From the expression κατὰ Ματθαῖον, &c., Faustus the Manichæan imagined the Gospels not written by the persons whose names they bear, but by persons who professed to write according to them. But we find the phrase commonly used in the signification which it here bears, as Acts xvii. 28. Tivès Tŵv καθ ̓ ὑμᾶς ποιητῶν, for ὑμῶν,--and Acts xviii. 15. εἰ δὲ ζήτημά ἐστι περὶ λόγου καὶ ὀνομάτων καὶ νόμου τοῦ καθ ̓ ὑμᾶς. Thus also Polyb. III. 6. τὰς κατ ̓ Ἀννίβαν πράξεις ;—111. 48. περὶ τῶν καθ ̓ ἑαυτὸν πραγμάτων. #lian. V. Η. II. 42. ἡ κατ ̓ αὐτὸν apeTn. Diod. Sic. 1. p. 648. ʼn kaтà owμa pwμn, corporis robur.

Eustath. on Od. e. p. 213. ἡ κατὰ τὸν Ελλάνικον ἱστορία, the history which Hellanicus wrote; he cites also Ælius Dionysius ἐν τῷ κατ ̓ αὐτὸν ῥητορικῷ λεξικώ. So Plato, Cratyl. iv. κατ' Εὐθύδημον, and XVIII. καθ' Ηράκλειτον.

Tertullian and Cyprian though writing Latin, retain the Greek preposition, Kaтà Matthæum, karà Marcum. And the Greek Fathers when quoting the translations of the Old Testament, usually say κατὰ τοὺς ἑβδομήκοντα, κατὰ Ἀκύλαν, κατὰ Σύμμαχον, &c. Thus Origen, τὰ δὲ παρ ̓ ἡμῖν ἀντίγραφα, ὧν καὶ τὰς λέξεις ἐξεθέμην, τὰ μὲν ἦν κατὰ τοὺς Ο, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον KaTa Ocodoτíwva. Epist. ad Africanum.

The simple title was kept till the fifth century, when the Epithet arylov or sanctum began to be added, and in conformity to this, the Complutensian Polyglot has τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον åýlov evayyéλiov; though as Wetstein observes, in quorum (scil. Apostolorum) scriptis cum Evangelii plusquam septuagies fiat mentio, sancti Epithetum nusquam additum reperitur. Some of the Latins write sanctum Domini nostri Jesu Christi Evangelium secundum Matthæum ;-and the translators into modern Languages have added the Epithet both to the Gospel and the writer. Il santo Evangelio, &c. secondo S. Matteo.-Le saint Evangile, &c. selon St. Matthieu. Our translators have only added the Epithet to the writer. And though Grotius says the inscription of this book was formerly εὐαγγέλιον Ἰησοῦ XpioTov, he must be mistaken; all the old Greek copies having as Wetstein says, the inscription τὸ κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον.

Marlaiov] St. Matthew was the son of Alphæus, though probably not that Alphæus who was the father of the Apostle James the Less: by birth a Galilæan as all the Apostles were; but of what city or which tribe, does not appear. has been supposed not improbable that he was born at or near Capernaum, the place of his ordinary abode. Though a Jew

by religion, he was by profession a publican: and his office

seems to have consisted in collecting the customs due upon commodities which were carried, and from persons who passed over the lake of Gennesareth. His profession as well as his call to the Apostolic Office he himself relates ix. 9. St. Mark and St. Luke mention him by the name of Levi: but as the custom prevailed among the Jews as well as other nations of having more names than one, and the three Evangelists have recorded one and the same fact, though they differ in respect to the name, it is reasonable to suppose they mean one and the same person. And this seems confirmed by the Apostolical constitutions which introduce him speaking thus, έγω Ματθαῖος ὁ καὶ Aevis. And Jerom gives as a reason, Cæteri Evangelistæ nec publicani nomen ascribunt, ne antiquæ conversationis recordantes, sugillare Evangelistam viderentur: in Matth. c. x. Both he and Eusebius think them the names of one and the same person. Probably Levi was the name by which the Apostle was called in the former part of his life: and Matthew that by which he was best known afterwards. This probably lucrative post he cheerfully quitted for the sake of Christ: and under the following circumstances. Our Lord having cured a paralytic retired out of Capernaum to walk by the sea side, where he taught the people that flocked after him; and seeing Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom commanded him to follow him. He instantly obeyed, and became one of his constant attendants. We cannot however suppose that he was before wholly unacquainted with our Saviour's person or doctrine, especially as Christ's sermons and miracles were so frequent at Capernaum, by which he could not but be in some measure prepared to receive the impressions which our Saviour's call now made upon him.

