This rationally explains how inert substances acquire by subdivision (trituration) medicinal properties. This has long been a stumbling-block to allopathic comprehension of Homoeopathy.

Do we not when we prove a drug - that is, administer it to the healthy to produce symptoms - and nearly all our homoeopathic provings are made, more or less, with the poteutized drug, which process also potentizes the inorganic salts therein contained - do we not produce a disturbance in the molecular equilibrium of the tissue salts contained in the drug given? For example: When we give Phytol. to prove it, do we not, by virtue of 6.S per cent. of potash salts it contains, cause a molecular disturbance of these salts, which would not occur were they given in so crude a form as not to be taken up by the ducts of the neurilemma of the nerves of taste, etc.?

This disturbance is only to be corrected when arising from disease by giving Phytol. in potency, the potash salts in it being the part which gives it its curative power.

This view by no means takes away the fact that each drug is an entity, to be proved as a whole.

But these very salts in certain proportions are its essential substratum, whose presence is necessary to fix, determine and embody the inner essence of the drug; and it is a question to be decided whether we could obtain the same results by giving the inorganic salt constituents of a drug as by giving the drug itself. It seems to us, were it possible, that the former would be a more elementary Homoeopathy, and this an indirect Biochemistry.

Schussler, in several of his editions, admits this and says that disturbed molecular motion of inorganic cell salts showing itself as disease is rectified by Biochemistry directly by the administration of homogeneous substances, whereas it is rectified by Homoeopathy indirectly by the administration of heterogeneous substances.