ing the energy of the homoeopathic infinitesimals; and we truly get far enough when we find that on reducing the pressure to the millionth of an atmosphere or less gases acquire these peculiar properties. It is impossible to say how much farther the separation might not be carried without advantage. On the other hand, it must be remembered that the energy manifested is rather that of the forces of nature than of the properties of matter, and that drug-action belongs to the latter category. It would seem to be the greater scope for molecular motion afforded by the wider range given to the particles which enables them to display the phenomena of light, heat and electricity in this enhanced degree; and it would not be easy to apply such a conception to the reactions of medicinal particles with the living matter of the organism. At the best, suggestions derived from this source must stand or fall with the doctrine of the atomic constitution of matter, and cannot harmonise with the notion of its infinite divisibility. If separation of particles be the cause of their greater activity, the time must come when further distance will outweigh ampler space, and the energy allowed by the latter will be lost in the expenditure required for the former. *

The above paragraph would be my answer to the ingenious considerations brought before the British Homoeopathic Society by Dr. Percy Wilde, and published in the tenth volume of its Journal under the title of "Energy, in its relation to Drugs and Drug Action." I cannot think that the power of drugs to induce changes in protoplasm is a result of any potential energy they may possess as physical substances; nor can I admit that even this is indefinitely increased by separation of their particles, that is, fails to diminish and finally disappear as these lessen in number and increase in distance from each other.

LECTURE XI.

HOMOEOPATHIC PRACTICE.

We have now surveyed the method of Hahnemann, in all that is essential to it. It is a rule-let likes be treated by likes. The "likes" are—on the one side the clinical features of disease, with such knowledge of its aetiology and pathology as can be had; on the other, the physiological action of drugs. Their similarity is to be, as far as possible, generic, specific, and individual; and the remedy thus selected is to be given (as a rule) singly, rarely, constitutionally, and minutely. If you have followed with concurrence the reasonings I have set before you, I trust you are satisfied that this method has every claim— scientific and practical-upon our acceptance; that our wisdom as medical men is to carry it out wherever it is applicable.

I have yet to speak to you of some subsidiary matters—of the philosophy of homoeopathy, the rationale of its curative process; of its history in the world of medicine; and of its claims on the profession. But before passing on to these, I feel bound to dwell on another series of considerations. I am assuming that you accept the method of Hahnemann, that you intend to adopt "homœopathic practice." What does this involve? What alteration does it make in your relation to the profession and the public? What duties does it lay upon you? What provision must you make, and what course of action must you follow, to carry it out aright? You may well ask such questions; and I am bound to answer them. Let us pass to-day, then, from the principles of homoeopathy to its practice.

I. When Hahnemann first propounded his method, he did so in the ordinary medical journals, addressing himself to his colleagues. He wrote, as he acted, in the liberty which every qualified physician is supposed to have, of doing what he thinks best for his patients, and of expressing his views among his peers. But this liberty, which had been granted to every systematiser who had preceded him, and has never since been refused, was denied to him. The reform in therapeutics he proposed was so great, so sweeping; the mode of treatment he would substitute for that then current so put to shame its

complexity, its violence, its absence of solid base, that the practitioners of his day could not bear it. They silenced him in their journals; they stirred up the druggists to hinder his dispensing his medicines; they invoked the arm of the State to forbid the new practice. If any man would carry it on, he must do so secretly. It was outlawed alike professionally and politically.

Nevertheless, it was believed in: it was adopted. Those who dared to adhere to it found themselves excluded from all the associations whereby the practitioners of medicine seek to advance themselves in the knowledge of their art. Membership of medical societies, practice in established hospitals, freedom of utterance in professional journals, was denied them: the recognition of truth to which their reason led them, and the application of it for the good of their patients to which their conscience constrained them, were treated as crimes. Their only wish was to practise freely, in their natural position, what their judgment dictated to be best; but this was sternly disallowed. What was the result? As they multiplied, they set up societies, hospitals, journals for themselves, calling these by the name of the method to which they were devoted. As time went on, schools and colleges had to be established to teach the new method, whose very mention was tabooed in the existing educational institutions; and homeopathic pharmacies became necessary, where our medicines could be obtained, and homœopathic directories, from which the public could learn who were practitioners of the system.

