cates of every kind of empiricism. Against such men, arguments are useless. They are deaf to all appeals to reason, and we are overwhelmed as with an avalanche by their recitals of what they have themselves seen; common sense is put in abeyance, and truth is confounded by the wonderful cures to which they have been witnesses.
No unprofessional man, merely from his own observations, can become qualified to judge of the merits of different modes of medical practice; his knowledge of the subject is too limited, and his observations are too brief and imperfect, to fit him for the task. He may have seen one or several patients recover under some particular treatment, and also others die under other treatment; but from such limited observations, without a correct knowledge of the pathological condition of each patient and all the circumstances attending it, he is not warranted in sitting in judgment upon a matter of so much importance. But it is sometimes said that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread," and we know that it is no uncommon thing for men and women, and sometimes children, in almost every grade of
