whose name was T. Flavius Clemens, usually surnamed Alexandrinus, is supposed to have been born at Athens, though he spent the greater part of his life at Alexandria. In this way the two statements in which he is called an Athenian and an Alexandrian (Epiphan. Haer. 27.6) have been reconciled by Cave. In early life he was ardently devoted to the study of philosophy, and his thirst for knowledge led him to visit various countries,--Greece, southern Italy, Coelo-Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.
It appears, from his own account, that he had various Christian preceptors, of whom he speaks in terms of great respect. One of them was a Jew by birth, and several were from the East. At length, coming to Egypt, he sought out Pantaenus, master of the Christian school at Alexandria, to whose instructions he listened with much satisfaction, and whom he prized far more highly than all his former teachers. It is not certainly known whether he had embraced Christianity before hearing Pantaenus, or whether his mind had only been favourably inclined towards it in consequence of previous inquiries. Probably he first became a Christian under the influence of the precepts of Pantaenus, though Neander thinks otherwise. After he had joined the Alexandrian church, he became a presbyter, and about A. D. 190 he was chosen to be assistant to his beloved preceptor. In this latter capacity he continued until the year 202, when both principal and assistant were obliged to flee to Palestine in consequence of the persecution under Severus. In the beginning of Caracalla's reign he was at Jerusalem, to which city many Christians were then accustomed to repair in consequence of its hallowed spots. Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, who was at that time a prisoner for the gospel, recommended him in a letter to the church at Antioch, representing him as a godly minister, a man both virtuous and wellknown, whom they had already seen, and who had confirmed and promoted the church of Christ. It is conjectured, that Pantaenus and Clement returned, after an absence of three years, in 206, though of this there is no certain evidence. He must have returned before 211, because at that time he succeeded Pantaenus as master of the school. Among his pupils was the celebrated Origen. Guerike thinks, that he died in 213; but it is better to assume with Cave and Schröckh, that his death did not take place till 220. Hence he flourished under the reigns of Severus and Caracalla, 193-217.
It cannot safely be questioned, that Clement held the fundamental truths of Christianity and exhibited genuine piety. But in his mental character the philosopher predominated. His learning was great, his imagination lively, his power of perception not defective; but he was unduly prone to speculation. An eclectic in philosophy, he eagerly sought for knowledge wherever it could be obtained, examining every topic by the light of his own mind, and selecting out of all systems such truths as commended themselves to his judgment. " I espoused," says he, " not this or that philosophy, not the Stoic, nor the Platonic, nor the Epicurean, nor that of Aristotle; but whatever any of these sects had said that was fit and just, that taught righteousness with a divine and religious knowledge, all that being selected, I call philosophy." He is supposed to have leaned more to the Stoics than to any other sect. He seems, indeed, to have been more attached to philosophy than any of the fathers with the exception of Origen.
In comprehensiveness of mind Clement was certainly deficient. He never develops great principles, but runs chiefly into minute details, which often become trifling and insipid. In the interpretation of the Scriptures he was guided by fancy rather than fixed rules deduced from common sense. He pursues no definite principles of exposition, neither does he penetrate into the essential nature of Christianity. His attainments in purely religious knowledge could never have been extensive, as no one doctrine is well stated. From his works no system of theology can be gathered. It were preposterous to recur to them for sound exegesis, or even a successful development of the duties of a Christian, much less for an enlightened estimate of the obligations under which men are laid to their Creator and to each other. It may be questioned, whether he had the ability to compose a connected system of theology, or a code of Christian morality.