Another Lord's Prayer, different from that in the Gospels, taken

out of Mr. Selden's Commentary on Eutychius, produced in Arabick and English. This proved Spurious by several Arguments.


FTER the Epistle under our Saviour's name to Ab

garus, I judged it would not be improper to insert here a prayer ascribed to our Saviour by the Mahometans, called by them, The Prayer of Jesus the Son of Mary. I am not able to make any large conjecture concerning its original, because I know no more of it than that Mr. Selden, who, I believe, is the only publisher of it, faith, Defcriptas penes me habeo fingularum hebdomades dierum preces Mahumedanis formatas, quibus titulus eft Preces Dierum. Atque his subjunguntur formula precationum bina, altera Abrahæ Patriarchæ tributa, altera Domino noftro Jefu Chrifto, velut Dominica altera ; viz. “ That " he had certain Arabick forms of prayer by him in manu. “ script, which were composed by the Mahometans, and ino titled, the Daily Prayers; to which there were annexed two “ forms of prayer, one ascribed to the Patriarch Abraham, the s other to our Lord Jesus Christ, as though it were another Lord's Prayer.” For the sake of the curious in these studies, I have inserted it here in Arabick, with as just a translation as I was able to make of it.

Num. II.


دعا عبسي ابن مريم عليهم السلام كان يقول اللهم اني اصبحت لا استطبع

See his Commentary on Eutychius's Arabick Annals of Alexandria,

p. 58.


دفع ما اكره وما املك نفع ما ارجو واصبح الاجر بېد غېري واصبحت مرتهنا بعملي فلا نقبر انقر مني إلي عفوك يا كريم اللهم لا تشمت في غدوي ولا تسوبي صديقي ولا تجعل مصېبتي في ديني ولا تجعل الدنېا اكبر همي ولا مبلغ علمي ولا تسلط على من لا يرحمني برحمتك يا ارحم الرحمان *


The Prayer of Jesus the Son of Mary.

[ocr errors]

Upon them be Peace. He said,

“O GOD, I am not able to extirpate (or overcome) that « which I abhor, nor have I attained to that good (or useful“ ness) which I desired, but others, and not I, have their re“ ward in their hands. But my glory abideth in my work. « There is no one in more indigent (or miferable) circum،، ftances than I am. O most high God, grant me pardon. « O God, fuffer me not to be a reproach to mine < bring upon me the contempt of my friend : and let not my « piety be attended with (or occasion me) troubles. And let “not this world be my main delight (or what I aim princi

pally at). And fuffer not such a one to have his will (or rule) over me, who will have no mercy upon me, for thy

mercy fake, O thou moft merciful (who pitieft all thofe « that need mercy)."

enemy, nor

This is, as far as I could make it, a juft translation out of the Arabick; but because I am sensible of my ignorance in this language, and have ventured in some places to differ from Mr. Selden's translation, I judged it proper to give the reader his also in his own words, viz.

Precatio Jesu filii Mariæ.

SUPER quibus pax fit. Dixit, Deus, non poffum depellere id quod aversor, nec adquisivi bonum illud quod spero. Et


mercedem in manu habent alii præter me. Sed pignus eft, feu manet in opere meo (id est, ut puto, Opera mea velut pignus manent, necdum accepi id, cujus nomine oppignerata sunt) neque eft quisquam pauper me pauperior. Indulgentiam tuam, o venerande. Deus, ne opprobrio mihi sinas esse inimicum meum, nec vilipendat me amicus meus. Neque ponas afflictionem meam in religione mea. Neque fac, ut mundus fit maximum studium meum, aut faftigium fcientiæ meæ. Neque præfice mihi eum, qui non miferebitur mei, pro mifericordia tua, o miserantissime miserefcentium.

As I suppose no one at all acquainted with Christianity can believe this prayer genuine, and composed by our blessed Saviour, so I shall not spend much time about it: it is sufficient to prove it spurious,

1. That no one of the primitive writers of Christianity did receive, acknowledge, or so much as hear of this prayer. If we search them throughout, from the Apostles' time downwards, I may safely affirm we shall not find the least intimation or any footsteps of any such prayer, or indeed any prayer, known under the common name of The Lord's Prayer, besides that which we have in St. Matthew and St. Luke's Gospel. On the other hand,

II. It was a constantly received opinion among the antients, that our Lord left nothing in writing behind him, but what his Apostles and the Evangelists wrote. This we find in Origen“, Jerome b, Auftin, &c. So that it clearly follows from Prop. IV, V, VI. that this prayer is spurious. Besides,

[ocr errors]

III. The whole contexture of the prayer is disagreeable to, and inconsistent with, the character of our Saviour. To inftance only in one or two things: the first sentence seems to me a manifest confession of fin; and if it be not borrowed from those words of St. Paul, Rom. vii. 15, 19. What I would, I

a Contr. Celf. 1. 1. p. 34.
b Comment, in Ezek. C. 44.

c De Confenl. Evang. lib. I.

c. 7.


