Chapter 2

(J. J. T.)

1We may measure this velocity with reference to any axes, provided we refer the motion of all the bodies which come into consideration to the same axes.2A theory published after Drude’s paper in that of Professor Osborne Reynolds, given in his Rede lecture “On an Inversion of Ideas as to the Structure of the Universe.”

1We may measure this velocity with reference to any axes, provided we refer the motion of all the bodies which come into consideration to the same axes.

2A theory published after Drude’s paper in that of Professor Osborne Reynolds, given in his Rede lecture “On an Inversion of Ideas as to the Structure of the Universe.”

MATTERHORN,one of the best known mountains (14,782 ft.) in the Alps. It rises S.W. of the village of Zermatt, and on the frontier between Switzerland (canton of the Valais) and Italy. Though on the Swiss side it appears to be an isolated obelisk, it is really but the butt end of a ridge, while the Swiss slope is not nearly as steep or difficult as the grand terraced walls of the Italian slope. It was first conquered, after a number of attempts chiefly on the Italian side, on the 14th of July 1865, by Mr E. Whymper’s party, three members of which (Lord Francis Douglas, the Rev. C. Hudson and Mr Hadow) with the guide, Michel Croz, perished by a slip on the descent. Three days later it was scaled from the Italian side by a party of men from Val Tournanche. Nowadays it is frequently ascended in summer, especially from Zermatt.

MATTEUCCI, CARLO(1811-1868), Italian physicist, was born at Forlì on the 20th of June 1811. After attending the École Polytechnique at Paris, he became professor of physics successively at Bologna (1832), Ravenna (1837) and Pisa (1840). From 1847 he took an active part in politics, and in 1860 was chosen an Italian senator, at the same time becoming inspector-general of the Italian telegraph lines. Two years later he was minister of education. He died near Leghorn on the 25th of June 1868.

He was the author of four scientific treatises:Lezioni di fisica(2 vols., Pisa, 1841),Lezioni sui fenomeni fisicochimici dei corpi viventi(Pisa, 1844),Manuale di telegrafia elettrica(Pisa, 1850) andCours spécial sur l’induction, le magnetisme de rotation, &c. (Paris, 1854). His numerous papers were published in theAnnales de chimie et de physique(1829-1858); and most of them also appeared at the time in the Italian scientific journals. They relate almost entirely to electrical phenomena, such as the magnetic rotation of light, the action of gas batteries, the effects of torsion on magnetism, the polarization of electrodes, &c., sufficiently complete accounts of which are given in Wiedemann’sGalvanismus. Nine memoirs, entitled “Electro-Physiological Researches,” were published in thePhilosophical Transactions, 1845-1860. See Bianchi’sCarlo Matteucci e l’Italia del suo tempo(Rome, 1874).

MATTHEW, ST(ΜαθθαῖοςorΜατθαῖος, probably a shortened form of the Hebrew equivalent to Theodorus), one of the twelve apostles, and the traditional author of the First Gospel, where he is described as having been a tax-gatherer or customs-officer (τελώνης, x. 3), in the service of the tetrarch Herod. The circumstances of his call to become a follower of Jesus, received as he sat in the “customs house” in one of the towns by the Sea of Galilee—apparently Capernaum (Mark ii. 1, 13), are briefly related in ix. 9. We should gather from the parallel narrative in Mark ii. 14, Luke v. 27, that he was at the time known as “Levi the son of Alphaeus” (compare Simon Cephas, Joseph Barnabas): if so, “James the son of Alphaeus” may have been his brother. Possibly “Matthew” (Yahweh’s gift) was his Christian surname, since two native names, neither being a patronymic, is contrary to Jewish usage. It must be noted, however, that Matthew and Levi were sometimes distinguished in early times, as by Heracleon (c.170A.D.), and more dubiously by Origen (c.Celsum, i. 62), also apparently in the SyriacDidascalia(sec. iii.), V. xiv. 14. It has generally been supposed, on the strength of Luke’s account (v. 29), that Matthew gave a feast in Jesus’ honour (like Zacchaeus, Luke xix. 6 seq.). But Mark (ii. 15), followed by Matthew (ix. 10), may mean that the meal in question was one in Jesus’ own home at Capernaum (cf. v. 1). In the lists of the Apostles given in the Synoptic Gospels and in Acts, Matthew ranks third or fourth in the second group of four—a fair index of his relative importance in the apostolic age. The only other facts related of Matthew on good authority concern him as Evangelist. Eusebius (H.E.iii. 24) says that he, like John, wrote only at the spur of necessity. “For Matthew, after preaching to Hebrews, when about to go also to others, committed to writing in his native tongue the Gospel that bears his name; and so by his writing supplied, for those whom he was leaving, the loss of his presence.” The value of this tradition, which may be based on Papias, who certainly reported that “Matthew compiled the Oracles (of the Lord) in Hebrew,” can be estimated only in connexion with the study of the Gospel itself (see below). No historical use can be made of the artificial story, inSanhedrin43a, that Matthew was condemned to death by a Jewish court (see Laihle,Christ in the Talmud, 71 seq.). According to the Gnostic Heracleon, quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Strom.iv. 9), Matthew died a natural death. The tradition as to his ascetic diet (in Clem. Alex.Paedag.ii. 16) maybe due to confusion with Matthias (cf.Mart. Matthaei, i.). The earliest legend as to his later labours, one of Syrian origin, places them in the Parthian kingdom, where it represents him as dying a natural death at Hierapolis (= Mabog on the Euphrates). This agrees with his legend as known to Ambrose and Paulinus of Nola, and is the most probable in itself. The legends which make him work with Andrew among the Anthropophagi near the Black Sea, or again in Ethiopia (Rufinus, and Socrates,H.E.i. 19), are due to confusion with Matthias, who from the first was associated in his Acts with Andrew (see M. Bonnet,Acta Apost. apocr., 1808, II. i. 65). Anotherlegend, hisMartyrium, makes him labour and suffer in Mysore. He is commemorated as a martyr by the Greek Church on the 16th of November, and by the Roman on the 21st of September, the scene of his martyrdom being placed in Ethiopia. The Latin Breviary also affirms that his body was afterwards translated to Salerno, where it is said to lie in the church built by Robert Guiscard. In Christian art (following Jerome) the Evangelist Matthew is generally symbolized by the “man” in the imagery of Ezek. i. 10, Rev. iv. 7.

For the historical Matthew, seeEncy. Bibl.and Zahn,Introd. to New Test., ii. 506 seq., 522 seq. For his legends, as underMark.

(J. V. B.)

MATTHEW, TOBIAS,orTobie(1546-1628), archbishop of York, was the son of Sir John Matthew of Ross in Herefordshire, and of his wife Eleanor Crofton of Ludlow. He was born at Bristol in 1546. He was educated at Wells, and then in succession at University College and Christ Church, Oxford. He proceeded B.A. in 1564, and M.A. in 1566. He attracted the favourable notice of Queen Elizabeth, and his rise was steady though not very rapid. He was public orator in 1569, president of St John’s College, Oxford, in 1572, dean of Christ Church in 1576, vice-chancellor of the university in 1579, dean of Durham in 1583, bishop of Durham in 1595, and archbishop of York in 1606. In 1581 he had a controversy with the Jesuit Edmund Campion, and published at Oxford his arguments in 1638 under the title,Piissimi et eminentissimi viri Tobiae Matthew, archiepiscopi olim Eboracencis concio apologetica adversus Campianam. While in the north he was active in forcing the recusants to conform to the Church of England, preaching hundreds of sermons and carrying out thorough visitations. During his later years he was to some extent in opposition to the administration of James I. He was exempted from attendance in the parliament of 1625 on the ground of age and infirmities, and died on the 29th of March 1628. His wife, Frances, was the daughter of William Barlow, bishop of Chichester.

His son,Sir Tobias, orTobie, Matthew(1577-1655), is remembered as the correspondent and friend of Francis Bacon. He was educated at Christ Church, and was early attached to the court, serving in the embassy at Paris. His debts and dissipations were a great source of sorrow to his father, from whom he is known to have received at different times £14,000, the modern equivalent of which is much larger. He was chosen member for Newport in Cornwall in the parliament of 1601, and member for St Albans in 1604. Before this time he had become the intimate friend of Bacon, whom he replaced as member for St Albans. When peace was made with Spain, on the accession of James I., he wished to travel abroad. His family, who feared his conversion to Roman Catholicism, opposed his wish, but he promised not to go beyond France. When once safe out of England he broke his word and went to Italy. The persuasion of some of his countrymen in Florence, one of whom is said to have been the Jesuit Robert Parsons, and a story he heard of the miraculous liquefaction of the blood of San Januarius at Naples, led to his conversion in 1606. When he returned to England he was imprisoned, and many efforts were made to obtain his reconversion without success. He would not take the oath of allegiance to the king. In 1608 he was exiled, and remained out of England for ten years, mostly in Flanders and Spain. He returned in 1617, but went abroad again in 1619. His friends obtained his leave to return in 1621. At home he was known as the intimate friend of Gondomar, the Spanish ambassador. In 1623 he was sent to join Prince Charles, afterwards Charles I., at Madrid, and was knighted on the 23rd of October of that year. He remained in England till 1640, when he was finally driven abroad by the parliament, which looked upon him as an agent of the pope. He died in the English college in Ghent on the 13th of October 1655. In 1618 he published an Italian translation of Bacon’s essays. The “Essay on Friendship” was written for him. He was also the author of a translation ofThe Confessions of the Incomparable Doctor St Augustine, which led him into controversy. His correspondence was published in London in 1660.

For the father, see John Le Neve’sFasti ecclesiae anglicanae(London, 1716), and Anthony Wood’sAthenae oxonienses. For the son, the notice inAthenae oxonienses, an abridgment of his autobiographicalHistorical Relationof his own life, published by Alban Butler in 1795, and A. H. Matthew and A. Calthrop,Life of Sir Tobie Matthew(London, 1907).

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF ST,the first of the four canonical Gospels of the Christian Church. The indications of the use of this Gospel in the two or three generations following the Apostolic Age (seeGospel) are more plentiful than of any of the others. Throughout the history of the Church, also, it has held a place second to none of the Gospels alike in public instruction and in the private reading of Christians. The reasons for its having impressed itself in this way and become thus familiar are in large part to be found in the characteristics noticed below. But in addition there has been from an early time the belief that it was the work of one of those publicans whose heart Jesus touched and of whose call to follow Him the three Synoptics contain an interesting account, but who is identified as Matthew (q.v.) only in this one (Matt. ix. 9-13 = Mark ii. 13-17 = Luke v. 27-32).

1.The Connexion of our Greek Gospel of Matthew with the Apostle whose name it bears.—The earliest reference to a writing by Matthew occurs in a fragment taken by Eusebius from the same work of Papias from which he has given an account of the composition of a record by Mark (Euseb.Hist. Eccl.iii. 39; seeMark, Gospel of St). The statement about Matthew is much briefer and is harder to interpret. In spite of much controversy, the same measure of agreement as to its meaning cannot be said to have been attained. This is the fragment: “Matthew, however, put together and wrote down the Oracles (τὰ λόγια συνέγραψεν) in the Hebrew language, and each man interpreted them as he was able.” Whether “the elder” referred to in the passage on Mark, or some other like authority, was the source of this statement also does not appear; but it is probable that this was the case from the context in which Eusebius gives it. Conservative writers on the Gospels have frequently maintained that the writing here referred to was virtually the Hebrew original of our Greek Gospel which bears his name. And it is indeed likely that Papias himself closely associated the latter with the Hebrew (or Aramaic) work by Matthew, of which he had been told, since the traditional connexion of this Greek Gospel with Matthew can hardly have begun later than this time. It is reasonable also to suppose that there was some ground for it. The description, however, of what Matthew did suits better the making of a collection of Christ’s discourses and sayings than the composition of a work corresponding in form and character to our Gospel of Matthew.

The next reference in Christian literature to a Gospel-record by Matthew is that of Irenaeus in his famous passage on the four Gospels (Adv. haer.iii. i. r). He says that it was written in Hebrew; but in all probability he regarded the Greek Gospel, which stood first in his, as it does in our, enumeration, as in the strict sense a translation of the Apostle’s work; and this was the view of it universally taken till the 16th century, when some of the scholars of the Reformation maintained that the Greek Gospel itself was by Matthew.