From his elevation to the Apostleship, he continued constantly with our Lord during his abode upon earth; and by this long attendance he was enabled to communicate accounts on which we can depend. After the Ascension, for the space of eight years he preached the Gospel in several parts of Judæa: but into what countries he subsequently travelled, is uncertain. From Eusebius's Eccl. Hist. it may be inferred that at the beginning of the fourth century there were not any certain and well attested accounts of the places out of Judæa, in which several of the Apostles preached. Æthiopia is generally assigned as the province of St. Matthew's Apostolical Ministry.

Of the time and manner of his death no certain account is transmitted to us. And it seems a matter of doubt whether he died a natural death, or suffered martyrdom. The former

has been deemed not improbable (Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. iv.); though Socrates (Hist. Eccl. 1. I. c. xix. p. 50) says that Matthew preached the Gospel in Ethiopia, and suffered martyrdom at Nadabbar, a city of that country. Others say that he died in Persia :—and others again that he was honourably buried at Hierapolis in Parthia, one of the first places to which he preached the Gospel. But the diversity of these accounts seems to shew that they are all without good foundation. Chrysostom (Hom. 48) has a commendation of St. Matthew consisting of divers articles, but says nothing of his martyrdom; which may induce us to think that there was not any tradition about it among Christians at that time, or that it was not much regarded.

That St. Matthew wrote his Gospel (though doubtless designed for the benefit of the universal church) yet more immediately for the use of the Jewish converts in Palestine, is a point on which all the antients are agreed; but we have no good authority for the opinion that he wrote it in Jerusalem. Chrysostom (Hom. 1. in Matth.) says ἔνθα μὲν οὖν ἕκαστος διατρίβων ἔγε ραψε, οὐ σφόδρα δεῖ (al. δυνατὸν) ἰσχυρίσασθαι. With this view, the Apostle carefully points out every circumstance which might conciliate the faith of that nation, and avoids every unnecessary expression which might in any way serve to obstruct it.

It is generally agreed that St. Matthew's Gospel was the first which was written, though no positive conclusion can be drawn as to the exact date'. It would seem to have been extant before the dispersion of the Apostles, from Bartholomew's carrying it with him to India, where as Eusebius Eccl. Hist. v. 10, informs us it was found by Panætus when he went to propagate the faith in those parts, and by such as retained the knowledge of Christ, was reputed a valuable treasure. But as it has become impossible to settle the point upon antient authority, various opinions have been raised; the earliest date which deserves noticing being A. D. 38, the latest A. D. 64. And as it is not probable that the Christian converts would be left any considerable number of years without a written history of our Saviour's ministry, we may safely incline to the early publication. For when St. Matthew began to write, the great question among the Jews was, whether Jesus was the true Messiah or no; and the main tendency of his Gospel seems to prove this. He shews by his

1 That the first published Gospel was written in the language of the Jews and for their peculiar use, is perfectly conformable to the distinction with which we know they are favoured, in having the Gospel preached to them exclusively by our Saviour, and before all other nations by his Apostles.

mighty deeds that he was the Christ, the Son of God; that his Mother Mary was a Virgin: that he was not come to destroy the law but to fulfil it: and that his miracles were not the effect of any human art, but incontestable proofs of the power of God, and of his divine Mission. And as the fulfilment of prophecy had greater weight with the Jews than any other species of evidence, we may suppose the Apostles would be anxious to enable them to compare what had occurred during Christ's ministry with their antient prophecies, as well as to confirm those who believed in his Divine Mission, and convert others : and it is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that they would lose no time in sending forth a written account of them, in order that the enquiry might be more easily made; and the coincidence when ascertained, be more striking and satisfactory.

