Recognitions of Clement and Clement Homilies


Clement was a really big personality in early church. A centuries after, this text were written. In one seems to claim annihilation:

“Those who do not repent shall be destroyed by the punishment of fire, even though in all other things they are most holy. But, as I said, at an appointed time a fifth part, being punished with eternal fire, shall be consumed. For they cannot endure for ever who have been impious against the one God.”

And in others eternal torment:

any persist in impiety till the end of life, then, as soon as the soul, which is immortal, departs, it shall pay the penalty of its persistence in impiety. For even the souls of the impious are immortal, though perhaps they themselves would wish them to end with their bodies. But it is not so; for they endure without end the torments of eternal fire, and to their destruction have not the quality of mortality."21

A lot of peoplo says this is not reliable because was written in a period perhaps somewhat later than the time of Athenagoras and Tatian belong.


Hi Sopho – I‘ve put these quotations into Google and found that they are used by certain hell booster (as opposed to hell buster) sites as evidence
However, note that this Clement – the Clement of the Clementine - is not Clement of Alexandria the Universalist.
The Clementines, which are made up of the “Recognitions of Clement” and “The Clementine Homilies”, are a religious romance purported to be composed by Pope Clement I. The story represents his search and induction into the Christian faith by Peter. The Latin form is the “Recognitions of Clement” consists of ten books. It is a translation made from the Greek by Rufinus, who died in 410. (The Greek, from which it was translated, is no longer in existence). The Greek form is “The Clementine Homilies” consists of twenty books

**It was long believed that the early date of the Clementines was proved by the fact that they were twice quoted by Origen. **One of these quotations occurs in the Philokalia of Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil (c. 360). Dr. Armitage Robinson showed in his edition of that work (1893) that the citation is an addition to the passage of Origen made by the compilers, or possibly by a later editor. The other citation occurs in the old Latin translation of Origen on Matthew. This translation is full of interpolations and alterations, and the passage of Pseudo-Clement is apparently an interpolation by the translator from the Arian Opus imperfectum in Matt.

Omitting Origen, the earliest witness is Eusebius. In his Ecclesiastical History, III, xxxviii (AD 325) he mentions some short writings and adds:

“And now some have only the other day brought forward other wordy and lengthy compositions as being Clement’s, containing dialogues of Peter and Appion, of which there is absolutely no mention in the ancients.”

This sounds like an ancient attempt to smear universalists by implying that Origen approved of a source that affirms ECT against him. I’ve scanned one article suggesting that the Clementines was the work of the Christian Cathetical school of Antioch since they show disapproval of the school of Alexandria (to which Origen belonged). Another article has suggested that the Clementines were produced but the Ebionites – Judaising Christians who demanded circumcision and scrupulous Torah observance of converts.

I’ve not found a wonderful article on them – so keep looking – but from the bits and bobs I’ve seen (wikipedia stub and google books on Ante Nicene Fathers) what I have written and pasted above seems to be true.


Talks about Clement of Rome. I´m sorry. It was supossed that Clement said that soul is not inmortal, that “the man has the life of one day”

ED: Sorry, did not read well. I´m not very good at english, I am using a translator. Thanks for the information.


So he thought the compositions were not really of Clement.

In these texts attributed to Clement says to meet all requirements of the torah, like being circumcised and that? That would leave me quiet because it would mean that these romances would contradict St. Paul.

Thanks again for all the information.


No need to say sorry Sopho :blush: You understood that this was not Clement of Alexandria - I was just spelling it out in case anyone else got confused.

Anyway it’s also pretty clear that the Clemetines are not by Clement Bishop of Rome and are of very doubtful authority or authenticity.

What I found interesting from doing a quick search on your question is that Origen’s writings were later falsified to seem to condone the Clementines - that’s very intriguing. Hmmmmm :slight_smile: