Matthew

MATTHEW. St. Matthew Apostle Mark ii. 14. Luke v. 27.and Evangelist, was Son of Alpheus, a Galilean by Birth, a Jew by Religion, and a Publican by Profession. What a Publican was I shall examine hereafter, under its proper Article. The other Evangelists call him only Levi, which was his Hebrew Name; but as to himself, he calls himself always Matthew, which probably was the Name by which he was known as a Publican, or Officer for gathering the Taxes. He does not dissemble his former Profession, that he might the more exalt the Grace of Jesus Christ, who had raised him to the Apostleship. His ordinary Abode was at Capernaum, and he had his Office out of the Town, at the Sea of Tiberias, which was near. There he was when he was called by Jesus Christ Matt. ix. 9. Mark ii. 14. Luke v. 27.to follow him. Matthew having heard him, followed him immediately, without troubling himself to put his Affairs in Order, or without staying to settle his Accounts¹.

Porphyry and Julian the Emperor accuse St. Matthew of Inconsiderateness for having rashly followed a Man that he knew nothing of. But St. Jerome² answers to this, that it is very probable that before this St. Matthew had a Knowledge of the Miracles and of the Doctrine of Jesus Christ, whom he might have heard preach several Times. Lastly, the Brightness of the Divinity of our Saviour, which was concealed under his Humanity, was alone capable of drawing all those to him at the first Glimpse, who had but a Sight of it. St. Austin³ says, that on this Occasion St. Matthew found himself livelily touched by an inward Attraction, which determined him gently and agreeably, but powerfully and irresistibly, to follow Jesus Christ.

St. Matthew having thus quitted his Profession, with all his Goods and all his Pretensions, invited our Saviour to eat at his House. Jesus came with his Disciples, when several Publicans, with other Persons of St. Matth. ix. 10, 11, &c.Matthew’s Acquaintance, sat down to eat along with him. The Pharisees observing this, said to our Saviour’s Disciples, Why does your Master eat with Publicans and Sinners? Jesus hearing them, made Answer; ‘Tis not the Sound, but the Sick that have Need of Physicians; therefore go and learn the Meaning of these Words, “I love Mercy rather than Sacrifice, for I am not come to call the Righteous, but Sinners to Repentance.” This is all that the Gospel acquaints us with concerning St. Matthew. What the Scripture says, that he was Son of Alpheus, has given Occasion to some Ancients⁴, and all the modern Greeks, to say, that he was Brother of James Son of Alpheus, or James the Less, otherwise named the Brother of our Lord; but there is nothing probable in this. See before under CLEOPHAS and ALPHEUS. He was an Apostle the same Year he was converted, and consequently he was called to the Apostleship in the first Year of the preaching of Jesus Christ. He is sometimes named the Seventh among the Apostles, and sometimes the Eighth.

Clemens Alexandrinus⁵ says, he abstained from the eating of Flesh, and that his Diet was Fruits, Roots, and Herbs. The most general Opinion of both Ancients and Moderns is⁶, that he preached and suffered Martyrdom in Persia, or among the Parthians, or in Carmania, which then was subject to the Parthians. Rufinus⁷, Socrates⁸, the counterfeit Obadiah, and several others, affirm that he preached and died in Ethiopia. Clemens Alexandrinus⁹ quotes Heracleon, a Disciple of Valentine, saying that St. Matthew departed out of this World, not by Martyrdom, but by a natural Death; and this the Menology of Basil, and some Greek Authors, seem to follow. But other Greek Authors say sometimes, that he ended his Life by Fire. Nicephorus¹⁰ says, that having by his Prayers extinguished the Fire that was lighted round about him, he gave up the Ghost in Tranquillity. Adon and the other Latin Writers say, that he died by Martyrdom; and Obadiah, an Author of little Credit, describes it thus. He says that Hyrtacus King of Ethiopia, Brother and Successor of Ægliippus, earnestly desired to marry Iphigenia, the Daughter of the King his Brother, who had already been consecrated to God; and the Apostle having represented to him, that he could not do it without being guilty of a great Crime, the Prince in Wrath sent one of his Officers, who presently cut off his Head. Afterwards he endeavoured to burn Iphigenia in her own House, but the Flames were driven by a violent Wind against Hyrtacus’s own House, and intirely consumed it.

