thy must be true because it meets with opposition. Now it must be a very poor case that is obliged to resort to so flimsy an argument for its support. It shows at once the want of tangible evidence, when it rests its support upon such a futile abstraction. The cases referred to are in no respect parallel. Hahnemann was no more like Galileo, than like Alexander or Caesar. He made no discoveries of any kind—his similia similibus curantur being, as we have already seen, an old exploded maxim, and he himself assures us that this idea had been acted upon for many centuries. He revived this absurdity, which had become nearly or quite exploded, and made it the basis of his whole scheme. But if the cases were parallel, the process of reasoning would be altogether untenable, for it can never be supposed that every man who meets with opposition is in the right, nor that opposition is any evidence whatever of the truth of any scheme that an individual may set up. This course of reasoning would make almost everything that is false appear true, and every truth a falsehood. The Alcoran and the Mormon Bible
