would each be proved true by the same course of reasoning. Their own argument, properly considered, goes to prove the falsity of their doctrine. The opposition to Galileo arose from a superstitious priesthood, which was wholly ignorant of the principles of astronomy, and looked upon his announcement as a heresy which impugned the authority of the Scriptures. Ignorance and superstition alone opposed him. As fast as astronomers became acquainted with his principles, they were satisfied of their truth. His early disciples did not, like Hahnemann's, consist of the ignorant, and the credulous, but they were the most learned philosophers and astronomers of Greece, men who had devoted their lives to the study of that science. The very reverse of this has been the case with Hahnemannism: all the medical savants throughout the world rejected it as soon as they became acquainted with its principles; and if I am told that many people believe it now, I answer that many also believe in Ann Lee and Joe Smith.
Another homœopathic argument upon which its advocates appear to place great reliance, is
