evidence to connect the Nicolaitans of the apostolic age in any way witli tlie (inostics of succeeding centuries. The ingenious conjecture of Michaelis is worthy of con- sideration, who supposes that by Nicolaitans (Kev. ii, 6, 15) the same class of persons is intended whom Peter (2 Epist. ii, 15) describes &•& followers of the way of Ba- laam; and that their name, Nicolaitans, is merely a Greek translation of their Hebrew designation, the noun "SiKuXaoQ (from i'i/ckw and Xaog) being a literal version of C"?2, that is, C" b"3, the master of the people ; or, according to another derivation, the devourer of the peo- ple (so Hengstenberg, as if from "^2). See Balaam. The custom of translating names, which prevailed so extensively in modern Europe, was undoubtedly prac- ticed also among the Jews, as the example in Acts ix, oG (to which others might be added) shows. Accord- ingly, the Arabic version, published by Erpenius, ren- ders the words ra tpya riot' l^iiKoXairaiv, the works of the Shuaibites, the Arabic Shuaib being apparently the name for Balaam. The whole analogy of the mode of teaching which lays stress on the significance of names would lead us to look, not for philological accuracy, but for a broad, strongly maxXi^A paronomasia, such as men would recognise and accept. It would be enough for those who were to hear the message that they should perceive the meaning of the two words to be identical. Cocceius (Cogitat. in Rev. ii, G) has the credit of being the first to suggest this identification of the Nicolaitans with the followers of Balaam. It has been adopted by the elder Vitringa (Dissert, de A rgum. Epist. Petri poster. in Hase's Thesaurus, ii, 987), Hengstenberg (in loc), Stier (Words of the Risen Lord, p. 125, Engl, transl.), and others. Lightfoot (Ilor. Ileb. in Act. A2)ost. vi, 5) suggests another and more staxtling par onoviasia. The word, in his view, was chosen, as identical in sound with xbis^a, "let us eat," and as thus marking out the special characteristic of the sect. The only objection against this identification arises from the circumstance that in the passage Rev. ii, 14, 15 both '-they that hold the doctrine of Balaam" and " the Nicolaitans" are specified apparently as distinct. Yet even there the collocation of the two classes of heretics seems to imply some agreement between them, though not iden- tity. See Janus, De Nicola itis ; Heumann, De Nicol, e Catol. Hai-eticor. expung. in Acta. Eruditorum (1712), p. 179 sq. ; Storr, Apol. der Offenbar. p. 260 ; jMiinscher, Ceber die Kicol. in Gabl. Journal, v, 17 sq. ; Scheffler- Tiburtitis, De Nicol. (1825).
"We are now in a position to form a clearer judg- ment of the characteristics of the sect. It comes be- fore us as presenting the ultimate phase of a great con- troversy, which threatened at one time to destroy the unity of the Church, and afterwards to taint its purity. The controversy itself was inevitable as soon as the Gentiles were admitted, in any large numbers, into the Church of Christ. Were the new converts to be brought into subjection to the whole Mosaic law? Were they to give up their old habits of life altogether — to withdraw entirely from the social gatherings of their friends and kinsmen? Was there not the risk, if they continued to join in them, of their eating, con- sciously or unconsciously, of that which had been slain in the sacrifices of a false worship, and of thus sharing in the idolatr}-? The apostles and ciders at Jerusalem met the question calmly and wisely. The burden of the law was not to be imposed on the Gentile disciples. They were to abstain, among other things, from ' meats offered to idols' and from ' fornication' (Acts xv, 20, 29), and this decree was welcomed as the great charter of the Ciiurch's freedom. Strange as the close union of the moral and the positive commands may seem to us, it did not seem so to the synod at Jerusalem. The two sins were very closely allied, often even in the closest proximity of time and place. The fathomless impurity which overspread the empire made the one almost as insej)arable as the other from its daily social life. The
NICOLAS
15
NICOLAS
iinessa_£;es to the Churches of Asia and the later Apostol- ic Epistles (2 Peter and Jiidc) indicate that the two evils appeared at that period also in close alliance. The teachers of the Church branded them with a name which expressed their true character. The men who did and taught such things were followers of Balaam (2 Pet. ii, 15; Jude 11). They, like the false prophet of Pethor, united brave words with evil deeds. They made their ' liberty' a cloak at once for cowardice and licentiousness. In a time of persecution, when the eat- ing or not eating of things sacriliced to idols was more than ever a crucial test of faithfulness, they persuaded men more than ever that it was a thing indifferent (Rev. ii, 13, 14). This was bad enough, but there was a yet worse evil. Mingling themselves in the orgies of idolatrous feasts, they brought the impurities of those feasts into the meetings of the Christian Church. There was the most imminent risk that its Agapre might be- come as full of abominations as the Bacchanalia of Italy had been (2 Pet. ii, 12, 13, 1« ; Jude 7, 8 ; comp. Livy, xxxix, 8-19). Their sins had already brought scandal and discredit on the 'way of truth.' All this was done, it must be remembered, not simply as an indulgence of appetite, but as part of a system, supported by a 'doc- trine,' accompanied by the boast of a prophetic illumi- nation (2 Pet. ii, 1). The trance of the son of Beor and the sensual debasement into wliich he led the Israelites were strangely reproduced. These were the characteristics of the followers of Balaam, and worth- less as most of the traditions about Nicolas may be, they point to the same distinctive evils. Even in the absence of any teacher of that name, it would be natu- ral enough, as has been shown above, that the Hebrew name of ignominy should have its Greek equivalent. If there were such a teacher, whether the proselyte of Antioch or another, the application of the name of his followers would be proportionately more pointed. It contirms the view which has been taken of their char- acter to find that stress is laid in the first instance on the 'deeds' of the Nicolaitans. To hate those deeds is a sign of life in a Church that otherwise is weak and faithless (Rev. ii, 6). To tolerate them is well- nigh to forfeit the glory of having been faithful under persecution (Rev. ii, 14, 15). Comp. Neander's Apostel- (je^rh. p. G20 ; Gieseler's Eccl. Hist. § 29 ; Alford on Rev. ii, 6"' (Smith). See Neander, C/i. Hist, i, 452; Guericke, Anc. Ch. Hist. p. 179; Killen, Anc. Ch. p. 206; Burton, Eccl. Hist. \st Century, p. 274, 278, 281, 301, 303, 305; Hase, Ch. Hist. p. 35. See Nicolas.