thorns, the purple
robe, and the custom of releasing a malefactor at the feast. Such
coincidences between John and the Synoptic Gospels are so slight and
disconnected that it seems doubtful whether the former uses any
material drawn from the latter. Nevertheless, the story contained in
the Synoptic Gospels, though not quoted, is presupposed. A good
instance is in John vi. 5, where St. John does not stop to explain that
the hour was late and the people therefore hungry.

[1] _Apol._ i. 66.

[2] The longest instance of a passage in Matt. and Luke being parallel
in these Gospels and without a parallel in Mark is the short passage,
Matt. iii. 7-10, Luke iii. 7-9.

[3] This theory was first clearly expounded in 1818 by Gieseler, a
celebrated German Protestant Church historian. It has been more
popular in England than in Germany.

{33}

CHAPTER III

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW

[Sidenote: The Author.]

St. Matthew is one of the least known of the Apostles. He was first
called Levi the son of Alphaeus, and was a "publican" or collector of
customs at Capernaum. At the call of Jesus, "he forsook all, and rose
up and followed Him." He then made a great feast, to which he invited
his old companions, no doubt that they too might come under the
influence of the Lord. After the appointment of the twelve Apostles,
he was put in the second of the three groups of Apostles. The New
Testament gives us no further information concerning him. An early
tradition narrates that the Apostles remained at Jerusalem until twelve
years after the Ascension, and certainly St. Paul does not seem to have
found any of the Apostles at Jerusalem when he was there in A.D. 56
(Acts xxi. 17). According to Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 190, St.
Matthew led a rigorously ascetic life, such as is also recorded of St.
James. Nothing certain is known of his missionary labours. Parthia,
Ethiopia, and India were believed in the 4th and 5th centuries to have
been visited by St. Matthew. We learn from Clement of Alexandria that
he did not suffer martyrdom.[1] The fact that he disappears almost
completely from the realm of history is an additional reason for
believing the tradition which connects our first Gospel with his name.
A false tradition would have probably connected it with one of the more
favourite figures of early Christian story.

{34}

It is repeatedly asserted by the Fathers that St. Matthew wrote his
Gospel in