the cause of error has been in himself. It is worthy of notice how often we find the results we have alluded to— scepticism and inaction-in those characters where the moral nature is proportionally higher than the intellectual capacity. It would seem as if the felt needs of the former were greater than the ability of the latter to meet them. We are sensible that this is not in accordance with the common opinion, which inclines to look on disbelief in any generally-received doctrine as proof of active intellectual power; and, however unreasonably, of defective moral feeling; but, while we are far from intending to generalise on the statement, we believe it is one that would repay investigation. The inquiry would be interesting, but unsuited to our limits, and we must pass on; only protesting against being suspected for one moment of favouring that pernicious tendency common in our day, which would place the intellectual above the moral. Our belief is simply that they act favourably the one on the other; that both may be cultivated together; and that each loses by separation. The truth seems to be, that a high intellectual development is the best medium through which a high 'moral' can be correctly seen and shown. Other media mislead. The sun is the thing; but we only benefit by it via the atmosphere."

After putting in a just plea to respect and consideration in behalf of the medical profession at large, with their lifelong conviction, it proceeds:

"On the other side, no accusation of affectation, or would-be notoriety, can affect our judgment of those who, often at personal sacrifice, are led to embrace and practise Homœopathy. Their convictions may be erroneous, but, having such convictions, how could their conduct be other than it is? What rational ground is there for imagining that they do not act on conviction? If we must again

refer to those narrow personal interests which some per

sons,

With that half wisdom half experience lends,'*

are ever seeking out as the hidden mainspring in any unusual course of conduct, we can only say, that, even granting some might be so influenced, here as elsewhere, it would be difficult, with any plausibility, to lay such to the charge of Homœopathists as a body. If they professed to hold some important uncommunicated discovery, some secret by which disease should be cured, the mystery might attract, and the monopoly might profit. But where we find outward appliances few, simple, and unattractive, no mixed compounds (not even a hieroglyphic prescription), and means explained, investigation courted, hospital and other professional data thrown open, we are driven to the conviction that if these men be, what they are so often and so vulgarly called, quacks,' they have their trade yet to learn. We feel it almost a disgrace to pen any notice of such language; how much more disgraceful is it that prejudice can have gone so far as to leave any opening for such comments, which unfortunately are only too well called for. If Homœopathists are either deceiving or deceived, they are sacrificing their professional prospects to a present of reproach and ridicule, with a future of unlimited contempt. One point seems overlooked: if we grant, for the sake of argument, that Homœopathy is a truth, what other or better course could its advocates have followed than that they have adopted? or, if it be even a possible truth, how else could its claims be satisfactorily adjusted? or, supposing it an error, what shorter way to explode it, than exposing it to the test of experienc? In all this we owe them thanks, yet they too have something to guard against; for they are exposed to the temptation

*Wordsworth.

of being drawn as far from the truth by the charm of novelty, as their opponents by the charm of habit.

“Something of mutual concession would be no bar to the progress of science, while it would further those higher interests the development of liberality and liberty, candour and equity-in comparison with which, or deprived of which, even the advancement of science is a poor thing. Why may there not be an honourable rivalry, stimulative to both parties, beneficial to the public, and favourable to the elucidation of truth? Why do we still see in some quarters something very like a determination, not only that Homœopathy has not been proved a truth, but, moreover, that it shall not be proved such? Why should some parties oppose inquiries which, on their own statement, could only demonstrate the infallibility of their own positions. It is curious that intolerance and impatience of opposition are often found precisely in an inverse ratio to the amount of conviction. It would seem as if the mind sought to convince and establish itself by means of the very vehemence and stringency of assertion employed towards others. But why may not 'truth, substance of the world,'* be trusted in virtue of its own immutability to survive any amount of investigation?

66

'However, amid the prejudices which may affect all parties, we readily attribute to the profession, as a body, a sincere desire for the establishment of the truth, and that result is best promoted by free inquiry and open discussion. The present subject has already excited great attention in our own and other countries, and certainly is one that cannot be summarily suppressed. In Prussia, and other of the German states, in France, Belgium, Italy, and the United States, Homœopathy has many proselytes—is, in short, a recognised' agency, and the footing it has gained. would of itself, without other claims, entitle it to notice

* Schiller.

and inquiry. Let us now look a little more closely into the matter."

* *

*

*

"Having stated the leading characteristics of Homœopathy, we may as well notice some of the objections most frequently brought against it. In this we can hardly offer much novelty. Every philosophic objection can have but its one philosophic answer; where such are produceable, Homœopathists have not been backward to produce them. To us there appear difficulties yet to be solved; but, on the other hand, there are some objections so carelessly made, so frequently brought forward, and so uncandidly persisted in, that we cannot pass them over in silence, though on other grounds they would hardly deserve much notice.

"One grave error in the attacks on Homœopathy is that of treating the infinitesimal doses as the essential characteristic of the system

For

"Now this is not the case. We know that every greater revolution brings in its train numerous lesser ones, which to many become the most important part of it, and are substituted for the primary aim and true essentials. example, the object of the Reformation was not the destruction of images, but to a large party in this country that became the chief pursuit, and the name of iconoclast equivalent to that of reformer. Again, religion inculcates. temperance, but temperance societies do not constitute religion. Temperance is Christian, but it is not Christianity. Such illustrations abound, and always will, for there is a certain class of minds apparently unable to discriminate between essentials and non-essentials. They have no sense of proportion, no perception of perspective: the great and the little, the far and the near, are all one to them; such minds are like the paintings on Chinese screens, where the man is as big as the house he is entering, and an obtrusive butterfly, in a supposed background, bigger than either.

"In the present case, what are the facts? The assertion is so far from the truth, that it appears Hahnemann had formed his theory for a length of time on his primary principles (already stated), ere he considered this reformation as to amount of dose necessary; and even now great differences exist among his disciples as to the strength of the doses to be employed. In Germany, Homœopathic medicines are oftener given in larger quantities, that is, in appreciable doses; it is said, with less successful results than among ourselves; but as to this we are not prepared with any definite statement; nor is such in any degree requisite to our point, which is merely, as we have stated, that the infinitesimal dose is no necessary constituent of Homœopathy.

"This has been stated repeatedly, but apparently to little purpose; nor do we expect to be more fortunate than our predecessors, for the popular mis-statement affords shelter to a whole colony of jokelets, which must be all ceded, if the simple truth and justice of the assertion are to be attended to. A sacrifice like this we are not so unreasonable as to expect; and, as such a treatment of such a subject can injure none but the perpetrators, we need not be very severe on this point; only, speaking æsthetically, a little novelty of attack would now be a great relief. *

*

"Another objection, or rather opposition, raised is, that the cures of Homœopathy are effected through the imagination; and people go on talking of belief and unbelief, 'faith' and 'want of faith,' as if they spoke of some mysterious abracadabra, some mystic incantation, which could only take effect upon the faithful. As to this imagination hypothesis, it must surely have been a lively one which originated it. Anything more unpretendingly simple never was propounded in medicine. What the imagination can find to feed on in Homœopathic globules, rather than in the potent pill-boxes and many-coloured draughts of Allopathy, we confess ourselves unable to discover. But it is