Page:Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ (1836).djvu/444



D. 230,) very clearly expresses his opinion in favor of this epistle as the production of Jude, the brother of Jesus. In his commentary on Matt. xiii. 55, where James, Simon and Jude are mentioned, he says, "Jude wrote an epistle, of few lines indeed, but full of powerful words of heavenly grace, who, at the beginning says, 'Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and the brother of James.'" Origen thought everything connected with this epistle, of such high authority, that he considered the apocryphal book of "the Ascension of Moses," a work of authority, because it had been quoted by Jude, (verse 9.) He confesses however, that there were some who doubted the authenticity of the epistle of Jude; and that this was the fact, appears still more distinctly from the account of the apostolic writings, given by Eusebius, (A. D. 320,) who sets it down among the disputed writings. The ancient Syriac version (executed before A. D. 100,) rejects this as well as the second of Peter, and the second and third of John. After the fourth century all these became universally established in the Greek and Latin churches. The great Michaelis however, utterly condemns it as probably a forgery. (Introd. IV. xxix. 5.)

The clearest statement of the character of this reference to the book of Enoch, is given by Hug's translator, Dr. Wait. (Introd. Vol. II. p. 618, note.)

"This manifestly appears to have been the reason why Jude cited apocryphal works in his epistle, viz. for the sake of refuting their own assertions from those productions, which, like the rest of their nation, they most probably respected. For this purpose the book of Enoch was peculiarly calculated, since in the midst of all its ineptiae and absurdities, this point, and the orders of the spiritual world, are strongly urged and discussed in it. It is irrelevant to the inquiry, how much of the present book existed at this time, for that it was framed by different writers, and at different periods, no critic can deny; yet that this was the leading character of the work, and that these were the prominent dogmata of those parts which were then in existence, we have every presumptive evidence. The Hebrew names of angels, &c., such as the Ophanim, plainly indicate it to have been a translation from some lost Jewish original, which was doubtless known both to Peter and to Jude; nor can the unprejudiced examiner of these epistles well hesitate to acknowledge Hug's explanation of them to be the most correct and the most reasonable."

The whole defense of the epistle against these imputations, may be grounded upon the supposition, that the apostle was writing against a peculiar class of heretics, who did acknowledge these apocryphal books to be of divine authority, and to whom he might quote these with a view to show, that even by their own standards of truth, their errors of doctrine and life must be condemned. The sect of the Gnostics has been already mentioned in the life of John, as being the first ever known to have perverted the purity of Christian doctrine, by heresy. These heretics certainly are not very fully described in those few passages of this short epistle that are directed at the errors of doctrine; but the character of those errors which Jude denounces, is accordant with what is known of some of the prominent peculiarities of the Gnostics. But whatever may have been the particular character of these heretics, it is evident that they must, like the great majority of the Jews in those days, have acknowledged the divine authority of these ancient apocryphal writings; and the apostle was therefore right in making use of quotations from these works, to refute their very remarkable errors. The evils which he denounced, however, were not merely of a speculative character; but he more especially condemns their gross immoralities, as