sable in all to have truth in their mouths, as well as love in their hearts? And why does he in one place represent the saint as making naught of ordinary morality in comparison with the spiritual life, and in another place make him exalt ordinary Christian life to the same level as that of virgins? And if he was so intoxicated with the "glories of the spiritual life" as to lose common sense, how is it that all this sober teaching came from the abundance of his heart, just when he had drunk deepest of that life in a time of retreat?

This is but a specimen of the contradictions into which a writer must fall who tries to praise a Catholic saint from a Protestant point of view. The book abounds in contradictions. They begin in the dedication, in which Dr. Wordsworth, who has throughout his life been possessed with a mania of reviling the Holy See, and proving that the Church of Rome is the Babylon of the Apocalypse, is represented as the successor of the virtues of St. Hugh who was a most devoted adherent and subject of the See of Rome. Over and over again Canon Perry asserts the corruptions and degradation of the English Church were due to its slavery to Rome; yet, over and over again he brings facts, which show it was the influence of the Holy See which alone rescued it from the tyranny of kings and the corrupting influence of courtly bishops. He tells us how much better fitted secular canons must be to advise bishops than monks-"growing up in a routine of duties, which narrowed and dwarfed the mind, without any opportunity of seeing the world and studying the manners and minds of men."* And yet not only the subject of this biography was a monk, but all the greatest of his predecessors, and very many, if not most, of the great bishops of England; while the chroniclers whose keen remarks on "the manners and minds of men," he frequently quotes with approbation, are nearly all monks.

There is in fact an unreality, an inconsistency, I had almost said an insincerity, about these Anglican accounts of Catholic saints, which must necessarily tend to utter confusion as to doctrine, and consequently to indifference; while this giving of alternate praise and blame is destructive of any consistent standard of right and wrong. In a chapter devoted to the state of the clergy in the time of St. Hugh, Canon Perry has gathered out of a treatise of Giraldus a long list of possible, or actual, abuses or irreverences committed against the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar. He remarks that "Such tricks played about the holiest things gives us a very low idea of the reverence and devotion of the

* P. 11.

time."* In this remark every Catholic will cordially agree, provided only that the historical authority of Giraldus is admitted. But we know too well his reckless exaggerations about Ireland, to trust him easily when he speaks of England, or even of his native Wales. Admitting, however, the facts as Canon Perry gives them, on the testimony of Gerald Barry and Walter Mapes, how do they in any way bear out Canon Perry's view, that such deeds were the result of the low material views of the Eucharist-i.e., as he explains, of the belief in Transubstantiation? Nestorians used to write in language very like that of Canon Perry, regarding the "many revolting details which spring naturally from the material view of”—the Incarnation! And many infidels have enumerated the crimes of Christians as an argument against their faith. Christians at the present day take the name of their Redeemer in vain, abuse His festivals by profligacy and by quarrels, and persecute each other through a misconceived zeal for His glory. Suppose now that Canon Perry, instead of raking up the crimes of Catholics in the twelfth century, should have the moral courage to write a book like that of Giraldus, enumerating the crimes of men of his own time and his own Church, and should denounce them in the same bold and perhaps exaggerated language used by the priestly writers of the Middle Ages. And suppose that some writer of the twenty-fifth century, wishing to depict the life and times of Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, should discover this imaginary treatise of Canon Perry, and should pick out all its worst passages, and string them together, and call it a picture of the English Church in the nineteenth century. Suppose he should also indulge in reflections that such abominations are just what might be expected from the gross material belief in the Incarnation, which was then prevalent in the Church of England. And if, after these reflections, he should go on to eulogize Dr. Wordsworth, in spite of his having held the same views of the Incarnation which the author has pronounced low and degrading; and should do this by catching at certain words and acts, which he could twist into proofs that he was in reality superior to the superstitious views held by his Church in the nineteenth century, and did not really believe in the material view of the Incarnation at all-would Canon Perry consider this a fair proceeding? Yet if a writer in the twentyfifth century should do this, he will simply follow the precedent set him by Canon Perry. For St. Hugh held exactly the same faith about the Blessed Sacrament and the Holy Mass which was held by the sordid and unworthy priests whom he

*P. 148.

VOL. XXXIV.NO. II. [Third Series.]

CC

denounced and suspended. But they joined to a true faith, irreverence, avarice, and impurity, whereas St. Hugh shows in his life what should be the conduct of a true priest, to whom such mysteries are committed. That is the simple, straightforward view taken by St. Hugh's contemporary biographer, Abbot Adam. I have shown how different, and consequently how inconsistent, and how false to history, is the view worked out by Canon Perry.

T. E. BRIDGETT, C.SS. R.

ART. IV.-RECENT RESEARCH ON THE NERVES AND BRAIN.

1. La Psychologie Allemande Contemporaine: Ecole expérimentale. Par TH. RIBOT. Paris. 1879.

2. Lehrbuch der Physiologie der Menschen. Von Dr. WUNDT. Stuttgart. 1878.

3. HERMANN'S Handbuch der Physiologie. Band II. and III. Leipzig. 1879.

4. The Functions of the Brain. By DAVID FERRIER, M.D., F.R.S. London.

1876.

MONG all the labours of modern science few are more remarkable, and yet few are less generally known, than the attempts which have been made to approach the study of the mind from the side of its material instrument, the nervous system. The amount of labour bestowed on this subject during the last twenty years has been enormous, and although the positive results obtained are proportionately few, owing to its inherent difficulty, many of them are extremely suggestive, and all must have the greatest interest for every student of the human mind. So far as I am aware, no attempt has been made, in England or abroad, to give an outline of the subject in a form accessible to the general reader; and although it is certain that any such sketch must be very inadequate and fragmentary, I think it possible to convey some idea of the lines which recent investigation has taken, to all who will have the patience to follow me. I propose to do this in the next few pages; and I have also another object in view. Having given such an outline as I can of the experimental study of the relations of the brain to thought, I propose to show that none of the conclusions to which modern science leads are in any point opposed to that system of philosophy which is commended to

us by the highest authority. I may go farther, and say that the psychology of St. Thomas, in its general outlines, strikingly anticipated the results of modern physiology; and that the two harmonize and complement each other in a manner which is a strong evidence of the truth of both.

I must premise a few remarks on the nervous system in general. In the most elementary forms of animal life we find that the whole body is able to respond by appropriate movements to impressions made from without. But such movements are necessarily only of the simplest kind, and can exist only in animals of the smallest size; in order that any advance should be made beyond them, certain portions of the elementary substance called "protoplasm" have to be set apart for the reception of external impressions; while others are employed as means of communication between these sensitive organs and the contractile masses of protoplasm which become muscles. The next stage of development consists in a farther division of labour; some parts of the connecting protoplasm being devoted exclusively to the spontaneous origination of impulses to motion, while others have merely to connect these "automatic" centres with the surface of the body or with themselves. In all the higher animals, these two parts of the nervous system are clearly distinguished. The conducting portion, called the "nerves," is white in colour, and under the microscope is seen to be made up of small fibres, each composed of a delicate membrane containing a white tube, which in turn is filled with a transparent substance, the whole being about 3000 of an inch in diameter. The originating portion consists of minute globules called "cells," many of which send out branches which become nerve-fibres; an aggregate of these cells is always grey in colour, and is called a ganglion or nervecentre.

If the nerves are acted upon, either by these nerve-centres or by some stimulus from without, the impression is transmitted along the fibres so affected until some nerve-centre or muscle is reached. This propagation is ascribed to the existence of a special nerve-force, with the intimate nature of which we are no better acquainted than with the other physical forces. It is correlated to them, as they are to one another, and is included in the general law of conservation of energy, being produced by an expenditure of heat, light, electricity, and resulting itself in the production of one of them. It seems to resemble most nearly electricity; and the varying electrical conditions of nerves seem at first sight to justify the popular illustration, which likens the brain to a galvanic battery and the nerves to telegraph wires. But there are several important differences

between the two forces, the chief being the rapidity at which nerve-force travels. Numerous experiments of late years have proved that, far from reaching the marvellous velocities of light or electricity, an impression is transmitted through the nerves at the very moderate speed of 60 to 130 feet per second, varying considerably in different parts of the same nerve, and being accelerated by increase of temperature and greater intensity of the stimulus. The tendency at present is rather to look upon the nerves as made up of a series of molecules of unstable chemical composition: so that a change (probably oxidation) is propagated by a series of explosions all along the line. It has been farther shown, that the nerve-fibres will conduct indifferently in either direction.

I have said that nerve-force originates either in a nerve-centre or in an external impression, and results either in an act of consciousness or in motion. The best examples of spontaneous action are furnished by the ganglia contained in the substance of the heart and blood-vessels, keeping up the movements necessary to life. In the other case an impression may be transmitted up the sensory nerves, and movement may result, without being consciously recognised. The centres for these reflex movements, in which ascending impressions are changed into motor impulses, are in the spinal cord. Familiar instances of such reflex actions are sneezing, coughing, and the like; from which it will be remarked that the movements produced by very simple stimuli are often very complicated. They are often also so apparently purposive, particularly in the frog and other lower animals, that some physiologists ascribe a kind of consciousness to the spinal cord. But it is generally held that the total loss of sensation in those human beings whose spinal cord has been severed from the brain by accident or disease disproves this view; and it is more probable that the combination of many movements in one reflex act is due to the gradual connection, in many successive generations, of such as are beneficial to the individual. The higher nerve-centres possess another property of great importance: they are enabled to prevent or check any action produced by ganglia lower than themselves. This power of inhibition is difficult to explain; probably two currents meeting in the same nerve neutralize each other in a manner analogous to the "interference" of light or sound.

Bearing in mind these general properties of the nervous system, we shall be able to follow the principal lines which have been adopted for the study of sensation. First, as to the change which takes place in the sensory organs when an impression is made on them: there is an increasing probability that there is