the action of the brain upon thought, and have seen that when the former
is unnaturally compressed, the latter is immediately disordered or lost.
Let us now turn our attention to the action of thought upon the brain. A
letter is brought to a man containing some afflicting intelligence. He
casts his eye upon its contents, and drops down without sense or motion.
What is the cause of this sudden affection? It may be said that the
vessels have collapsed, that the brain is consequently disordered, and
that loss of sense is the natural consequence. But let us take one step
backward, and inquire what is the cause of the disorder itself, the
effects of which are thus visible. It is produced by a sheet of white
paper distinguished by a few black marks. But no one would be absurd
enough to suppose, that it was the effect of the paper alone, or of the
characters inscribed upon it, unless those characters conveyed some
meaning to the understanding. It is thought then which so suddenly
agitates and disturbs the brain, and makes its vessels to collapse. From
this circumstance alone we discover the amazing influence of thought
upon the external organ; of that thought which we can neither hear, nor
see, nor touch, which yet produces an affection of the brain fully equal
to a blow, a pressure, or any other sensible injury. Now this very
action of thought upon the brain clearly shows that the brain does not
produce it, while the mutual influence which they possess over each
other, as clearly shows that there is a strong connection between them.
But it is carefully to be remembered, that _connection_ is not
_identity_. While we acknowledge then, on the one side, the mutual
connection of the understanding and the brain, we must acknowledge, on
the other, their mutual independence. The phenomena which we daily
observe lead us of necessity to the recognition of these two important
principles. If then from the observations which we are enabled to make
on the phenomena of the understanding and of the brain, we are led to
infer mutual independence, we shall find our conclusions still farther
strengthened by a consideration of the substance and composition of the
latter. Not only is the brain a material substance, endowed with all
those properties of matter which we have before shown to be inconsistent
with thought, but it is a substance, which, in common with the rest of
our body, is undergoing a perpetual change. Indeed experiments and
observations give us abundant reason for concluding that the brain
undergoes within itself precisely the same change with the remainder of
the body. A man will fall down in a fit of apoplexy, and be recovered;
in a few years he will be attacked by another, which will prove fatal.
Upon dissection it will be found that there is a cavity formed by the
blood effused from the ruptured vessel, and that a certain action had
been going on, which gradually absorbed the coagulated blood. If then an
absorbent system exists in the brain, and the organ thereby undergoes,
in the course of a certain time, a total change, it is impossible that
this flux and variable substance can be endowed with consciousness or
thought. If the particles of the brain, either separately or in a mass,
were capable of consciousness, then after their removal the
consciousness which they produced must for ever cease. The consequence
of which would be, that personal identity must be destroyed, and that no
man could be the same individual being that he was ten years ago. But
our common sense informs us, that as far as our understanding and our
moral responsibility are involved, we are the same individual beings
that we ever were. If the body alone, or any substance subject to the
laws of body, were concerned, personal identity might reasonably be
doubted: but it is something beyond the brain that makes the man at
every period of his life the same: it is consciousness, that, amidst the
perpetual change of our material particles, unites every link of
successive being in one indissoluble chain. The body may be gradually
changed, and yet by the deposition of new particles, similar to those
which absorption has removed, it may preserve the appearance of
identity. But in consciousness there is real, not an apparent,
individuality, admitting of no change or substitution.
So inconsistent with reason is every attempt which has been made to
reduce our thoughts to a material origin, and to identify our
understanding with any part of our corporeal frame! The more carefully
we observe the operation, both of the mind and of the brain, the more
clearly we shall distinguish, and the more forcibly shall we feel, the
independence of the one upon the other. We know that the brain is the
organ or instrument by which the mind operates on matter, and we know
that the brain again is the chain of communication between the mind and
the material world. That certain disorders therefore in the chain should
either prevent or disturb this communication is reasonably to be
expected; but nothing more is proved from thence than we knew before,
namely, that the link is imperfect. And when that link is again
restored, the mind declares its identity, by its memory of things which
preceded the injury or the disease; and where the recovery is rapid, the
patient awakes as it were from a disturbed dream. How indeed the brain
and the thinking principle are connected, and in what manner they
mutually affect each other, is beyond the reach of our faculties to
discover. We must, for the present, be contented with our ignorance of
the cause, while from the effects we are persuaded both of their
connection on the one hand, and of their independence on the other.
