Ancient &
Medieval References To The Nicolaitanes
Edited By Daniel R. Jennings, M.A.
Modern Christians will occasionally come across references to an ancient group
known as the Nicolaitanes. This group is usually
encountered while reading through the book of Revelation which mentions them
but offers little information as to where they came from or who they were. They are, undoubtedly, one of the lesser known early
heretical groups. While they are not that well known by the average Christian
today we do, however, have information from early Christian literature which
details the origins, beliefs and practices of this group. Everything that we
know about the Nicolaitanes comes from these early
Christian writings so if we want to discover who the Nicolaitanes
were we must turn to these ancient documents. This page incorporates references
to the Nicolaitanes made by ancient Christian writers
from the first to the ninth centuries. It is hoped that by giving the reader
original documents relating to this group that they will be able to form a
correct opinion as to who they were, how they started
and what they believed. Click on either an ancient writer below or scroll
down. Also don’t forget to read some Final Thoughts at the end.
3.
Irenaeus Of Lyons (c.120-202)
4.
Clement Of Alexandria (d. c.215)
5.
Pseudo-Tertullian (Circa Early 3rd
Century?)
7. Pseudo-Hippolytus
(2nd Century)
8.
Hippolytus Of Rome (d.
c. 236)
9.
Victorinus Of Pettau (2nd-3rd
Centuries)
10.
Eusebius Of Caesarea (c.260-c.337)
11. Gregory of
Nyssa (d. c.387)
12. Pacian Of Barcelona (c.310-391)
13. Epiphanius Of
Salamis (c.311-403)
14.
Ambrose Of Milan (339-397)
15. Constitutions
Of The Holy Apostles (Late 4th Century)
16. Pseudo-Ignatius
Of Antioch (Late 4th Century)
18. Augustine Of
Hippo (354-430)
19. John Cassian
(c.360-c.435) & Abbott Piamun (4th
Century)
21. Gildas The Wise (c. 500 – 570)
22. Andrew of Caesarea
(7th Century)
23. Venerable Bede
(c.672-735)
24. John Of
Damascus (c.676-c.770)
25. Photius of
Constantinople (c.810-c.897)
“And
in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a
murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were
neglected in the daily ministration. Then the twelve called the multitude of
the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason
that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables. Wherefore, brethren,
look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and
wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. But we
will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. And
the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of
faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus,
and Nicanor, and Timon, and
Parmenas, and Nicolas
a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when
they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.” (Acts 6:1-6)
“Unto
the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith
he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand,
who walketh in the midst of the seven golden
candlesticks; I know thy works, and thy labor, and thy patience, and how thou
canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are
apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast born, and hast
patience, and for my name’s sake hast labored, and hast not fainted.
Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first
love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the
first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy
candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the
deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate.
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith
unto the churches; To him that overcometh
will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise
of God.” (Revelation 2:1-7)
“And
to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These
things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two
edges; I know thy works, and where thou dwellest,
even where Satan’s seat is: and thou holdest fast my
name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my
faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold
the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of
“…that
the flesh must be abused.” (In Clement Of
“Unless one copulates every day, he
cannot possess eternal life.” (In
Epiphanius Of
*For
the quote in Clement’s context see his entry below.
**The
authenticity of the quote is questionable. The evidence suggests that a group of
people may have falsely attributed this to Nicolaus.
