HOMOEOPATHY V. ALLOPATHY. 
486 
sentation of facts. He says, pp. 441-42, “to begin with 
sulphur, Mr. Haycock, quoting from Erasmus Wilson, says : 
c If its use be prolonged, it may be the occasion of an eruption 
similar to the eruption of itch/ And he further mentions, 
that the German sulphureous waters frequently produce a rash 
on the skin of visitors who drink them. The frequent infric- 
tion of sulphur will certainly produce irritation and eruption 
on the delicate human skin ; and this, argue the homceopa- 
thists, is the explanation of its efficacy in removing itch, and such 
other cutaneous affections. But if this, as homceopathists 
assert , be the true source of its curative value, it is but fair to 
infer that other substances, such as mustard, sand, and all 
substances capable of producing similar irritation and erup- 
tion, should, like sulphur, be possessed of similar efficacy in 
the cure of skin diseases. This is surely enough to scatter to 
the winds Mr. Haycock’s hypothesis regarding the action of 
sulphur.” In the above quotation, several things are assumed 
as true which are false in every essential. In the first place 
it is stated, that the frequent infriction of sulphur upon the 
delicate skin produces eruption and irritation upon it; that 
the effects of such infriction constitute the entire ground of 
similarity to itch, and other skin eruptions ; that homoeopa- 
thists explain and assert such to be the true source of its 
curative value in these affections ; that mustard and sand are 
capable of producing similar effects ; and that therefore they 
should be possessed of a similar efficacy in curing the same. 
Such are the facts and inferences contained in the above 
quotation. That they are utterly false I assert without 
fear of contradiction. Homceopathists nowhere allude even 
to infriction with sulphur upon the skin in any such sense ; 
neither do they explain and assert such to be the true source 
of its curative value in skin diseases. To suppose for a 
moment that their views of the pathology of itch, and their 
knowledge of the pathogenetic action of sulphur, are of so 
flimsey and of so mechanical a nature, is preposterous in the 
extreme. In my first communication, I stated that Mr. Dun 
had taken upon himself the task of expounding a system of 
medicine of which he was totally ignorant, and in the com- 
munications which I have subsequently made upon the same 
subject, I believe that I have furnished ample proof of its 
truth. I have no doubt but what my opponent has read a 
great deal upon homoeopathy, but he has read for the mere 
purpose of talk and contradiction ; I hope now that he will 
commence anew, and read to well weigh, and maturely 
consider. I should be sorry if my opponent is under the 
impression that I am animated by any unmanly or improper 
