as briefly as possible the truths which Hahnemann postulated, yea, demonstrated, as to the action of medicines under the normal and abnormal conditions of the human economy, the reverse of their action has been demonstrated also under suitable circumstances and conditions; and that therefore it is no subject about which either party to the controversy should dogmatize. It is true to history, likewise, to say that the Homœopathy of Hahnemann has practically ceased to exist; only the skeleton remains as a reminder of what once produced a violent commotion in the profession. If this fact be conceded it is difficult to find an excuse or reason for maintaining separate schools and societies. The Hippocratian School is broad enough to-day to include members of all medical sects who are qualified and duly licensed to practise the art and science of Medicine.

Again we are constrained to say that it may be regarded as almost if not quite a truism, that he who disregards the precepts of his predecessors, of whom he is an evolution, whether he know it or not, is an egoist, of whom Paracelsus, Dover, and Brown were types, as we have seen. When a man vaunts himself above all that has gone before, and claims to possess wisdom and knowledge superior to all the gods in human form that have preceded him, he is, we repeat, an egoist, whether he be a Mohammed, a Paracelsus, a Sextus Empiricus, or a Hahnemann.

Men of science are no longer in leading-strings,

nor are they listening to sirens. We certainly find that Hahnemann's attitude toward his contemporaries, wise men and learned, and the claims he put forth for his discoveries, bring him within the scope of our criticism, in declaring that Homœopathy was "a perfect system of medicine," the "only healing art," etc.

Apart from his discovery of soluble mercury, which was an excellent achievement, and his contributions to specific medication, and the introduction of the single remedy, Hahnemann did little to advance the knowledge of medicine. His physiology was taken from that of Haller and Bichat; his idea of specifics from Boyle; his dynamis from Hippocrates. We cite a paragraph from his "Organon" which gives one a clear insight to his defective knowledge of pathology, and of the relation of mind and body.

In the so-called bodily diseases which are dangerous, such as suppuration of the lungs, or that of any other essential viscera, or other acute disease, viz., in child-bed, etc., where the intensity of the moral symptoms increases rapidly, the disease turns to insanity, melancholy, or madness, which removes the danger arising from the bodily symptoms. The latter improve so far as almost to be restored to a healthy state, or rather they are diminished in such a degree as to be no longer perceptible, except to the eye of the observer gifted with penetration and perseverance. In this manner they degenerate into a partial (einseitig) disease, even as if local, in which

the moral symptoms, very slight in the first instance, assume so great a preponderance that it becomes the most prominent of all, substitutes in a great degree for the others, and subdues their violence by acting on them as a palliative. In short, the disease of the bodily organs, which are grosser in their nature, has been transported to the almost spiritual organs of the mind, which no anatomist ever could or will be able to reach with his scalpel.

I

The judicial observer must admit, we think, with perfect respect to the author of Homœopathy, that he at least discovered an elegant method of applying Suggestive Therapeutics under the guise of medication.

'Organon of Medicine, Fourth American Edition, pp. 187, 188.