The actual phenomena, however, of this Gospel, and of its relation to sources that have been used in it, cannot be explained consistently with either of the two views just mentioned. It is a composite work in which two chief sources, known in Greek to the author of our present Gospel, have, together with some other matter, been combined. It is inconceivable that one of the Twelve should have proceeded in this way in giving an account of Christ’s ministry. One of the chief documents, however, here referred to seems to correspond in character with the description given in Papias’ fragment of a record of the compilation of “the divine utterances” made by Matthew; and the use made of it in our first Gospel may explain the connexion of this Apostle’s name with it. In the Gospel of Luke also, it is true, this same source has been used for the teaching of Jesus. But the original Aramaic Logian document may have been more largely reproduced in our Greek Matthew. Indeed, in the case of one important passage (v. 17-48) this is suggested by a comparison withLuke itself, and there are one or two others where from the character of the matter it seems not improbable, especially vi. 1-18 and xxiii. 1-5, 7b-10, 15-22. On the whole, as will be seen below, what appears to be a Palestinian form of the Gospel-tradition is most fully represented in this Gospel; but in many instances at least this may well be due to some other cause than the use of the original Logian document.

2.The Plan on which the Contents is arranged.—In two respects the arrangement of the book itself is significant.

(a) As to the general outline in the first half of the account of the Galilean ministry (iv. 23-xi. 30). Immediately after relating the call of the first four disciples (iv. 18-22) the evangelist gives in iv. 23 a comprehensive summary of Christ’s work in Galilee under its two chief aspects, teaching and healing. In the sequel both these are illustrated. First, he gives in the Sermon on the Mount (v.-vii.) a considerable body of teaching, of the kind required by the disciples of Jesus generally, and a large portion of which probably also stood not far from the beginning of the Logian document. After this he turns to the other aspect. Up to this point he has mentioned no miracle. He now describes a number in succession, introducing all but the first of those told between Mark i. 23 and ii. 12, and also four specially remarkable ones, which occurred a good deal later according to Mark’s order (Matt. viii. 23-34 = Mark iv. 35-v. 20; Matt. ix. 18-26 = Mark v. 21-43); and he also adds some derived from another source, or other sources (viii. 5-13; ix. 27-34). Then, after another general description at ix. 35, similar to that at iv. 23, he brings strikingly before us the needs of the masses of the people and Christ’s compassion for them, and so introduces the mission of the Twelve (which again occurs later according to Mark’s order, viz. at vi. 7 seq.), whereby the ministry both of teaching and of healing was further extended (ix. 36-x. 42). Finally, the message of John the Baptist, and the reply of Jesus, and the reflections that follow (xi.), bring out the significance of the preceding narrative. It should be observed that examples have been given of every kind of mighty work referred to in the reply of Jesus to the messengers of the Baptist; and that in the discourse which follows their departure the perversity and unbelief of the people generally are condemned, and the faith of the humble-minded is contrasted therewith. The greater part of the matter from ix. 37 to end of xi. is taken from the Logian document. After this point,i.e.from xii. 1 onwards, the first evangelist follows Mark almost step by step down to the point (Mark xvi. 8), after which Mark’s Gospel breaks off, and another ending has been supplied; and gives in substance almost the whole of Mark’s contents, with the exception that he passes over the few narratives that he has (as we have seen) placed earlier. At the same time he brings in additional matter in connexion with most of the Marcan sections.(b) With the accounts of the words of Jesus spoken on certain occasions, which our first evangelist found given in one or another of his sources, he has combined other pieces, taken from other parts of the same source or from different sources, which seemed to him connected in subject,e.g.into the discourse spoken on a mountain, when crowds from all parts were present, given in the Logian document, he has introduced some pieces which, as we infer from Luke, stood separately in that document (cf. Matt. vi. 19-21 with Luke xii. 33, 34; Matt. vi. 22, 23 with Luke xi. 34-36; Matt. vi. 24 with Luke xvi. 13; Matt. vi. 25-34 with Luke xii. 22-32; Matt. vii. 7-11 with Luke xi. 9-13). Again, the address to the Twelve in Mark vi. 7-11, which in Matthew is combined with an address to disciples, from the Logian document, is connected by Luke with the sending out of seventy disciples (Luke x. 1-16). Our first evangelist has also added here various other sayings (Matt. x. 17-39, 42). Again, with the Marcan account of the charge of collusion with Satan and Christ’s reply (Mark iii. 22-30), the first evangelist (xii. 24-45) combines the parallel account in the Logian document and adds Christ’s reply to another attack (Luke xi. 14-16, 17-26, 29-32). These are some examples. He has in all in this manner constructed eight discourses or collections of sayings, into which the greater part of Christ’s teaching is gathered: (1) On the character of the heirs of the kingdom (v.-vii.); (2) The Mission address (x.); (3) Teaching suggested by the message of John the Baptist (xi.); (4) The reply to an accusation and a challenge (xii. 22-45); (5) The teaching by parables (xiii.); (6) On offences (xviii.); (7) Concerning the Scribes and Pharisees (xxiii.); (8) On the Last Things (xxiv., xxv.). In this arrangement of his material the writer has in many instances disregarded chronological considerations. But his documents also gave only very imperfect indications of the occasions of many of the utterances; and the result of his method of procedure has been to give us an exceedingly effective representation of the teaching of Jesus.In the concluding verses of the Gospel, where the original Marcan parallel is wanting, the evangelist may still have followed in part that document while making additions as before. The account of the silencing of the Roman guard by the chief priests is the sequel to the setting of this guard and their presence at the Resurrection, which at an earlier point arc peculiar to Matthew (xxvii. 62-66, xxviii. 4). And, further, this matter seems to belong to the same cycle of tradition as the story of Pilate’s wife and his throwing the guilt of the Crucifixion of Jesus upon the Jews, and the testimony borne by the Roman guard (as well as the centurion) who kept watch by the cross (xxvii. 15-26, 54), all which also are peculiar to this Gospel. It cannot but seem probable that these are legendary additions which had arisen through the desire to commend the Gospel to the Romans.On the other hand, the meeting of Jesus with the disciples in Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16 seq.) is the natural sequel to the message to them related in Mark xvi. 7, as well as in Matt, xxviii. 7. Again, the commission to them to preach throughout the world is supported by Luke xxiv. 47, and by the present ending of Mark (xvi. 15), though neither of these mention Galilee as the place where it was given. The baptismal formula in Matt. xxviii. 19, is, however, peculiar, and in view of its non-occurrence in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament must be regarded as probably an addition in accordance with Church usage at the time the Gospel was written.

