Slrpm. iii. 2 (p. 515) ; he cites words from it (v.™-) a.-* a ' commandment' in Strom, vi. 8 (p. 773) ; his Jli/pitijponeg contained 'short explanations' of this as of other Catholic Kpistles (Ens. HE vi. 14. 1, Photius, Biblioth. 109; see at end of this art.). The witness of Clement is carried on by Origen. If in one place he hints at doubts about its reception (in Mittt. tom. xvii. 30, et ii xa! ttjk 'loi'/Ja Tpaaoird Ti5 i^^^ln■o\^|l'), yet in anotti^r {in Matt. tom. x. 17), speaking of Jude as one of the Lord's brethren, he commends the Epistle as ' full of strong words of heavenly grace though it be but a few lines in length,' and he repeatedly quotes from or alludes to it (in Juh. tom. xiii. 37, in Matt. torn. xv. 27, "in Eom. lib. iii. 6 [Scriptura sacra], "in Bom. lib. v. 1 [J. Apostolus in epistola catholioa], 'in Ezek. horn, iv. I, 'Ep. ad AUxandrinos, xvii. p. 7f. (ed. Lom- matzsch),*rfePri7k-y). iii. 2. 1 ; the passages marked * are extant only in a Latin translation). It was also commented on by Didymus (Migne, Pat. Gr. xxxix. 1811-1818). (2) Carthage. It was accepted by Tertullian (see above, under ' Text '). (3) Rome. It is included in the Muratorian Canon, not improb- ably the work of Hippolytus (Lightfoot, Clement, ii. p. 405 ff.).* The writer mentions certain writings winch cannot be ' received into the Catholic Church : for gall may not be mixed with honey.' He then continues, ' Epistola sane iude et super- scrictio iohannis duas in catliolica habentur.' The context and the introduction of the sentence by .^ane (' to be sure ') imi)ly that doubts existed which he expressly puts aside (cf. Zahn, Gesch. des NT Kanons, II. i. p. 93). The evidence then justifies Zahn's verdict (ib. I. i. p. 321) that at the meeting- point of the 2nd and 3rd cent, the Epistle was accepted ' in the Catholic Church, the Church of all the countries round the Mediterranean,' a verdict with which Harnack (NT um Jahr 200, 79, 86) substantially agrees. On the other hand, the following facts must be noticed, (a) Though accepted by Tertullian, the Ep. does not appear to be quoted by Cyprian. Like He and Ja, it is omitted in the Canon Mommsenianus (an African list of the middle of the 4th cent. ), unless we accept the somewhat precarious suggestion of Harnack (Theol. Ltzg. 1886, col. 173) that a reference to the Epp. of St. James and St. Jude is intended in the una sola which stands after the mention of the three Epp. of St. John and again after that of the two Epp. of St. Peter (see Zahn, Gesch. II. i. p. 155 n.; Sanday in Studia Bibl. et Eccles. iii. p. 243 if.). It is not unlikely that after the time of Tertullian the Ep. fell out of use in the N. African Church. It should be added that it has no place among the Books contained in the \jB.tva Antiqua travMatio referred to by Cassiodorus (de Instil. Div. Lit. xiv.). (b) It was not included in the Sj-riac Vulgate (cf. Amphilochius, Iambi ad Seleucum (Migne, Pat. Gr. xxxvii. 1593)), nor is it quoted in the Homilies of Aphraat or in the Syriac works of E])hraem (cf. Stud. Bibl. et Eccles. iii. p. 138). None of the Catholic Epistles is mentioned in the Doctrine of Addai (ed. Phillips, p. 44) among the Books pub- licly read in the Syrian Church, (c) There is no evidence that it was accepted in the School of Antioch. The pass.age commonly quoted from the Letter of the oishops who condemned Paul of Samosata (tov Kal rhv debv rbv eavrov \_Kal Kvpiov'\ o-pvovfji^vov Kal Ty)v wLffTtv, 7)v Kal airrbs irpliTepov er^f, ^<; <py\i^ain-os, Eus. HE vii. 30. 4) can hardly be considered as a decisive reference to Jude"-, especi- ally if, according to the best MSS, the words in brackets are omitted. In later times the Ep. does not seem to be quoted in the voluminous works of Chrjsostom or Theodoret, and the phrase used (tQv
• The cU Coruummatume Mundi, in which (c. x.) Jude 18 is quoted, is not a genuine work of Hippolytus (see Hippolyt'8 Eleinere Eztg. u. Horn. Schri/ten, ed. Achelis, p. vii).
(taCoXiiciv iiriaro^al rpeU) in the Si/nopxis (Migne, Pat Gr. Ivi. 313 f.) which bears the name of the formel appears loshowthat Jiule,2P, 1 Jn,2Jnwerekuomi anil deliberately excluded. Tlieodore of Mopsuestia (who made his view of the character of a Book a criterion of canonicity), according to Leontius of Byzantium (Migne, Pat. Gr. Ixxxvi. 1365), rejected (drroKTipiTTei) this Epistle, as also Ja, 2 P, 2 Jn, 3 Jn (see especially Kilin, Theud. von Mops. pp. 67, 75 f. ). This is confirmed by the fact that Juiiilius (Instil regularia, 6, 7), whom Kihn (p. 358 11'.) shows to represent Theodore's views as to the Canon, reckons these Epistles as medice auctoritatis.
We learn from Didymus, though his words in the Latin translation in which they reach us are somewhat obscure, that the Ep. was questioned by some on account of the strange reference to the dispute about Moses' body. We learn from Jerome (de Vir. lllustr. 4) that it was rejected by many ('a plerisqiie') because it quoted from the Book of Enoch. Lusebius (BE iii. 25, cf. ii. 23), reflecting the average opinion of his time, ranks it among ' the disputed Books, which yet are known and acknowledged by most.' The Ep. has a place in the list of Canonical Scriptures set forth by the Third Council of Carthage in A. D. 397. This (janon, supported by the authority of Jerome and Augus- tine, gained universal acceptance in the W. Church.