2. The authority of the Epistle asserted against ancients hesitating in uncertainty, and the Centuriators.
Eusebius in his Historia Ecclesiastica, book VI, section 12, and Jerome in his catalogue, relate that there was of old opposition to this Epistle. Eusebius acknowledges that this is nevertheless acknowledged among the seven catholic Epistles, and was published in many Churches. But he himself makes it νοθεύει/spurious, by this argument, that few of the ancients make mention of it. Which is not very solid. It was able to happen, of course, that many that wrote, either did not understand this Epistle; or read it in passing; or had no occasion to cite it; or did not see it, because it, having been inscribed to no particular Church, came into notice gradually; or were uncertain about it, having seen it. Just as also some doubted of the resurrection of Christ, Mark 16:11, 14, even after they had seen Him, Matthew 28:17. Which doubt, nevertheless, does not at all shake the truth of the resurrection of Christ. Athanasius in his time reckoned it among the undoubted Catholic Epistles. Tertuallian acknowledged it to have been written by the Apostle Jude; and Clement of Alexandria, in his Pædagogo, book III, section 8, and his Stromata, book III, cites the words of Jude, nothing doubting. Jerome also writes that it was worthy of authority by its antiquity and use, and that it was reckoned among the Sacred Scriptures; adding, nevertheless, that it was rejected by many, because he received testimony from the book of Enoch, which is Apocryphal. As if Jude commends the authority of that Apocryphal book, and not rather of its Prophecy. In addition, the arguments brought against the authority of this Epistle by the Centuriators and others, the Most Illustrious GOMARUS, Explicatione Epistolæ Judæ, Opera, pages 742, 743, solidly refutes.