(b) With the accounts of the words of Jesus spoken on certain occasions, which our first evangelist found given in one or another of his sources, he has combined other pieces, taken from other parts of the same source or from different sources, which seemed to him connected in subject,e.g.into the discourse spoken on a mountain, when crowds from all parts were present, given in the Logian document, he has introduced some pieces which, as we infer from Luke, stood separately in that document (cf. Matt. vi. 19-21 with Luke xii. 33, 34; Matt. vi. 22, 23 with Luke xi. 34-36; Matt. vi. 24 with Luke xvi. 13; Matt. vi. 25-34 with Luke xii. 22-32; Matt. vii. 7-11 with Luke xi. 9-13). Again, the address to the Twelve in Mark vi. 7-11, which in Matthew is combined with an address to disciples, from the Logian document, is connected by Luke with the sending out of seventy disciples (Luke x. 1-16). Our first evangelist has also added here various other sayings (Matt. x. 17-39, 42). Again, with the Marcan account of the charge of collusion with Satan and Christ’s reply (Mark iii. 22-30), the first evangelist (xii. 24-45) combines the parallel account in the Logian document and adds Christ’s reply to another attack (Luke xi. 14-16, 17-26, 29-32). These are some examples. He has in all in this manner constructed eight discourses or collections of sayings, into which the greater part of Christ’s teaching is gathered: (1) On the character of the heirs of the kingdom (v.-vii.); (2) The Mission address (x.); (3) Teaching suggested by the message of John the Baptist (xi.); (4) The reply to an accusation and a challenge (xii. 22-45); (5) The teaching by parables (xiii.); (6) On offences (xviii.); (7) Concerning the Scribes and Pharisees (xxiii.); (8) On the Last Things (xxiv., xxv.). In this arrangement of his material the writer has in many instances disregarded chronological considerations. But his documents also gave only very imperfect indications of the occasions of many of the utterances; and the result of his method of procedure has been to give us an exceedingly effective representation of the teaching of Jesus.

In the concluding verses of the Gospel, where the original Marcan parallel is wanting, the evangelist may still have followed in part that document while making additions as before. The account of the silencing of the Roman guard by the chief priests is the sequel to the setting of this guard and their presence at the Resurrection, which at an earlier point arc peculiar to Matthew (xxvii. 62-66, xxviii. 4). And, further, this matter seems to belong to the same cycle of tradition as the story of Pilate’s wife and his throwing the guilt of the Crucifixion of Jesus upon the Jews, and the testimony borne by the Roman guard (as well as the centurion) who kept watch by the cross (xxvii. 15-26, 54), all which also are peculiar to this Gospel. It cannot but seem probable that these are legendary additions which had arisen through the desire to commend the Gospel to the Romans.

On the other hand, the meeting of Jesus with the disciples in Galilee (Matt. xxviii. 16 seq.) is the natural sequel to the message to them related in Mark xvi. 7, as well as in Matt, xxviii. 7. Again, the commission to them to preach throughout the world is supported by Luke xxiv. 47, and by the present ending of Mark (xvi. 15), though neither of these mention Galilee as the place where it was given. The baptismal formula in Matt. xxviii. 19, is, however, peculiar, and in view of its non-occurrence in the Acts and Epistles of the New Testament must be regarded as probably an addition in accordance with Church usage at the time the Gospel was written.

3.The Palestinian Element.—Teaching is preserved in this Gospel which would have peculiar interest and be specially required in the home of Judaism. The best examples of this are the passages already referred to near end of § 1, as probably derived from the Logian document. There are, besides, a good many turns of expression and sayings peculiar to this Gospel which have a Semitic cast, or which suggest a point of view that would be natural to Palestinian Christians,e.g.“kingdom of heaven” frequently for “kingdom of God”; xiii. 52 (“every scribe”); xxiv. 20 (“neither on a Sabbath”). See also v. 35 and xix. 9; x. 5, 23. Again, several of the quotations which are peculiar to this Gospel are not taken from the LXX., as those in the other Gospels and in the corresponding contexts in this Gospel commonly are, but are wholly or partly independent renderings from the Hebrew (ii. 6, 15, 18; viii. 17, xii. 17-21, &c.). Once more, there is somewhat more parallelism between the fragments of the Gospel according to the Hebrews and this Gospel than is the case with Luke, not to say Mark.

4.Doctrinal Character.—In this Gospel, more decidedly than in either of the other two Synoptics, there is a doctrinal point of view from which the whole history is regarded. Certain aspects which are of profound significance are dwelt upon, and this without there being any great difference between this Gospel and the two other Synoptics in respect to the facts recorded or the beliefs implied. The effect is produced partly by the comments of the evangelist, which especially take the form of citations from the Old Testament; partly by the frequency with which certain expressions are used, and the prominence that is given in this and other ways to particular traits and topics.

He sets forth the restriction of the mission of Jesus during His life on earth to the people of Israel in a way which suggests at first sight a spirit of Jewish exclusiveness. But there are various indications that this is not the true explanation. In particular the evangelist brings out more strongly than either Mark or Luke the national rejection of Jesus, while the Gospel ends with the commission of Jesus to His disciples after His resurrection to “make disciples of all the peoples.” One may divine in all this an intention to “justify the ways of God” to the Jew, by proving that God in His faithfulness to His ancient people had given them the first opportunity of salvation through Christ, but that now their national privilege had been rightly forfeited. He was also specially concerned to show that prophecy is fulfilled in the life and work of Jesus, but the conception of this fulfilment which is presented to us is a large one; it is to be seen not merely in particular events or features of Christ’s ministry, but in the whole new dispensation, new relations between God and men, and new rules of conduct which Christ has introduced. The divine meaning of the work of Jesus is thus made apparent, while of the majesty and glory of His person a peculiarly strong impression is conveyed.