MATTHEW, called also Levi, was the son of Alpheus, but probably not of
that Alpheus who was the father of the Apostle James the less. He was a
native of Galilee; but it is not known in what city of that country he
was born, or to what tribe of the people of Israel he belonged. Though a
Jew, he was a publican or tax-gatherer under the Romans; and his office
seems to have consisted in collecting the customs due upon commodities
which were carried, and from persons who passed, over the lake of
Gennesareth. Our Saviour commanded him, as he was sitting at the place
where he received these customs, to follow him. He immediately obeyed;
and from that time he became a constant attendant upon our Saviour, and
was appointed one of the twelve Apostles. St. Matthew, soon after his
call, made an entertainment at his house, at which were present Christ
and some of his disciples, and also several publicans. After the
ascension of our Saviour, he continued, with the other Apostles, to
preach the Gospel for some time in Judea; but as there is no farther
account of him in any writer of the first four centuries, we must
consider it as uncertain into what country he afterward went, and
likewise in what manner and at what time he died.
In the few writings which remain of the apostolical fathers, Barnabas,
Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, there are manifest
allusions to several passages in St. Matthew’s Gospel; but the Gospel
itself is not mentioned in any one of them. Papias, the companion of
Polycarp, is the earliest author on record who has expressly named St.
Matthew as the writer of a Gospel; and we are indebted to Eusebius for
transmitting to us this valuable testimony. The work itself of Papias is
lost; but the quotation in Eusebius is such as to convince us that in
the time of Papias no doubt was entertained of the genuineness of St.
Matthew’s Gospel. This Gospel is repeatedly quoted by Justin Martyr, but
without mentioning the name of St. Matthew. It is both frequently
quoted, and St. Matthew mentioned as its author, by Irenæus, Origen,
Athanasius, Cyril, Epiphanius, Jerom, Chrysostom, and a long train of
subsequent writers. It was, indeed, universally received by the
Christian church; and we do not find that its genuineness was
controverted by any early profane writer. We may therefore conclude,
upon the concurrent testimony of antiquity, that this Gospel is rightly
ascribed to St. Matthew. It is generally agreed, upon the most
satisfactory evidence, that St. Matthew’s Gospel was the first which was
written; but though this is asserted by many ancient authors, none of
them, except Irenæus and Eusebius, have said any thing concerning the
exact time at which it was written. The only passage in which the former
of these fathers mentions this subject, is so obscure, that no positive
conclusion can be drawn from it; Dr. Lardner, and Dr. Townson,
understand it in very different senses; and Eusebius, who lived a
hundred and fifty years after Irenæus, barely says, that Matthew wrote
his Gospel just before he left Judea to preach the religion of Christ in
other countries; but when that was, neither he nor any other ancient
author informs us with certainty. The impossibility of settling this
point upon ancient authority has given rise to a variety of opinions
among moderns. Of the several dates assigned to this Gospel, which
deserve any attention, the earliest is A.D. 38, and the latest, A.D. 64.
It appears very improbable that the Christians should be left any
considerable number of years without a written history of our Saviour’s
ministry. It is certain that the Apostles, immediately after the descent
of the Holy Ghost, which took place only ten days after the ascension of
our Saviour into heaven, preached the Gospel to the Jews with great
success; and surely it is reasonable to suppose, that an authentic
account of our Saviour’s doctrines and miracles would very soon be
committed to writing, for the confirmation of those who believed in his
divine mission, and for the conversion of others; and, more
particularly, to enable the Jews to compare the circumstances of the
birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus with their ancient prophecies
relative to the Messiah; and we may conceive that the Apostles would be
desirous of losing no time in writing an account of the miracles which
Jesus performed, and of the discourses which he delivered, because the
sooner such an account was published, the easier it would be to inquire
into its truth and accuracy; and, consequently, when these points were
satisfactorily ascertained, the greater would be its weight and
authority. We must own that these arguments are so strong in favour of
an early publication of some history of our Saviour’s ministry, that we
cannot but accede to the opinion of Jones, Wetstein, and Dr. Owen, that
St. Matthew’s Gospel was written A.D. 38.
There has also of late been great difference of opinion concerning the
language in which this Gospel was originally written. Among the ancient
fathers, Papias, as quoted by Eusebius, Irenæus, Origen, Cyril,
Epiphanius, Chrysostom, and Jerom, positively assert that it was written
by St. Matthew in Hebrew, that is, in the language then spoken in
Palestine; and indeed Dr. Campbell says, that this point was not
controverted by any author for fourteen hundred years. Erasmus was one
of the first who contended that the present Greek is the original; and
he has been followed by Le Clerc, Wetstein, Basnage, Whitby, Jortin,
Hug, and many other learned men. On the other hand, Grotius, Du Pin,
Simon, Walton, Cave, Hammond, Mill, Michaëlis, Owen, and Campbell have
supported the opinion of the ancients. In a question of this sort, which
is a question of fact, the concurrent voice of antiquity is decisive.
