They who are ignorant of the higher and fuller uses of Homoeopathy assume that they are wise, or that knowledge of fixed principles does not exist, and declare that the use of anodynes is justifiable when the appropriate homoeopathic remedy is not known. They often use such agents to the detriment of the patient and of the system which they profess to believe is founded on law. They are unable to see that obedience to law is liberty, and suppose that license to violate law can be granted by themselves.
Obedience to principle must stand before the pocketbook, reputation or other selfish motives, or the physician cannot rise to the constant and perfect reliance upon law with the feeling of satisfaction, and that it is right and all that is good to do. In every instance where disobedience is urged, the impulse is ignorance and selfishness, to the end that man pays tribute in some way to the physician, instead of the physician serving the man. The question: “Why not rely on law?” has never been answered but in two ways: “I do not know,” or “It is not profitable.”
When we comprehend the wonderful work that Hahnemann performed and the magnitude of the ORGANON (which was so complete, as he left it, that no man has been able to add to it, nor, in spite of sneers, been able to take from it,, can we refrain from reverence and the tacit belief that he was aided by all-wise Providence? When we consider how ably he opposed the pathological theories of his day (the pathological notions of a century ago) now abandoned, were advocated then with as much assurance and pertinacity as those now in vogue, as the Old School accepts and abandons theories as flippantly, and with as profound reason, as a siren, her lovers); when we realize the extent of his learning in all branches of science, the wonderful physical endurance that enabled him to remain every third night in reflection, and the love that, under all circumstances, he manifested toward the human race and God; and when it is known that the source of man’s love is the fountain of inspiration; then may we comprehend the depth of truth in, and properly revere, his masterwork, the ORGANON OF HEALING.
Indeed, has it been said by all masters since its writing that new truths come out of it, after every reading, to suit the varying degrees of advancement in the progress of each faithful observer, no difference how old or how wise. The masters of these living doctrines and the materia medica have been constant readers of this great work. Not one of the prescribers has ever claimed a discovery not fully set forth in this work, but all in their greatest accomplishments have said that they based their successes upon the ORGANON. It is the first book for the student to read, and the last for the old and busiest physician to ponder over.
When Lippe, Wells and scores of others advocated a continuous reading of this book during their long careers, should we not similarly look upon it with a feeling of profound respect? Should we not crave the hidden truths that have made these faithful followers of law so successful? To whom would a rational man apply for light when desiring to follow law in healing the sick and measuring out uses to man? Naturally to Hahnemann and his faithful adherents, and not to those who smile at what they choose to consider the ravings of an aged man.
There are some professed homoeopaths who, by words and actions, denounce Hahnemann as a theorist, a fanatic, and as visionary, but these have never cured sick people as Hahnemann did. Let all men learn of him until they can do as he did; for he was, and still is, the teacher above all others. He was the first advocate of Homoeopathy, and we must look to him, and all deviation from his teachings should receive another name.
There should be no controversy with men when principles are the thing considered. The truth often cuts men deeply and urges to dispute, and wounds thus made seldom heal by first intention or without loss of blood. Controversy seldom teaches him who does not seek the truth. The rational man accepts the truth because he is prepared for it and because it, is truth. The sick come in distress after all else has failed and they are in a receptive attitude; while the old and hardened follower of traditional methods comes in the attitude of rebellion, and his egotism and bigotry cannot be overcome. To him the sunlight is as dark as smoke.
Hahnemann formulated the principles of Homoeopathic therapeutics. Isolated statements had been made previous to his labors, showing that glimmerings of truth had occasionally appeared, but not bright enough to permit the arrangement into doctrines. He so arranged the rules of practice in the ORGANON and CHRONIC DISEASE that the system of homoeopathic therapeutics may be considered complete.
Homoeopathy rests not upon theory nor opinion, but upon facts. Hypotheses and reasonings have no place in treatise on that upon which human life depends. It is, of course, impossible for the medical theorist to reflect upon medical facts, because he has no knowledge of facts to consider; hence he reasons that perhaps the vomiting is caused by a disordered brain, or by a congested liver, or is reflex from the uterus, and so on, indefinitely. This theorist is more likely than any other to think that an exact diagnosis is of great moment, and yet every hypothesis shows the shifting basis of his false conclusion.
The minds thus perverted by false reasoning are out-numbered only by fluctuating opinions, and with them there is no substantial way and road bed because the wandering, the confusion and the mental fluctuation prevent settlement upon any course or path of continued operation. With them there is no indicated remedy, and a continuous whirl of medicaments comes before the mind. The sickroom is filled with bottles and the patient’s stomach distended with things too numerous to mention: from homemade decoctions to an Irish stew.
The more accurate the diagnosis and the more substantial its basis, the more inaccurate the prescription that is based upon it. The diagnosticians are the poorest prescribers, yet, in spite of all this, no harm can come from the finest sagacity in naming diseases. It must be understood, however, that the diagnosis does not reveal the nature of a disease in a manner to image a remedy. The diagnosis is the name of ultimates and exteriors, while it is the interior nature that must be perceived through the peculiar, characterizing signs and symptoms, in order to discover the remedy that will cure. (ORGANON 6-8.) The highest order of this peculiar insight leads to selection of remedies of the highest degree of similarity, hence, to the highest order of healing.
Medical opinions concerning a given sickness are as plentiful as doctors. Even in this day of medical sunlight, there prevail the lightning changes in medical opinions, as an afflicted mortal rambles over a large city among the medical luminaries; to receive their costly and worthless diagnoses. This might not appear so hazardous were it not a fact that treatment is supposed to rest upon the diagnosis. Fortunately, for the patient as for the doctor, the supposition is not criminal. Our own Chapman, with his, prescription test case, has demonstrated that the simplest case cannot secure two similar prescriptions, even when the greatest minds in allopathy are consulted. The result was quite different with the New School, as all the physicians named the same remedy. The same test can never be repeated with similar results.
The epidemics in the last twenty-five years have revealed wonderful similarity of methods and remedies. The Yellow Fever Commission portrays the certainty of method and results, in the records forming the statistics for Memphis and New Orleans. These man had no connection with each other. They labored and gained results that demonstrate, they were inspired by principles, as the same remedies were used in the different cities for the same symptoms, and with similar results.
Exactitude of methods, and similar remedies for similar symptoms the world over, with the same good old materia medica, which becomes better with age and use, should appeal to the minds of men in a way to secure a hearing.
In the practice of Homoeopathy, a master, wherever he may be, has something on which to base a prescription. When else was this ever so marked as by Hahnemann, when, after his study of the cholera epidemic, and reference to the symptoms of the materia medica, he decided that Veratrum, Cuprum and Camphor were the remedies suited to the epidemic; yet he had never seen a case of cholera? When asked what remedies would correspond to this disease, he simply recalled the provings. The nature of the disease appeared similar to what he had seen in the provings of Camphor, Veratrum and Cuprum. He therefore concluded that these remedies ought to cure this sickness. They were thereupon successfully used. They are our sheet-anchors in cholera today, and they ever will be. This was no opinion of Hahnemann. No, he had simply obtained the symptoms of the provings, and compared them to those of the disease. From this he said that these would be the remedies. Homoeopathists thus have a power that is not found elsewhere in medicine, viz., that of prevision.
In 1881, Kent accepted a position as professor of anatomy at the Homeopathic College of Missouri, an institution with which he remained affiliated until 1888. In 1890, Kent moved to Pennsylvania to take a position as Dean of Professors at the Post-Graduate Homeopathic Medical School of Philadelphia. In 1897 Kent published his magnum opus, Repertory of the Homœopathic Materia Medica. Kent moved to Chicago in 1903, where he taught at Hahnemann Medical College.