The Latin Church at this Day celebrates the Feast of St. Matthew on the 21st of September, on which Day it is marked in Bede, and in the Sacramentary of St. Gregory. The Martyrologies of St. Jerome, which put it on the same Day, make it also the seventh of October, and the sixth of May, on which the Roman Martyrology now celebrates the Translation of his Body. We are assured¹¹ that it was transported from Ethiopia to Bretany, or to Bithynia, that from thence it was carried to Salernum in the Kingdom of Naples, in the Year 954, where it was found in 1080; Duke Robert there built a large Church bearing his Name, where his Body was put in the Time of Gregory VII.

Some of the Ancients, as Clemens Alexandrinus¹², and Origen¹³, and some of the Moderns, as Grotius¹⁴, distinguish St. Matthew from Levi Son of Alpheus, mentioned by St. Mark ii. 14. Luke v. 27.Mark and St. Luke. These are the Reasons of this Conjecture, 1. St. Matthew is never named Levi, nor Levi Matthew, in the Books of the New Testament. 2. Heracleon, cited by Clemens Alexandrinus, speaks of St. Matthew and Levi as of two different Persons, and Clemens not refuting this Opinion, does as good as concur with it. 3. Origen writing against Celsus, says that Levi the Publican, who followed Jesus Christ, is not of the Number of the Apostles, but only according to some Copies of the Gospel of St. Mark. And indeed some Copies of St. Mark, and among others the antient Cambridge Manuscript, read in St. Mark ii. 14. Jesus saw James Son of Alpheus. Others read, he saw Matthew the Publican, instead of Levi the Publican, as it is read in the Vulgate, and in most of the Greek Manuscripts, and in all the printed Books. Grotius says, that Levi might be the Head of the Office, and Matthew one of the Clerks, or subordinate Officers; and that the Feast at which our Lord was present might be in Levi’s House, and not in St. Matthew’s.

But can these Reasons be sufficient to invalidate so antient an Opinion, so well grounded, and so universally received by the Church? The particular Opinion of Heracleon, the Doubt of Origen, the Silence of Clemens, the reading of a few Manuscripts, ought this to carry it against the Authority of all the other Copies, whether printed or Manuscript, against the Consent of all the other Fathers, and of all the Ecclesiastical Writers down from the Apostles to our Time? Add that Origen himself, in the Preface to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, and in a Fragment of his quoted in the Catena upon St. Matthew, confirms the Opinion generally received. Add also, that M. Cotelier¹⁵, and Dodwell¹⁶ believe, that Levi distinguished from St. Matthew by Heracleon, is not Levi the Publican, but Lebbeus, who is the same as St. Thaddeus the Apostle.

St. Matthew wrote his Gospel before he departed from Judæa, to go to preach in the Province that had been assigned him; the Believers in Palestine having desired him to leave in Writing what he had taught them while present¹⁷: Some Fathers¹⁸ tell us, that he was also desired to do this by the Apostles. He wrote it at Jerusalem in the Hebrew or Syriack Language, which was then common in Judæa. ‘Tis thought he began this Work about the Year 41, according to the Vulgar Æra, and the eighth Year after our Saviour’s Resurrection. Almost all the old Greek Manuscripts have it thus, at the End of his Gospel. The Author of the unfinished Commentary on St. Matthew, followed by Baronius and Cornelius à lapide, pretends that he wrote it on the Occasion of the first Dispersion of the Apostles, after the Death of St. Stephen, about the third or fourth Year after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Irenæus thinks, that he composed it while St. Peter and St. Paul were preaching at Rome, and were there laying the Foundation of the Church of Christ. And this comes to the Year 61 of the Vulgar Æra. But if it is true, as is commonly believed, that St. Matthew was the first that committed the Gospel to Writing, and that St. Mark made his Abridgment of it about the 43d Year of Jesus Christ, it follows plainly, that it must be placed before the Year 61 of our Vulgar Æra, and that it will be enough to place it towards the Year 41.