Some illustrations in detail of these points are subjoined. Where there are parallels in the other Gospels they should be compared and the words in Matthew noted which in many instances serve to emphasize the points in question.

(a)The Ministry of Jesus among the Jewish People as their promised Messiah, their rejection of Him, and the extension of the Gospel to the Gentiles.The mission to Israel: Matt. i. 21; iv. 23 (note in these passages the use ofὁ λαός, which here, as generally in Matthew, denotes the chosen nation), ix. 33, 35, xv. 31. For the rule limitingthe work of Jesus while on earth see xv. 24 (and noteἰξελθοῦσαin verse 22, which implies that Jesus had not himself entered the heathen borders), and for a similar rule prescribed to the disciples, x. 5, 6 and 23.The rejection of Jesus by the people in Galilee, xi. 21; xiii. 13-15, and by the heads of “the nation,” xxvi. 3, 47 and by “the whole nation,” xxvii. 25; their condemnation xxiii. 38.Mercy to the Gentiles and the punishment of “the sons of the kingdom” is foretold viii. 11, 12. The commission to go and convert Gentile peoples (ἔθνη) is given after Christ’s resurrection (xxviii. 19).(b)The Fulfilment of Prophecy.—In the birth and childhood of Jesus, i. 23; ii. 6, 15, 18, 23. By these citations attention is drawn to the lowliness of the beginnings of the Saviour’s life, the unexpected and secret manner of His appearing, the dangers to which from the first He was exposed and from which He escaped.The ministry of Christ’s forerunner, iii. 3. (The same prophecy, Isa. xl. 3, is also quoted in the other Gospels.)The ministry of Jesus. The quotations serve to bring out the significance of important events, especially such as were turning-points, and also to mark the broad features of Christ’s life and work, iv. 15, 16; viii. 17; xii. 18 seq.; xiii. 35; xxi. 5; xxvii. 9.(c)The Teaching on the Kingdom of God.—Note the collection of parables “of the Kingdom” in xiii.; also the use ofἡ βασιλεία(“the Kingdom”) without further definition as a term the reference of which could not be misunderstood, especially in the following phrases peculiar to this Gospel:τὁ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας(“the Gospel of the Kingdom”) iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; andὁ λόγος τῆς βασιλείας(“the word of the kingdom”) xiii. 19. The following descriptions of the kingdom, peculiar to this Gospel, are also interestingἡ βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὁς αὐτῶν(“the kingdom of their father”) xiii. 43 andτοῦ πατρός μου(“of my father”) xxvi. 29.(d)The Relation of the New Law to the Old.—Verses 17-48, cf. also, addition at xxii. 40 and xix. 19b. Further, his use ofδικαιοσύνη(“righteousness”) andδίκαιος(“righteous”) (specially frequent in this Gospel) is such as to connect the New with the Old; the standard in mind is the law which “fulfilled” that previously given.(e)The Christian Ecclesia.—Chap. xvi. 18, xviii. 17.(f)The Messianic Dignity and Glory of Jesus.—The narrative in i. and ii. show the royalty of the new-born child. The title “Son of David” occurs with special frequency in this Gospel. The following instances are without parallels in the other Gospels: ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; xxi. 9; xxi. 15. The title “Son of God” is also used with somewhat greater frequency than in Mark and Luke: ii. 15; xiv. 33; xvi. 16; xxii. 2 seq. (where it is implied); xxvii. 40, 43.The thought of the future coming of Christ, and in particular of the judgment to be executed by Him then, is much more prominent in this Gospel than in the others. Some of the following predictions are peculiar to it, while in several others there are additional touches: vii. 22, 23; x. 23, 32, 33; xiii. 39-43; xvi. 27, 28; xix. 28; xxiv. 3, 27, 30, 31, 37, 39; xxv. 31-46; xxvi. 64.The majesty of Christ is also impressed upon us by the signs at His crucifixion, some of which are related only in this Gospel, xxvii. 51-53, and by the sublime vision of the Risen Christ at the close, xxviii. 16-20.

The rejection of Jesus by the people in Galilee, xi. 21; xiii. 13-15, and by the heads of “the nation,” xxvi. 3, 47 and by “the whole nation,” xxvii. 25; their condemnation xxiii. 38.

Mercy to the Gentiles and the punishment of “the sons of the kingdom” is foretold viii. 11, 12. The commission to go and convert Gentile peoples (ἔθνη) is given after Christ’s resurrection (xxviii. 19).

(b)The Fulfilment of Prophecy.—In the birth and childhood of Jesus, i. 23; ii. 6, 15, 18, 23. By these citations attention is drawn to the lowliness of the beginnings of the Saviour’s life, the unexpected and secret manner of His appearing, the dangers to which from the first He was exposed and from which He escaped.

The ministry of Christ’s forerunner, iii. 3. (The same prophecy, Isa. xl. 3, is also quoted in the other Gospels.)

The ministry of Jesus. The quotations serve to bring out the significance of important events, especially such as were turning-points, and also to mark the broad features of Christ’s life and work, iv. 15, 16; viii. 17; xii. 18 seq.; xiii. 35; xxi. 5; xxvii. 9.

(c)The Teaching on the Kingdom of God.—Note the collection of parables “of the Kingdom” in xiii.; also the use ofἡ βασιλεία(“the Kingdom”) without further definition as a term the reference of which could not be misunderstood, especially in the following phrases peculiar to this Gospel:τὁ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας(“the Gospel of the Kingdom”) iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; andὁ λόγος τῆς βασιλείας(“the word of the kingdom”) xiii. 19. The following descriptions of the kingdom, peculiar to this Gospel, are also interestingἡ βασιλεία τοῦ πατρὁς αὐτῶν(“the kingdom of their father”) xiii. 43 andτοῦ πατρός μου(“of my father”) xxvi. 29.

(d)The Relation of the New Law to the Old.—Verses 17-48, cf. also, addition at xxii. 40 and xix. 19b. Further, his use ofδικαιοσύνη(“righteousness”) andδίκαιος(“righteous”) (specially frequent in this Gospel) is such as to connect the New with the Old; the standard in mind is the law which “fulfilled” that previously given.

(e)The Christian Ecclesia.—Chap. xvi. 18, xviii. 17.

(f)The Messianic Dignity and Glory of Jesus.—The narrative in i. and ii. show the royalty of the new-born child. The title “Son of David” occurs with special frequency in this Gospel. The following instances are without parallels in the other Gospels: ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; xxi. 9; xxi. 15. The title “Son of God” is also used with somewhat greater frequency than in Mark and Luke: ii. 15; xiv. 33; xvi. 16; xxii. 2 seq. (where it is implied); xxvii. 40, 43.

The thought of the future coming of Christ, and in particular of the judgment to be executed by Him then, is much more prominent in this Gospel than in the others. Some of the following predictions are peculiar to it, while in several others there are additional touches: vii. 22, 23; x. 23, 32, 33; xiii. 39-43; xvi. 27, 28; xix. 28; xxiv. 3, 27, 30, 31, 37, 39; xxv. 31-46; xxvi. 64.

The majesty of Christ is also impressed upon us by the signs at His crucifixion, some of which are related only in this Gospel, xxvii. 51-53, and by the sublime vision of the Risen Christ at the close, xxviii. 16-20.

(5)Time of Composition and Readers addressed.—The signs of dogmatic reflection in this Gospel point to its having been composed somewhat late in the 1st century, probably after Luke’s Gospel, and this is in accord with the conclusion that some insertions had been made in the Marcan document used by this evangelist which were not in that used by Luke (seeLuke, Gospel of St). We may assignA.D.80-100 as a probable time for the composition.

The author was in all probability a Jew by race, and he would seem to have addressed himself especially to Jewish readers; but they were Jews of the Dispersion. For although he was in specially close touch with Palestine, either personally or through the sources at his command, or both, his book was composed in Greek by the aid of Greek documents.

See commentaries by Th. Zahn (1903) and W. C. Allen (in the series of International Critical Commentaries, 1907); also books on the Four Gospels or the Synoptic Gospels cited at the end ofGospel.

(V. H. S.)

MATTHEW CANTACUZENUS,Byzantine emperor, was the son of John VI. Cantacuzenus (q.v.). In return for the support he gave to his father during his struggle with John V. he was allowed to annex part of Thrace under his own dominion and in 1353 was proclaimed joint emperor. From his Thracian principality he levied several wars against the Servians. An attack which he prepared in 1350 was frustrated by the defection of his Turkish auxiliaries. In 1357 he was captured by his enemies, who delivered him to the rival emperor, John V. Compelled to abdicate, he withdrew to a monastery, where he busied himself with writing commentaries on the Scriptures.

MATTHEW OF PARIS(d. 1259), English monk and chronicler known to us only through his voluminous writings. In spite of his surname, and of his knowledge of the French language, his attitude towards foreigners attests that he was of English birth. He may have studied at Paris in his youth, but the earliest fact which he records of himself is his admission as a monk at St Albans in the year 1217. His life was mainly spent in this religious house. In 1248, however, he was sent to Norway as the bearer of a message from Louis IX. of France to Haakon VI.; he made himself so agreeable to the Norwegian sovereign that he was invited, a little later, to superintend the reformation of the Benedictine monastery of St Benet Holme at Trondhjem. Apart from these missions, his activities were devoted to the composition of history, a pursuit for which the monks of St Albans had long been famous. Matthew edited anew the works of Abbot John de Cella and Roger of Wendover, which in their altered form constitute the first part of his most important work, theChronica majora. From 1235, the point at which Wendover dropped his pen, Matthew continued the history on the plan which his predecessors had followed. He derived much of his information from the letters of important personages, which he sometimes inserts, but much more from conversation with the eye-witnesses of events. Among his informants were Earl Richard of Cornwall and Henry III. With the latter he appears to have been on terms of intimacy. The king knew that Matthew was writing a history, and showed some anxiety that it should be as exact as possible. In 1257, in the course of a week’s visit to St Albans, Henry kept the chronicler beside him night and day, “and guided my pen,” says Paris, “with much good will and diligence.” It is therefore curious that theChronica majorashould give so unfavourable an account of the king’s policy. Luard supposes that Matthew never intended his work to see the light in its present form, and many passages of the autograph have against them the noteoffendiculum, which shows that the writer understood the danger which he ran. On the other hand, unexpurgated copies were made in Matthew’s lifetime; though the offending passages are duly omitted or softened in his abridgment of his longer work, theHistoria Anglorum(written about 1253), the real sentiments of the author must have been an open secret. In any case there is no ground for the old theory that he was an official historiographer.

Matthew Paris was unfortunate in living at a time when English politics were peculiarly involved and tedious. His talent is for narrative and description. Though he took a keen interest in the personal side of politics he has no claim to be considered a judge of character. His appreciations of his contemporaries throw more light on his own prejudices than on their aims and ideas. His work is always vigorous, but he imputes motives in the spirit of a partisan who never pauses to weigh the evidence or to take a comprehensive view of the situation. His redeeming feature is his generous admiration for strength of character, even when it goes along with a policy of which he disapproves. Thus he praises Grosseteste, while he denounces Grosseteste’s scheme of monastic reform. Matthew is a vehement supporter of the monastic orders against their rivals, the secular clergy and the mendicant friars. He is violently opposed to the court and the foreign favourites. He despises the king as a statesman, though for the man he has some kindly feeling. The frankness with which he attacks the court of Rome for its exactions is remarkable; so, too, is the intense nationalism which he displays in dealing with this topic. His faults of presentment are more often due to carelessness and narrow views than to deliberate purpose. But he is sometimes guilty of inserting rhetorical speeches which are not only fictitious, but also misleading as an account of the speaker’s sentiments. In other cases he tampers with the documents which he inserts (as, for instance, with the text of Magna Carta). His chronology is, for a contemporary, inexact; and he occasionally inserts duplicate versions of the same incident in different places. Hence he must always be rigorously checked where other authorities exist and used with caution where he is our sole informant. None the less, he gives a more vivid impression of his age than any other English chronicler; and it is a matter for regret that his great history breaks off in 1259, on the eve of the crowning struggle between Henry III and the baronage.Authorities.—The relation of Matthew Paris’s work to those of John de Cella and Roger of Wendover may best be studied in H. R. Luard’s edition of theChronica majora(7 vols., Rolls series, 1872-1883), which contains valuable prefaces. TheHistoriaAnglorum sive historia minor(1067-1253) has been edited by F. Madden (3 vols., Rolls series, 1866-1869). Matthew Paris is often confused with “Matthew of Westminster,” the reputed author of theFlores historiarumedited by H. R. Luard (3 vols., Rolls series, 1890). This work, compiled by various hands, is an edition of Matthew Paris, with continuations extending to 1326. Matthew Paris also wrote a life of Edmund Rich (q.v.), which is probably the work printed in W. Wallace’sSt Edmund of Canterbury(London, 1893) pp. 543-588, though this is attributed by the editor to the monk Eustace;Vitae abbatum S Albani(up to 1225) which have been edited by W. Watts (1640, &c.); and (possibly) theAbbreviatio chronicorum(1000-1255), edited by F. Madden, in the third volume of theHistoria Anglorum. On the value of Matthew as an historian see F. Liebermann in G. H. Pertz’sScriptoresxxviii. pp. 74-106; A. Jessopp’sStudies by a Recluse(London, 1893); H. Plehn’sPolitische Character Matheus Parisiensis(Leipzig, 1897).

