ledge of the works of GOD. We enter upon life without ideas concerning the external world. Our minds are a blank as it respects everything in the material creation around us. But we are endowed with bodily senses capable of receiving impressions from external objects, and with mental faculties capable of acknowledging the impressions thus produced.

The impressions made upon the bodily senses by surrounding substances become ideas in the mind, which it perceives, remembers, and reasons upon, comparing one with another, and observing resemblances and differences; especially the mind is engaged in remarking the influences which natural substances exert upon each other, and in tracing the connection of these influences as cause and effect, and thus the bodies and their actions, which together make up the natural world, gradually furnish the mind with a large variety of thoughts.

Seeing, then, that it is through the bodily senses of sight, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching that the mind obtains a knowledge of matter and its motions, and that we have no other means of adding to this knowledge, it must follow that we know nothing beyond the mere surface of things; of the internal actions of bodies upon each other we are wholly ignorant; hence we are not in a condition to form a correct opinion, much less to pronounce a true judgment upon any substance or operation in nature concerning which our bodily senses have, as yet, taught us nothing.

66

The truth of these propositions is evident upon reflection. In what department of nature do we know anything beyond what our senses teach us? What should we know about the moon if we had never seen it? What do those know of music who are born dea ? or those of colours who are born blind? We have an instructive lesson, which sets this matter in its true light, in the answer of the blind man who was asked this question- What is scarlet like ?" "It is like the sound of a trumpet," was the ready reply. The association in the mind of an Englishman of the soldier's scarlet coat with military music is obvious enough, but the inability to conceive rightly (for a wrong conception was quickly formed), without the aid of the bodily sense, is not less obvious. We have no innate knowledge of the objects and operations of the natural or material world.

Again, the ideas of nature which exist in men's minds have come to them through their bodily senses. We all think and reason about objects we have seen, sounds we have heard, odours we have smelled, food we have tasted, and bodies we have touched. Our bodily senses receive impressions which our mental faculties acknowledge.

Thus we gain our knowledge of nature from our senses, and from no other source; for, though there is in men's minds an undefined

notion that the powers of reason, or the mental sense can discover things hidden from the bodily senses, and so can gather opinions and form judgments concerning natural substances without being dependent upon, or indebted to the eye or the ear, this notion is an error. The workings of the mind may indeed produce guesses or imaginings respecting external things, but how can they perceive the reality? Such speculations cannot be more than dreams; such labours but the weaving of a fanciful garment wherewith to cover our ignorance. "For the wit and mind of man, if it work upon matter, which is the contemplation of the creatures of GOD, worketh according to the stuff, and is limited thereby; but if it work upon itself, as the spider worketh his web, then it is endless, and brings forth cobwebs of learning, admirable for the fineness of the thread, and work, but of no substance or profit."*

These propositions being true, the conclusion I have drawn from them is true also. We have no original knowledge of nature; the knowledge we acquire is obtained through our bodily senses; we have no other means of adding to this knowledge; it must follow that we cannot know anything beyond what our bodily senses teach us; that we are not in a condition to form correct opinions or true judgments concerning any substance which may exist, or any event which may happen, any cause or any effect of which we have not been informed by our external or bodily senses. Hence we are not justified in pronouncing any uninvestigated phenomena impossible, or any unobserved facts contrary to common sense.

The assertion, therefore, that the action of the small dose is contrary to common sense, is nothing more than the cry of ignorance, and, as such, is unworthy of attention.

Similar assertions have often been made in similar ignorance. It is no new thing for novel truth to be met by the same ignorant cry "it is contrary to common sense!" Take, for example, the following account given by Professor BADEN POWELL of the invention of the telescope, and the discovery of the moons of the planet Jupiter. "GALILEO having sufficiently improved upon his instrument, now began assiduously to direct it to the heavens Jupiter formed the next object of examination, and no sooner was the telescope pointed to that planet than the existence of the satellites was detected, and their nature soon ascertained. (February, 1610.) These and other observations were described by GALILEO in a tract, entitled "Nuncius Sidereus," which excited an extraordinary sensation the moment it appeared. Many positively denied the possibility of such discoveries; others hesitated; all were struck with astonishment. KEPLER describes, in a letter to GALILEO, the impression made on him by the announcement. He considered it totally incre

Lord Bacon.

dible; nevertheless, his respect for the authority of GALILEO was so great that it set his brain afloat on an ocean of conjectures to discover how such a result could be rendered compatible with the order of the celestial orbits as determined by the five regular solids. Sizzi argued seriously with GALILEO that the appearance must be fallacious, since it would invalidate the perfection of the number 7, which applies to the planets, as well as throughout all things natural and divine. Moreover, these satellites are invisible to the naked eye; therefore they can exercise no influence on the earth; therefore they are useless; therefore they do not exist.

