2 
the principles of Murray’s classification are pur- 
sued, with the exception of an insulated position 
for mercury. It is evident that the author of that 
work, is not satisfied with the existing systems of 
classification ; and intimates in the preface of the 
first edition, that the plan proposed +3 Dr. Bibb, — 
in 1801,* of arranging medicines on the principle of | 
their aflinities to the several systems of the body, — 
is mach more natural ; and if opportunity is even — 
offered him, he will attempt to establish that sys-— 
tem. Bibb’s system is predicated on the arrange-_ 
ment of asystem by Dr. Rush—his proposition is 
objectionable ; more so than Dr. Murray’s—rea- 
sons detailed in the lectures. Dr. Granville’s — 
_ arrangement has been adopted by Dr. Eberle 
in his Elements. Ina word, as none of the pub-— 
Jished systems meet my views, for carrectness and — 
truth, it only remains for me to notice one, long — 
since discarded, which I shall endeavour to revive 
in these lectures. | 
Newman and Lewis proposed an alphabetical ar-_ 
rangement. ‘This, with some variation relating to — 
the different parts of the plant, was adopted by 
Alston and Vogel. It is likewise used in Dispen-— 
satories, and in Paris’ admirable work, the Phar-— 
macologia. Tadopt the simple arrangement of the 
alphabet in these lectures. I discard all the sys- — 
_ tems of classification just noticed ; but, after treat-— 
ing fully of every article under its proper lit-— 
eval head, shall redace the whole by tabular dispo- 
sition, according to the most prominent properties 
they evince, to the system of Murray, of general 
and local stimulants, chemical and mechanical 
remedies. oer 
The object of lectures is to inform the student 0 
ihe history, virtue and effects of medicines. The 
* See his printed Inaugural Thesis, Un, of Penn. of that yea 
