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.

We know which books are authentic and belong in Scripture because the church fathers quote these books and tell us who wrote them. When Christians today want to show that a book is authentic and can be trusted as Scripture, one piece of evidence they point to is the early church fathers agreeing on a particular book, or at least pointing to several consistent witnesses. Question: “How do you know 1 Clement was written by Clement of Rome?” The only way to prove it is early tradition; you can’t do so any other way, since Clement doesn’t put his name on it. We know Clement of Rome wrote 1 Clement because so many church fathers quote it throughout the centuries and all say Clement wrote it, and everybody today agrees. Using this same line of reasoning we can know Clement really did write the Recognitions. He tells us his name in the book, and early and post-Nicene fathers consistently attribute it to him. It isn’t like the book of Hebrews, where some church fathers have different opinions. The fathers who speak about Recognitions agree that Clement of Rome wrote it. My point is not that they accepted it as Holy Scripture, but that they accepted it as a book written by Clement of Rome and as having genuine teachings from the Apostle Peter.

• Bardesanes 200 AD (Quotes huge chunks of book 9)
• Origen 220 AD (Quotes book 10 and references it, attributes it to Clement of Rome and as having the Apostles Peter’s genuine teachings)
• Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzus 350 AD – Known to them through Origen’s citation in the Philocalia they compiled.
• Jerome 387 AD(References it and attributes it to Clement of Rome)
• Epiphanius 387 AD (Attributes it to Clement of Rome and as a genuine book with Peters words and says heretics corrupted copies of it)
• Apostolic Constitutions 390 (Affirms a specific historical account of Recognitions)
• Rufinus 400 AD (Translated it into Latin and many times says the Apostolic Clement authored it)
• Maximus of Turin 400 AD (Quotes it and says Clement wrote it and says believed it contained the Apostle Peter’s teachings)
• Ammonius of Alexandria 460 AD (References details about Clement only mentioned in Recognitions)
• Anonymous Commentary on Matthew 400-500 AD (Quotes and references it 4 times, attributes it to Clement and quotes the Apostle Peter, as his genuine words.)
• Gennadius of Massilia 495 AD (Attributes Recognitions to the Apostolic Clement)
• Later writers such as Aldhelm of Sherborne (640-709 AD) and Bede (672-735 AD) quote passages from it, as containing genuine history and attribute it to Clement of Rome. Agobard of Lyons (779-840 AD) didn’t believe so but he says “many of the testimonies found in them [the Recognitions] are nevertheless used by the Doctors”

Church Fathers:

Bardesanes (200 AD) – click this link to read him quoting passage after passage from Recognitions

Bardesanes (who lived from 154 to 222) quotes from Recognitions extensively against the Gnostics [view link above], 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. 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

Origen (185-253 AD):

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 which you can see here. 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’s Philocalia was compiled by Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzus. They selected and compiled these texts from Origen’s works to preserve his insights. One of these excerpts is from Origen commentary on Genesis where he quotes a chunk of Recognitions Book 10. Basil and Gregory would have agreed to add this section and would have known about Recognitions of Clement through Origen’s citation.

Since Origen quoted book 10 of Recognitions (link above), and each book builds on the previous, he had all 10 books since he quoted the end of it, so Recognitions couldn’t have been written in the 200-300s like it says online, since Origen quoted this between 230-250 AD).

“Concerning these several subjects, therefore, whatever Peter discoursed at Cæsarea, according to his command, as I have said, I have sent you written in ten volumes.” – Recognitions of Clement, Book 3, chapter 75

“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

Tertullian (197 AD) – possible reference:

“Of these the practical effects are false doctrines, called in Greek heresies, a word used in the sense of that choice which a man makes when he either teaches them (to others) or takes up with them (for himself). For this reason it is that he calls the heretic self-condemned, because he has himself chosen that for which he is condemned. We, however, are not permitted to cherish any object after our own will, nor yet to make choice of that which another has introduced of his private fancy. In the Lord’s apostles we possess our authority; for even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything, but faithfully delivered to the nations (of mankind) the doctrine which they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel (than theirs), he would be called accursed by us.” – Tertullian, On Prescription Against Heretics chapter 6

