Nicolaitans (Hastings' Dictionary)

Twice mentioned in the NT (Rey 2°: 15) as a sect whose works were hated by the ascended Lord and by the Ephesian Church, but whose teaching was upheld by some professed Christians of Pergamum, and apparently tolerated by the Church there. Nicolaitan doctrine is asso- ciated with ‘the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the children of Israel, (inducing them) to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit fornication’ (Rev 219.

As Nicolaitan teaching is said to be held ‘similarly’ (ὁμοίως), we may conclude that the Nicolaitans were a kindred antinomian sect, who abused the doctrine, emphasized by St. Paul, of Gentile liberty from the Mosaic Law. In defiance of that apostle’s warnings (1 Co 6- 8% 1° 10%) as well as of the decree of the Council of Jerusalem (Ac 15%), they permitted participation in heathen feasts con- nected with idolatry and in the fornication which frequently accompanied such feasts.

The Nicolai- tans Sy Jaseabe a more advanced and aggressive stage of antinomianism than that which was found in the Corinthian Church. They are organized into a sect, with a ‘doctrine,’ and stand in a nearer relationship to the ‘false teachers’ referred to in Jude * 1-13, 2 P 91. 3. 14.15, who ‘turned the grace of God into lasciviousness,’ ‘denied even the Master’ (probably through countenancing idolatry), and ‘followed the way of Balaam,’ ‘ running riotously in his error.

’ It has been doubted by some writers whether any sect actually called Nicolaitans existed. The Bk. of Rev, it is argued, is allegorical, and Νικό- Aaos, ‘conqueror of the people,’ may be regarded as a symbolical name, the Greek equivalent of Balaam (oy>2), which is held to signify either ‘destroyer of the people’ (from oy ans ya) or * The supposition that the reference in Rev to the Nicolaitans embraces acovert attack on St.

Paul or Paulinism (Baur, Renan, Volkmar, and others) is foreclosed by the apostle'’s own testi- mony, although it is ible that certain Nicolaitans professed to be his followers. St.

Paul, while not condemning those who bought in the market, or partook of, at an ordinary friendly meal, food which might have been previously sacrificed to idols, is careful to disallow any such participation as would either involve the countenance of idolatry, or ‘ cast a stumbling-block * before any Ohristian brother (see Farrar, Barly ys of Thristianity, i. 243 ff.) NICOLAITANS 547 ‘lord of the people’ (oy and 53, contr. from ys).

* But, apart from the fact that the two names are not ate equivalent, and that the Balaamites and Nicolaitans, although associated, are not identi- fied, the numerous early references to the sect and to its claim to have a real Nicolas as its founder (see next article), indicate that the writer of Rev describes heretics really so called.

According to Ireneus, they lived ‘lives of unrestrained indul- gence,’ teaching that ‘adultery and eating things sacrificed to idols’ are a matter of ‘ indifierence’ (adv. Her. i. 26). Clement of Alex. speaks of their souls as ‘ buried in the mire of vice’ (Strom. ii. 20). Tertullian stigmatizes them as destroying the happiness of sanctity in their maintenance of lust and luxury (adv. Marc. i. 29, ef. de Pudic. 19). In the Apost. Const. vi.

8, ‘those falsely-called Nicolaitans’ are characterized as ‘impudent in uncleanness.’ ‘Ignatius’ Ganger recension) brands them as ‘impure lovers of pleasure,’ and as ‘addicted to calumnioust+ speeches’ (Trail. 11, Phil. 6). So far, we have merely an echo of what we read in Rev; but other early references indicate that, in addition to immorality, the Nicolaitans were tainted with incipient Gnosticism. Trenzus states (adv. Her. iii.

11) that the Cerin- thian doctrines of a Demiurge distinct from the Supreme God, and of a Doketic Incarnation, had already, before Cerinthus, been disseminated by the Nicolaitans, whom accordingly he describes as a ‘fragment (ἀπόσπασμα) of the Gnosis falsely so- called.’ Tertullian (de Pres. Her. 33) writes of the Cainite Gnostics of his time as modern Nicolai- tans.t Hippolytus also (Ref. Her. vii. 24) and Philastrius (de Her. 88) include the Nicolaitans among Gnostics.

For the relation between the Nicolaitans and Nicolas of Antioch, see art. NIcoLAs. There appears to be no suflicient reason for rejecting the ey explanation of the connexion as sup- pre by Clem. of Alex. (without accepting etails). _We know, from other instances, the anxiety of early heretics (e.g. the Basilidians and the Valentinians) to father their views upon some apostle or associate of the apostles.

At the same time it is possible that a diflerent Nicolas was the real founder of the sect, and was confused after- wards with the better-known ‘deacon.’ Cassian states (Collat. xviii. 16) that some in his time (A.D. 420) held that the founder was some other Nicolas ; and in the Lives of the Prophets, Apostles, ete., ascribed (erroneously) to Dorotheus, bishop of Tyre, in the end of the 3rd cent.

, Nicolas of Antioch is identified with a bishop Nicolas of Samaria who is said to have become a heretic in company with * This view, originally hinted at by Cooceius (Cogit. in Ap.), was first enunciated by Heumann (Acta Brud, for 1712, p. 179), who adopts the interpretation ‘ destroyer,’ and then by Vitringa Anakr, Apoc.), who interprets Balaam as ‘lord of the people.’ Ὁ also Michaelis, Eichhorn, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Stier. Trench YS ase Churches, p. 781.)

, accepting the theory that the name Nicolaitans in Rev is symbolical, supposes t ‘one of the innumerable branches ot the Gnostic heresy, springing up ata later day, assumed this name which they found ready-made for them in the Apocalypse.’ The Gnosticism of the Nicolaitans has been recently aed by Voelter, who associates them with the Carpocratians, as an argument in favour of assigning the seven epistles in the Bk. of Rev to about a.p, 140 (Hntst. d. Apok. p. 44f.

191); but the germs of Gnosticiam existed admittedly es the Apostolic Age; and it is quite natural for writers of the 2nd and 3rd cents. to apply the name to heretics, who flourished before its adoption as a formal designation. The incipient Gnosticism of the Nicolaitans can be denied (as by Modiffert, Chr. in Ap. Age, he 625) only on the assumption that Iren. Tert. and Hipp. pack y infer: ita existence from the immoral outcome of Nicolaitan doctrine. ἡ The Chronicon Paschale (ΟἹ.

221) speaks of Simon, bishop of Jerus., a8 δια βλυϑείς by Nicolaitans, in a.p, 107. 1 ‘Sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitw : Caiana hwresis dicitur.' This suggests that by a.p, 200 the N. had ceased to exist as a separate sect, and had been absorbed by other secta of Gnostica. The name was applied by the Synod of Piacenza (1095) to ‘ inconti nent’ (inclu τοῦ married) priests and deacons (Hefele, Con ciliengeach, ν. 104). 548 NICOLAS Simon Magus. Ps.-Doroth. (6. 6th cent.)

is not a trustworthy authority; but the connexion with the ‘ father of Gnosticism’ is suggestive ; and since Nicolas of Antioch is nowhere else referred to as a bishop, or as associated with Samaria, the tradi- tion may indicate the existence of another Nicolas, with whom the pseudo-Dorotheus confounded Nicolas of Antioch.* Lireratuns.—Janus, Dissert. de Nicolait.; Ἰοῦς, Dissert. ; Mosheim, Dissert.; Vitringa, Anakrisis pocal.

; Burton, Heresies of the Apostolic Age; Trench, Epistles to the Seven Churches; Holtzmann, Neutest, Theol.; Voelter, Entstehung der Apoc,; Weizsiicker, Apost. Zeitalter ; MoGiffert, Christi- anity in Ap, Age; Farrar, Early Days of Christianity; the Commentaries of Alford, Lange, Volkmar, Kliefoth, Stern, Wordsworth, Bousset, Zéckler, etc. ; Woblenberg in Neue kirch, Zeitschrift for 1895. i. CowAN.