Had the reform inaugurated by him been of an insignificant character, it might have been accepted by the medical world without controversy. Had the new path into which he invited the profession been only a little smoother than the old one and lying right alongside of it, like that which led the pilgrims from the main high-way into the domains of the giant, physicians might have been easily lured into it. But the revolution was a radical one. It contemplated a counter-march such as the teachers and practitoners of the healing art had never been called upon to make. It called upon the chiefs of the profession to reverse the wheels of the ponderous engine, and seek for the long-sought shore in the opposite direction.

The new doctrine came forth embodied in only three simple words: "Similia Similibus Curantur."

Thus the year 1790 gave birth to the celebrated system of Hahnemann, which has received from him a Greek title, expressive of its peculiarities—Homoeopathy, and in opposition to "Contraria Contraries Curantur."—Allopathy.

It is not my purpose to entertain you with a detailed history of medicine, nor even to notice the successive and conflicting theories that have arisen from time to time; but simply to show that the old, or Allopathic system of medicine as practiced till this day is unworthy of our confidence; that its theory of therapeutics is irrational and worthless; that there is an absence of any reliable principle to guide the physicians in the treatment of diseases; and that the sick are far better off when left to nature, than when subject to the pernicious system of dosing, while a growing want of confidence in this system, both in the public mind and the medical profession, loudly calls for something more rational in its theory and more successful in its practice.

I shall not ask you to accept my individual opinions in support of these views, but shall place upon the witness-stand, and give you the declarations of men who have spent their lives in the practice of this system—most of them authors and teachers, men living in different countries, and from the highest ranks of the profession, and who, if any, should be able to pronounce a eulogy upon this system of practice.

I introduce to you first Boerhave, a man justly illustrious in the history of medicine, he lived a century before Hahnemann, and was for over forty years Professor at the University at Leiden.

Hear him! He says:

"If we compare the good which a half dozen true disciples of Æsculapius have done since their art began, with the evil which the immense number of doctors have inflicted upon mankind, we must be satisfied that it would have been infinitely better for mankind if medical men had never existed."

The celebrated Bichat of Paris, thus speaks of the therapeutic system of his day:

"It is an incoherent assemblage of incoherent opinions; it is perhaps, of all the physiological sciences that which best shows the caprice of the human mind. What do I say?—It is not a science for a methodical mind; it is a shapeless assemblage of inexact ideas, of observations often peurile, of deceptive remedies and of formula as fastidiously and fantastically conceived, as they are tediously arranged."

Then we find the equally celebrated French physician, Majendie, saying:

"I hesitate not to declare, no matter how sorely I shall wound our vanity, that so gross is our ignorance of the physiological disorders called diseases, that it would perhaps be better to do nothing, and resign the complaint we are called upon to treat to the resources of Nature, than to act as we frequently do, without knowing the why and the wherefore of our conduct, and at the obvious risk of hastening the end of our patient."

Dr. Good, the great nosologist, asserts that

"The science of medicine is a barbarous jargon, and the effects of our medicines on the human system are in the highest degree uncertain; except, indeed, that they have already destroyed more lives than war, pestilence and famine combined."

Sir Astley Cooper, England's greatest surgeon says:

"The science of medicine is founded on conjecture and improved by murder."

But, it may be said, these men lived in the past, and since their time the science of medicine has improved and its practice has become more rational and safe.

---

Let us then come down to a later period, and listen to Dr. Christison, the present eminent Professor of Materia Medica at the University of Edinburgh. He says:

"Of all medical sciences, therapeutics is the most unsatisfactory in its present state, and the least advanced in progress, and surrounded by the most deceitful sources of fallacy."

Sir John Forbes, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians: Physician to the Queen's Household, late editor of the "British and Foreign Medical Review," after a frank admission of the imperfections of Allopathic medicine, says:

"First. That in a large proportion of the cases treated by Allopathic physicians, the disease is cured by Nature and not by them."

"Second. That in a lesser, but still not a small proportion, the disease is cured in spite of them; in other words, their interference opposing instead of assisting the cure."

"Third. That, consequently in a considerable proportion of diseases, it would be as well, or better with patients, in the actual condition of the medical art, as more generally practiced, if all remedies, at least active remedies especially drugs were abandoned." And finally adds, "Things have arrived at such a pitch that they cannot be worse. They must mend or end."

But, I may be asked, what are the views of the Professors and writers in our own country. Have they no more confidence in the healing art than their brethren in the old world? Let us see:

Dr. Rush, one of the lights of the profession in his day, remarks:

"The healing art is an unroofed temple, uncovered at the top and cracked at the foundation."

And again:

"Our want of success results from the following causes: First.—Ignorance of the law governing disease. Second.—Our ignorance of a suitable remedy Third.—Want of efficacy in the remedy; and finally we have assisted in multiplying disease; nay, we have done more: we have increased their mortality."

Professor Chapman, who stood at the head of the profession in Philadelphia, in an address to the medical society, after speaking of the pernicious effects of calomel, adds:

"Gentlemen, it is a disgraceful reproach to the profession of medicine; it is quackery, horrid unwaranted murderous quackery. *** But I will ask another question, who is it that can stop the career of mercury at will, after it has taken the reins into its own destructive and ungovernable hands? He, who for an ordinary cause resigns the fate of his patient to mercury is a vile enemy to the sick; and if he is tolerably popular, will, in one successful season, have paved the way for the business of life, for he has enough to do ever afterwards to stop the mercurial breach of the constitutions of his dilapidated patients."