The Hebrew or rather Syriack Gospel of St. Matthew, Chaldaico Syroque sermone, sed Hebraicis literis scriptum, as St. Jerome speaks¹⁹, was in Use for a long Time among the Jews, who had been converted to Christianity. And when they retired to Pella, sometime before the Romans laid Siege to Jerusalem, they carried it thither along with ‘em. From thence this Gospel was diffused into Decapolis, and into all the Countries on the other Side Jordan, where the Judaizing Christians still made Use of it, in the Time of Epiphanius²⁰, and of Eusebius of Cæsarea²¹. But these Christians did not preserve this sacred Trust with the Fidelity they ought, but added to it several Particulars, which perhaps they might have heard from the Mouths of the Apostles, or from their first Disciples; which at first made it suspected by the other Believers. Afterwards the Ebionites corrupted it by Additions or Omissions that were favourable to their own Errors, so that it was given up by the other Churches, which persevered in the Form of sound Doctrine, and who adhered to the antient Greek Version, which had been made from the Hebrew or Syriack, a little after St. Matthew’s Time.

In Origen’s²² Time the Hebrew Gospel of the Judaizing Christians no longer passed for Authentick; Eusebius puts it among the spurious Writings, and the Passages to be found of it among the antient Fathers, very different from the Greek that we now have, sufficiently prove, that it was but too much corrupted. Here are some Examples. It was there mentioned, that the Man to whom Christ said, Go, sell all that thou hast, give it to the Poor, and follow me; that this Man, I say, went his Ways scratching his Head²³. Clemens Alexandrinus²⁴ quotes from the same Gospel, He that will admire, shall reign, and he that shall reign shall be at rest. And this²⁵, My Secret belongs to me, and to those of my House. Origen²⁶ makes Jesus Christ say, according to this Hebrew Gospel. My Mother the Holy Ghost has taken me by one of my Hairs, and has set me upon the high Mountain of Tabor. In the Hebrew, Ruach, which signifies Ghost or Spirit, is of the Feminine Gender; from whence he says, My Mother the Holy Ghost. Elsewhere it was read, that the Holy Ghost speaking to Jesus Christ, after he was come from the Baptism of John, said thus to him; My Son, I expected thy coming in all the Prophets; thou art my well-beloved Son, who reignest eternally. And again, The Mother of Jesus and his Brethren said to him, there is John who baptizes for the Remission of Sins, let us go and be baptized by him. But he answered them, what Evil have I committed, that I have Occasion to be baptized by him? If even this that I have now said be not perhaps a Sin of Ignorance.

The Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, which had been corrupted by the Ebionites, who separated from the Christians, and fell into several Errors about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and about the Virginity of Mary; this Gospel, I say, continued a long Time in its primitive Purity in the Hands of the Nazarenes, or the first Believers of Palestine. There were still of these Nazarenes remaining to the Time of St. Jerome²⁷, and he does not reproach them with any Error like that of the Ebionites. They made no Defalcations from the Gospel, and rejected with Contempt the Traditions of the Pharisees, though they were otherwise very zealous for the Observation of the Law. As to the true Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, it is no longer in Being any where, as far as can be discovered; for those printed by Sebastian Munster, and du Tillet, are of no Authority, being only Modern, and translated into Hebrew from the Latin or Greek²⁸. Others have maintained, that the Syriack Gospel of St. Matthew, which is printed by it self; and in the Polyglottes, was the original Text of St. Matthew. But they that have carefully examined into this Matter observe, that this Translation is made from the Greek. See Mill’s Prolegomena, and our general Preface to the New Testament.

Our Greek Version of St. Matthew’s Gospel, and which at this Day passes for the Original, was made even in the Apostolical Times. The Author is unknown, and it is imputed at Random, to whosoever seemed proper for this Work. Some ascribe it to St. Matthew himself, others to St. James the Less, Bishop of Jerusalem²⁹; others to St. John the Evangelist³⁰, or to St. Paul, or to St. Luke³¹, or to St. Barnabas. Papias in Eusebius³² says, that every one joined to translate it into Greek as they could. As to the Latin Translation ‘tis agreed that it was made from the Greek, and that it is almost as antient as the Greek itself.But the Author of it is as much unknown, and it is impossible to trace out either the Time or Occasion of this Translation.

Some Moderns³³ have thought fit to call in Doubt what we have proved and advanced hitherto, according to the Testimony of all the Ancients, that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew Characters, and in the Hebrew Language; that is, in the Language then commonly us’d by the Jews of Palestine, which was the Syriack, with a Mixture of Hebrew and Chaldee. They maintain, that St. Matthew wrote it in Greek, and that what is said of the pretended Original Hebrew is all a Fiction, or ill understood. The Fathers, as Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome, do not directly assert it; they quote it indeed, but as a Book of no Authority, which they would not have done had they been convinced, that this was the genuine Original of St. Matthew’s Gospel. If the Church had ever entertained this Notion of it, would they have suffered it to have been lost? If St. Matthew had wrote in Hebrew, should we have seen in this Work the Hebrew Names interpreted into Greek? Would he have cited the Old Testament according to the Translation of the Seventy, as he has always done? The Greek Language was then very common in Palestine, in all the East, through the whole Roman Empire, and even in Rome itself. St. Paul writes to the Romans in Greek; St. Peter and St. James write in the same Language to the Jews dispersed through the Eastern Provinces, and St. Paul to the Hebrews of Palestine. Lastly, since all the other Authors of the New Testament have wrote in Greek, why must St. Matthew alone write his Gospel in Hebrew? These Arguments are what are used to be brought, to support this Opinion.

But it is not difficult to answer all these Reasons. 1. The uniform Testimony of all the Antients, who tell us that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, is certainly of a very great Weight. They did not speak at Random; they had seen and had consulted this Gospel, as it was written in this Language. ‘Tis true, they have not always spoke of it in a simple and uniform Manner, but that was because there were two of ‘em; the one pure and uncorrupted, of which they have spoke with Esteem; and the other depraved by the Hereticks, which they have contemned, and looked upon as Apocryphal.

2. However common the Greek Tongue might be in Palestine, and though it might Acts xxi. 40. xxii. 2.be the vulgar Tongue of some Cities in this Countrey, that were chiefly inhabited by Grecians; yet still it is certain, that the Generality of the Jews spoke commonly what they called Hebrew, but which was rather Syriack and Chaldee, mixed with some Hebrew Words. This may be seen even by the Gospel it self, which has preserved to us some Hebrew Words pronounced by Jesus Christ, and which is not taken Notice of as any Singularity, so that it can be concluded it was not familiar to him. On the contrary it appears, that it was his ordinary Language. And when St. Paul was seized in the Temple, and desired to speak to the Jewish Populace, he caused Silence to be made, and made a Speech to ‘em in Hebrew, which gained him the Attention he desired.

3. The Hebrew Names interpreted in Greek, in this Gospel of St. Matthew, prove the direct contrary to what they would infer from ‘em. For this demonstrates that the Translation was Greek, and that the Original was in Hebrew.

4. It is not true, that St. Matthew quotes the Scripture according to the Translation of the Seventy Interpreters. Of ten Passages of the Old Testament that he has cited, there are seven of ‘em in which he speaks in a Manner that approaches nearer to the Hebrew than to the Septuagint; and only three which he quotes agreeably to them: But in these Passages the Seventy and the Hebrew themselves agree. St. Jerome³⁴ maintains in general, that this Evangelist follows the Hebrew in his Quotations. But it is plain that commonly he quotes by Memory, and relates not so much the Words as the Sense of the Passages.

5. Lastly, though St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. James have wrote in Greek to the Jews of Palestine, and to the Jews dispersed in the East, it cannot follow but that St. Matthew may have wrote in Hebrew. We do not pretend that he was obliged to write in this Language, we only inquire into the Fact, whether he really did or no. But this Fact is attested by all the Ancients, many of which have seen his Original, and were very capable of making a Judgment of it; particularly Origen, Eusebius, and St. Jerome. To give an Account how this ancient Gospel has been lost, is what cannot be expected from us. But it is easy to conceive, that having been grossly corrupted by the Ebionites, it might first fall into Contempt, and then by Degrees into Neglect and Oblivion. The Greek Translation was valued and preserved, because it retained its primitive Integrity, and is now become as authentick as the Original it self.

