366 
HOMCEOPATHY V. ALLOPATHY. 
logy, mormonism, and spirit rapping, &c., and ending, of 
course, with a quotation from Hudibras; the whole of which 
is very witty and amusing, and doubtless with many, will 
appear vastly clever, and excite, in no small degree, their 
risible faculties; but with all due deference, Mr. Editor, to 
the good sense of your readers, I contend that such matters 
are totally irrelevant to the original ground of dispute, and 
are therefore unworthy of my serious attention ; but granting, 
for the sake of argument, that mormonism, and spirit rapping, 
and phrenology, are false systems, which “ have imposed upon 
the gullibility of mankind,’ 5 does it follow from this that 
homoeopathy is false ? what on earth have these matters to do 
with our dispute? It is a simple thing to assert a doctrine 
to be false, but it is quite another affair to prove it so. I 
asked for proof, that the law of cure which Hahnemann has 
given to the world, is a false law, and instead of proof to this 
effect, the reader is entertained with stale witticisms about 
mormonism, the Lamas of Tartary, Major’s British remedy, 
and with a quotation from Hudibras, a thousand times before 
quoted by almost every newspaper scribbler in the kingdom ; 
really, I must confess, that from Mr. Dun, occupying as he 
does the position of lecturer for the purpose of teaching his 
fellow man, really, I say, something better was to have been 
expected. The very arguments which he has favoured us with 
have been adduced hundreds of times before, and as oft re- 
futed. There is nothing whatever in them which at all 
damages homoeopathy, and, what is more, they are altogether 
foreign to the dispute in hand : this I do not ask the reader to 
take my word for, but I ask him to carefully read what I have 
written in the Veterinarian for May, and also the pretended 
reply to such in the same journal for June, and he will per- 
ceive that what I state is really the fact. 
Having premised the above with reference to what, strictly 
speaking, is the ground of our dispute, I will now endeavour 
to examine the objections contained in that “ considerable 
mass of condemnatory evidence,” which I am told, for reasons 
best known to myself, I have “passed over unnoticed.” 
Now I will tell my opponent why I passed over his ob- 
jections ; — in the first place, I clearly proved that his premises 
were (this, if he be a candid man, he must himself admit) 
erroneous, or, in other words, that his explanation of the 
Hahnemannic law, was a false explanation; and when the 
premises of an argument are found worthless, why, of course, 
the conclusions drawn from such premises are, generally 
speaking, equally worthless; so that in disproving the for- 
mer, the latter are considered to be disproved also ; and, in 