Though the fathers are unanimous in declaring that St. Matthew wrote his
Gospel in Hebrew, yet they have not informed us by whom it was
translated into Greek. No writer of the first three centuries makes any
mention whatever of the translator; nor does Eusebius: and Jerom tells
us, that in his time it was not known who was the translator. It is,
however, universally allowed, that the Greek translation was made very
early, and that it was more used than the original. This last
circumstance is easily accounted for. After the destruction of
Jerusalem, the language of the Jews, and every thing which belonged to
them, fell into great contempt; and the early fathers, writing in Greek,
would naturally quote and refer to the Greek copy of St. Matthew’s
Gospel, in the same manner as they constantly used the Septuagint
version of the Old Testament. There being no longer any country in which
the language of St. Matthew’s original Gospel was commonly spoken, that
original would soon be forgotten; and the translation into Greek, the
language then generally understood, would be substituted in its room.
This early and exclusive use of the Greek translation is a strong proof
of its correctness, and leaves us but little reason to lament the loss
of the original.
As the sacred writers,” says Dr. Campbell, “especially the evangelists,
have many qualities in common, so there is something in every one of
them, which, if attended to, will be found to distinguish him from the
rest. That which principally distinguishes St. Matthew, is the
distinctness and particularity with which he has related many of our
Lord’s discourses and moral instructions. Of these, his sermon on the
mount, his charge to the Apostles, his illustrations of the nature of
his kingdom, and his prophecy on Mount Olivet, are examples. He has also
wonderfully united simplicity and energy in relating the replies of his
Master to the cavils of his adversaries. Being early called to the
apostleship, he was an eye-witness and ear-witness of most of the things
which he relates; and though I do not think it was the scope of any of
these historians to adjust their narratives to the precise order of time
wherein the events happened, there are some circumstances which incline
me to think, that St. Matthew has approached at least as near that order
as any of them.” And this, we may observe, would naturally be the
distinguishing characteristic of a narrative, written very soon after
the events had taken place. The most remarkable things recorded in St.
Matthew’s Gospel, and not found in any other, are the following: the
visit of the eastern magi; our Saviour’s flight into Egypt; the
slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem; the parable of the ten virgins;
the dream of Pilate’s wife; the resurrection of many saints at our
Saviour’s crucifixion; and the bribing of the Roman guard appointed to
watch at the holy sepulchre by the chief priests and elders.
MATTHIAS the Apostle was first in the rank of our Saviour’s disciples,
and one of those who continued with him from his baptism to his
ascension, Acts i, 21, 22. It is very probable he was of the number of
the seventy, as Clemens Alexandrinus and other ancients inform us. We
have no particulars of his youth or education, for we may reckon as
nothing what is read in Abdias, or Obadiah, concerning this matter.
After the ascension of our Lord, the Apostles retiring to Jerusalem in
expectation of the effusion of the Holy Ghost, as had been promised,
Peter proposed to fill up the place of Judas: to this the disciples
agreed. They then presented two persons, Joseph Barsabas, surnamed
Justus, and Matthias. The lot falling on Matthias, he was from that time
associated with the eleven Apostles. The Greeks believe that Matthias
preached and died at Colchis.
MEASURE, that by which any thing is measured, or adjusted, or
proportioned, Prov. xx, 10; Micah vi, 10. Tables of Scripture measures
of length and capacity are found at the end of this volume.
MEATS. The Hebrews had several kinds of animals which they refused to
eat. Among domestic animals they only ate the cow, the sheep, and the
goat; the hen and pigeon, among domestic birds; beside several kinds of
wild animals. To eat the flesh with the blood was forbidden them, much
more to eat the blood without the flesh. We may form a judgment of their
taste by what the Scripture mentions of Solomon’s table, 1 Kings iv, 22,
23. Thirty measures of the finest wheat flour were provided for it every
day, and twice as much of the ordinary sort; twenty stall-fed oxen,
twenty pasture oxen, a hundred sheep, beside the venison of deer and
roebucks, and wild fowls. It does not appear that the ancient Hebrews
were very nice about the seasoning and dressing of their food. We find
among them roast meat, boiled meat, and ragouts. They roasted the
paschal lamb.
At the first settling of the Christian church, very great disputes arose
concerning the use of meats offered to idols. Some newly converted
Christians, convinced that an idol was nothing, and that the distinction
of clean and unclean creatures was abolished by our Saviour, ate
indifferently of whatever was served up to them, even among Pagans,
without inquiring whether these meats had been first offered to idols.