And yet, this article of the Materia Medica in some of its various forms, is still more frequently prescribed than any other by the allopathic physicians. A writer in the June number, 1868, of the "London Chemist," having submitted to a careful examination one thousand prescriptions, taken seriatim from the files of a druggist, states, among other curious facts, that mercury takes the lead, and stands prominently at the head of the list. Mercury, the very name of which strikes terror into the minds of nervous and timid patients, is still the foremost remedial agent employed by the medical profession.

Professor Draper, in one of his introductory lectures, before the University College of New York, makes the following statement:

"Even those of us who have most carefully upheld our old professional theories, and have tried to keep in reverence the old opinions, and the old times, find that under the advance of the exact sciences our position is becoming untenable. The ground is slipping away from beneath our feet. We are on the brink of a great revolution. Go where you will, among intelligent physicians you will find a deep, though it may be an indistinct perception, that a great change is imminent."

The late Professor Mutter of Philadelphia, in an introductory lecture a few years ago, says:

"We have in truth, rested contented in ideal knowledge. We have received as perfect, theories as idle as day dreams. We have blindly accepted the follies of the past; and the foundation of our art must crumble to the earth unless we learn more discretion and better judgment in the selection of the material of which they are to be constructed."

I might continue these quotations indefinitely; but I will not weary you by citing more, and surely, sufficient evidence has already been produced to sustain the allegation that the old system of medicine is unworthy of our confidence; that, with no law upon which to base its principles of treatment, its practice rests upon a chaotic mass of empirical experiences, groundless theories, and ever-changing fancies; that those best acquainted with its principles, and the results of its practice, have the least faith in its usefulness; and that the interests of the suffering, imperiously demand a revolution in the method of treating disease, and call for a system more in harmony with Nature, more reliable in its application, and more successful in its results.

This degraded state of the medical practice was deeply felt by Hahnemann, and in 1778 he retired from the practice of medicine in disgust at its uncertainties, after having acquired fame as a scientific scholar and high standing in his profession, breaking away from the past and opening a new field of glory to his activities, as well as a new era of progress in the medical art.

Samuel Hahnemann was a great man; the discoverer of the true law of cure, in accordance with the principles and laws of Nature.

I need not tell you, that we maintain that this much-desired and long-looked-for law of cure, which is to be a lamp to the feet of the physician, making plain his path, and giving him an unfailing guide in the application of remedies to the removal of disease, not only exists, but has been proclaimed to the world by the immortal Hahnemann in his well-known formula: Similia Similibus Curantur! But who was Samuel Hahnemann? When I say that this great Reformer of Medicine was a regularly educated physician of great learning and unusual general culture and literary attainments, I speak but feeble praise compared with the language of Sir John Forbes, Hahnemann's most learned critic, where he says:

"No candid reader of his writings can hesitate for a moment to admit that he was a very extraordinary man; one, whose name will descend to posterity as the exclusive excogitator and founder of an original system of medicine, as ingenious as many that preceded it, and destined to be the remote, if not the immediate cause of more fundamental changes in the practice of the healing art, than have resulted from any promulgated since the days of Galen himself."

And he adds:

"He was undoubtedly a man of genius and a scholar, a man of indefatigable industry and of dauntless energy."

The great Haller, says of him:

"He is a doublehead of philosophy and wisdom."

And Hufeland, the father of orthodox medicine, speaks of him as one of the most distinguished physicians in Germany, while the late Dr. Mott of New York, after having visited Hahnemann in Paris, speaks in the highest terms of his candor, learning and genius.

It has often been stated by close observers of the working of Divine Providence, that "The darkest hour is just before day," and also, that "The Creator ever wisely and well provides agents perfectly adapted to carry out His beneficient designs in the crisis of human affairs." History, both sacred and profane, gives unwavering and very numerous evidences of the justice and verity of these propositions. In matters theological as well as political this is equally the case. When there could scarcely be greater gloom or greater danger, the wise Arbiter of human destinies has educated, nerved, inspired and protected some master-spirit, who has caused light to shine out of darkness, and peace and order to take the place of chaos and destruction. Never were these propositions more fully illustrated than in medical matters towards the close of the past century. All the arts and sciences had received the impetus of new discoveries. The inductive method of investigation had brought out clearly to view first principles, on which it was easy for succeeding generations to build solid, stable and beautiful temples of truth.

Astronomy, chemistry, botany and every branch in Natural Philosophy, instead of continuing mere matters of speculative theory, as they were before, became sciences. The sons of Æsculapius alone were enshrouded in an Egyptian darkness, wandering about without guide and compass, rushing wildly to and fro with instruments of deadly power in their hands; whom they wished to heal, they slew; and tortured those whom they fondly hoped might find timely relief from sufferings and woes through their ministrations.

The hearts of the benevolent were deeply pained, and the conscientious wavered in their work when they gathered statistics of the results of their labor. A cry ascended heaven-wards from the practitioners of medicine, the longing for better days, seemed seconded by a phalanx of ghostly beings, who had untimely passed away by means of fearful treatment, and by the living miseries of multitudes of shapeless deformed ones, who ever stood unpleasant and incontrovertible witnesses of the cruelties and barbarities of the healing art.

With increasing civilization, new and fatal epidemics appeared, reaping a rich harvest for the grim monster—Death—and adding yearly to the per-centage of the ever-increasing bills of mortality. Many an honest practitioner threw away lancet and saddle-bags in despair, while quacks and medical charlatans, profiting by the wranglings of the regulars, and the weariness of the people, drove a reckless but well-paying trade, with nostrums of every character, from the deadliest poison to the simplest house-hold herb.