"Others took a more decided, but still less rational mode of meeting the difficulty. The principal professor of philosophy at Padua (in which university GALILEO himself was also a professor) pertinaciously refused to look through the telescope. Another pointedly observed that we are not to suppose that Jupiter had four satellites given him for the purpose of immortalising the MEDICI, (GALILEO having called them the Medicean stars). A German, named HORKY, suggested that the telescope, though accurate for terrestrial objects, was not true for the sky. He published a treatise, discussing the four new planets, as they were called; what they are? why they are? and what they are like? concluding with attributing their alleged existence to GALILEO's thirst of gold."*

I might give many other examples of the same melancholy kind, but the description of this one instance by Professor POWELL is so graphic, and touches upon so many points in which the opponents of astronomical discovery resemble the opponents of Homoeopathy, that further illustration is needless. In each successive age the discovery of new truth has had a similar reception, it is always declared to be impossible, incredible, and contrary to common sense.

That the small dose should be thus treated is, therefore, only just what might be looked for. The announcement of its efficacy is startling, but not more so than that made by GALILEO-" the succession of day and night is occasioned by the rotation of the earth, and not by that of the sun and stars"- -an announcement for making which it will ever be remembered that he was imprisoned in the Inquisition.

How much does the statement-that the earth moves-seem to contradict the common sense and common observation of all men! It is true, notwithstanding, as is proved by careful enquiry; and so is the action of the small dose, as is demonstrated by similar careful observation. "The works of the Creator in every department of observation and science present not only mysteries, but a world of wonders; yet the reality of these wonderful things, mysterious as they may be, is not, cannot be denied."t

* Baden Powell's History of Natural Philosophy.
† Scoresby's Zoistic Magnetism.

It is an assertion made in indolence. I say this because of the facility with which the matter in question may be tested, and ignorance respecting it be removed.

Every medical man, engaged in actual practice, has opportunities of putting both the principle and the dose of Homoeopathy upon trial every day. Let any practitioner resolve, as I and others have done, to look at the question with his own eyes, and he can immediately do so. Let him begin with those drugs with whose poisonous action he is already well acquainted, and in fairness, till he has more skill, give them in the lower dilutions, (the first and second), and afterwards, when he has become more familiar with their use, in the higher or infinitesimal ones.

Such indolence as leads a man to pronounce an off-hand sentence of condemnation against any statement largely affecting the interests of the human family, because it is novel and startling, admits of no apology, when it is in his power to put the statement to a practical test. "We are to strive," says WILLIAM HARVEY, "after personal experience, not to rely on the experience of others, without which indeed no one can properly become a student of any branch of natural science."

It is an assertion made in folly. I should have shrunk from using such a strong expression as this had not the wise man said "he that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

When a medical man tells his patient that Homœopathy is "humbug," let it be said to him, "As you express yourself so decidedly, of course you have studied the subject experimentally; may I ask you how many months you spent in the practical investigation?" A child in such a situation would have red cheeks; whether an adult would feel ashamed or not I cannot tell; I think he would look somewhat awkward and foolish.

When a non-professional person gives utterance to similar language, let him be told that it is unwise to condemn without knowledge; that when he comes to suffer from disease, and to experience the happy results of the new treatment in his own person, his opinion will be altered.

Such a change has just been expressed to me in the following

note:

"Thanks to you I am now enabled to look forward to spending a happy holiday, and, under God's blessing, many a happy and useful year, in the enjoyment of a degree of health both for my wife and for myself, which, a few months ago, I should scarcely have believed possible. And for us, and our child, if disease itself has not lost its terrors, at least we can look without dread and misgiving on the remedies for meeting it."

It is an assertion made in enmity. The question is not viewed simply with reference to its truth or falsehood. It is an “obnoxious”

subject, looked upon with repugnance and contempt. There is no desire to investigate it, but on the contrary a strong determination to banish it, to crush it, to do anything to get rid of it.

And yet it is the medicine of mercy; it proposes to emancipate the suffering invalid from every disagreeable, harsh, and cruel proceeding, to which he has been so long exposed; it professes to be able to cure more quickly, safely, and pleasantly than is possible by any other means; it promises to the physician himself the satisfaction of a scientific method, in place of vague experiments.

But it is an "obnoxious system," "false and bad," and as such it is hated and opposed, and that to such a degree as to prevent the majority of medical men from testing it experimentally, even with the view of proving the errors which they so vehemently assert it to contain.

And what shall be allowed to be the weight of an assertion made so ignorantly, so indolently, so foolishly, and with such hostile feeling? Is it of force to dissipate the convictions produced in the mind by an honest trial of the new method, and a careful observation of the actual results? Can they be relinquished at such a bidding? That would indeed be opposed to reason and "contrary to common sense." Did I not speak truly when I said, “This assertion is groundless, devoid of proof, and worthless"? Entertaining enough in the mouth of a child, but unbecoming in persons who have attained to "years of discretion."

On the contrary ;

That Homoeopathy is true-and I now include in that word the principle, the moderately small dose, and also the infinitesimal dose —is substantiated by the evidence which I have brought forward in these Essays, and which I will briefly epitomise.

It is a statement made by competent witnesses. I have observed, (in Tract No. 3,) that the best evidence which the nature of the case admits ought to be required, and when obtained it has a claim to be received. Hence the method of enquiry must be adapted to the

nature of the truth we are in search of.

Now, the true action of remedies is learned partly by experiments upon the healthy, and partly by observation at the bedside of the sick; therefore, in the matter we are at present discussing, the physician can be the only competent witness. The question arises, What is the kind of medical evidence which can be produced, and how far does it establish a credible testimony? For, "The strength and validity of every testimony must bear proportion with