They took the same liberty in buying meat sold in the markets, not
regarding whether it was pure or impure according to the Jews, or
whether it was that which had been offered to idols. But other
Christians, weaker or less instructed, were offended at this liberty;
and thought to eat of meat that had been once offered to idols, was a
kind of partaking of that wicked and sacrilegious offering. This
diversity in opinion produced some scandal, to which St. Paul thought it
behoved him to provide a suitable remedy, Rom. xiv, 20; Titus i, 15. He
determined, therefore, that all things were clean to such as were clean,
and that an idol was nothing at all; that a man might safely eat of
whatever was sold in the shambles, and though it might be a part of what
had been previously offered in the temple, and there exposed to sale, he
need not scrupulously inquire whence it came; that if an unbeliever
should invite a believer to eat with him, the believer might eat of
whatever was set before him, &c, 1 Cor. x, 25–27. But at the same time
he enjoins, that the law of charity and prudence should be observed;
that men should be cautious of scandalizing or offending weak minds;
that though all things may be lawful, yet all things are not always
expedient; that no one ought to seek his own accommodation or
satisfaction, but that of his neighbour; that if any one should say to
us, This has been offered to idols,” we may not then eat of it, for the
sake of him who gives the information; not so much for fear of wounding
our own conscience, but his; in a word, that he who is weak, and thinks
he may not indifferently use all sorts of food, should forbear, and eat
herbs, rather than offend a brother, Rom. xiv, 1, 2. Yet it is certain,
that generally Christians abstained from eating meat that had been
offered to idols.
MEDIA. It has been commonly thought that Media was peopled by the
descendants of Madai, son of Japheth, Gen. x, 2. The Greeks maintain
that this country took its name from Medus, the son of Medea. If,
however, Madai and his immediate descendants did not people this
country, some of his posterity might have carried his name thither,
since we find it so often given to Media, from the times of the Prophets
Isaiah and Jeremiah, and from the transportation of the ten tribes, and
the destruction of Samaria under Salmaneser, A. M. 3283. Media Proper
was bounded by Armenia and Assyria Proper on the west, by Persia on the
east, by the Caspian provinces on the north, and by Susiana on the
south. It was an elevated and mountainous country, and formed a kind of
pass between the cultivated parts of eastern and western Asia. Hence,
from its geographical position, and from the temperature, verdure, and
fertility of its climate, Media was one of the most important and
interesting regions of Asia. Into this country the ten tribes who
composed the kingdom of Israel were transplanted, in the Assyrian
captivity, by Tiglath-pileser and Salmaneser. The former prince carried
away the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh, on the east side of
Jordan, to Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river of Gozan. His
successor carried away the remaining seven tribes and a half, to the
same places, which are said to be cities of the Medes, by the river of
Gozan,” 1 Chron. v, 26; 2 Kings xvii, 6. The geographical position of
Media was wisely chosen for the distribution of the great body of the
captives; for, it was so remote, and so impeded and intersected with
great mountains and numerous and deep rivers, that it would be extremely
difficult for them to escape from this natural prison, and return to
their own country. They would also be opposed in their passage through
Kir, or Assyria Proper, not only by the native Assyrians, but also by
their enemies, the Syrians, transplanted thither before them. The
superior civilization of the Israelites, and their skill in agriculture
and in the arts, would tend to civilize and improve those wild and
barbarous regions.
MEDIATOR, one who stands in a middle office or capacity between two
differing parties, and has a power of transacting every thing between
them, and of reconciling them to each other. Hence a mediator between
God and man is one whose office properly is to mediate and transact
affairs between them relating to the favour of almighty God, and the
duty and happiness of man. No sooner had Adam transgressed the law of
God in paradise, and become a sinful creature, than the Almighty was
pleased in mercy to appoint a Mediator or Redeemer, who, in due time
should be born into the world, to make an atonement both for his
transgression, and for all the sins of men. This is what is justly
thought to be implied in the promise, that “the seed of the woman should
bruise the serpent’s head;” that is, that there should some time or
other be born, of the posterity of Eve, a Redeemer, who, by making
satisfaction for the sins of men, and reconciling them to the mercy of
almighty God, should by that means bruise the head of that old serpent,
the devil, who had beguiled our first parents into sin, and destroy his
empire and dominion among men. Thus it became a necessary part of Adam’s
religion after the fall, as well as that of his posterity after him, to
worship God through hope in this Mediator. To keep up the remembrance of
it God was pleased, at this time, to appoint sacrifices of expiation or
atonement for sin, to be observed through all succeeding generations,
till the Redeemer himself should come, who was to make the true and only
proper satisfaction and atonement.