Authorities.—The relation of Matthew Paris’s work to those of John de Cella and Roger of Wendover may best be studied in H. R. Luard’s edition of theChronica majora(7 vols., Rolls series, 1872-1883), which contains valuable prefaces. TheHistoriaAnglorum sive historia minor(1067-1253) has been edited by F. Madden (3 vols., Rolls series, 1866-1869). Matthew Paris is often confused with “Matthew of Westminster,” the reputed author of theFlores historiarumedited by H. R. Luard (3 vols., Rolls series, 1890). This work, compiled by various hands, is an edition of Matthew Paris, with continuations extending to 1326. Matthew Paris also wrote a life of Edmund Rich (q.v.), which is probably the work printed in W. Wallace’sSt Edmund of Canterbury(London, 1893) pp. 543-588, though this is attributed by the editor to the monk Eustace;Vitae abbatum S Albani(up to 1225) which have been edited by W. Watts (1640, &c.); and (possibly) theAbbreviatio chronicorum(1000-1255), edited by F. Madden, in the third volume of theHistoria Anglorum. On the value of Matthew as an historian see F. Liebermann in G. H. Pertz’sScriptoresxxviii. pp. 74-106; A. Jessopp’sStudies by a Recluse(London, 1893); H. Plehn’sPolitische Character Matheus Parisiensis(Leipzig, 1897).

(H. W. C. D.)

MATTHEW OF WESTMINSTER,the name of an imaginary person who was long regarded as the author of theFlores Historiarum. The error was first discovered in 1826 by Sir F. Palgrave, who said that Matthew was “a phantom who never existed,” and later the truth of this statement was completely proved by H. R. Luard. The name appears to have been taken from that of Matthew of Paris, from whoseChronica majorathe earlier part of the work was mainly copied, and from Westminster, the abbey in which the work was partially written.

TheFlores historiarumis a Latin chronicle dealing with English history from the creation to 1326, although some of the earlier manuscripts end at 1306; it was compiled by various persons, and written partly at St Albans and partly at Westminster. The part from 1306 to 1326 was written by Robert of Reading (d. 1325) and another Westminster monk. Except for parts dealing with the reign of Edward I. its value is not great. It was first printed by Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury, in 1567, and the best edition is the one edited with introduction by H. R. Luard for the Rolls series (London, 1890). It has been translated into English by C. D. Yonge (London, 1853). See Luard’s introduction, and C. Bémont in theRevue critique d’histoire(Paris, 1891).

MATTHEWS, STANLEY(1824-1889), American jurist, was born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on the 21st of July 1824. He graduated from Kenyon College in 1840, studied law, and in 1842 was admitted to the bar of Maury county, Tennessee. In 1844 he became assistant prosecuting attorney of Hamilton county, Ohio; and in 1846-1849 edited a short-lived anti-slavery paper, theCincinnati Herald. He was clerk of the Ohio House of Representatives in 1848-1849, a judge of common pleas of Hamilton county in 1850-1853, state senator in 1856-1858, and U.S. district-attorney for the southern district of Ohio in 1858-1861. First a Whig and then a Free-Soiler, he joined the Republican party in 1861. After the outbreak of the Civil War he was commissioned a lieutenant of the 23rd Ohio, of which Rutherford B. Hayes was major; but saw service only with the 57th Ohio, of which he was colonel, and with a brigade which he commanded in the Army of the Cumberland. He resigned from the army in 1863, and was judge of the Cincinnati superior court in 1863-1864. He was a Republican presidential elector in 1864 and 1868. In 1872 he joined the Liberal Republican movement, and was temporary chairman of the Cincinnati convention which nominated Horace Greeley for the presidency, but in the campaign he supported Grant. In 1877, as counsel before the Electoral Commission, he opened the argument for the Republican electors of Florida and made the principal argument for the Republican electors of Oregon. In March of the same year he succeeded John Sherman as senator from Ohio, and served until March 1879. In 1881 President Hayes nominated him as associate justice of the Supreme Court, to succeed Noah H. Swayne; there was much opposition, especially in the press, to this appointment, because Matthews had been a prominent railway and corporation lawyer and had been one of the Republican “visiting statesmen” who witnessed the canvass of the vote of Louisiana1in 1876; and the nomination had not been approved when the session of Congress expired. Matthews was renominated by President Garfield on the 15th of March, and the nomination was confirmed by the Senate (22 for, 21 against) on the 12th of May. He was an honest, impartial and conscientious judge. He died in Washington, on the 22nd of March 1889.

1It seems certain that Matthews and Charles Foster of Ohio gave their written promise that Hayes, if elected, would recognize the Democratic governors in Louisiana and South Carolina.

MATTHIAE, AUGUST HEINRICH(1769-1835), German classical scholar, was born at Göttingen, on the 25th of December 1769, and educated at the university. He then spent some years as a tutor in Amsterdam. In 1798 he returned to Germany, and in 1802 was appointed director of the Friedrichsgymnasium at Altenburg, which post he held till his death, on the 6th of January 1835. Of his numerous important works the best-known are hisGreek Grammar(3rd ed., 1835), translated into English by E. V. Blomfield (5th ed., by J. Kenrick, 1832), his edition ofEuripides(9 vols., 1813-1829),Grundriss der Geschichte der griechischen und römischen Litteratur(3rd ed., 1834, Eng. trans., Oxford, 1841)Lehrbuch für den ersten Unterricht in der Philosophie(3rd ed., 1833),Encyklopädie und Methodologie der Philologie(1835). HisLifewas written by his son Constantin (1845).