[ocr errors]

do not; but what I hate, that do I, &c. (which I am inclined to
believe) is plainly of the same design and import with it. And
accordingly one of the petitions is for pardon of fin, as I sup-
pose the Arabick word gyis is best translated (vid. Castell.
Lexic. Polyglott. ad Voc. who renders it condonatio deliati)
But how inconsistent is this with the character of Christ!
Had he made prayers for the pardon of his fins, how could he,
as conscious of his being perfectly clear from all fin, have
challenged his enemies to convince him of any one sin, as he
does, John viii. 46? How could he have made that atone-
ment and satisfaction for fin, which the first principles of
Christianity suppose he did ? In a word, if these be the words
of Christ, and part of any prayer of his, we must suppose all
those affertions of his Apostles concerning him, that he was
without sin, such as are found 2 Cor. y. 21. Hebr. iv. 15.
1 Pet. ii. 22. 1 John iii. 5. to be all gross imposture and false-
hood. I conclude therefore, by Prop. II. Cor. II. and Prop.
VIII. that this prayer is fpurious, and of the fame fort with
those Apocryphal pieces, viz. The Gospel of the Nazarenes, and
The Preaching of Peter and Paul; which, as they contained
like intimations as this prayer, viz. that Christ was a sinner, I
have by the same argument proved to be Apocryphal. See
above, Part II. Ch. XXV. Numb. 15. p. 277. coinpared with
Ch. XXIX. p. 301. and Ch. XXXIII. Numb. 7. p. 352.
compared with Ch. XXXIV. p. 359.

I might easily collect the same inference from the other pe-
titions; but omitting this, I shall only observe, that the doxo-
logy or conclusion of the prayer is evidently of a sort different

used either by our Saviour, or those of his
time, and seems so like the conclusions of several chapters in
the Alcoran, that as it appears by what is already said, that
the prayer is a forgery, so it is very probable it was a for-
gery of the Mahometans, who, as appears from several parts
of this work, forged no finall number of histories and sayings
of Jesus Christ. See the Appendix at the end of the first vo-
luine, and the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy in this part.

The foregoing prayer being taken out of Mr. Selden's commentary on Eutychius, obliges me to give the reader the


that were


following account from the Dean of Norwich's Life of Ma. homet, p. 271, 272. viz. “ That these annals of Eutychius

were published at Oxford in Arabick and Latin by Dr. Po« cock, A. D. 1656. at the charge of Mr. Selden, and this is “the meaning of these words in the title page, Johanne Sel« deno Chorago; for he, who was the Choragus in the play, al

ways was at the charges of exhibiting the scenes; and there“ fore, Mr. Selden having borne the expences of that charge« able edition, the most worthy and learned author acknow" ledged it by those words in the title page; which several “having mistaken to the robbing him of the honour of his • work, as if Mr. Selden had begun the translation, and Dr. « Pocock had finifhed it, I cannot but do justice to that wor

thy person now with God, as to clear this matter.” But notwithstanding this, the commentary, out of which I have taken this prayer, is unquestionably Mr. Selden's; and in the title page of my edition, published 1642. (viz. fixteen years before that which Dr. Prideaux speaks of) I find it thus, Ex Arabico nunc primum typis edidit ac Versione et Commentariis auxit Joannes Seldenus.


St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans. Owned as genuine by

several learned Men. An Epistle under this Title extant in the Beginning of the second Century. Marcion's Apostolicon. The Epifle now intitled, To the Ephesians, formerly intitled, To the Laodiceans, according to Tertullian. This credited by Grotius, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Whitby, Dr. Mill. Tertullian mistaken in this Matter.


HIS Epistle under the name of St. Paul to the Laodi

ceans, although it be apparently compiled out of the genuine and Canonical Epistles of that Apostle, requires a place in my collection; for besides that it passes under fo fplendid


« 前へ次へ »