If I were to ask you, “Who is the father of all heretics?” would you know the answer? It’s astonishing that almost no Christians today has ever even heard of Simon Magus, let alone that virtually all of the heresies we have in the churches today, even in Islam, were created by this man, and that the two greatest apostles, Peter and Paul, personally confronted and supernaturally brought about his death (according to tradition), which led to their martyrdom at the hands of Nero. Simon Magus and his false doctrines are discussed by many of the church fathers, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus, and others.
Irenaeus had a lot of information about Simon Magus, which he shares in his awesome work Against Heresies. He says:
Simon the Samaritan was that magician of whom Luke, the disciple and follower of the apostles, says, But there was a certain man, Simon by name, who beforetime used magical arts in that city, and led astray the people of Samaria, declaring that he himself was some great one, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This is the power of God, which is called great. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had driven them mad by his sorceries (Acts 8:9-11). This Simon, then — who feigned faith, supposing that the apostles themselves performed their cures by the art of magic, and not by the power of God; and with respect to their filling with the Holy Ghost, through the imposition of hands, those that believed in God through Him who was preached by them, namely, Christ Jesus — suspecting that even this was done through a kind of greater knowledge of magic, and offering money to the apostles, thought he, too, might receive this power of bestowing the Holy Spirit on whomsoever he would — was addressed in these words by Peter: Your money perish with you, because you have thought that the gift of God can be purchased with money: you have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right in the sight of God; for I perceive that you are in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. He, then, not putting faith in God a whit the more, set himself eagerly to contend against the apostles, in order that he himself might seem to be a wonderful being, and applied himself with still greater zeal to the study of the whole magic art, that he might the better bewilder and overpower multitudes of men. Such was his procedure in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, by whom also he is said to have been honoured with a statue, on account of his magical power. This man, then, was glorified by many as if he were a god; and he taught that it was himself who appeared among the Jews as the Son, but descended in Samaria as the Father while he came to other nations in the character of the Holy Spirit. He represented himself, in a word, as being the loftiest of all powers, that is, the Being who is the Father over all, and he allowed himself to be called by whatsoever title men were pleased to address him. – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 23
Eusebius, in his book Church History, delivers similar accounts of Simon Magus:
Simon was at that time so celebrated, and had acquired, by his jugglery, such influence over those who were deceived by him, that he was thought to be the Great Power of God. But at this time, being amazed at the wonderful deeds wrought by Philip through the divine power, he feigned and counterfeited faith in Christ, even going so far as to receive baptism. And what is surprising, the same thing is done even to this day by those who follow his most impure heresy. For they, after the manner of their forefather, slipping into the Church, like a pestilential and leprous disease greatly afflict those into whom they are able to infuse the deadly and terrible poison concealed in themselves. The most of these have been expelled as soon as they have been caught in their wickedness, as Simon himself, when detected by Peter, received the merited punishment. – Church History, book 2, chapter 1
1. The evil power, who hates all that is good and plots against the salvation of men, constituted Simon at that time the father and author of such wickedness, as if to make him a mighty antagonist of the great, inspired apostles of our Saviour. – Church History, book 2, chapter 14
3. Wherefore neither the conspiracy of Simon nor that of any of the others who arose at that period could accomplish anything in those apostolic times. For everything was conquered and subdued by the splendors of the truth and by the divine word itself which had but lately begun to shine from heaven upon men, and which was then flourishing upon earth, and dwelling in the apostles themselves. – Church History, book 2, chapter 14
4. Immediately the above-mentioned impostor was smitten in the eyes of his mind by a divine and miraculous flash, and after the evil deeds done by him had been first detected by the apostle Peter in Judea, he fled and made a great journey across the sea from the East to the West, thinking that only thus could he live according to his mind. – Church History, book 2, chapter 14
5. And coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty co-operation of that power which was lying in wait there, he was in a short time so successful in his undertaking that those who dwelt there honored him as a god by the erection of a statue. – Church History, book 2, chapter 14
6. But this did not last long. For immediately, during the reign of Claudius, the all-good and gracious Providence, which watches over all things, led Peter, that strongest and greatest of the apostles, and the one who on account of his virtue was the speaker for all the others, to Rome against this great corrupter of life. – Church History, book 2, chapter 14
Simon Magus is called the father of heretics because he is personally responsible for creating practically every heresy that exists today.
He was responsible for creating the sect of the Gnostics, who claimed to be Christians, but rejected the doctrine of baptismal regeneration:
Irenaeus says: “And when we come to refute them [the Gnostics], we shall show in its fitting place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith…. For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins.” – Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21
Simon Magus also taught that human beings have no free will, a false doctrine which was later revived by the heretic John Calvin. In the Recognitions of Clement, which recounts Peter’s travels with Clement and his confrontations with Simon Magus, Simon denies that humans have free will:
Then Peter said: “If, then, nothing is in our power, it is useless for us to inquire anything concerning God, since it is not in the power of those who seek to find; hence I said well, that this should be the first inquiry, whether anything is in the power of the will.” Then said Simon: “We cannot even understand this that you say, if there is anything in the power of the will.” But Peter, seeing that he was turning to contention, and, through fear of being overcome, was confounding all things as being in general uncertain, answered: “How then do you know that it is not in the power of man to know anything, since this very thing at least you know?” Then Simon said: “I know not whether I know even this; for every one, according as it is decreed to him by fate, either does, or understands, or suffers.” Then Peter said: “See, my brethren, into what absurdities Simon has fallen, who before my coming was teaching that men have it in their power to be wise and to do what they will, but now, driven into a corner by the force of my arguments, he denies that man has any power either of perceiving or of acting.” – Recognitions of Clement, Book 3, chapter 21-22
He’s also responsible for inventing the idea, which is now embraced by all Muslims, that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross.
Irenaeus says: “Now this Simon of Samaria, from whom all sorts of heresies derive their origin, formed his sect out of the following materials…. For since the angels ruled the world ill because each one of them coveted the principal power for himself, he [Simon] had come to amend matters, and had descended, transfigured and assimilated to powers and principalities and angels, so that he might appear among men to be a man, while yet he was not a man; and that thus he was thought to have suffered in Judæa, when he had not suffered.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 23
After Simon taught this wicked heresy, his disciple Basilides developed it to an even greater extent:
Basilides again, that he may appear to have discovered something more sublime and plausible, gives an immense development to [Simon’s] doctrines…. He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all. Those, then, who know these things have been freed from the principalities who formed the world; so that it is not incumbent on us to confess him who was crucified, but him who came in the form of a man, and was thought to be crucified, and was called Jesus, and was sent by the father, that by this dispensation he might destroy the works of the makers of the world. If any one, therefore, he declares, confesses the crucified, that man is still a slave, and under the power of those who formed our bodies; but he who denies him has been freed from these beings, and is acquainted with the dispensation of the unborn father. – Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 24
Tertullian delivers the same information about Simon, but more briefly:
Tertullian: First of all is Simon Magus, who in the Acts of the Apostles earned a condign and just sentence from the Apostle Peter. He had the hardihood to call himself the Supreme Virtue, that is, the Supreme God; and moreover, (to assert) that the universe had been originated by his angels; that he had descended in quest of an erring demon, which was Wisdom; that, in a phantasmal semblance of God, he had not suffered among the Jews, but was as if he had suffered. – Against All Heresies, chapter 1
Most people don’t know that the apostle John, in his first two letters, is specifically responding to the disciples of Simon Magus when He writes:
1 John 4:2-4: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
1 John 2: 26: These things I have written to you concerning those who are trying to deceive you.
2 John 1:7: 7: For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.
You might also be surprised to learn that Simon Magus invented the concept that salvation is by faith alone. He says in the Recognitions of Clement that Peter’s God requires that we obey His laws, but Simon’s God only requires that we believe He exists:
Then Simon said: “But the good God bestows salvation if he is only acknowledged; while the creator of the world demands also that the law be fulfilled.” Then said Peter: “He saves adulterers and men-slayers, if they know him; but good, and sober, and merciful persons, if they do not know him, in consequence of their having no information concerning him, he does not save!” – Recognitions of Clement, Book 2, Chapter 58.
The same demons that inspired Simon Magus to invent these perverse doctrines are still with us today, regurgitating the ideas he was propagating 2000 years ago. Nothing has changed, and we owe all of these evil heresies to this man who was one of the very first apostates from the Christian faith. That’s why the story about him was recorded in Scripture, so that Christians would know the backstory of this famous man, who was well-known as the father of all heresies. Even the sin of Simony is named after this man, because he tried to purchase the gifts of God with money, a sin which the Roman Catholic and Orthodox denominations became guilty of, and many other heresies started with him.
His life concluded with a confrontation between him and the apostles Peter and Paul in Rome, where he died after an epic showdown, where he tried to convince bystanders to worship him by flying in the air, and after the apostles prayed for God to make those demons powerless who were lifting him into the sky on a chariot, he fell to the ground and broke his bones:
Arnobius: In Rome herself, finally, the mistress of the world, in which, although men are busied with the practices introduced by king Numa, and the superstitious observances of antiquity, they have nevertheless hastened to give up their fathers’ mode of life, and attach themselves to Christian truth. For they had seen the chariot of Simon Magus, and his fiery car, blown into pieces by the mouth of Peter, and vanish when Christ was named. They had seen him, I say, trusting in false gods, and abandoned by them in their terror, borne down headlong by his own weight, lie prostrate with his legs broken…. – Against the Heathen, book ii
Eusebius: For that divine and celestial grace which co-operates with its ministers, by their appearance and presence, quickly extinguished the kindled flame of evil, and humbled and cast down through them every high thing that exalted itself against the knowledge of God…. And thus when the divine word had made its home among them, the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself. – Church History, book 2, chapter 14-15
Hippolytus: This Simon, deceiving many in Samaria by his sorceries, was reproved by the Apostles, and was laid under a curse, as it has been written in the Acts. But he afterwards abjured the faith, and attempted these (aforesaid practices). And journeying as far as Rome, he fell in with the Apostles; and to him, deceiving many by his sorceries, Peter offered repeated opposition. – Against Heresies, book 6, chapter 15
Cyril: As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right; and when the supposed god Simon wished to show himself off, they straightway showed him as a corpse. For Simon promised to rise aloft to heaven, and came riding in a demon chariot on the air; but the servants of God fell on their knees, and having shown that agreement of which Jesus spoke, that “If two of you shall agree concerning anything that they shall ask, it shall be done unto them,” they launched the weapon of their concord in prayer against Magus, and struck him down to the earth. And marvelous though it was, yet no marvel. For Peter was there, who carries the keys of heaven: and nothing wonderful, for Paul was there, who was caught up to the third heaven, and into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful far a man to utter. These brought the supposed god down from the sky to earth, thence to be taken down to the regions below the earth…. – Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 6, paragraph 15
Now, the church fathers not only hand down the tradition that Peter and Paul founded the church of Rome together, and that they were martyred together at the same time, but they even tell us details about the circumstances of their martyrdom. They hand down the tradition that Peter and Paul were executed at the command of Nero right after they defeated Simon Magus.
Lactantius: And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple unto the Lord. When Nero heard of those things, and observed that not only in Rome, but in every other place, a great multitude revolted daily from the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, went over to the new religion, he, an execrable and pernicious tyrant, sprung forward to raze the heavenly temple and destroy the true faith. He it was who first persecuted the servants of God; he crucified Peter, and slew Paul. – On The Manner In Which The Persecutors Died
Dionysius of Corinth: “You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time.” – (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
Eusebius: The Roman Tertullian is likewise a witness of this. He writes as follows: “Examine your records. There you will find that Nero was the first that persecuted this doctrine, particularly then when after subduing all the east, he exercised his cruelty against all at Rome. We glory in having such a man the leader in our punishment. For whoever knows him can understand that nothing was condemned by Nero unless it was something of great excellence.” Thus publicly announcing himself as the first among God’s chief enemies, he was led on to the slaughter of the apostles. It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. – Church History, book ii, chapter 4-5
There is no better source for learning the particulars about Simon Magus and his confrontation with Peter than from a lesser-known book called The Recognitions of Clement. The church fathers hand down a tradition that Clement of Rome, mentioned in Philippians 4, was the traveling companion of Peter over the course of many years and was later ordained as bishop of Rome by Peter and Paul.
Irenaeus: The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. – Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 3
Tertullian: … Let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that that bishop [of theirs] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men, — a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. – Prescription Against Heretics, chapter 32
Eusebius: Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier. – Eusebius, book 3, chapter 4, paragraph 10
Clement wrote the most famous letter entitled 1 Clement, and is thought to have also delivered the sermon referred to as 2 Clement, as well as the two epistles on virginity. But the most important of all his works is a criminally-overlooked book called The Recognitions, or as it’s sometimes called “The Travels of Peter,” because it contains a very instructive and relatable story about how Clement came to faith in Christ, and how he asked all the same questions every new convert asks, having them answered directly by Peter himself. This book is about as close to a sequel to the book of Acts as you can get, and is extremely edifying for anyone wishing to learn about Christianity and hear a refutation of virtually every heresy from one of the most eminent bishops in church history, who heard these teachings directly from Peter.
The Recognitions of Clement is not only a great asset for refuting the many heresies invented by Simon Magus (which still exist to this day), but also for teaching in many other respects. It is the perfect introduction for catechumens as it gives a brief history of the world, and very in-depth explanations of every particular doctrine, such as repentance, baptism, the eucharist, the definition of orthodoxy, the fulfillment of the Old Covenant law, why God allows evil in the world, how to treat our unbelieving family members, how to approach disputes with heretics, and many other subjects which we desperately need instruction about in our age.
Unfortunately, this book has been disparaged by scholars in modern times, and we’d like to make a brief defense of it in case anyone is skeptical about its authenticity. If you read any scholarly synopsis of the book, you’ll see it described as a “romance,” a kind of fan-fiction written by some unknown person. But as we’re about to show, no one in the early church thought this. It’s nothing but a foolish conspiracy theory pushed by the same kind of people who would deny the gospels were true historical accounts.
Our translation of the Recognitions comes from Rufinus, a renowned Christian monk and historian who translated many of the ante-Nicene church fathers’ writings into Latin in the late 300s. He confirms that there was a legitimate book written by Clement of Rome, Peter’s disciple, recounting the story of Clement’s conversion and his travels with Peter, which was very popular in the churches, but that an early heretical group called the Ebionites (who accepted Jesus as Christ but denied him to be truly divine) took a manuscript of the Recognitions, corrupted it by inserting Ebionitic doctrines into it, and then gave away copies for free to spread their false doctrines under the guise of Peter supposedly teaching those heresies. After this happened, the churches were reluctant to read Recognitions in public anymore because so many copies had false doctrine in them and unsuspecting Christians were being led astray. Epiphanius, a bishop living in the late 300s, writes about these heretics in his book, the Panarion (or “Medicine Chest”), where he refutes all the heresies of times past:
15,1 But they (the Ebionites) use certain other books as well—supposedly the so-called Travels of Peter written by Clement, though they corrupt their contents while leaving a few genuine passages.
15,3 In the Travels they have changed everything to suit themselves and slandered Peter in many ways….
As you can see, Epiphanius wasn’t denying that a legitimate version of this book ever existed. He was criticizing the Ebionites for corrupting it! There are TWO versions of Recognitions extant today, one of which does indeed contain reprehensible heresies (where a false version of Peter denies that Adam ever sinned, and says other blatantly ridiculous things) and another version which Rufinus endorsed as authentic. The original version of the book is The Recognitions of Clement, and the corrupted one is now called “the Clementine Homilies,” which Epiphanius rightly condemns. The Homilies are longer than the Recognitions and have many additions that are clearly inserted by the Ebionites. Recognitions is the version Rufinus gave us. We thank God that these two versions are preserved, because it proves there really were heretics who corrupted the text.
Foolish scholars, however, call BOTH versions “spurious,” meaning counterfeit, as if the original, unadulterated version of Recognitions simply never existed! This is pure delusion. They’ll use quotes such as these from Epiphanius, who talks about the Ebionites inserting fabricated statements into the text, as proof that the Recognitions is an untrustworthy book, when these very quotes ADMIT that Clement really did write the original version of this book, and Rufinus plainly says that his copy of Recognitions is trustworthy. He would not have translated it into Latin for so many Christians to read if there were any obvious heresies in it. On the contrary, in his preface, he teaches that Clement’s book is most useful in dispelling heresies. He says:
This work is nothing but the payment of a debt due to the command laid upon me by the virgin Sylvia whose memory I revere… to translate Clement into our language. The debt is paid at last, though after many delays. It is a part of the booty, and in my opinion no small one, which I have carried off from the libraries of the Greeks, and which I am collecting for the use and advantage of our countrymen. I have no food of my own to bring them, and I must import their nourishment from abroad. However, foreign goods are apt to appear sweeter; and sometimes they are really more useful. Moreover, almost anything which brings healing to our bodies or is a defense against disease or an antidote to poison comes from abroad. Judæa sends us the distillation of the balsam tree, Crete the leaf of the dictamnus, Arabia her aromatic flowers, and India the crop of the spikenard. These goods come to us, no doubt, in a less perfect condition than those which our own fields produce, but they preserve intact their pleasant scent and their healing power. Therefore, my friend who are as my own soul, I present to you Clement returning to Rome. I present him dressed in a Latin garb. – Rufinus, preface to Recognitions, addressed to bishop Gaudentius.
Again, Rufinus, in the Epilogue of his book “On the falsification of the books of Origen,” has this to say about Recognitions:
Clement, the disciple of the Apostles, who was bishop of the Roman church next to the Apostles, was a martyr, wrote the work which is called in the Greek ᾽Αναγνωρισμός, or in Latin, The Recognition. In these books he sets forth again and again in the name of the Apostle Peter a doctrine which appears to be truly apostolical: yet in certain passages the heresy of Eunomius is so brought in that you would imagine that you were listening to an argument of Eunomius himself, asserting that the Son of God was created out of no existing elements. Then again that other method of falsification is introduced, by which it is made to appear that the nature of the devil and of other demons has not resulted from the wickedness of their will and purpose, but from an exceptional and separate quality of their creation, although he in all other places had taught that every reasonable creature was endowed with the faculty of free will. There are also some other things inserted into his books which the church’s creed does not admit.
I ask, then, what we are to think of these things? Are we to believe that an apostolic man, nay, almost an apostle (since he writes the things which the apostles speak), one to whom the apostle Paul bore his testimony in the words, “With Clement and others, my fellow labourers, whose names are in the book of life” was the writer of words which contradict the book of life? Or are we to say, as we have said before, that perverse men, in order to gain authority for their own heresies by the use of the names of holy men, and so procure their readier acceptance, interpolated these things which it is impossible to believe that the true authors either thought or wrote?
At the bottom of the page, there’s a footnote from one of the translators which reads:
Rufinus was deceived, as was the whole world until the revival of learning, in believing this fabrication to be the work of Clement. It is really a romance in the form of an autobiography of Clement, supposed to be addressed to James of Jerusalem; and was written probably in Asia Minor or Syria about a.d. 200. See Article “Clementine Literature” in Dict. of Ch. Biog.
And so the translators admit that the whole church believed Recognitions to be the genuine work of Clement, while simultaneously trying to disparage it. But no one can give a more glowing endorsement of a book than to say “the entire church believed this book to be genuine.”
Origen (in about 231 AD) quotes a huge section of Recognitions of Clement in the Philocalia in order to refute heresies. He calls it “The Travels of Peter,” because that was the name it commonly went by:
And Clement of Rome in his argument with his father at Laodicea has some comments on the question before us – the passage occurs in The Travels – which agree with the foregoing…. – Philocalia of Origen, chapter 23, paragraph 21
Origen clearly possessed an unadulterated copy of The Travels of Peter for him to be quoting it so nonchalantly in his writings, and in this lengthy section he quotes from, the words match our current version of Recognitions word-for-word. The question is, why would Origen be quoting from Recognitions if the book had only been written a few years prior? Origen quotes from it as if his listeners are already well-acquainted with the book and will accept its teaching, with no misgivings about its authorship.
Again, the church father Bardesanes (who lived from 154 to 222) quotes from Recognitions extensively against the Gnostics, and yet these conspiracy-theorist scholars have the gall to suggest that’s evidence he might have written the entire book of Recognitions himself! What a ridiculous suggestion. These are the kinds of bizarre ideas you get from so-called scholars. If Bardesanes himself were the author of Recognitions, he would be exposing himself as an open liar by publishing these same teachings twice, once under the name of himself and again under the name of Clement, since everyone would see that his own writings contained sections of Recognitions! Not even a very stupid fraudster would sabotage himself like that.
If you use simple logic and disengage all of this foolish skepticism about who the true author is, you would see that the most obvious explanation for why Bardesanes writings are, in many places, word-for-word the same as Recognitions, is that Bardesanes is QUOTING the Recognitions, not that Recognitions is BASED on Bardesanes’ writings! Bardesanes copied material from the Recognitions of Clement because it was a well-known book with the greatest arguments against Gnosticism, as it refutes the very founder of their sect, Simon Magus.
In an introductory notice for The Recognitions, one translator states:
“There is scarcely a single writing which is of so great importance for the history of Christianity in its first stage, and which has already given such brilliant disclosures at the hands of the most renowned critics in regard to the earliest history of the Christian Church, as the writings ascribed to the Roman Clement, the Recognitions and Homilies.” – Rev. Thomas Smith, D.D.
Another translator says:
“No conclusion has been reached in regard to the author. Some have believed that it is a genuine work of Clement. Whiston maintained that it was written by some of his hearers and companions. Others have attributed the work to Bardesanes. But most acknowledge that there is no possibility of discovering who was the author.” – Die Clementinischen Rekognitionen und Homilien, von Dr. Adolf Hilgenfeld, Jena, 1848
As for us, we choose to believe the church’s testimony that Clement really did write this book, and we hope it edifies you as much as it edifies us. We leave you with one final message from Rufinus, who delivered to us this most valuable treasure from the early church:
These are foreign wares, then, which I am importing at a great expense of labour; and I have still to see whether our countrymen will regard with gratitude one who is bringing them the spoils of his warfare, and who is unlocking with the key of our language a treasure house hitherto concealed, though he does it with the utmost good will. I only trust that God may look favourably on your good wishes, so that my present may not be met in any quarter by evil eyes and envious looks; and that we may not witness that extremely monstrous phenomenon, expressions of ill will on the part of those on whom the gift is conferred, while those from whom it is taken part with it ungrudgingly.