ST, the Evangelist, was, according to Mark ii. 14, the son of Alpheus; and if it is correct, as is generally supposed, that Jacobus, or James, the son of Alpheus, was a son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas, who was a sister of the mother of Jesus, Matthew was one of the relatives of the Saviour. Matthew was at all events a man of humble birth, and held the office of a *portitor*, or inferior collector of customs, at Capernaum, on the Sea of Galilee, where he was either connected with the port of Capernaum, or collected the customs on the high road to Damascus, which went through what is now called Khan Minyeh, or the ancient Capernaum. In Mark ii. 14, and Luke v. 27, he is called Levi, and hence we conclude that he had two names. This circumstance is not mentioned in the list of the apostles (Matt. x. and Luke vi.); but the omission does not prove the contrary, as we may infer from the fact that Lebbaeus is also called Judas in Luke vi. 16, in which verse the name Lebbaeus is omitted. We are informed in Matt. ix. 9, how Matthew was called to be an apostle; yet we must suppose that he was previously acquainted with Jesus, since we read (Luke vi. 13), that when Jesus, before delivering the Sermon on the Mount, selected twelve disciples, Matthew was among their number. After this Matthew returned to his usual occupation; from which Jesus, on leaving Capernaum, called him away. After this event he is mentioned only in Acts i. 13. Clemens Alexandrinus (*Pædagog.* ii. 1) states that Matthew abstained from animal food, a circumstance which has led some writers to conclude that he belonged to the sect of the Essenes. But while it is true that the Essenes practised abstinence in a high degree, it is not true that they rejected animal food altogether. And even admitting the account in Clemens Alexandrinus to be correct, it proves only a certain ascetic strictness in the disciple, of which there occur not unfrequent vestiges in the habits of other Jews. According to another account, which is as old as the first century, and which occurs in Clemens Alexandrinus (*Strom.* vi. 15), Matthew, after the death of Jesus, remained about fifteen years in Jerusalem. This agrees with the statement in Eusebius (*Hist. Eccles.* iii. 24), that Matthew preached to his own nation before he went to foreign coun tries. Rufinus (Hist. Eccles. x. 9) and Socrates (Hist. Eccles. i. 19) state that he afterwards went into Ethiopia; and other authors mention other countries which he visited. Heraclon and Clemens Alexandrinus agree in the opinion that Matthew was one of those apostles who did not suffer martyrdom.

Matthew, St, The Gospel of, has been more strongly attacked with respect to its genuineness than any of the other three, both by external and internal arguments.

The most ancient testimony concerning Matthew's Gospel is that of Papias, who, according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39), wrote as follows—"Matthew wrote the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, but everybody interpreted them according to his ability." Doubts of different kinds have been raised whether this testimony could refer to our Greek Gospel of St Matthew. These doubts were particularly brought forward by Schleiermacher in the Studien und Kritiken, 1832, Heft 4; whose opinion was adopted by Schneckenburger, Lachmann, and many others. According to these critics, the apostle wrote only a collection of the remarkable sayings of Jesus; which collection was put into an historical form by a Greek translator. Dr Lücke has shown, however, that the testimony of Papias may be considered as referring to our Gospel of St Matthew. Those who deny the genuineness of this Gospel allege that in none of the Fathers before Jerome do we find any statement from which we could infer that they had seen the Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew; and that consequently we may consider as a mere conjecture the opinion of the Fathers, that our Gospel is a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. Jerome, in his Catal. de Viris Illustr. (cap. iii.), reports that the Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew was preserved in the library at Caesarea, where he took a copy of it; and in his commentary on Matt. xii. 13, he says, that he translated this Hebrew Gospel into Greek. Accordingly, Jerome's statement respecting the Evangelium secundum Hebraeos may be taken as a confirmation of the account of Papias, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. If this be the fact, the question must arise whether our Greek Matthew is a correct translation of the Hebrew. The words of Papias seem to imply that in his days there was no Greek translation in existence; a circumstance which has induced many critics to question his account, and to suppose that the original text was Greek. Such is the opinion of Erasmus, Ecolampadius, Calvin, Beza, Lardner, Guerike, Harless, and others. It is by no means improbable, however, that after several inaccurate and imperfect translations of the Aramaic original came into circulation, Matthew himself was prompted by this circumstance to publish a Greek translation, or to have his Gospel translated under his own supervision. It is very likely that this Greek translation did not soon come into general circulation, so that Papias may have remained ignorant of its existence.

On summing up what we have stated, it appears that the external testimonies clearly prove the genuineness of the Gospel of St Matthew. The authenticity, indeed, of this Gospel is as well supported as that of any work of classical antiquity. Not only was it early in use among Christians, but the apostolical fathers, at the end of the first century, ascribed to it a canonical authority. (See Polycarp, Epist. c. ii. 7; Ignatius, Ad Smyrn. c. vi.; Ad Rom. c. vi.; Clemens Romanus, Epist. i. c. xlvii.; Barnabas, Epist. c. iv.)

With respect to the internal arguments brought against the authenticity of this Gospel, it has been alleged that the representations of Matthew have not that vivid clearness which characterizes the narration of an eye-witness, and which we find, for instance, in the Gospel of John, and even in Mark and Luke; that he omits some facts which every apostle certainly knew. For instance, he mentions only the last journey of Christ to the passover at Jerusalem; and seems to be acquainted only with Galilee as the sphere of Christ's activity. It is further objected, that he relates unchronologically, and transposes events to times in which they did not happen; for instance, the event mentioned in Luke iv. 14—30 must have happened at the commencement of Christ's public career, but Matthew relates it as late as ch. xiii. 53, sq.; that he embodies in one discourse several sayings of Christ which, according to Luke, were pronounced at different times. He fails, it is asserted, into positive errors; for he seems not to know that the real dwelling-place of the parents of Jesus was at Nazareth, and that their abode at Bethlehem was only temporary; and disagrees with Mark in his account of the withered fig-tree, and in the time assigned for the purification of the temple. These circumstances have led Strauss and others to consider the Gospel of St Matthew as an unapostolical composition, originating, perhaps, at the conclusion of the first century; while some consider it a reproduction of the Aramaic Matthew, augmented by some additions; and others call it an historical commentary of a later period, made to illustrate the collection of the sayings of Christ which Matthew had furnished. (Comp. Sieffert, Über die Aechtheit und den Ursprung des ersten Evangeli, 1832; Schneckenburger, Über den Ursprung des ersten Evangeli, 1834; Schott, Über die Authentizität des Ev. Matth. 1837.)

To these objections it may be replied, that the gift of narrating luminously is a personal qualification of which even an apostle might be destitute, and which is rarely found among the lower orders of people; that an argumentum à silentio must not be urged against the evangelists. The raising of Lazarus is narrated only by John; and the raising of the youth at Nain only by Luke; the appearance to five hundred brethren after the resurrection, which, according to the testimony of Paul (1 Cor. xv. 6), was a fact generally known, is not recorded by any of the evangelists. In the next place, there is no reason to suppose that the evangelists intended to write a chronological biography. On the contrary, we learn from Luke i. 4 and John xx. 31, that their object was of a more practical and apologetical tendency; and it is now generally admitted that, with the exception of John, the evangelists have grouped their communications more according to the subjects than according to chronological succession (com. Kern's Abhandlung über den Ursprung des Evangeli Matthaei, p. 51, sq.; Köster, Über die Composition des Ev. Matth., in Peltz's Mitarbeitern, Heft i.; Kühn, Leben Jesu, t. i., Beilage.)

Again, if the evangelist arranges his statements according to subjects, and not chronologically, we must not be surprised that he connects similar sayings of Christ, inserting them in the longer discourses after analogous topics had been mentioned; for these discourses are not compiled by the evangelist, but always form the fundamental framework to which sometimes analogous subjects are attached. It depends, moreover, entirely upon the mode of interpretation, whether such positive errors as are alleged to exist are really chargeable on the evangelist. The difference, for instance, between the narrative of the birth of Christ, as severally recorded by Matthew and Luke, may easily be solved without questioning the correctness of either, if we suppose that each of them narrates what he knows from his individual sources of information. If these arguments should still appear unsatisfactory, they may be supported by adding the positive internal proofs which exist in favour of the apostolical origin of this Gospel.