Irenaeus
Of
“The Nicolaitanes are the followers of
that Nicolas who was one of the seven first ordained to the diaconate by the
apostles. They lead lives of
unrestrained indulgence. The character of these men is very plainly pointed out
in the Apocalypse of John, [when they are represented] as teaching that it is a
matter of indifference to practice adultery, and to eat things sacrificed to
idols. Wherefore the Word has also spoken of them thus: ‘But this thou hast,
that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes,
which I also hate.’” (Against Heresies,
1:26:3)
“John, the disciple of the Lord, preaches this faith, and seeks,
by the proclamation of the Gospel, to remove that error which by Cerinthus had been disseminated among men, and a long time
previously by those termed Nicolaitans, who are an offset of that “knowledge” falsely
so called, that he might confound them, and persuade them that there is
but one God, who made all things by His Word; and not, as they allege, that the
Creator was one, but the Father of the Lord another; and that the Son of the
Creator was, forsooth, one, but the Christ from above another, who also
continued impassible, descending upon Jesus, the Son of the Creator, and flew
back again into His Pleroma; and that Monogenes was the beginning, but Logos was the true son of Monogenes; and that this creation to which we belong was
not made by the primary God, but by some power lying far below Him, and shut
off from communion with the things invisible and ineffable. The disciple of the
Lord therefore desiring to put an end to all such doctrines, and to establish
the rule of truth in the Church, that there is one Almighty God, who made all
things by His Word, both visible and invisible; showing at the same time, that
by the Word, through whom God made the creation, He also bestowed salvation on
the men included in the creation; thus commenced His teaching in the Gospel:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and
without Him was nothing made. What was made was life in Him, and the life was
the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness,
and the darkness comprehended it not.” “All things,” he says, “were made by
Him;” therefore in “all things” this creation of ours is [included], for we
cannot concede to these men that [the words] “all things” are spoken in
reference to those within their Pleroma.” (Against
Heresies, 3:11:1)
Clement
Of
“I
know that I have come upon a heresy; and its chief was wont to say that he
fought with pleasure by pleasure, this worthy Gnostic advancing on pleasure in
feigned combat, for he said he was a Gnostic; since he said it was no great
thing for a man that had not tried pleasure to abstain from it, but for one who
had mixed in it not to be overcome [was something]; and that therefore by means
of it he trained himself in it. The wretched man knew not that he was deceiving
himself by the artfulness of voluptuousness. To this opinion, then, manifestly Aristippus the Cyrenian adhered —
that of the sophist who boasted of the truth. Accordingly, when reproached for
continually cohabiting with the Corinthian courtesan, he said, “I possess Lais, and am not possessed by her.”
Such
also are those (who say that they follow Nicolaus,
quoting an adage of the man, which they pervert, “that the flesh must be
abused.” But the worthy man showed that it was necessary to check pleasures and
lusts, and by such training to waste away the impulses and propensities of the
flesh. But they, abandoning themselves to pleasure like goats, as if insulting
the body, lead a life of self-indulgence; not knowing that the body is wasted,
being by nature subject to dissolution; while their soul is buried in the mire
of vice; following as they do the teaching of pleasure itself, not of the
apostolic man.” (Stromata, 2:20)
“Of the heretics we mentioned Marcion of Pontus as forbidding the use of this world's
goods on the ground of opposition to the Creator. The Creator himself is thus
the reason for continence, if this can be called continence; for this giant who
thinks he can resist God is not continent by an act of free choice, in that he
attacks the creation and the process by which man is formed. If they quote the
Lord's words to Philip, "Let dead bury their dead, but do thou follow
me," they ought to consider that Philip's flesh is also formed in the same
way; body is not a polluted corpse. How then could he have a body of flesh
which is not a corpse? Because he rose from the tomb when the
Lord killed his passions, and he began to live unto Christ. We also
mentioned the blasphemous immorality of Carpocrates. But when we spoke about the saying of Nicolaus we omitted to say this. Nicolaus,
they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour's
ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife
into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they
say, this action was appropriate to the saying: "One must abuse the
flesh." Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words
simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity.
I am informed, however, that Nicolaus never had relations with any woman other than the
wife he married, and that of his children his daughters remained virgins to
their old age, and his son remained uncorrupted. In view of this it was an act
of suppression of passion when he brought before the apostles the wife on whose
account he was jealous. He taught what it meant to "abuse the flesh"
by restraining the distracting passions. For, as the Lord
commanded, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and God. It is said that Matthias also
taught that one should fight the flesh and abuse it, never allowing it to give
way to licentious pleasure, so that the soul might grow by faith and
knowledge.” (Stromata, 3:4:25-26)
Pseudo-Tertullian (Circa
Early 3rd Century?)
