PRINCIPLES OF HOMOEOPATHY. 
23 
sufficient for another occasion. This answer induced me to 
try the agent in other instances of the same kind. It has 
never failed me, but always quieted the system without 
affecting the constitution. 
I now come to the period when the homoeopathic theory did 
me material service. I mean when it instructed me in the 
remedies necessary to cure distemper. Repeated dissections 
had shown me that the disease was inflammation of a subacute 
kind affecting the intestinal track. Books on the human sub- 
ject informed me that this condition of bowel constituted con- 
tinued fever in man. These facts suggested the employment 
of quinine ; but that agent did not do all I desired. Some 
benefit was accomplished : still the cure w r as tedious, and too 
frequently left behind it consequences more stubborn than 
the original disease. 
Once more I turned to the homoeopathic theory, and found 
mild doses of arsenic suggested in bowel affections. I tried 
this, and the result was such that I still employ it. 
These are but a few, a very few, of the proofs I have 
experienced, that, let there be what folly there may mixed up 
with the first announcement of homoeopathy, that doctrine is 
nevertheless based on a solid foundation. Very probably all 
declarations contain some truth, since even falsehood is a 
mixture. That which is entirely without foundation only 
excites a sneer. Thus, if a man w r ere to assert he had bitten 
a piece out of the moon, who would tax such a being with 
uttering a lie ? But, if a man taxed another with a theft of 
which the individual accused was innocent, then because of 
the truth involved in the possibility of the theft having been 
so committed, a gross and malicious falsehood is uttered. 
Thus I contend there is some truth in homoeopathy. It 
cannot surely be worse than a lie. All it asserts may not be 
correct, but as the most flagrant falsehood requires a portion 
of truth to give it currency, so I maintain homoeopathy is not 
entirely ridiculous ; it is not even quite groundless. Many of 
its declarations have been tested, and found to bear the hardest 
ordeal. That w r e generally give too large doses is by many 
concluded. That the homoeopathists may give too minute 
doses is also probable. Nevertheless, the dose is not a part 
of the homoeopathic theory. It may be the custom with 
most homoeopathic practitioners to give very extreme dilu- 
tions, but this is not insisted upon by their motto of “ Like 
cures like,” which I have proved to be efficacious when what 
we consider to be minute quantities are administered. 
Hoping I have written nothing to excite the anger of 
either of the former disputants, such not being my object or 
