Simon Magus and The Recognitions of Clement

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

It was from Simon’s Gnostic sect that the Muslims derived their idea that Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, but that Jesus miraculously pasted His own face on Simon of Cyrene, who carried His cross, which caused Simon to be crucified in His stead, while he laughed from a distance:

Saturnus [a Gnostic teacher] presented it as a truth that the Savior was without birth, without body, and without form. Rather, he only appeared to be a visible man. Saturnus asserted that the God of the Jews was one of the angels. It was for this reason that Christ came to destroy the God of the Jews: because all the powers wished to destroy His Father. . . . This heretic was the first to declare that two kinds of men were created by the angels—one kind who are wicked and the other who are good. . . . Furthermore, He did not suffer death Himself. Rather, Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, under compulsion carried the cross in his place. Now Jesus changed the appearance of this Simon so that everyone would think he was Jesus. Through ignorance and error, Simon was crucified, while Jesus Himself took on the form of Simon and stood by and laughed at everyone. – Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 1, chapter 24

Quran: That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”; but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. – Surah An-Nisa 4:157

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. 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.

Origen again in his Commentary on Matthew references Recognitions as a book that has the genuine teachings of Peter, his words are:

Therefore, just as in general everything with which someone is anointed is called oil, but one oil is ointment and another is not, in the same way, one ointment is cheap and another expensive. So, every right action is called a good work, but there is one good work that we do because of people or in relation to people, and there is another that we do because of God and in relation to God. In the same way, in respect to what we do because of God, there is one that is profitable for the use of people, and another that is not profitable for the use of people, but only for the glory of God. For example, someone does something good for a person, moved by natural justice, not because of God (how the Gentiles used to act at one time and many people still do); that work is common oil and does not possess a great aroma, nevertheless, it too is acceptable to God, just as Daniel indicates when he says to Nebuchadnezzar who does not know God: “Listen to my counsel, O king, and redeem your sins with alms.” Peter also says something like this in Clement, that good works that are done by the unbelieving are useful for them in this age but not also in that for attaining eternal life, and appropriately so because they do not act for the sake of God but for the sake of human nature itself. But it is profitable for those who act for the sake of God, that is the faithful, not only in this age but also in that one, and especially in that one. – The Commentary of Origen on the Gospel of Matthew, Volume 2, Series 77

• Peter, Clementine Homilies 10.2 “There seems to me to be a great difference between the ignorant and the erring. For the ignorant man seems to me to be like a man who does not wish to set out for a richly stored city, through his not knowing the excellent things that are there; but the erring man to be like one who has learned indeed the good things that are in the city, but who has forsaken the highway in proceeding towards it, and so has wandered. Thus, therefore, it seems to me that there is a great difference between those who worship idols and those who are faulty in the worship of God. For they who worship idols are ignorant of eternal life, and therefore they do not desire it; for what they do not know, they cannot love. But those who have chosen to worship one God, and who have learned of the eternal life given to the good, if they either believe or do anything different from what is pleasing to God, are like to those who have gone out from the city of punishment, and are desirous to come to the well-stored city, and on the road have strayed from the right path.”
• Origen says “Peter also says something like this in Clement”, this is the closest passage we can get to that is close to what Origen says, or its part of a passage not in either version of Recognitions, or its just a paraphrase of Peters teachings throughout the entire book—because remember, Rufinus said in his preface to his translation that he left some portions out that were too difficult to translate, or he wasnt sure if it was there were some corrupted passages. But the Homilies version does still have authentic teachings from Peter that aren’t in Recognitions, but the book itself has many heresies interpolated into the mouth of Peter, with many genuine passages still in it from the Apostle Peter(As Epiphanius says in the late 4th century: “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….In the Travels they have changed everything to suit themselves and slandered Peter in many ways….” (Medicine Chest 15.1, 3) Origen is referencing: one of those portions of the original work that is authentic, but sadly is only found in the version that was corrupted by heretics.

Jerome (in about 387 AD) in his Commentary on Galatians 1.18a also references Recognitions as being a genuine work of Clement, and Jerome was basing his commentary off Origen’s lost commentary on Galatians but adding, paraphrasing or just giving Origen’s interpretations and words, which could be evidence Origen did reference this book in his Commentary on Galatians. But if Origen did not, Jerome references the book, his words are: 

“Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter.” It was not to look at his eyes, cheeks, and face, to find out whether he was skinny or chubby, whether he had a straight or crooked nose, and whether he wore his hair in the front or had a bald spot (as Clement relates in his Travels). – Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1:18

Another reference that validates the history of Recognitions is Apostolic Constitutions, where Peter talks about the details of his debate with Simon Magus. Peter says he met Simon at Cæsarea Stratonis, and Peter names different Christians who accompanied him, he says he spoke with Simon concerning ‘the True Prophet’ (a title given to Jesus dozens of times throughout Recognitions), pay attention to the connections:

And Simon meeting me Peter, first at Cæsarea Stratonis (where the faithful Cornelius, a Gentile, believed on the Lord Jesus by me), endeavoured to pervert the word of God; there being with me the holy children, Zacchæus, who was once a publican, and Barnabas; and Nicetas and Aquila, brethren of Clement the bishop and citizen of Rome, who was the disciple of Paul, our fellow-apostle and fellow-helper in the Gospel. I thrice discoursed before them with him concerning the true Prophet, and concerning the monarchy of God; and when I had overcome him by the power of the Lord, and had put him to silence, I drove him away into Italy. Apostolic Constitutions, Book 6, chapter 8

• While, therefore, we abode in Jericho, and gave ourselves to prayer and fasting, James the bishop sent for me, and sent me here to Cæsarea, saying that Zacchæus had written to him from Cæsarea, that one Simon, a Samaritan magician, was subverting many of our people, asserting that he was one Stans, — that is, in other words, the Christ, and the great power of the high God, which is superior to the Creator of the world; at the same time that he showed many miracles, and made some doubt, and others fall away to him. He informed me of all things that had been ascertained respecting this man from those who had formerly been either his associates or his disciples, and had afterwards been converted to Zacchæus. ‘Many therefore there are, O Peter,’ said James, ‘for whose safety’s sake it behooves you to go and to refute the magician, and to teach the word of truth. Therefore make no delay; nor let it grieve you that you set out alone, knowing that God by Jesus will go with you, and will help you, and that soon, by His grace, you will have many associates and sympathizers. Now be sure that you send me in writing every year an account of your sayings and doings, and especially at the end of every seven years.’ With these expressions he dismissed me, and in six days I arrived at Cæsarea. Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book 1, chapter 72

• When Zacchæus had heard these things, he told me in return of the doings of Simon; and in the meantime Simon himself — how he heard of my arrival I do not know— sent a message to me, saying, ‘Let us dispute tomorrow in the hearing of the people.’ To which I answered, ‘Be it so, as it pleases you.’ And this promise of mine was known over the whole city, so that even you, who arrived on that very day, learned that I was to hold a discussion with Simon on the following day, and having found out my abode, according to the directions which you had received from Barnabas, came to me. But I so rejoiced at your coming, that my mind, moved I know not how, hastened to expound all things quickly to you, yet especially that which is the main point in our faith, concerning the true Prophet, which alone, I doubt not, is a sufficient foundation for the whole of our doctrine…Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book 1, chapter 74

• When the day dawned which had been fixed for the discussion with Simon, Peter, rising at the first cock-crowing, aroused us also: for we were sleeping in the same apartment, thirteen of us in all; of whom, next to Peter, Zacchæus was first, then Sophonius, Joseph and Michæas, Eliesdrus, Phineas, Lazarus, and Elisæus: after these I (Clement) and Nicodemus; then Niceta and Aquila, who had formerly been disciples of Simon, and were converted to the faith of Christ under the teaching of Zacchæus… Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book 2, chapter 1

Maximus of Turin (380-465 AD), disciple of Ambrose of Milan says:

“In the first letters of these five Greek words lies this mystery . . . concerning the Lord Christ, blessed Peter himself . . . . whoever truly wishes to receive the prophet’s word—whether he wishes or does not wish—must accept His commands. “For,” he (Peter) says, “we are of free will. If it were otherwise, the hearers would no longer have it in their power to do anything other than what they had heard; and then some force of nature would be compelling them, leaving no freedom to choose another course. Or again, if none of the hearers at all were to receive the message, then this too would be the force of nature, compelling only one result and preventing the other. . . . because the book . . . if a man wishes, he may turn aside to either part . . . and whichever path he chooses, it is clear . . . From the beginning God established kingdoms . . . and granted authority to men, so that each person might become a citizen of the kingdom to which he subjects himself in obedience. And because it is determined by God that no man can be a servant of both kingdoms, strive with all diligence to run toward the covenant and laws of the Good King. For this reason the true Prophet, when He was present with us and saw certain of the rich neglectful in the worship of God, revealed this matter plainly . . .” and so forth, as St Peter continues up to this point.” – Maximus of Turin, Against the Pagans PL 57.790A-C (5th century)

– Recognitions 5.6 “For we are free in will. For if it were so, that those who hear had it not in their power to do otherwise than they had heard, there were some power of nature in virtue of which it were not free to him to pass over to another opinion. Or if, again, no one of the hearers could at all receive it, this also were a power of nature which should compel the doing of some one thing, and should leave no place for the other course. But now, since it is free for the mind to turn its judgment to which side it pleases, and to choose the way which it approves, it is clearly manifest that there is in men a liberty of choice.”

– Recognitions 5.9 “For he who persists in evil, and is the servant of evil, cannot be made a portion of good so long as he persists in evil, because from the beginning, as we have said, God instituted two kingdoms, and has given to each man the power of becoming a portion of that kingdom to which he shall yield himself to obey. And since it is decreed by God that no one man can be a servant of both kingdoms, therefore endeavour with all earnestness to betake yourselves to the covenant and laws of the good King. Wherefore also the true Prophet, when He was present with us, and saw some rich men negligent with respect to the worship of God, thus unfolded the truth of this matter: ‘No one,’ said He, ‘can serve two masters; ye cannot serve God and mammon;’ Matthew 6:24 calling riches, in the language of His country, mammon.”

• Since this section from Maximus is missing text that was not preserved, its possible Maxiumus quoted chapters 6-9.

“The patience of God waits for the conversion of men while they are still in this body; but if they persist in impiety until the end of life, then the soul, when it departs—being immortal—will pay immortal penalties for its persistent impiety. “For we,” says the holy Peter himself, whose discourse from the history of blessed Clement his disciple we have taken up and woven together with our own words for support—“we,” he says, “have been sent for this purpose: to expose to you the hiding places of the ancient serpent, and, removing the enmities, to reconcile you to God.”” – Maximus of Turin, Against the Pagans PL 57.792A (5th century)

– Recognitions 5.28 “But we are sent for this end, that we may betray his disguises to you; and melting your enmities, may reconcile you to God, that you may be converted to Him, and may please Him by good works.”

We also have another witness to Recognitions from an Anonymous commentary on Matthew found in Patrologia Graeca volume 56, this commentary is traditionally attributed to John Chrysostom, but it is another writer from the 5th century, his words are:

“So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).” Matthew 24:15 Some say that the abomination of desolation was the image of Caesar that Pilate put in the temple. But the Evangelist Luke more accurately interprets what is the desolating sacrilege. For in the place where the current passage of Matthew and Mark write, “But when you see the desolating sacrilege,” in that very passage Luke writes, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.”? And so he says who are in Judea, namely, in order to show by the other resemblance of the explanation of this passage what is the desolating sacrilege standing in the Holy Place. For there was an army of foreigners and the Roman emperor standing around Jerusalem, which up until then was holy. Peter also explained this in Clement. Finally, the text itself also showed that this is the desolating sacrilege. For it is as if he goes back over all those things that he had said earlier and summarizes them briefly and says, “So when you see the desolating sacrilege… standing, ” that is, “When you see those very battles now standing around Jerusalem, which you had previously heard about.” – Unknown author, Commentary on Matthew 24, PG 56.906

• Recognitions Book 1 chapter 65 is where you can find the Apostle Peter’s teaching being referenced.

…We must leave behind the historical narrative and understand this spiritually about Christ. That is what Peter says in Acts, when he interprets “For you will not… let your Holy One see corruption” 14 as not being able to be understood about David but about Christ, because David saw corruption but Christ did not, since he rose on the third day…. False Christians either could not behave as true Christians do, or they could not do the sort of things that true Christians can, but they did empty things—things that provoked wonder, to be sure, but had no use—as we have often explained. But Christians were doing many things, not only things that provoked wonder but also were very useful. And by these signs real Christians and false Christians were recognized. But now the working of signs has been altogether diminished, but the working of signs is to be found more among those who are false Christians. But Peter explained in Clement that the power to do greater signs would be given to the Antichrist. Unknown author, Commentary on Matthew 24, PG 56.909 

• Recognitions Book 3 chapters 60-61 is where you can find the Apostle Peter’s teaching being referenced.
• Notice that this commentator appeals to Peters genuine words in the Acts of the Apostles “This is what Peter SAYS in Acts…” then some paragraphs later he says “But Peter EXPLAINED in Clement…” which proves he viewed the Recognitions of Clement as recording the genuine words and teachings of Peter just like he believed about the book of Acts.

For at the time of the apostles and a little later, the servants of Christ were doing useful, powerful and right-handed signs, such as giving the blind sight and other things of this kind, but the servants of the devil did useless, vain, left-handed works that stir up the admiration of those who see them but are not useful to anybody. And it was possible to distinguish between the servants of Christ and the servants of the devil on this basis: who did useless signs, and who did useful ones? But at the end of time this power will be granted to the devil, as Peter explained in the history of Clement, so that the devil will do useful signs and in a way that earlier the saints had been accustomed to do, so that now we recognize the servants of Christ no long by the criterion that they do useful signs but rather that they do not do these signs at all. — Unknown author, Commentary on Matthew 24:24, PG 56.915

• Recognitions Book 3 chapters 59-60 is where you can find the Apostle Peter’s teaching being referenced.

Presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria (435-526 AD) in his Commentary on Acts (Fragments) says:

Acts 13:48. “And as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.” Thus, according to foreknowledge, those appointed to life believed—yet by their own decision and choice. For God’s foreknowledge of our will does not take away free will. For example, Paul, predestined before the foundation of the world according to God’s foreknowledge to be a chosen vessel, did not attain this in his mother’s womb, nor in tender age, but in the course of time, when he came to the knowledge of what is good and beautiful. And according to his way of life he was formerly a blasphemer and persecutor, but afterward, by the grace of Jesus, converted, trembling at the vision on the way, and freely believing in Jesus. But someone may ask: Why then does not fear now cause unbelievers to be converted? The answer is that not every man is converted through fear, but he who, by good choice, performs pious works. For example, Cornelius, Paul, and Clement, though misled into error about the knowledge of the truth by faith handed down from their fathers, yet, without the vain love of disputation, believed the true teachings of the Scriptures and were saved—even though their upbringing was outside the divine faith. — Ammonius of Alexandria (Fragments on Acts, PG 85.1542, 1543)

• The only Clement he has to be referring to is the one mentioned in the Scriptures who was a co-laborer with Paul (Philippians 4:3). And the only book you’ll find this information Ammonius says about Clement is in the Recognitions of Clement. Starting from Book one in the beginning chapters, Clement talks about his upbringing and his search for the truth—and throughout the rest of the books it rest fits Ammonius description about Clement. And what Ammonius says about Paul is referring to Paul’s upbringing as the son of a pharisee, the Scriptures call them a heretical sect. 

Gennadius of Massilia:

Rufinus, presbyter of the Church of Aquileia, was no small figure among the teachers of the Church, and he possessed a refined talent for translating from Greek into Latin. In fact, he presented to the Latins the greater part of the Greek library—namely, the works of Basil of Caesarea in Cappadocia, of Gregory Nazianzen, that most eloquent man, and the books of the Recognitions of Clement of Rome, as well as the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, together with the Sentences of Sixtus and the Sentences of Evagrius. – Gennadius of Massilia, On Ecclesiastical Writers, chapter 17 (495 AD)

– Gennadius is putting Recognitions on the same level as Basil, Gregory, and Church History!

Aldhelm of Sherborne (640 AD-709 AD) says:

Clement, the first successor of the heavenly key-bearer and the second steward of the Roman Church (although some, in vain, prefer Linus and Cletus in the government of the pontificate), himself reveals with his own written testimony that he deeply cherished the chastity of celibacy, even before he had been cleansed of original guilt by immersion in the saving laver of baptism, saying: “I, Clement, born in the city of Rome, from my earliest age pursued the discipline of chastity.” (Recognitions Book 1.1) Therefore, if he, not yet reborn, claimed for himself and so highly valued what is acknowledged to be the most excellent among all degrees of virtue and most difficult for human nature, how much more is it right to believe that, after receiving the first principles of faith, having rejected the rites of the Gentiles, while he followed Peter through the provinces—Peter who sowed the seeds of the divine word and planted the shoots of the evangelical vine in the trenches of believers, and tore out by the root the deadly wild grapes of Simonian necromancy—he preserved it more fully and perfectly, he who later refined with utmost clarity the itinerary of Peter, arranged in ten books, which Rufinus translated into Latin from the libraries of the Greeks! – Aldhelm of Sherborne, On the Praises of Virginity, chapter 25 (680 AD) – Patrologia Latina 89.122C

…We, however—contrary to the opinion of many—have found that Simon, the inventor of magical arts, was the originator of this tonsure. For the contest of the apostles and the ten books of Clement bear witness to the kind and extent of the necromantic fraud he deceitfully plotted against the blessed Peter. We, I say, bearing witness according to the sacred authority of Scripture to the truth of our tonsure, affirm that the apostle Peter adopted this rite for several reasons. First, so that he might bear on his head the form and likeness of Christ, who, for our redemption, was about to endure the gibbet of the cross, and was cruelly crowned by the vile nation of the Jews with the sharp thorns of a piercing crown. … — Aldhelm of Sherborne, Epistle 1 (705 AD) Patrologia Latina 89.89B-C

The ‘Venerable’ Bede also makes reference to Recognitions of Clement, he was declared a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church by Pope Leo XIII in 1899:

Wind is air set in motion and stirred, as can be demonstrated easily with a small fan; nothing else is meant by it than a wave or surge of air, which, as Clement says, is gathered and forced into winds from certain high mountains, as if compressed and narrowed by the ordinance of God, to stir up the waves and to moderate the heat. Yet according to the various regions of the sky, it takes on different names. – The Venerable Bede, On the Nature of Things, Preface, chapter 26, (703 AD) – PL 90.247A

• “But what of those things also which we see on the earth, or in the sea? Are we not plainly taught, that not only the work, but also the providence, of God is in them? For whereas there are on the earth lofty mountains in certain places, the object of this is, that the air, being compressed and confined by them through the appointment of God, may be forced and pressed out into winds, by which fruits may germinate, and the summer heat may be moderated when the Pleiades glow, fired with the blaze of the sun. But you still say, Why that blaze of the sun, that moderating should be required? How, then, should fruits be ripened which are necessary for the uses of men? But observe this also, that at the meridian axis, where the heat is greatest, there is no great collection of clouds, nor an abundant fall of rain, lest disease should be produced among the inhabitants; for watery clouds, if they are acted on by rapid heat, render the air impure and pestilential. And the earth also, receiving the warm rain, does not afford nourishment to the crops, but destruction. In this who can doubt that there is the working of divine providence? In short, Egypt, which is scorched with the heat of Æthiopia, in its neighbourhood, lest its air should be incurably vitiated by the effects of showers, its plains do not receive rain furnished to them from the clouds, but, as it were, an earthly shower from the overflow of the Nile.” Recognitions, Book 8, chapter 23

“But a certain one stood up in the council, a Pharisee by the name of Gamaliel.” Acts 5:34 This Gamaliel, as Clement indicates, was a companion of the apostles in faith, but by their decision he remained among the Jews so that he might be able to calm their fury in such a storm as this. — The Venerable Bede, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (720 AD)

• “When I (Peter) had thus spoken, the whole multitude of the priests were in a rage, because I had foretold to them the overthrow of the temple. Which when Gamaliel, a chief of the people, saw — who was secretly our brother in the faith, but by our advice remained among them — because they were greatly enraged and moved with intense fury against us, he stood up, and said, Acts 5:35-39 ‘Be quiet for a little, O men of Israel, for you do not perceive the trial which hangs over you. Wherefore refrain from these men; and if what they are engaged in be of human counsel, it will soon come to an end; but if it be from God, why will you sin without cause, and prevail nothing? For who can overpower the will of God? Now therefore, since the day is declining towards evening, I shall myself dispute with these men tomorrow, in this same place, in your hearing, so that I may openly oppose and clearly confute every error.’ By this speech of his their fury was to some extent checked, especially in the hope that next day we should be publicly convicted of error; and so he dismissed the people peacefully.” Recognitions of Clement, Book 1, chapter 65

Bede also alludes to Recognitions again in this same commentary:

“Then Simon himself also believed.” Acts 8:13 It was either that he too was overcome by the power of the blessed Philip’s words so that he truly believed in the Lord, or, as is more believable, that he pretended that he believed until he could receive baptism. For he was so eager for praise that he wished to be believed to be the Christ, as histories tell, and he hoped to learn from him the arts by which he worked miracles. His followers were also taught to do this. Trained in the evil arts of their founder to enter the church by any sort of deception, they were accustomed to steal baptism. — Bede, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles

• While, therefore, we abode in Jericho, and gave ourselves to prayer and fasting, James the bishop sent for me, and sent me here to Cæsarea, saying that Zacchæus had written to him from Cæsarea, that one Simon, a Samaritan magician, was subverting many of our people, asserting that he was one Stans, — that is, in other words, the Christ, and the great power of the high God, which is superior to the Creator of the world; at the same time that he showed many miracles, and made some doubt, and others fall away to him. — Recognitions of Clement, Book 1, chapter 72

   

   

Bede says:

And so, not finding the place of the world capable of receiving the light of the first day, they necessarily teach with deeper investigation and dogmatize differently all that they read concerning the first seven days than the custom of our age holds. But the meaning is much easier if, according to the traditions of the Fathers and of the Catholics, by the name “heaven” is understood the circle of the upper heaven as having been indicated. By the name “earth” is meant the earth itself, enclosed by its own proper spaces of boundaries, as it is now, except that it had produced nothing of green shoots, nothing of living creatures. By the term “abyss” is meant the infinite spreading of waters, washing over the whole earth, in the midst of which the firmament of heaven is later said to have been made. Finally, Saint Clement, a disciple of the apostles and third bishop of the Roman Church after Peter, writes thus in the sixth book of his Histories: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth; but the earth was invisible and unformed, and darkness was upon the abyss, and the Spirit of God was borne upon the water. This Spirit of God, by the command of God, as though it were the very hand of the Creator, separated light from darkness, and after that invisible heaven, produced this visible one, in order to make the higher regions dwelling places for angels, and the lower for men. Therefore, on your account, by the command of God, the water which was upon the face of the earth withdrew, so that the earth might bring forth fruit for you.” Ambrose, bishop of Milan, agrees with this in the second book of the Hexameron. – The Venerable Bede, On the Calculation of Time, chapter 5 (725 AD) – PL 90.311, 312

Agobard of Lyons (779-840 AD):

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. Bardesanes wrote his book between 200-220 AD, yet if he is quoting Recognitions, this puts the date of the book much earlier.

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.