“A
brother heretic emerged in Nicolaus. He was one of
the seven deacons who were appointed in the Acts of the Apostles. He affirms
that Darkness was seized with a concupiscence — and,
indeed, a foul and obscene one — after Light: out of this permixture
it is a shame to say what fetid and unclean (combinations arose). The rest (of
his tenets), too, are obscene. For he tells of certain Aeons, sons of turpitude, and of conjunctions of execrable
and obscene embraces and per-mixtures, and certain yet baser outcomes of these.
He teaches that there were born, moreover, daemons, and gods, and spirits
seven, and other things sufficiently sacrilegious. alike
and foul, which we blush to recount, and at once pass them by. Enough it is for
us that this heresy of the Nicolaitans has been condemned
by the Apocalypse of the Lord with the weightiest authority attaching to a
sentence, in saying ‘Because this thou holdest, thou hatest the doctrine of the Nicolaitans,
which I too hate.’” (Against All
Heresies, 1)
Tertullian (c.160-c.230)
“John,
however, in the Apocalypse is charged to chastise those “who eat things
sacrificed to idols,” and “who commit fornication.” There are
even now another sort of Nicolaitans. Theirs is
called the Gaian heresy. But in his epistle he
especially designates those as “Antichrists” who “denied that Christ was come
in the flesh,” and who refused to think that Jesus was the Son of God. The one
dogma Marcion maintained; the other, Hebion. The doctrine, however, of Simon’s sorcery, which
inculcated the worship of angels, was itself actually reckoned amongst
idolatries and condemned by the Apostle Peter in Simon’s own person.” (Prescription Against
Heretics, 33)
“The
flesh is not, according to Marcion, immersed in the
water of the sacrament, unless it be in virginity, widowhood, or celibacy, or
has purchased by divorce a title to baptism, as if even generative impotents
did not all receive their flesh from nuptial union. Now, such a scheme as this
must no doubt involve the proscription of marriage. Let us see, then, whether
it be a just one: not as if we aimed
at destroying the happiness of sanctity, as do certain Nicolaitans
in their maintenance of lust and luxury, but as those who have come to
the knowledge of sanctity, and pursue it and prefer it, without detriment, however,
to marriage; not as if we superseded a bad thing by a good, but only a good
thing by a better. For we do not reject marriage, but simply
refrain from it. Nor do we prescribe sanctity as the rule, but only
recommend it, observing it as a good, yea, even the better state, if each man
uses it carefully according to his ability; but at the same time earnestly
vindicating marriage, whenever hostile attacks are made against it is a
polluted thing, to the disparagement of the Creator. For He bestowed His blessing
on matrimony also, as on an honorable estate, for the increase of the human
race; as He did indeed on the whole of His creation, for wholesome and good
uses. Meats and drinks are not on this account to be condemned, because, when
served up with too exquisite a daintiness, they conduce to gluttony; nor is
raiment to be blamed, because, when too costly adorned, it becomes inflated
with vanity and pride. So, on the same principle, the estate of matrimony is
not to be refused, because, when enjoyed without moderation, it is fanned into
a voluptuous flame. There is a great difference between a cause and a fault,
between a state and its excess. Consequently it is not an institution of this
nature that is to be blamed, but the extravagant use of it; according to the
judgment of its founder Himself, who not only said, “Be fruitful, and
multiply,” but also, “Thou shalt not commit
adultery,” and, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s
wife;” and who threatened with death the unchaste, sacrilegious, and monstrous
abomination both of adultery and unnatural sin with man and beast. Now, if any
limitation is set to marrying — such as the spiritual rule, which prescribes
but one marriage under the Christian obedience, maintained by the authority of
the Paraclete, — it will be His prerogative to fix the limit Who had once been
diffuse in His permission; His to gather, Who once scattered; His to cut down
the tree, Who planted it; His to reap the harvest, Who sowed the seed; His to
declare, “It remaineth that they who have wives be as
though they had none,” Who once said, “Be fruitful, and multiply;” His the end
to Whom belonged the beginning. Nevertheless, the tree is not cut down as if it
deserved blame; nor is the corn reaped, as if it were to be condemned, — but
simply because their time is come. So likewise the state of matrimony does not
require the hook and scythe of sanctity, as if it were evil; but as being ripe
for its discharge, and in readiness for that sanctity which will in the long
run bring it a plenteous crop by its reaping. For this leads me to remark of Marcion’s god, that in reproaching marriage as an evil and
unchaste thing, he is really prejudicing the cause of that very sanctity which
he seems to serve. For he destroys the material on which it subsists; if there
is to be no marriage, there is no sanctity. All proof of abstinence is lost
when excess is impossible; for sundry things have thus their evidence in their
contraries. Just as “strength is made perfect in weakness,” so likewise is
continence made manifest by the permission to marry. Who indeed will be called
continent, if that be taken away which gives him the
opportunity of pursuing a life of continence? What room for temperance in
appetite does famine give? What repudiation of ambitious projects does poverty
afford? What bridling of lust can the eunuch merit? To put a complete stop,
however, to the sowing of the human race, may, for
aught I know, be quite consistent for Marcion’s most
good and excellent god. For how could he desire the salvation of man, whom he
forbids to be born, when he takes away that institution from which his birth
arises? How will he find any one on whom to set the mark of his goodness, when
he suffers him not to come into existence? How is it possible to love him whose
origin he hates? Perhaps he is afraid of a redundant population, lest he should
be weary in liberating so many; lest he should have to make many heretics; lest
Marcionite parents should produce too many noble
disciples of Marcion. The cruelty of Pharaoh, which
slew its victims at their birth, will not prove to be more inhuman in
comparison. For while he destroyed lives, our heretic’s god refuses to give
them: the one removes from life, the other admits none to it. There is no
difference in either as to their homicide — man is slain by both of them; by
the former just after birth, by the latter as yet unborn. Thanks should we owe
thee, thou god of our heretic, hadst thou only
checked the dispensation of the Creator in uniting male and female; for from
such a union indeed has thy Marcion been born!
Enough; however, of Marcion’s god, who is shown to
have absolutely no existence at all, both by our definitions of the one only
Godhead, and the condition of his attributes. The whole course, however, of
this little work aims directly at this conclusion. If, therefore, we seem to
anybody to have achieved but little result as yet, let him reserve his
expectations, until we examine the very Scripture which Marcion
quotes.” (The Five Books Against Marcion, 1:29)
“But
how far (are we to treat) of Paul; since even John appears to give some secret
countenance to the opposite side? as if in the Apocalypse he has manifestly
assigned to fornication the auxiliary aid of repentance, where, to the angel of
the Thyatirenes, the Spirit sends a message that He
“hath against him that he kept (in communion) the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophet, and teacheth,
and seduceth my servants unto fornicating and eating
of idol-sacrifices. And I gave her bounteously a space of time,
that she might enter upon repentance; nor is she willing to enter upon
it on the count of fornication. Behold, I will give her into a bed, and her
adulterers with herself into greatest pressure, unless they shall have repented
of her works.” I am content with the fact that, between apostles, there is a
common agreement in rules of faith and of discipline. For, “Whether (it be) I,”
says (Paul), “or they, thus we preach.” Accordingly, it is material to the
interest of the whole sacrament to believe nothing conceded by John, which has
been flatly refused by Paul. This harmony of the Holy Spirit whoever observes,
shall by Him be conducted into His meanings. For (the angel of the Thyatirene Church)
was secretly introducing into the Church, and urging justly to repentance, an
heretical woman, who had taken upon herself to teach what she had learnt from
the Nicolaitans. For who has a doubt that an heretic, deceived by (a spurious baptismal) rite, upon
discovering his mischance, and expiating it by repentance, both attains pardon
and is restored to the bosom of the Church? Whence even among us, as being on a
par with an heathen, nay even more than heathen, an heretic likewise, (such an
one) is purged through the baptism of truth from each character, and admitted
(to the Church). Or else, if you are certain that that woman had, after a
living faith, subsequently expired, and turned heretic, in order that you may
claim pardon as the result of repentance, not as it were for an heretical, but
as it were for a believing, sinner: let her, I grant, repent; but with the view
of ceasing from adultery, not however in the prospect of restoration (to
Church-fellowship) as well. For this will be a repentance which we, too,
acknowledge to be due much more (than you do); but which we reserve, for
pardon, to God.