His brother,Friedrich Christian Matthiae(1763-1822), rector of the Frankfort gymnasium, published valuable editions of Seneca’sLetters, Aratus, and Dionysius Periegetes.

MATTHIAS,the disciple elected by the primitive Christian community to fill the place in the Twelve vacated by Judas Iscariot (Acts i. 21-26). Nothing further is recorded of him in the New Testament. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl., I. xii.) says he was, like his competitor, Barsabas Justus, one of the seventy, and the Syriac version of Eusebius calls him throughout not Matthias but Tolmai,i.e.Bartholomew, without confusing him with the Bartholomew who was originally one of the Twelve, and is often identified with the Nathanael mentioned in the Fourth Gospel (Expository Times, ix. 566). Clement of Alexandria says some identified him with Zacchaeus, the ClementineRecognitionsidentify him with Barnabas, Hilgenfeld thinks he is the same as Nathanael.

Various works—a Gospel, Traditions and Apocryphal Words—were ascribed to him; and there is also extantThe Acts of Andrew and Matthias, which places his activity in “the city of the cannibals” in Ethiopia. Clement of Alexandria quotes two sayings from the Traditions: (1) Wonder at the things before you (suggesting, like Plato, that wonder is the first step to new knowledge); (2) If an elect man’s neighbour sin, the elect man has sinned.

MATTHIAS(1557-1619), Roman emperor, son of the emperor Maximilian II. and Maria, daughter of the emperor Charles V., was born in Vienna, on the 24th of February 1557. Educated by the diplomatist O. G. de Busbecq, he began his public life in 1577, soon after his father’s death, when he was invited to assume the governorship of the Netherlands, then in the midst of the long struggle with Spain. He eagerly accepted this invitation, although it involved a definite breach with his Spanish kinsman, Philip II., and entering Brussels in January 1578 was named governor-general; but he was merely a cipher, and only held the position for about three years, returning to Germany in October 1581. Matthias was appointed governor of Austria in 1593 by his brother, the emperor Rudolph II.; and two years later, when another brother, the archduke Ernest, died, he became a person of more importance as the eldest surviving brother of the unmarried emperor. As governor of Austria Matthias continued the policy of crushing the Protestants, although personally he appears to have been inclined to religious tolerance; and he dealt with the rising of the peasants in 1595, in addition to representing Rudolph at the imperial diets, and gaining some fame as a soldier during the Turkish War. A few years later the discontent felt by the members of the Habsburg family at the incompetence of the emperor became very acute, and the lead was taken by Matthias. Obtaining in May 1605 a reluctant consent from his brother, he took over the conduct of affairs in Hungary, where a revolt had broken out, and was formally recognized by the Habsburgs as their head in April 1606, and was promised the succession to the Empire. In June 1606 he concluded the peace of Vienna with the rebellious Hungarians, and was thus in a better position to treat with the sultan, with whom peace was made in November. This pacific policy was displeasing to Rudolph, who prepared to renew the Turkish War; but having secured the support of the national party in Hungary and gathered an army, Matthias forced his brother to cede to him thiskingdom, together with Austria and Moravia, both of which had thrown in their lot with Hungary (1608). The king of Hungary, as Matthias now became, was reluctantly compelled to grant religious liberty to the inhabitants of Austria. The strained relations which had arisen between Rudolph and Matthias as a result of these proceedings were temporarily improved, and a formal reconciliation took place in 1610; but affairs in Bohemia soon destroyed this fraternal peace. In spite of the letter of majesty (Majestätsbrief) which the Bohemians had extorted from Rudolph, they were very dissatisfied with their ruler, whose troops were ravaging their land; and in 1611 they invited Matthias to come to their aid. Accepting this invitation, he inflicted another humiliation upon his brother, and was crowned king of Bohemia in May 1611. Rudolph, however, was successful in preventing the election of Matthias as German king, or king of the Romans, and when he died, in January 1612, no provision had been made for a successor. Already king of Hungary and Bohemia, however, Matthias obtained the remaining hereditary dominions of the Habsburgs, and in June 1612 was crowned emperor, although the ecclesiastical electors favoured his younger brother, the archduke Albert (1559-1621).

The short reign of the new emperor was troubled by the religious dissensions of Germany. His health became impaired and his indolence increased, and he fell completely under the influence of Melchior Klesl (q.v.), who practically conducted the imperial business. By Klesl’s advice he took up an attitude of moderation and sought to reconcile the contending religious parties; but the proceedings at the diet of Regensburg in 1613 proved the hopelessness of these attempts, while their author was regarded with general distrust. Meanwhile the younger Habsburgs, led by the emperor’s brother, the archduke Maximilian, and his cousin, Ferdinand, archduke of Styria, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand II., disliking the peaceful policy of Klesl, had allied themselves with the unyielding Roman Catholics, while the question of the imperial succession was forcing its way to the front. In 1611 Matthias had married his cousin Anna (d. 1618), daughter of the archduke Ferdinand (d. 1595), but he was old and childless and the Habsburgs were anxious to retain his extensive possessions in the family. Klesl, on the one hand, wished the settlement of the religious difficulties to precede any arrangement about the imperial succession; the Habsburgs, on the other, regarded the question of the succession as urgent and vital. Meanwhile the disputed succession to the duchies of Cleves and Jülich again threatened a European war; the imperial commands were flouted in Cologne and Aix-la-Chapelle, and the Bohemians were again becoming troublesome. Having decided that Ferdinand should succeed Matthias as emperor, the Habsburgs had secured his election as king of Bohemia in June 1617, but were unable to stem the rising tide of disorder in that country. Matthias and Klesl were in favour of concessions, but Ferdinand and Maximilian met this move by seizing and imprisoning Klesl. Ferdinand had just secured his coronation as king of Hungary when there broke out in Bohemia those struggles which heralded the Thirty Years’ War; and on the 20th of March 1619 the emperor died at Vienna.

Back to Index Next