CHAP. V. Another Lord's Prayer, different from that in the Gospels, taken out of Mr. Selden's Commentary on Eutychius, produced in Arabic and English. This proved spurious by several arguments. AFTER the epistle under our Saviour's name to Abgarus, 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 b, saith, Descriptas penes me habeo singularum, hebdomades dierum preces Mahumedanis formatas, quibus titulus est Preces Dierum. Atque his subjunguntur formulæ precationum binæ, altera Abrahæ Patriarchæ tributa, altera Domino nostro Jesu Christo, velut Dominica altera; viz. "That he had certain Arabic forms of prayer by him in manuscript, which were composed by the Mahometans, and en"titled The Daily Prayers; to which there were annexed two ،، forms of prayer, one ascribed to the patriarch Abraham, the "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 Arabic, with as just a translation as I was able to make of it. 66 No. II. A Prayer of Christ. دعا عبسي ابن مريم 3 عليهم السلام كان يقول اللهم اني اصبحت لا استطيع دفع ما اكره وما املك نفع ما ارجو واصبح الاجر بيد غيري واصبحت مرتهنا بعملي فلا فقير افقر مني الي عنوك يا كريم اللهم لا تشمت في عدوي ولا تسوبي صديقي ولا تجعل مصيبتي في ديني ولا تجعل الدنيا اكبر همي ولا مبلغ علمي ولا تسلط على من لا يرحمني برحمتك يا ارحم الراحمين . See his commentary on Eutychius's Arabic Annals of Alexandria, p. 58. The Prayer of Jesus the Son of Mary. 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 miserable) circum"stances than I am. O most high God, grant me pardon, O "God, suffer me not to be a reproach to mine enemy, nor 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 principally "at). And suffer not such a one to have his will (or rule) over me, who will have no mercy upon me, for thy mercy sake, "O thou most merciful (who pitiest all those that need mercy)." 66 66 66 This is, as far as I could make it, a just translation out of the Arabic; 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 sit. Dixit, Deus, non possum depellere id quod aversor, nec adquisivi bonum illud quod spero. Et mercedem in manu habent alii præter me. Sed pignus est, seu manet in opere meo (id est, ut puto, Opera mea velut pignus manent, necdum accepi id, cujus nomine oppignerata sunt) neque est 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 sit maximum studium meum, aut fastigium scientiæ meæ. Neque præfice mihi eum, qui non miserebitur mei, pro misericordia tua, o miserantissime miserescentium. 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, I. 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 ancients, that our Lord left nothing in writing behind him, but what his apostles and the evangelists wrote. This we find in Origenc, Jeromed, Austine, &c. So that it clearly follows from Prop. IV. V. VI. that this prayer is spurious. Besides, III. The whole contexture of the prayer is disagreeable to, and inconsistent with, the character of our Saviour. To instance only in one or two things: the first sentence seems to me a manifest confession of sin; and if it be not borrowed from those words of St. Paul, Rom. vii. 15, 19. What I would I 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 sin, as I suppose the Arabic word is is best translated. (vid. Castell. Lexic. Polyglott. ad Voc. who renders it condonatio delicti.) But how inconsistent is this with the character of Christ! Had he made prayers for the pardon of his sins, how could he, as conscious of his being perfectly clear from all sin, have challenged his enemies to convince him of any one sin, as he does John viii. 46? How could he have made that atonement and satisfaction for sin, 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 assertions of his apostles concerning him, that he was without sin, such as are found 2 Cor. v. 21. Hebr. iv. 15. 1 Pet. ii. 22. 1 John iii. 5. to be all gross imposture and falsehood. I conclude therefore, by Prop. II. Cor. II. and Prop. VIII. that this prayer is spurious, and of the same sort with those apocryphal pieces, viz. The Gospel of the Nazarenes, and The c Contr. Cels. 1. 1. p. 34. e De Consens. Evang. lib. 1. c. 7. 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. No. 15. p. 243. compared with Ch. XXIX. p. 264. and Ch. XXXIII. No. 7. p. 307. compared with Ch. XXXIV. p. 313. I might easily collect the same inference from the other petitions; but omitting this, I shall only observe, that the doxology or conclusion of the prayer is evidently of a sort different from any that were 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 forgery of the Mahometans, who, as appears from several parts of this work, forged no small number of histories and sayings of Jesus Christ. See the Appendix at the end of the first volume, and the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy in this part. 66 The foregoing prayer being taken out of Mr. Selden's commentary on Eutychius, obliges me to give the reader the following account from the dean of Norwich's Life of Mahomet, p. 271, 272. viz. “That these Annals of Eutychius were pub❝lished at Oxford in Arabic and Latin by Dr. Pocock, A. D. "1656. at the charge of Mr. Selden, and this is the meaning "of these words in the title-page, Johanne Seldeno chorago; "for he, who was the choragus in the play, always was at the charges of exhibiting the scenes; and therefore, Mr. Selden “having borne the expenses of that chargeable edition, the "most worthy and learned author acknowledged 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 finished it, "I cannot but do justice to that worthy 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. sixteen 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. CHAP. VI. 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 Epistle now entitled, To the Ephesians, formerly entitled, To the Laodiceans, according to Tertullian. This credited by Grotius, Dr. Hammond, Dr. Whitby, Dr. Mill. Tertullian mistaken in this matter. + THIS Epistle under the name of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, 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 so splendid and pompous a title, it has been highly esteemed by several learned men of the church of Rome, and others: the famous Jesuits, Stapleton f and Salmeron 5, among the rest, have contended for its genuineness and authority. The Quakers have printed a translation of it, and plead for ith. I thought it therefore necessary to insert it here, and inquire into its original. There have been many editions of it, and Sixtus Senensis i mentions two manuscripts; the one in the Sorbonne library at Paris, which was a very old one, and the other at Padua in Venice, in the library of Joannes a Viridario, which he transcribed and published, and from which I have taken the following copy. N.B. The texts of scripture, which are placed in the third column, are placed to the intent that the reader may with more ease and at one view discover the imposture and forgery of the Epistle. No. III. S. PAULI Epistola The Epistle of St. The places in St. Paul's genuine Epistles, especially that to the Philippians, out of which this to the Laodiceans was compiled. 1. Gal. i. 1. Paul an apo among those called Mr. Pool's Annotations. i Biblioth. Sanct. lib. 2. ad voc. Paulus, p. 87, 88. |