simple medicinal substance at one time," and then says, "but in few or no instances can the homoeopaths, if they follow their own laws, give a single substance as a medicine at one time. Take one drug as an example of this remark. Opium, according to JAHR is, in homoeopathic practice, 'a medicament frequently indicated' in disorders of various kinds. Opium, however, is not a simple substance; but on the other hand, it is extremely composite in its character, according to the researches of many excellent chemists. It contains,' says CHRISTISON, 'no fewer than seven crystalline principles, called (1) morphia, (2) codeia, (3) paramorphia, (4) narcotin, (5) narceïn, (6) porphyroxin, and (7) meconin, of which the first three are alkaline, and the others neutral; secondly, a peculiar acid termed (8) meconic acid, which constitutes with sulphuric acid, the solvent of the active principle; and thirdly, a variety of comparatively unimportant ingredients, such as (9) gum, (10) albumen, (11) resin, (12) fixed oil, (13) a trace perhaps of volatile oil, (14) lignin, (15) caoutchouc, (16) extractive matter, and numerous salts of inorganic bases.' Of these inorganic salts and substances in opium, SCHINDLER, in his analysis, detected among others, (17) phosphate of lime, (18) alumina, (19) silica, (20) magnesia, (21) oxide of iron, &c. Homoeopaths, in using therefore this frequently indicated' medicament—opium, employ a preparation, which is certainly not single, but consists, at least of some twenty different substances."* When my second Tract "The Defence of Homœopathy," was written, the best work which, up to that period, had appeared in England against Homoeopathy, Dr. C. F. ROUTH'S "Fallacies," was selected. When Dr. SIMPSON'S book appeared, I thought it would demand a reply, but after reading it, I felt that it did not deserve one, and I think that even my brethren of the old practice will admit that I stand excused in this feeling. A writer who cannot distinguish between the single medicine of the homoeopathist, and the elements, organic and inorganic, of the modern chemist; or who is so disingenuous as knowingly to attempt to confound them in the minds of his readers, is unworthy of notice. I will not take upon myself the duty, which belongs to Dr. SIMPSON'S conscience, to decide upon which of the horns of this dilemma he deserves to be impaled; but it is difficult to suppress a feeling of indignation, which involuntarily rises on reading the passage I have extracted, in an author of such pretensions, and professing to be seriously discussing the merits of a new method of treating the maladies of mankind. In Homœopathy the giving of only one medicine at a time is a matter of necessity. The law cannot be otherwise applied. Let me now endeavour to point out Homœopathy; its Tenets and Tendencies," by Dr. Simpson, Professor of Midwifery in the University of Edinburgh, &c. p. 47. From these advantages THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS METHOD. it will appear that the objects acknowledged to have been sought for, but which are unattained, and, it may fairly be presumed, are unattainable, in the common mode of treating diseases, are not only put within reach, but are actually accomplished by the new treatment. The simplicity, in vain desired by Dr. PARIS for his method, is thus obtained. A small dose of a single medicine is to be administered, and time allowed for its effects to be produced, before either another dose is given, or another medicine is tried. The simplicity which the law of Homoeopathy has introduced into the prescriptions of the physician is worthy of great admiration ;--the one is a necessary consequence of the other. "So far," says Sir JOHN HERSCHEL, "as our experience has hitherto gone, every advance towards generality has, at the same time, been a step towards simplification." It deserves to be noticed how great a step in this direction has been taken in the present instance. The progress in vain waited for on the old method is rendered inevitable by the new one. The ignorance on the subject of the properties of drugs which has prevailed for so many centuries, will no longer continue; a much more extensive and correct knowledge of them has already been acquired, and this knowledge will be daily extended. I am not afraid to state that I have learned more of the properties and healing powers of the various articles of the Materia Medica, during the three years that I have been a homoeopathist, than I did during the thirty that I was engaged in the usual method of prescribing drugs. How interesting it is to collect accurate details of the effects of drugs when acting as poisons; and how beautiful to observe their curative action in corresponding natural diseases! There is now every thing to reward, and therefore every thing to encourage the diligent study of the properties of drugs; and this study cannot be diligently pursued, aided as it now is by so simple and precise a method, without yielding the fruits of progressive knowledge. Take, for instance, a plant like aconite, or belladonna, or pulsatilla, or ipecacuanha, and contrast the knowledge of it which the homoeopathist now possesses with what was known of it before; and let it be remembered that, in a few years, every remaining drug may be equally well, or even better understood. The curative effect of each drug, often in vain expected when other drugs are mingled with it, may be looked for with a great degree of certainty, when it is given alone in an appropriate dose. It is Dr. PARIS who asserts that "the file of every apothecary would furnish a volume of instances, where the ingredients are fighting together in the dark, or at least, are so adverse to each other, as to constitute a most incongruous and chaotic mass." "Obstabat aliis aliud: quia corpore in uno OVID. This error can be eliminated only by resorting to the method of prescribing each remedy singly. There can then be no neutralising, or counteracting, or antidoting effects;--no "fighting together in the dark," so aptly described, and so ingenuously confessed by Dr. PARIS. It is true this description is intended to apply only to the prescriptions of certain ill-informed or careless practitioners; but, though not intended to do so, it really applies, with more or less force, to every mixture or combination of drugs. On the other hand, the single medicine meets with no impediment, (at least not from other medicines,) to the production of its full effect. Suppose, for example, that the action of mercury is required on an ulcerated throat, or on the salivary glands in a case of mumps; if given alone, a very minute quantity will almost certainly act. The same may be said of any other drug; its specific effect will be produced by the small dose, if given alone, with much more precision and certainty, than by the large dose, if given in combination. When the small 'dose is used, as there is no need to combine with it the "adjuvans" to assist, nor the dirigens" to direct, so neither is there need of the "corrigens" to prevent mischief. Soap need not be added to aloes and jalap to mitigate their acrimony;" nor need patients be ordered to drink vinegar, to prevent their being poisoned by sugar of lead, given to stop a bleeding from the lungs. 66 The diminution of the dose, in vain attempted while several drugs are combined, is accomplished to an extent beyond all anticipation, by giving each drug alone. It may be true that by adding tartar emetic to ipecacuanha vomiting is produced by a smaller quantity of each, than would be required of either of them separately; but the combined dose is not only still large, but so large as not to be secure from doing mischief. The same may be said of purgatives, expectorants, diaphoretics, as quoted from Dr. PARIS. With our present knowledge, such proceedings cannot escape being viewed as barbarous; these violent effects of medicines being altogether needless, while the specific action of the drug, the effect which is really of value in the treatment of disease, can be best obtained by a very small dose. All drugs being poisons, not only is "more in vain," but more is positively injurious "when less will serve. The indications of treatment, in vain sought after on the old method, are not only precise and unmistakeable on the new, but, as the medicines, so also the indications are reduced to one. The single remedy obliges the single indication; for if only one medicine is to be given, there can be but one indication to point it out; and, if possible, the single indication is a greater simplification, and a greater advantage than the single remedy. In the treatment of disease on the usual method, even when the symptoms are simple and uniform, or consistent with each other, the supposed indications are generally more or less complicated; in cases of more extensive derangement, they are still more numerous, and sometimes even contradictory. The perplexity and anxiety to the physician, and the additional pain and exhaustion to the patient, which are the natural results of this complication, are often greater than can readily be described. In illustration, I will take a case of the simplest kind. For example, laryngismus stridulus or the asthma of Millar,-an affection of considerable danger, to which some infants are very subject, and consisting mainly of a distressing struggle for breath, coming on suddenly, and producing a flushed and swollen countenance, which becomes sometimes almost black, threatening suffocation. The indications for treatment I will copy from MASON GOOD; of whose book it has been said, by a late President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and the most useful writer on Surgery of the present day, "it is so excellent that no other modern system is, on the whole, half so valuable as the 'Study of Medicine." The indications are these ;-to produce vomiting by an antimonial emetic; to cause perspiration by a warm bed, diluent drinks, and the same medicine; to excite the bowels by a purgative of calomel; allay the irritability of the nervous system by giving laudanum in proportion to the age of the patient; and to produce counter-irritation by applying a blister to the throat. ; to This is a fair specimen of allopathic treatment, let us analyse it for a moment, bearing in mind that the age of the little sufferer is generally only a few months; and that the ailment is an affection of the upper part of the windpipe, producing such a contraction of it as threatens suffocation, all the other parts of the body being healthy. We cannot but be struck, in the first place, with the terrible severity of the treatment, which alone is sufficient, not only to expose it to just censure, but to demand its abandonment; and in the next place, with the fact that all the indications of treatment are direct and violent attacks upon the healthy parts of the body. "Produce vomiting by an antimonial emetic;-here is an attack upon the stomach, but the stomach was previously in health, why produce such a commotion in it, in a baby three or four months old? "Cause perspiration by a warm bed, diluent drinks and the antimony;" here the skin is assailed, and its natural secretions are to be unhealthily stimulated; the skin was previously in a sound condition, why interfere with and derange that state? "Excite the bowels by a purgative of calomel." The others were but the wings of the invading army, this is its centre. The poor bowels are always destined to bear the fiercest part of the "energetic" assault. And calomel too-that destructive weapon in the bowels of an infant, and these bowels previously in perfect health. The liver does not escape; mercury it is well known acts powerfully on this organ. The calomel given in infancy not unfrequently produces, as its secondary effect, a torpor of the liver, which lasts for years, it sometimes destroys altogether the constitution of the child. "Allay the irritability of the nervous system by giving laudanum in proportion to the age of the patient." The effect of opium is to stupify or deaden the sensibilities of the whole nervous system,if pushed far enough, to produce coma and apoplexy. In this case it must depress the vital powers at the moment when their vigour is needed to struggle with the difficulty of breathing. And why assault thus the whole nervous system, as yet remaining in health? "Produce counter-irritation by applying a blister to the throat." Alas! poor baby, the unoffending skin is to be inflamed until it blisters! And this is the concluding blow, for the present, of a treatment which is called "judicious" and "active" because it is customary; but will it bear investigation? Thus every healthy part of the body is to be disturbed in its natural action, to be excited, disordered, inflamed, and stupified; all these ailments, necessarily more or less overpowering to the vitality of a child, are to be artificially produced, and added to the natural disease with which the infant is already contending! But it must be observed further, and, were it not familiarised to us by the universality of the practice, we should observe it with astonishment, that nothing at all is prescribed calculated to act, or intended to act directly upon the affected part. No remedy whatever is given which has any natural action on the windpipe, the only organ where any ailment exists. Such is the inherent awkwardness, and such is the sledge-hammer violence of the usual method of treating diseases, that it is, for the most part, only the healthy parts of the body that are directly affected by the remedies prescribed. On one occasion, my relative, the late WILLIAM HEY of Leeds, saw a lady who was suffering from an ulcer near the ankle, and he prescribed an issue below the knee; the lady involuntarily exclaimed, "then I shall have two sores instead of one!" Such was our best treatment, before the introduction of Homœopathy. Let us return to our suffering little baby, with the new method in our minds, and all these conflicting indications are suddenly reduced to one;-to find a drug which has a natural power of acting upon the windpipe, and which in health will produce a similar morbid condition of it. We give this drug alone, in very small doses, with such repetitions as may be required, and the com |