the fact on our door-plates and calling-cards, and yet no one 
who respects himself would resort to such a practice, and even the 12 
0 
British Homoeopathic Society would expel any member who did so; 
thereby showing that they consider it a sin against medical ethics * * 
Therefore it would be well to avoid the assumption of an appella- 
tion that is felt to be an offense to the professional feeling of many 
estimable colleagues, more especially as we cannot altogether justify it 
from the facts of our actual practice.” 
Dr. Hughes, in his admirable open letter, to which previous reference 
has been made, clearly defines the present position of the homoeopathic 
school as follows : 
“But Dr. Wells seems to say, why call yourselves homoeopathists at 
all ? Why not take the name which truly denotes your position — that 
of eclectics ? My answer is, that we do not call ourselves homoeopath- 
ists. The term is used, for convenience’s sake, to designate those who 
accept the method of Hahnemann as valid, in contradistinction to 
those who reject and ignore it. But we do not put it on the door- 
plates or professional cards ; we do not allow ourselves to be so described 
in general directories. When we sanction the use of the names 
in the ‘ British Homoeopathic Directory,’ it is as of those who are 
chiefly guided in the treatment of the sick by the law of similars. ‘ We 
are (I quote from the preface to the edition of 1870,) ‘physicians and 
surgeons, not mere homoeopathists and Hahnpmannians. The name 
of sect or sectary is as unpleasant to us as to any of our medical 
brethren. But a legacy of medical and historical truth has devolved 
upon us, which it is our duty and should be one of our highest privi- 
leges to receive and preserve, until the work of the greatest therapeutic 
discoverer is acknowledged as a fact, not denounced as a fallacy, and 
the law which he evoked, accepted as the chief, if not the only means 
of therapeutic progress. 
“ Besides this (which is merely incidental) the only way in which we 
stamp ourselves as in any way distinct from the profession at large, is 
our membership of homoeopathic societies, our service in homoeopathic 
institutions, our contributions to homoeopathic journals. Do we in any 
way bind ourselves thereby to an exclusive adoption of the method so 
designated ? Surely not. The rules of no society or institution of 
the kind require any such engagement from their members or officers. 
They are the homes of freedom, not of restriction; and we resort to 
them because we find there that liberty which is denied us in the cor- 
responding organizations of the old school. We believe in homoeo- 
pathy ; we rank ourselves among its adherents; and we claim our right 
to profess and practice it. If this right is denied us in our natural 
fellowship, we must seek or form others ; but we do not thereby create 
for ourselves a new bondage, and abdicate our right to make as much 
or as little use of our newly acquired method as we judge best.” 13 
All Barriers to Full Professional Fellowship should be 
Removed. 
Medical associations are formed ostensibly for the purpose of the 
better qualifying medical men to treat diseases successfully. They pro- 
mote the acquirement of practical knowledge, by affording opportunity 
for a comparison of views and experiences, which shall prove of benefit- 
not to themselves alone, but through them to the public. Public interests 
require their organization and maintainance. These are the ulterior 
purposes for which medical societies are formed, therefore, their man- 
agement should be such as to promote and protect the welfare of the 
people. 
Medical societies are proportionately useful as the full benefit of their 
practical advantages are extended to qualified physicians; hence special 
care should be taken not to limit or interfere with their benevolent 
offices by the enactment of arbitrary rules or creeds,* designed to re- 
strict their membership and professional intercourse to a portion of 
the educated practitioners in any community. 
While the enforcement of exclusive bans may not prove detrimental 
to physicians as a class, may even prove of benefit to a portion of them, 
the people, non-professional members of the community, are the suffer- 
ers ; hence, all unreasonable and unnecessary obstacles to free fraternal 
fellowship among medical men, which may interfere with public interests, 
should be speedily removed, to the end, that the greatest possible, 
benefit may be secured by all who require the services of the medical 
profession. 
Declaration of Principles. 
At the annual meeting of the Homoeopathic Medical Society of the 
State of New York, held February 12, 1879, a motion was made to 
reconsider and expunge Dr. Fowler’s resolution adopted at the previous 
annual meeting.f An amendment was adopted referring the subject to 
a committee of five, who subsequently presented the following declara- 
tion of principles, which report was adopted, at the suggestion of the 
committee, for consideration one year. 
