Part 4

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 ([Greek: ethnê]) 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 of [Greek: hê basileia] ("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: [Greek: to euangelion tês basileias] ("the Gospel of the Kingdom") iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14; and [Greek: ho logos tês basileias] ("the word of the kingdom") xiii. 19. The following descriptions of the kingdom, peculiar to this Gospel, are also interesting [Greek: hê basileia tou patros autôn] ("the kingdom of their father") xiii. 43 and [Greek: tou patros mou]("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 of [Greek: dikaiosynê] ("righteousness") and [Greek: dikaios]("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 (see LUKE, GOSPEL OF ST). We may assign A.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 of GOSPEL. (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, the _Chronica 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 the _Chronica majora_ should 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 note _offendiculum_, 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, the _Historia 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 the _Chronica majora_ (7 vols., Rolls series, 1872-1883), which contains valuable prefaces. The _Historia_ _Anglorum 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 the _Flores historiarum_ edited 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's _St 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) the _Abbreviatio chronicorum_ (1000-1255), edited by F. Madden, in the third volume of the _Historia Anglorum_. On the value of Matthew as an historian see F. Liebermann in G. H. Pertz's _Scriptores_ xxviii. pp. 74-106; A. Jessopp's _Studies by a Recluse_ (London, 1893); H. Plehn's _Politische 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 the _Flores 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 whose _Chronica majora_ the earlier part of the work was mainly copied, and from Westminster, the abbey in which the work was partially written.

The _Flores historiarum_ is 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 the _Revue 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, the _Cincinnati 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 Louisiana[1] in 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.

FOOTNOTE:

[1] It 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 his _Greek Grammar_ (3rd ed., 1835), translated into English by E. V. Blomfield (5th ed., by J. Kenrick, 1832), his edition of _Euripides_ (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). His _Life_ was written by his son Constantin (1845).

His brother, FRIEDRICH CHRISTIAN MATTHIAE (1763-1822), rector of the Frankfort gymnasium, published valuable editions of Seneca's _Letters_, 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 Clementine _Recognitions_ identify 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 extant _The 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 this kingdom, 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.

For the life and reign of Matthias the following works may be consulted: J. Heling, _Die Wahl des römischen Königs Matthias_ (Belgrade, 1892); A. Gindely, _Rudolf II. und seine Zeit_ (Prague, 1862-1868); F. Stieve, _Die Verhandlungen über die Nachfolge Kaisers Rudolf II._ (Munich, 1880); P. von Chlumecky, _Karl von Zierotin und seine Zeit_ (Brünn, 1862-1879); A. Kerschbaumer, _Kardinal Klesel_ (Vienna, 1865); M. Ritter, _Quellenbeiträge zur Geschichte des Kaisers Rudolf II._ (Munich, 1872); _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gegenreformation und des dreissigjährigen Krieges_ (Stuttgart, 1887, seq.); and the article on Matthias in the _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, Bd. XX. (Leipzig, 1884); L. von Ranke, _Zur deutschen Geschichte vom Religionsfrieden bis zum 30-jährigen Kriege_ (Leipzig, 1888); and J. Janssen, _Geschichte des deutschen Volks seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters_ (Freiburg, 1878 seq.), Eng. trans. by M. A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie (London, 1896, seq.).

MATTHIAS I., HUNYADI (1440-1490), king of Hungary, also known as Matthias Corvinus, a surname which he received from the raven (_corvus_) on his escutcheon, second son of János Hunyadi and Elizabeth Szilágyi, was born at Kolozsvár, probably on