St. Matthew in his Gospel had this chiefly in View, according to St. Austin³⁵, to shew us the royal Descent of Jesus Christ; and to represent to us the Life of his Humanity, in the Manner of his Conversation among Men. St. Ambrose³⁶ observes, that no one of the Evangelists enters so far into the Particulars of the Actions of Jesus Christ, as St. Matthew does, or has given us so many Rules for the Conduct of Life, so many Lessons of Morality suitable to our Necessities, and to the Design of Christ. Petrus Damianus³⁷ says, that St. Matthew holds the same Place among the Evangelists, as Moses does among the Authors of the Old Testament; having been the first Writer of the new Law, as Moses was of the old. When he began to write, the great Question among the Jews was, whether Jesus Christ was the Messiah, or no. St. Matthew undertakes to give Proofs of it. He shews by his Miracles that he was the Christ, that Mary his Mother was a Virgin, that Jesus was not come to destroy the Law but to accomplish it, that his Miracles were no magical Operations, nor the Effects of any human Power, but incontestable Proofs of the Power of God, and of the Mission of Jesus Christ.

If we compare St. Matthew with the three other Evangelists, we may observe a pretty remarkable Difference in the Order and Succession of the Actions of the Life of our Saviour, from Chapter iv. 22. to Chapter xiv. 13. This Diversity has perplexed the Chronologers and Interpreters. Some have pretended that St. Matthew has followed the Order of Time, and that in this Particular we ought to abide by his Narration. Others have submitted to the Authority of the three other Evangelists; and in Truth it is more natural to assent to the Testimony of three Witnesses, than to that of one; and especially since St. Mark forsakes him in this, who is used to follow him in every Thing else. Some have imputed to mere Chance this want of Order in St. Matthew, others ascribe it to Choice and Design. However this Matter be, it can be no Prejudice to the Truth of the Facts, which are the essential Part of the Gospel; and as to the Order of Time, the sacred Authors are not always solicitous to follow it exactly.

There are certain Apochryphal Works imputed to St. Matthew, as the Book of the Infancy of Jesus Christ, condemned by Pope Gelasius³⁸, The Ebionites had also fathered some Writings on this Apostle³⁹. We have seen before, that they had mangled his Hebrew Gospel. They ascribe to him also an Ethiopick Liturgy. The Ebionites, the Cerinthians, and other Hereticks, quoted the Gospel of St. Matthew under the Name of, The Gospel according to the Hebrews⁴⁰. ‘Tis also probable that it was the same Gospel that was known by the Name of The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, the Gospel of the Nazarenes, and the Gospel according to St. Peter. Eusebius⁴¹ relates, that Pantenus a Christian Philosopher, who lived at Alexandria about the Year of Christ 184, found in the Indies a Gospel of St. Matthew, which was said to have been carried thither by St. Bartholomew. St. Jerome⁴² and Rufinus say, that he brought it to Alexandria. The same St. Jerome⁴³ says, that there was a Copy of the Hebrew Text of St. Matthew in the Library of Cæsarea in Palestine. In the Year 488 there was found in the Isle of Cyprus, under the Breast of the Body of St. Barnabas⁴⁴, a Copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel written by St. Barnabas’s own Hand, upon a sort of Wood very hard and precious. This Book was probably in Greek, seeing it was read every Year at Constantinople on Holy Thursday. In the third Age Count Joseph found at Tiberias an Hebrew Copy of St. Matthew, in a private Place; where the Jews kept also the Gospel of St. John, and the Acts of the Apostles, translated from Greek into Hebrew⁴⁵.

The Mahometans maintain, that St. Matthew wrote his Gospel at Alexandria; but the Oriental Christians say only, that St. Bartholomew carried the Gospel of St. Matthew into Egypt, and thence into Ethiopia. Eutychius, Patriarch of Alexandria says, that St. John the Evangelist, besides his own Gospel that he wrote, translated also that of St. Matthew out of Hebrew into Greek.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages