Nicholas of Clemange. See Clemange.
Nicholas of Cusa. See Cusa.
Nicholas Damascenus, an ancient Peripatetic phUosopher and writer on history, flourished in the reign of Augustus, and was ambassador from Herod, king of Judsea. He wrote a Universal History, in 144 books, of which a few fragments only remain, together with comedies and tragedies of good reputation. See Lardner, Works (Index in vol. ix).
Nicholas of England, a monastic who flourished near the close of the 12th centurj', is noted in the his- tory of Christian doctrine as the decided advocate of the Romish ultramontane view regarding the immacu- late conception of Mary. He wrote in most severe and condemnatory terms against abbot De la Celle, after- wards celebrated as bishop of Chartres. Of the perso- nal history of the monk Nicholas we know only that he died before the close of the 12th century. The part he played in the doctrinal controversy above referred to is given by Neander, Ch. Hist, iv, 333 sq. See also Mil- man, Hist, of Latin Chi'istianity, v, 44.
Nicholas of the Flue. See Flue.
Nicholas of Frascati, an eminent Italian prelate, flourished in the opening of the 13th century. We know but little of his personal history. In 1213 we find him mentioned as bishop of Frascati and cardinal, and employed in that year on a mission to England as papal legate. He was sent to bring to completion the ar- rangements made by Pandulf (q. v.) with king John, and was successful in this mission, for on Oct. 3 he pub- licly received in St. Paul's Cathedral from John a char- ter of surrender and the oath of fealty, and somewhat later received full compensation lor all damage caused by the royal sequestrations of ecclesiastical property. It was also this cardinal Nicholas who removed tlie in- terdict then resting upon England and its king. Nich- olas quitted Britain in Sept. 1213, and we hear scarcely anything of him thereafter. He died about 1220.
Nicholas, Henry. See Familists.
Nicholas Hydruntius, an Eastern ecclesiastic, lived in the beginning of the 13th centurj', in the reign of Alexius IV Comnenus. Nicholas was distinguished by his opposition to the Latin Church, against which he published several works, of \vhich an account is given by Cave (ad ann. 1201) and Fabricius (^Bibl. Gi-cec. xi, 289).
JJ'icholas Ilyin. See Right-hand Brethren.
Nicholas of Leitojiysl (or Leitomischl), one of the warm advocates of the Hussite movement, flourished as master at the University of Prague near the opening of the loth century. In the memorable university meeting held on May 28, 1403, to examine the fortj'- five propositions ascribed to Wickliffe (q. v.), master Nicholas most enthusiastically and ably argued in be- half of the Bohemian party for the English theologian.
NICHOLAS
60
NICHOLAS
He declared that the propositions incorrectly represent Wicklitfe, and branded tliese articles as having been falsified by a certain master Illibner, who more richly deserved to be burned than tlie two poor fellows who had been burned for counterfeiting saifron (an herb much sought for and used in those times). Huss himself, also, while he would not at the time agree to the un- conditional acceptance of all the propositions, declared them at this time, and ever afterwards, as having been tampered with and interpolated by master Illibner. Nicholas remained steadfast to the cause of these ante- Keformers, and was much esteemed for the service he rendered to Christian truth, and as an example of holy living. He was called bj' Huss "the most sagacious counsellor" (^Mon. Hussi, ii, 42). See Neander, Ch. Hist. V, 246 ; Gillett, Life and Times of John Huss, i. 38. (J.H.W.)
Nicholas of Lyra. See Lyua.
Nicholas of Metiione, an Eastern ecclesiastic, to whom a number of works are attributed, was bishop of Methone, in Messenia. His writings, as far as known, are polemical essays on the person of Christ, the eucha- rist, the use of unleavened bread, the procession of the Holy Ghost, against the primacy of the pope, but espe- cially against the heathenish Platonism of Proclus. All attempts to establish the personality of the author, or the exact time when he wrote, have heretofore proved unavailing. Some critics, as Cave and Oudin, place him at the close of the 11th century, and look upon him as a contemporarjr of Theophylact, bishop of Bulgaria, and of Nicetas of Heraclea. Cave, however, observes that some of the works may have been written by an- other, more modern, Nicholas. Others, and among them ■ Fabricius, place him in the later half of the 12th cen- tury. This is also the opinion of Ullmann, who ob- serves that in the midst of the controversy between the Eastern and the Western churches, during the reign of Manuel I, a synod was held in IIGO at Constantinople, in which a Nicholas, bishop of Methone, was present, according to Allatius (Z'e pe>p. consensione, p. 689). Nicholas was until recently known only as the author of ' AvaiiTv^iQ tT]c Beo\oyiK!)Q aTOixm''<Teu>^ UpoKXav JlXaToiviKov, licfutalio institutionis theol. Prodi Plato- nici (primum ed. J. Th. Voemel, Francf.-ad-M. 1825) ; and Nicolai Methonensis Anecdota (p. i, ii, ed.Yoemel, Francf. 1825-26) ; and it appears from these works that he was an independent disciple of the ancient fathers, whom he studied and expounded with great perspicaci- ty. He opposed heathen Platonism, Avhile at the same time he adhered to that Christian and ecclesiastical Pla- tonism which had been handed down from the Areopa- gists and others. Hence his doctrine concerning God is altogether ideal and transcendental. Nicholas considers the negative definitions of God as more correct than the positive. He regards God as so infinitely above man that the latter can have no conceptioiv of him. The small .1 necdoton begins with the expression, " The world is unfinished; the divine act of creation is ever enduring, and admits of no distinction of past or future. Were we to consider it as having a beginning or an end, it would imply a cessation of the divine activitj-, and thus represent the divine nature and power as sub- ject to change. Yet the results of creation are finite ; but this does not imply a change in the creative energy, only a variation in the proportion between its emitting and retaining properties" (^kcitu TrpoftoXi/v ical avaro- \r]v, Anecd. i, 10). His views bear a great resemblance to those of Origen. On the doctrine of the redemption he goes much beyond all tlic ancient expositors, and seeks to prove dialectically the necessity of this divine means of grace. "Humanity," says Nicholas, "lay in the bonds of Satan ; it jiossessed within itself no possible means of getting free from this bondage, since every sinner would have had first of .ill to free himself from this strange jiower, an ctTdrt which none could accom- plish, licdemption coidd only come from the innocent