HOMCEOPATHY V . ALLOPATHY. 877 
tingly furnished by my opponent himself, upon this head 
render the matter conclusive. 
From the great length to which this communication has 
necessarily run, I am precluded at present from entering upon 
the other branches of this subject ; viz., upon the question of 
Dose and that of Dietetics. I am unwilling to leave these 
matters, but want of space must be my excuse ; however, 
I trust my opponent will see that the law “similia simi- 
libus curantur” is not altogether that piece of nonentity 
which perhaps he thought it was ; indeed, I am thoroughly 
convinced that if he understood this question (and he most 
certainly does not understand it), he would never for a single 
moment oppose it. I have no objection to fully and fairly discuss 
this question with him in a spirit which is amicable to both — 
but he must keep to the question, leave alone the Lamas of 
Tartary — Mormonism — Phrenology — Major’s British remedy, 
and Hudibras ; they are all foreign to the dispute. Neither is 
it of any use my opponent abusing my book, at least not for 
the present ; but keep to the question , and prove, by facts 
against which there can be no appeal, that Similia Similibus 
Curantur is not a law to guide us in the treatment of disease, 
but a figment and a delusion. The question of dose we can 
settle hereafter : I am fully prepared to meet my opponent 
upon that point ; but as the truth or falsehood of the law 
does not in the least depend upon the dose question, neither 
in fact is it affected by it ; let us, therefore, deal with one 
thing at a time. Similia Similibus Curantur is a question which 
at this moment is engaging a portion, at least, of the highest 
intellect not only in Europe but in America also. If Mr. 
Dun, therefore, has got anything really to say upon it, I 
promise him every attention on my part, but unless he has 
got something to say, and he certainly has not said anything 
yet, I would seriously advise him to employ his pen and his 
time upon something else which he undoubtedly does under- 
stand. Men argue against the law of similars, as though 
there was something unphilosophical in the very idea of its 
existence. We have laws for navigation, chemical laws, 
astronomical laws, anatomical laws, and laws of optical 
science. No one ever argues to disprove these laws, and yet, 
I say, men argue against a law for curing disease, - as though 
it involved a something in opposition to reason and common 
sense. Truth is but an effect. For every truth there is a Law. 
I do not claim a practical perfection for Homoeopathy, no 
such thing ! Medicine, as practised now, particularly veteri- 
nary medicine, is the most crude and unsatisfactory thing 
possible, and he who knows the most about it will, I think, 
