The doctrine of homoeopathy is the prescribing of drugs in disease according to the law of similars. It admits of three definitions:

The remedy for each individual patient must have, in its provings, similar symptoms; or,

or,

It must be capable of producing a similar disease;

It must affect similar organs or parts of the body.

This last is, in fact, not a similarity, but an identity; and hence the necessity for a change of name, in respect to what belongs to it.

The first definition is the final homœopathy of Hahnemann. His writings contain many contradictions, and some passages may be quoted which seem to contradict this statement; but, if anything may be proved as distinctly his teaching, this can be; and as it is a matter of importance, I must beg leave to remind you of a few passages which seem to establish it without dispute. It is essential to make this method of practising homœopathy clear and unequivocal. I repeat the definition :

The remedy for each individual patient must have, in its provings, similar symptoms.

"Symptoms" being here taken in the sense generally accepted by the profession; as the signs of the disease, as produced by it, and manifesting its existence.

In an essay On the Value of Speculative Systems of Medicine, published in 1808, Hahnemann says:

"Besides a historical acquaintance with the constitution of the human frame in a healthy state, the physician needs but to know the symptoms of the particular malady in order to remove it, supposing he then knows the right remedy."

In his letter to Hufeland, in 1808, On the Great Necessity of a Regeneration of Medicine, he says:—

"Take the medicines according to the symptoms careful and repeated observation has shown they produce

in the healthy body, and administer them in every case of disease that presents a group of symptoms comprised in the array of symptoms the medicine to be employed is capable of producing in the healthy body; thus will you cure the disease surely and easily. Or, in other words, find out which medicine contains most perfectly, among the symptoms usually produced by it in the healthy body, the sum of the symptoms of the disease before you; and this medicine will effect a certain, permanent and easy cure."

In the Preface to his Materia Medica Pura, Hahnemann says:

"The day of the true knowledge of remedies, and a true system of therapeutics will dawn, when physicians shall abandon the systems and opinions which have heretofore swayed the minds of the profession; when they shall act upon the principle that every single medicinal substance is capable of curing a case of disease the symptoms of which shall be exactly analogous to those which the medicinal substance is capable of producing upon a healthy organism."

In the first volume of his Chronic Diseases, in the preliminary chapter on "Treatment," Hahnemann

says:

"The homœopathic physician should not pay any attention to the names which he finds arrayed in works on pathology, he should, above all, study the symptoms, and select a remedy in harmony with them."

Lastly, in many paragraphs in the Organon of Medicine, Hahnemann expresses this view so strongly that, if his words have any meaning at all, they can mean nothing else; and it will be remembered that Dr. Dudgeon, the translator of this book into English, says of it, in his Preface:-" Perfect and complete in itself, it leaves no point of doctrine unexplained, no technical detail untouched, no adverse argument unanswered." We are bound, therefore, to take the explicit declara

tions of this book as the mature and final teaching of Hahnemann.

Now, in paragraph vi, page 111, he says:—

"The unprejudiced observer, let his powers of penetration be ever so great, takes note of nothing, in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind, (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms,) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses."

After repeating this statement in other words, in paragraph VII, page 113, he concludes by saying

Thus, in a word, the totality of the symptoms must be the principal, the sole thing, the physician has to take note of, in every case of disease, and to remove by means of his art, in order to cure and to transform into health."

Again, in paragraph xvIII, p. 120 :—

"From this indubitable truth, that, besides the collective symptoms, nothing can be discovered in any way in diseases, wherewith they could express their need of aid, it undeniably follows that the sum of all the symptoms, in each individual case of disease, must be the sole indication, the sole guide to direct us in the choice of a curative remedy.'

Once more, in paragraph XXVII, p. 126:—

"The curative power of medicines, therefore, depends on their symptoms."

The only qualifications of these strong declarations which are admitted by Hahnemann are, that "the probable causes; the most significant points in the history of the case; the apparent physical constitution of the patient; his moral and intellectual character; his occupation; mode of living and habits; social and domestic relations; age; &c., are matters useful to the physician in assisting him to cure." It is well known

that he declaims vehemently against investigations into the pathology of disease.

Is it not, then, beyond contradiction that the law of similars, as taught by Hahnemann, is the similarity of symptoms?

And that his practice was in conformity with this teaching is put equally beyond dispute by the arrangement of the provings of drugs which he has adopted both in his Materia Medica Pura and in his Chronic Diseases. These books contain symptoms only, and symptoms so disjointed and scattered over the various parts of the body, as to make it impossible to use them, for the purpose of prescribing, in any other manner than the single one of comparing the symptoms of the patient with those of the drug.

That Hahnemann's practice was regulated in this manner is also manifested beyond question in each of the cases treated by himself which he has published.

To put this matter still further beyond dispute, if that is possible, your attention must be detained a few moments longer, while I make two short extracts from the English translator of Hahnemann's works, and one from an American edition of them. The former, Dr. Dudgeon, in his Lectures on Homœopathy,

says:

"It has been stated by the enemies of homoeopathy disparagingly, and by some friends of the system eulogistically, that homoeopathic practitioners in general, and the more strict Hahnemannians in particular, neglect or despise the advances of modern pathological and physiological science; and this is, to a certain extent, true; for, as long as his Materia Medica is confined to a bare enumeration of symptoms, arranged in defiance of accredited physiological principles, so long must the practice of the homeopathist be mainly made up of an almost mechanical comparison of symptoms."

Dr. Dudgeon says again

"The sum, therefore, of the practitioner's duties, in

regard to the selection of the remedy, according to Hahnemann, resolves itself into a purely empirical act -an almost mechanical comparison of the drug-symptoms with the disease-symptoms; and the medicine found to present the greatest similarity in respect of its symptoms with those of the disease is the most appropriate, the most homœopathic remedy."

Dr. Constantine Hering, in his preface to the American edition of Hahnemann's Chronic Diseases, in the same explicit manner, testifies to this statement. He says:

"Hahnemann teaches that the remedies should be chosen according to the symptoms of the patient. Both in the Organon and in his Treatise on the Chronic Diseases, Hahnemann insists upon the remedies being chosen in accordance with the symptoms."

It is very possible to study cases of disease, and also provings of drugs in health, so as to notice symptoms only; and it is also possible to draw a comparison between the symptoms of the disease and the symptoms of the drug. This can be done without reference to what the symptoms may signify, either as regards the nature of the disease or its seat.

That this was the mode of practice Hahnemann wished to recommend, I think no candid student of his writings will attempt to question.

That this is what a proportion of homoeopathists still continue to practise is, I think, also certain.

Then the first definition of homoeopathy must now be sufficiently clear-namely, that the law of similars may be carried out in practice by a simple mechanical comparison of the symptoms of diseases with the symptoms of drugs, without any physiological or pathological notions; and it must also be clear that this is the homœopathy of Hahnemann.

That the symptom-method of prescribing drugs as remedies in disease has merit-great merit-is evi