The proper evidence of antient facts is written testimony: and all the antients with one consent, assure us that St. Matthew wrote in Hebrew: not meaning by this, the antient pure Hebrew (for that in a great measure was lost among the vulgar) but in a language commonly used at that time by the Jews of Palestine, and therefore still called the Hebrew tongue because written in Hebrew characters. It was the Syriac, with a mixture of Hebrew and Chaldee; and was the language which the Jews brought with them from Babylon after the captivity, blended with that of the people whom they found at their return in the land, and in the neighbouring regions. Papias, Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerom, Augustine, Chrysostom, the Author of the Latin Commentary on St. Mark, ascribed to Chrysostom, and the Author of the Synopsis of the Scripture, which bears the name of Athanasius, are a cloud of witnesses who depose this; and therefore strange it is that any should question its being originally written in that language, when the thing is so universally asserted by all antiquity, without a single contradictory voice, and all having so much better opportunities of being satisfied on the subject than we can have at so great a distance. Indeed this point does not seem to have been controverted during the first 1400 years. Erasmus was one of the earliest, who called in question a tradition which had so long and so universally obtained in the church, and who contended for a Greek original: and though several ingenious arguments have been adduced in its favour, which however admit of an answer; still the dispute is about a matter of fact; and this is a fact attested by all the antients, many of whom had seen the original and were capable of forming a judgment of it.

It was no doubt soon translated into Greek, but by whom is uncertain. Jerom professes that he could not tell. Theophylact (præf. Comm. in Matth. p. 2.) says it was reported to have been done by St. John, but Athanasius (or the author of the Synops. S. Script. p. 493) attributes it to St. James the Less. It was made however in the Apostolic times, and considered as authentic as the original; and therefore it matters not whether it was translated by an Apostle, or some Disciple, so long as the Apostles approved the version which has been received as authentic and placed in the sacred Canon.

1

But

It is probable that the Hebrew Gospel remained for some time in use among the Jews who had been converted to Christianity; when they retired to Pella, they carried it thither along with them; and in the times of Epiphanius (Hæres. 29, 7.) and Eusebius (Eccl. Hist III. 25) it was used by the Judaising Christians in Decapolis and the countries beyond Jordan. they added to it several things which they perhaps might have heard from the Apostles and their immediate Disciples: and this in time brought it under the suspicion of other believers. The Ebionites at length by their additions and defalcations in favour of some errors into which they had fallen, concerning the Divinity of our Saviour and the Virginity of Mary, so corrupted it, that at length it was given up by other churches which adhered to the form of sound doctrine. It would appear from a passage in Epiphanius that for some time it continued in its primitive purity in the hands of the Nazarenes; exovσL de To κατὰ Ματθαῖον εὐαγγέλιον πληρέστατον ἑβραϊστὶ, παρ ̓ αὐτοῖς γὰρ σαφῶς τοῦτο, καθὼς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐγράφη ἑβραϊκοῖς γράμμασιν, ETI OWCETAι. Hær. 29. 9. Whether, or how far they assisted in corrupting it, we need not here enquire; see Jones's Method of settling the Canon of the New Testament; for after their extinction we hear no more of the genuine Gospel of St. Matthew for the Greek Version, which in the Apostolic times was made from it, having always preserved its integrity, universally prevailed, and was looked upon as authentic as the original and there being no longer any country in which the language of the original was commonly spoken, that original would soon be forgotten, and the Greek translation then generally understood would be substituted in its room2.

:

1 ἐν τῷ παρ' αὐτοῖς εὐαγγελίῳ, κατὰ Ματθαῖον ὀνομαζομένῳ, οὐχ ὅλῳ δὲ πληρεστάτῳ, ἀλλὰ νενοθευμένῳ, καὶ ἠκροτηριασμένω. Epiph. Hær. 30. 13. kai 2 Those who have leisure, would do well to consult Campbell's introduction to St. Matthew's Gospel; and Michaelis with Bishop Marsh's