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that bishop 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. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner.“ – Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics chapter 32

• “For we apostles are sent to expound the sayings and affirm the judgments of Him who has sent us; but we are not commissioned to say anything of our own, but to unfold the truth, as I have said, of His words.” Peter, Recognitions of Clement, book 2, chapter 34
• “It is good that every one of you [disciples], according to his ability, contribute to the advantage of those who are approaching to the faith of our religion; and therefore do not shrink from instructing the ignorant, and teaching according to the wisdom which has been bestowed upon you by the providence of God, yet so that you only join the eloquence of your discourse with those things which you have heard from me, and which have been committed to you. But do not speak anything which is your own, and which has not been committed to you, though it may seem to yourselves to be true; but hold forth those things, as I have said, which I myself have received from the true Prophet, and have delivered to you, although they may seem to be less full of authority. For thus it often happens that men turn away from the truth, while they believe that they have found out, by their own thoughts, a form of truth more true and powerful.” — Apostle Peter, Recognitions of Clement, Book 8, chapter 37

Jerome (387 AD):

Jerome in his Commentary on Galatians 1.18a also references Recognitions as being a genuine work of Clement. Jerome was basing his commentary off Origen’s lost commentary on Galatians (as Jerome says in his introduction), which is evidence Origen did reference this book in his Commentary on Galatians: 

“…But instead, being aware of the feebleness of my own abilities, I have (rather cautiously and hesitantly in my opinion) followed the commentary of Origen. For that man wrote five books of his own on Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, and in addition to his exposition he completed the tenth book of his Stromateis on it in the style of a commentary. – Jerome, Letter 112.4

“If then you [Augustine] thought something in my explanation was worthy of criticism, it was the responsibility of your erudition to find out whether the things I had written were found among the Greeks, so that, if they had not said these things, then you could have properly condemned my view, especially since I freely admitted in the preface that I had followed the commentary of Origen [on Galatians] and that I had dictated either my own thoughts or those of others.” – Jerome, Letter 112.4

Jerome says he cautiously and hesitantly followed Origen’s commentary on Galatians, yet Jerome STILL references the Recognitions of Clement:

“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

Rufinus: “After this, of course, a work is calling us that was long ago enjoined upon me, but now is being pressed even more insistently by the blessed bishop Gaudentius,  namely, to translate into Latin the books, De Recognitione, by Clement, the Roman bishop, companion and successor of the apostles. In this work I am well aware that effort will receive effort, since the assignment has been multiplied. In this case, I shall really satisfy my friends: I shall put my name in the title while the author’s identity no less remains. For it will be written: Rufinus’s Clement.” – Origen Commentary on Romans, Epilogue of Rufinus

Apostolic Constitutions:

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

Anonymous Commentary on Matthew (400-500 AD?):

“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.

Therefore, if you wish to be secure, put the bolt of your door, that is, the law of divine fear over your mouth, so that you say with the prophet, “I will guard my ways, that I may not sin with my tongue; I will bridle my mouth.” (Psalm 39:1) Again, Wisdom teaches, “Make a door and a bolt for your mouth.” (Sirach 28:25) But how fragile our bolts are unless God keeps them, because “Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain.” (Psalm 127:1) We likewise ask God as does the prophet, “Set a guard over my mouth, O Lord, keep watch over the door of my lips! Incline not my heart to any evil [words].” (Psalm 141:3–4) Put bolts over the windows of your eyes so that you can say along with most chaste Job, “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I look upon a virgin?” (Job 31:1) And again, “[If I have coveted the field of my neighbor,] then let me sow, and another eat.” (Job 31:8) Again, because the bolts of our eyes are fragile, let us call on the Lord with the prophet, saying, “Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to gain! Turn my eyes from looking at vanities; and give me life in your ways.” (Psalm 119:36–37) What shall we say then? A soul does not know when a thief will come on it through those entrances, does it? No, it does not. And yet it knows, to be sure, when it is being led to sin, but it does not know when the thief will enter. So we ought to be vigilant and close all those entrances by occupying the mouth with holy histories, the ears with pious news, the eyes with the consideration of the works of God that must be marveled at and the mind with heavenly thoughts. For it is not enough to not speak or hear or see or think bad things. For whoever does such evil things closes his entrances and fills them up and bars the gate against good things by evil things so that a good spirit does not have room to enter; but whoever puts aside evil things from him, to be sure, and yet does not receive good things is said to have open entrances. For this reason the enemy finds them open and enters the soul. For this reason it is necessary that the righteous entrances not only be void of evil but also be closed and filled up and bolted against evil things by good things so that evil does not find room to enter. Thus also, Peter wisely says in Clement that one ought to ceaselessly think and speak on matters pertaining to God, because if the mind is occupied in these things, an evil person does not find room in his mind. (Recognitions 3.62) — Incomplete Commentary on Matthew 24:43 (Opus Imperfectum) – same book as before

Maximus of Turin (380-465 AD):

Maximus was a disciple of Ambrose of Milan.

“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.”

Presbyter Ammonius of Alexandria (435-526 AD):

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 (495 AD):

“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 

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

Pseudo-Ceasarius of Nazianzus (6th century)

“Truly, the matter is fitting and delightful, worthy of admiration and every proclamation: here we celebrate our Lord and ruler, and together with David, the divine prophet, sing: “How great are Your works, O Lord! All You have made with wisdom.” For who can truly speak of the powers of the Lord, or who can describe them? Who can find words sufficient to express these things? For how could He, from things of diverse substance and differing from one another, create our one nature? Nor does one flee from union or communion with the other, each having been assigned by You its own term of life, yet until the end the immortal nature dwells with the mortal; and again, it bids farewell at length to the united body, obeying the command of separation. Who indeed does not stand amazed, seeing limbs formed from dust, the parts of the body, the bones fitting together, the vertebrae and joints joined, which serve as supports for the flesh and allow every possible movement, all arranged in a single line, so that even those movements that are beyond reason are accommodated? Moreover, the members are placed in balance with one another: the right hand equal in length to the left, finger with finger, sole with sole, foot with foot, and likewise all the other parts are proportioned.” – Pseudo-Ceasarius of Nazianzus, Dialogues, Interrogation 3, Question 140, 560 AD – PG 38:1053-54 (https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecursu38mignuoft/page/n531/mode/2up) 

Footnote: (91) … Haec et quae sequuntur desumpsisse Caesarium ex Recognit. lib. viii, cap. 22, haud dubitat Cotelerius l. C.

Translation: (91) … Cotelerius has no doubt that Caesarius took this and what follows from book 8, chapter 29 of the Clementine Recognitions.

Recognitions of Clement, Book 8, chapter 29 – And mark in this the work of the Designer, how He has inserted the bones like pillars, on which the flesh might be sustained and carried. Then, again, how an equal measure is preserved on either side, that is, the right and the left, so that foot answers to foot, hand to hand, and even finger to finger, so that each agrees in perfect equality with each; and also eye to eye, and ear to ear, which not only are suitable to and matched with each other, but also are formed fit for necessary uses. The hands, for instance, are so made as to be fit for work; the feet for walking; the eyes, protected with sentinel eyebrows, to serve the purpose of sight; the ears so formed for hearing, that, like a cymbal, they vibrate the sound of the word that falls upon them, and send it inward, and transmit it even in the understanding of the heart; whereas the tongue, striking against the teeth in speaking, performs the part of a fiddle-bow. The teeth also are formed, some for cutting and dividing the food, and handing it over to the inner ones; and these, in their turn, bruise and grind it like a mill, that it may be more conveniently digested when it is conveyed into the stomach; whence also they are called grinders.

Pseudo-Caesarius also cites Book 9 of the Recognitions, the same sections that Bardesanes draws from which was posted at the beginning. But since what Pseudo-Caesarius says is too long to post, you can read it here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/11JgC8nTCsnPhdOqRX1TTXauKc3arx0N1Oww4vbyScH4/edit?usp=sharing 

Aldhelm of Sherborne (640-709 AD):

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

Bede (672-735 AD):

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

“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

   
   

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):