RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Nicolai Nicolas
Corinth, became here a sect led by agitators. In Corinth also the evil custom prevailed of eating meat sacrificed to idols (I Cor. viii.) and unchastity
(I Cor. v. 1 sqq.), in connection with Relation the claim of possessing superior knowlto Paul, edge (I Cor. iv. 6 sqq., v. 2, viii. 1, xv.
12 sqq.). But in Ephesus, from the simple extenuation of these sins by an appeal to Paul's doctrine of freedom in Christ, there arose a teaching combined with dualistic speculations. Thereupon the spiritual pride of the libertines increased to such an extent that their leaders claimed prophetic gifts (ii. 20) and apostolic rank (ii. 2). Nevertheless, the view is unfounded that the Apocalypse of John combats in these passages the apostle Paul and his helpers (Baur, Schwegler, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, etc.); for Paul was no longer living, while all the statements in question refer to a contemporary condition, and the helpers of Paul laid no claim to apostolic rank. Besides this, these very sins are just as sternly condemned by Paul as they are in the Apocalypse; for example, unchastity (I Cor. v. 1 sqq., vi. 12 sqq.), as well as the eating of meat sacrificed to idols (x. 18 sqq.). Paul also refers here to the warning example of Israel's corruption by Balaam (I Cor. x. 8), and in general he peremptorily disposed of the libertinistic tendency (II Cor. vi. 14 sqq., xii. 20, xiii. 10). Another untenable view is that which finds the Montanists in the false apostles, the Balaamites, and the prophetess Jezebel (Rev. ii. 2-14), while the Nicolaitans who differ from these signify Gnostics like the Ophites (Volter). The reproach of unchastity and of eating meat sacrificed to idols is in too great discord with the ascetic morality of the Montanists; and nothing indicates Gnostics of the second century. Equally groundless is the conjecture that the passages mentioning the Nicolaitans were a later interpolation (Volter).
What the Church Fathers have to say about the Nicolaitans rather opposes the contention that they
first originated in the second century,
Patristic or indeed that, apart from the Nicolai-
Data. tans of the Apocalypse, there was any
sect of that name in the second century (Neander and others). That the Nicolaitans are not mentioned until the time of Irenaeus does not signify that they originated or reappeared during the interval. It is true that in every list of heretics the Nicolaitans are named after Basilides and Satornilus; but the order in the lists of heretics is in no wise chronological (cf. Lipsius, Quellen der dlteren Ketzergeschichte, pp. 28, 35, 47), and the comparative agreement of these lists is explained by their common dependence upon Irenaeus. The latter, however, expressly says (Ear., III., xi. 1) that the Nicolaitans, " long before " Cerinthus, held a similar doctrine and that John wrote his Gospel against both. This shows that he placed the Nicolaitans in apostolic times, and his ranking them after Basilides and Cerinthus is only because of the similarity of their doctrines to those of these heretics. What he relates of the Nicolaitans, however, is almost exclusively derived from the Apocalypse. It is still clearer that everything Tertullian says of them comes from the Apocalypse. His remark (Hcer.,
xxxiii.) that in his time there were also Nicolaitans, only of another kind, called the heresy of Gaius, expressly excludes the idea that there was any contemporary sect of this name. The statements of Hippolytus are founded on those of Irenaeus. In all the patristic data concerning the Nicolaitans the only statements to be regarded as based on historical tradition independent of the Apocalypse are the assertion of Irenaeus that their teacher was Nicolaos, one of the seven deacons of the primitive community (Hcer., I., xxvi. 3), and the statement, probably earlier than Hippolytus, that this Nicolaos had been led into grievous errors through jealousy of his wife. It is possible that this last statement may be mythical, and that even the first is only based on conjecture; since, however, it is assumed in the Apocalypse that the name Nicolaitan was known to its readers, it is at least probable that this name is not derived as a symbolical designation from that of Balaam (" lord " or " conqueror of the people "; Vitringa and Hengstenberg), but from the name of the leader of the sect.
In the Middle Ages violations of the rule of celibacy were often designated by the name of the
Nicolaitan sect, borrowed from the
The Apocalypse, but there is absolutely no
Bohemian connection between the Nicolaitans of
Sect. the Apocalypse and a sect of the same
name which arose in Bohemia in the fourteenth century and maintained itself there as well as in Moravia until the seventeenth century. This sect derived its name from the Bohemian peasant Nicklas of Wlasenic (d. 1455), who was imitated by his followers in his rejection of ecclesiastical authority and his claim to an immediate and new revelation. F Sieffekt.
Bibliography: The reader should consult the commentaries on the Apocalypse (see under John the Apostle); and the works on the history of the Apostolic Age, e.g., those by C. von Weizsacker, 2 vols., London, 1894-95, and A. C. McGiffert, pp. 625-626, New York, 1897. Consult further: C. W. F. Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, i. 167 sqq., Leipsic, 1762; E. Burton, Heresies of the Apostolic Age, Oxford, 1829; J. H. Blunt, Dictionary of Sects and Heresies, pp. 371-373, Philadelphia, 1874; D. Volter, Entstehung des Apokalypse, pp. 10 sqq., Freiburg, 1882; E. Schurer, in Theologische Abhandlung C. Von Weizsacker zu 70. Geburtstag gewidmet, pp. 38 sqq., ib. 1892; Seesemann, in TSK, lxvi (1893), 47 sqq.; F. Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, fasc. xxviii., cols. 1616-18, Paris, 1906; DB, iii. 547-548; EB, iii. 3410- 3412.
NICOLAS DE CLEMANGES. See Clemanges.
NICOLAS, MICHEL: French Protestant; b. at Nimes May 22, 1810; d. at Montauban July 28, 1886. After studying theology at Geneva (1827-32) and in Germany (1832-34), he was assistant pastor for a short time in Bordeaux. He was then pastor in Metz from 1835 to 1838, and in 1839 was appointed professor of philosophy at Montauban, a position which he retained until his death. After 1860 he turned from philosophy to theology, especially to introduction and church history. Together with Reuss, Colani, and A. ReVille, Nicolas sought to revise the bases of Christian belief with the assistance of historical criticism, and to consider Christianity as a historical magnitude from the standpoint of evolution. In 1861 he published, in the first
Nlcolaus Cabasilas Niemeyer