By removing, then, the exciting causes of inflammation, before the action be induced, we shall frequently prevent it altogether from being formed; but, even although we should be disappointed, we, by this removal, render the disease milder, less extensive, and much more easily overcome; for, as long as the exciting causes continue to operate, it is impossible to procure resolution; but the action will be kept up until some other termination, or consequence, be induced. But, although we thus prevent the action from being raised to so great a degree as it otherwise would be, yet we do not immediately overcome or destroy it; because the action, when once induced, has, like every other action, a tendency to continue for some time after its cause is withdrawn. This continuance may be longer or shorter, according to circumstances, and its termination may be more or less unfavourable. We are, therefore, under the necessity of employing such remedies as have a power of directly diminishing or removing this action. It has, however, been doubted, whether they ought, in every instance, to be employed; or, in other words, whether resolution ought uniformly to be desired. It has, for instance, been deemed unsafe to check those inflammations which depended upon a general or constitutional specific disease, or occurred during its existence. But this opinion, which was evidently founded upon the supposition of the operation of morbid humours, cannot be maintained, now that this is given up. Granting inflammation, in every one of these cases, to be dependent upon the general disease, and to exist as a symptom of it, no harm can accrue from resolving it[2]; because, if the inflammation have once taken place, the full effect of the general disease is produced, which, therefore, cannot be affected by the peculiarity of the termination of this inflammation, unless it be proved, that some humour be sent there to be concocted and thrown out. In many instances, inflammation occurs in a general disease, merely as an accidental circumstance; but, even in those cases where the local inflammation is most decidedly dependent on the general action, and is perhaps essential to it, we find, that no bad effects follow from resolving the inflammation; and, if this be the case with regard to specific inflammation, we may still more certainly extend the principle to the treatment of the simple inflammatory action, with which we have at present a more immediate connection. There are, however, some inflammatory affections which we sometimes cannot put back; such as those tumors which succeed the small-pox; but, when we do succeed, no bad consequence follows; and the failure of some of our attempts can be no argument against the general plan, more than our failure in many other instances. [2] If we attempt, without fear, to cure the general disease, why may we not also endeavour to hasten the termination of the local disease?