1. The nature of the book agrees entirely with the statements of the Fathers of the church, from whom we learn that it was written for Jewish readers. None of the other evangelists quotes the Old Testament so often as Matthew, who, moreover, does not explain the Jewish rites and expressions, which are explained by Mark and John. 2. If there is a want of precision in the narration of facts, there is, on the other hand, a peculiar accuracy and richness in the reports given Matthew, of the discourses of Jesus; so that we may easily conceive why Papias, a parte potiori, styled the Gospel of Matthew ἀγάπη τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, the sayings of the Lord. Some of the most beautiful and most important sayings of our Lord, the historical credibility of which no sceptic can attack, have been preserved by Matthew alone (Matt. xi. 28-30; xvi. 16-19; xxviii. 20; comp. also xi. 2-21; xii. 3-6, 25-29; xvii. 12, 25, 26; xxvi. 13); and above all, the Sermon on the Mount, of which negative criticism grants that Luke's account is defective as compared with Matthew's, and that Luke gives as isolated sentences what in Matthew appears in beautiful connection. In short, the Sermon on the Mount, according to Matthew, forms the most beautiful and the best arranged whole of all the evangelical discourses. It may also be proved that in many particulars the reports of several discourses in Matthew are more exact than in the other evangelists; as may be seen by comparing Matt. xxiii. with the various parallel passages in Luke. Under these circumstances, it is surprising that the genuineness of this Gospel has not yet met with more distinguished advocates. The most important work in defence of the genuineness of Matthew is that of Kern, Uber den Ursprung des Evangelii Matthaei, Tübingen, 1834. Next in value are Olshausen's Drei Programme, 1835; and the two Lutebrations of Harless, 1840 and 1843. Even De Wette, in the fourth edition of his Introduction, p. 170, has ascribed only a qualified value to the doubts on this head. With regard to the date of this Gospel, Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen state that it was written before the others. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. iii. 1) agrees with them, but places its origin at the time when Peter and Paul were at Rome. Even De Wette grants (Einleitung, sect. 97) that it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.

Among all the German commentaries on the first three Gospels, the best is that of Olshausen, English translation, Edinburgh, 1847. (On the whole subject of this article, see An Introduction to the New Testament, by Dr S. Davidson, vol. i., London, 1848.)

MATTHEW OF WESTMINSTER, a Benedictine monk of the abbey of Westminster, author of a Latin chronicle of great value, probably flourished during the early part of the fourteenth century, though some place him near the end of it. His work, which is said to have been formed very much upon the plan of that of Matthew Paris of the previous century, begins with the creation of the world, and continues to the death of Edward I. of England. In his preface he aspires to write the history of the whole world; but after the Heptarchy he is content to limit himself almost exclusively to Britain. After abridging the Bible in the early part of his work, he gives us a brief sketch of the history of Rome, with occasional reference to Greece; records the fabulous traditions of our own early times; tells the sad story of "old King Lear;" relates the prophecy of Merlin; and so conducts the reader to the times of authentic history. Down to A.D. 1238 Matthew was much indebted to Roger of Wendover, whose chronicle stops at that date; but for the succeeding seventy-two years of his work he seems to have drawn entirely upon his own resources. After the Conquest his record of English affairs is exceedingly minute, and displays much industry and care; and in his relation of the wars of his own time, he displays a strong spirit of nationality, and striking powers of description. His narrative is ordinarily characterized by singular simplicity and directness, written with a careful eye to order and chronology, but filled with copious accounts of Irish miracles and other marvellous legends which, if not true, are at least sometimes amusing. With Hume and other modern historians he stands high as an authority on matters of fact. His chronicle is entitled Flores Historiarum per Matthaeum Westmonasteriensem collecti, praecipue de rebus Britannicis, ab exordio

Mundi unique ad annum Domini 1307; folio, London, 1570. It was translated into English, by C. D. Yonge, for Bohn's Antiquarian Library, in 2 vols. Svo, London, 1853.

St, an uninhabited island, situated off the western coast of Lower Siam, belonging to the Burmans. Long. 97.30. E., Lat. 9.35. N.