“ Your committee, representing the extremes of our school both in 
practice and views, have unanimously agreed to present the following 
paper. They ask for its careful and liberal consideration. They hope 
it may be received by the society, ordered to be printed and sent to 
every homoeopathic physician of the State. 
“ They suggest that the committee or their successors be continued 
during the year. That the chairman be the medium of correspondence 
* Vide, extract from the code of ethics of the American Medical Association 
page 8. Per contra, extract from the code of ethics of the American Institute of 
Homoeopathy, page 16. 
f Pages 3 and 4. 14 
with any member of the profession who may desire so to do. And that 
their final report be made to the society at the afternoon session of the 
first day of the session of 1880. 
“Whereas, the resolutions* passed by this society at its last annual 
meeting, do not justly express the views of our school, and are calcula- 
ted to place us in a false position before the world. 
“ Therefore, we the members of said society, deem it expedient to 
put upon record the following avowal of our position : 
“ 1st. That we adhere to the formula of “ similia similibus curantur" 
as enunciating the great therapeutic law, for the treatment of disease. 
Evolved by induction, formulated by the venerated Hahnemann, tested 
and approved by thousands of physicians, during scores of years, we 
are assured that with our increased knowledge of the Materia Medica, 
we shall be able to demonstrate more fully its universality as a thera- 
peutic law, and show in a more perfect manner its harmony with other 
and cognate natural laws. 
“ 2d. That we clearly and emphatically distinguish between a ‘ thera- 
peutic law ’ and the laws of chemistry, physics, and hygiene, and as 
in the treatment of disease their formula ‘ sublata causa, tollitur effectus ' 
is often to be remembered and used with advantage, yet such laws and 
such action in no way infringe upon or invalidate the therapeutic law 
1 similia similibus curantur.' 
“ 3d. That we have not in the past, nor do we now, yield one tittle of 
our rights as physicians, to use any means or appliances of the general 
profession to aid in the treatment of our patients (under the homoeo- 
pathic law), or in the palliation of their suffering through the application 
of physical, surgical, chemical or hygienic laws, leaving the question of 
such use to the individual judgment of the practitioner, assured that 
they will be the least used by those who are the best acquainted with 
our Materia Medica, and best able'to wield its immense armamentarium. 
“ 4th. That contrary to the opinion held by some, we most thor- 
oughly indorse, and would most earnestly enforce the study of pathology 
and pathological anatomy in our schools, and by our students as deter- 
minating in the direction of a broader medical culture. 
“ 5 th. That the great work of our school, is the advancing of medical 
sciences, the provings of drugs, and the enlarging, purifying and 
verifying of our Materia Medica{ 
“ We point with just pride to the work we have already accomplished, 
and though we may lament that it has not been more thorough, and lies 
open to criticism, yet we hail the continued appropriation by other 
schools of the medicines and methods of using them, introduced by us 
to the profession in those diseases where their usefulness has been 
* Pages 3 and 4. 15 
indicated by their pathogenesis, as a virtual indorsement of our labor 
and to a certain extent vouching for their substantial accuracy. 
“ We do not look upon this action on the part of our quondam oppo- 
nents with jealousy, but welcome it cordially, when credited, as the dawn- 
ing of a better era. We freely yield our labors for the use of others, as 
only a just contribution to the general profession from which we have 
received so much. 
i( 6th. In relation to the dose of the similimum proper to be exhibited, 
we discover that the most brilliant triumphs of homoeopathy have been 
achieved by the use of attenuated medicines; yet as a matter of fact 
we find that even the crude drug in minute doses, will exhibit power to 
become a remedy under our therapeutic law. 
“ But, as we as yet have not been able to deduce a law, to guide us 
in determining the amount of a drug to be used, or the attenuation to be 
exhibuted, in order to meet the demands of any case most accurately, 
this society, while declining on the one hand to join with those who 
decry attenuated medicines, on the other, will not refuse to recognize as 
brethren those, who, governed by their honest convictions can only 
exhibit crude medicines or the lowest attenuations in the treatment of 
the sick. 
“ 7. In conclusion, we would most frankly and fully join in the motto 
of one whom this society loved to honor, when in life he so often and 
so rarely directed its councils : ‘ In certis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in 
omnibus charitas.'" 
Dr. Fowler’s resolution was open to unfavorable criticism by the 
opponents of homoeopathy, because it was not qualified by explanatory 
statements. 1 he report of the committee, in its first five sections, is 
equally liberal and far less objectionable in form, and will, without 
doubt, receive the indorsement of a large majority of homoepathists. 
The committee, by inserting the sixth section, have introduced poso- 
logical questions regarding which an honest and apparently unrecon- 
cilable difference of opinion exists, on account of the ex parte and 
untrustworthy evidence .hitherto furnished regarding the utility and 
homoeopathic application of highly attenuated medicines. The ques- 
tion of the proper dose is one which was not embraced in Dr. Fowler’s 
resolution, and its discussion need not have been entered upon by the 
committee. The presence of the sixth section need not, and probably 
will not, be considered an indorsement of the absurd and unscientific 
theories and practice promulgated by Dr. Hahnemann, which have been 
long since discarded by liberal and rational homoeopathists. 16 
Extracts from the Code of Ethics of the American Institute 
of Homoeopathy.* 
“ f A complete medical education, of which the diploma of a medical 
college is the formal voucher, furnishes the only presumptive evidence 
of professional acquirements and abilities. But the annals of the pro- 
fession contains the names of some who, not having the advantage of 
a complete medical education, became, nevertheless, through their own 
exertions and abilities, brilliant scholars and successful practitioners. 
A practitioner, therefore, whatever his credentials may be, who enjoys 
a good moral and professional standing in the community, should not 
be excluded from fellowship, nor his aid rejected, when it is desired by 
the patient in consultation. No difference in views on subjects of med- 
ical principles or practice should be allowed to influence a physician 
against consenting to a consultation with a fellow practitioner. The 
very object of a consultation is to bring together those who may, per- 
haps, differ in their views of the disease and its appropriate treatment, 
in the hope that, from a comparison of different views, may be derived 
a just estimate of the disease and a successful course of treatment. 
“No tests of orthodoxy in medical practice should be applied to 
limit the freedom of consultations. Medicine is a progressive science. 
Its history shows that what is heresy in one century may, and probably 
will be orthodoxy in the next. No greater misfortune can befall the 
medical profession than the action of an influential association or acad- 
emy establishing a creed or standard of orthodoxy or ‘ regularity.’ It 
will be to freedom and progress in opinion and practice. On the 
other hand, nothing will so stimulate the healthy growth of the profes- 
sion, botlj in scientific strength and in the honorable estimation of the 
public, as the universal and sincere, adoption of a platform which shall 
recognize and guarantee: 
“ ist. A “truly fraternal good-will and fellowship among all who devote 
themselves to the care of the sick. 
“ 2d. A thorough and complete knowledge, however obtained, of all 
the direct and collateral branches of medical science—as it exists in all 
sects and schools of medicine—as the essential qualification of a physi- 
cian. 
“ 3d. Perfect freedom of opinion and practice, as the unquestionable 
prerogative of the practitioner, who is the sole judge of what is the 
best mode of treatment in each case of sickness intrusted to his care.” 
Regarding the foregoing extracts, the Homoeopathic Times of March, 
1879, states editorially: • 
“ The above is all the ‘ creed ’ that should be required by any true 
and unprejudiced physician. Science knows no prejudice and recog- 
nizes no hobbies, and the less we have of exacting dogmatism, the 
better it will be for all concerned. 
“ We would also suggest to those who have the subject of revising 
the expressions used by the State Society in its resolution of last year, 
that perhaps the re-iteration of the above sentiments—already its own 
by adoption—might meet the wishes of the majority better than the 
proposed resolution of this year, reported by them, and printed with 
the minutes of the society for future consideration. Here we have the 
sentiments of the former resolution—which has been so strongly objected 
to by some—in more concise, elegant and understandable language, and 
it is already a part of Our By-Laws.” 
* Adopted by the State Homoeopathic Medical Society. + Article IV, section