The consequence is, that homeopathy has acquired an organisation. From a creed it has become a church. The new adherent to it at the present day finds it in this position, and the first question he has to decide is whether he shall join this church or not. Shall he simply embrace the creed, practising it as far as his patients and colleagues permit, and professing it no more than occasion demands? Or shall he avow his faith, affiliate himself to homœopathic institutions, and allow his name to appear in the Homeopathic Directory, or at least in the annually published list of members of the British Homoeopathic Society? Now I am well aware of how much there is to be said for the former alternative. In the abstract, it is the legitimate course to follow. It was the mode of proceeding adopted in every country at the first, until the intolerance of the profession compelled its abandonment; and each new convert must feel strongly induced to attempt it afresh. But, much as I sympathize with the sentiment which actuates him, I can have no hesitation in advising him to prefer the other course. The organization of homœopathy was, indeed, forced upon it; but,

however acquired, it now belongs to it as a body to its soul. The position it has taken up was not of its seeking; but, having been occupied, it cannot be abandoned without fatal misunderstanding. We, who have held the fort for many a day, must continue to hold it until our claims are yielded, and our method receives its legitimate recognition, our mode of practice its due liberty and honour. We cannot do so unless from time to time we receive reinforcements to supply the gaps left by age, sickness, and death. The greater our numbers, the better our institutions are manned and our journals filled, the more respect we shall win for our system, the nearer we shall bring the day when the profession shall be forced to recognise it and to invite us back to free fellowship. Till then, do not weaken the cause by standing aloof from its embodiments. Allow your names to be placed in our published lists, or rather, be proud of it as of an enrolment in a Legion of Honour. Seek service in any homœopathic hospital or dispensary which may be in your neighbourhood; send cases to the homoeopathic journals; apply for membership in the British or other Homeopathic Society. Every man who acts thus lends fresh strength to the witness we bear to truth in medicine, and hastens the day of its victory.

I know that in the meantime the course of conduct to which I invite you involves heavy sacrifices. Things are not indeed as bad as they were, when to avow one's belief in homœopathy meant professional and even social outlawry. But the price is still a heavy one to pay. Such memberships and appointments as you may have you will find it hard to retain, and you will get no more. Consultations and assistance will be generally grudged, often refused. By many of your fellows you will be treated as a black sheep; spoken of behind your back as a fool, if not knave; met face to face with significant coldness. Even the more liberal-minded, though they tolerate you, will do it with a pity which is often contemptuous. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, in individuals, and even in circles -among which Birmingham deserves honourable mention; but as a rule it holds good. You must run the risk of being so treated. But what of that? Are you the first who have had to suffer for truth-to go, if need be, without the camp, bearing its reproach? Count the cost, indeed, before you make your avowal; but do not let it deter you from making it. To some extent you will find compensation. Another fellowship will welcome you, other places of honour and usefulness will be open to you. Still, you will be a heavy loser, and can only incur the loss in the firm conviction that you are thereby serving the cause of truth. This conviction is mine; I trust it may also be yours.

II. This, then, is the first thing I have to advise-that you avow your new faith in the most practical way, identify yourself with its body and not merely its soul, join its church as well as profess its creed. And now arises the next question,— What are the duties of the new position you have taken up? In what way do they differ from those of every practitioner of medicine?

Do you, in acknowledging the truth of homœopathy, bind yourselves to its exclusive practice? No; by no means. In becoming (as men will call you) "homoeopaths," you have not ceased to be physicians. "Medicus nomen, homoeopathicus cognomen," we may say after St. Augustine's manner. It is the supreme duty of us all to do what we judge best for our patients, irrespective of any creed or system. We have protested against the tyranny which has ostracised us because we believe this "best" ordinarily to be homoeopathy; and it is not for us to be entangled again with any other yoke of bondage. We must let no one impugn our right of unfettered therapeutic choice. In allying ourselves to homœopathic institutions we manfully recognise a truth which has laid hold of us, but which is at present denied and cast out: we in no way determine how far its practical consequences shall reach. Take up this position. from the first. Claim to be priests of the one Catholic Church of Medicine, however much the prevailing majority deny your orders and invalidate your sacraments. They force you into a sectarian position; but let them not inspire you with a sectarian spirit. Assert your inheritance in all the past of medicine, and your share in all its present: maintain your liberty to avail yourselves of every resource which the wit of man has devised or shall devise for the averting of death and the relief of suffering. This is the only legitimate ground to occupy, and you should make it plain that on this you stand.

But while desirous of impressing this primary truth upon you, I would remind you that you have duties as "homœopathicus," and not only as "medicus." Duties to your patients, for they will seek your aid as such; duties to the method itself, under whose name you enlist, and whose advantages you enjoy. The correlative of liberty here, as everywhere else, is loyalty; and without such counterpoise it degenerates into mere haphazard and empiricism. Our special vantage-ground is our practice according to law, instead of in the "unchartered freedom" of which our old-school colleagues boast, but of which the best of them must often tire. Do not readily forsake it. At the outset think even of liberty as little as possible. Children are not the better for being free; and the same may be said of novices in the method of Hahnemann. Your wisdom