In short, this Apocalypse, in its
later passages, has assigned “the infamous and fornicators,” as well as “the
cowardly, and unbelieving, and murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters,” who
have been guilty of any such crime while professing the faith, to “the lake of
fire,” without any conditional condemnation. For it will not appear to
savor of (a bearing upon) heathens, since it has (just) pronounced with
regard to believers, “They who shall have conquered shall have this
inheritance; and I will be to them a God, and they to me for sons;” and so has
subjoined: “But to the cowardly, and unbelieving, and infamous, and
fornicators, and murderers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, (shall be) a share in
the lake of fire and sulfur, which (lake) is the second death.” Thus, too, again “Blessed they who act according to the precepts,
that they may have power over the tree of life and over the gates, for entering
into the holy city. Dogs, sorcerers, fornicators,
murderers, out!” — of course, such as do not
act according to the precepts; for to be sent out is the portion of
those who have been within. Moreover “What have I to do to judge them
who are without?” had preceded (the sentences now in question).” (On Modesty, 19)
Pseudo-Hippolytus
(2nd Century)
“[The
names of the seventy apostles are:] 1. James the Lord’s brother, bishop of
Hippolytus
Of
“There
are, however, among the Gnostics diversities of opinion; but we have decided
that it would not be worth while to enumerate the silly doctrines of these
(heretics), inasmuch as they are (too) numerous and devoid of reason, and full
of blasphemy. Now, even those (of the heretics) who are of a more serious turn
in regard of the Divinity, and have derived their systems of speculation from
the Greeks, must stand convicted (of these charges). But Nicolaus has been a cause of the
wide-spread combination of these wicked men. He, as one of the seven (that were
chosen) for the diaconate, was appointed by the Apostles. (But Nicolaus) departed from correct doctrine, and was in the
habit of inculcating indifferency of both life and food.
And when the disciples (of Nicolaus) continued to
offer insult to the Holy Spirit, John reproved them in the Apocalypse as
fornicators and eaters of things offered unto idols.” (The Refutation Of All Heresies, 7:24)
“The origin of the heresy of the Nicolaitans.
Now this was Nicolas, one of those deacons who were chosen at the beginning, as
he makes known in the Acts. This man first introduced this way, being moved by
a strange spirit, saying that there had been a resurrection to him, for he
thought this, that the resurrection was that we should believe in Christ, and
be washed, but he denied a resurrection of the flesh. Since from him many took
occasion, heresies they set up, but especially arose from them those who are
called Gnostics, of whom were Hymenaeus and Philetus, concerning whom the Apostle wrote, saying: 'They
say that the resurrection has already happened, and overthrow the faith of
many.’” (Discourse Upon The Resurrection To Mammea, The
Queen*)
*Mammea was the mother of Roman Emperor Alexander and this
discourse is believed to have been delivered to her while Alexander was
reigning as Emperor.
Victorinus Of Pettau (2nd-3rd
Centuries)
“6. ‘This
thou hast also, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes.’
But because thou thyself hatedst those who hold the
doctrines of the Nicolaitanes, thou expectest praise. Moreover, to hate the works of the Nicolaitanes, which He Himself also hated, this tends to
praise. But the works of the Nicolaitanes were in
that time false and troublesome men, who, as ministers under the name of Nicolaus, had made for themselves a heresy, to the effect
that what had been offered to idols might be exorcised and eaten, and that
whoever should have committed fornication might receive peace on the eighth
day. Therefore He extols those to whom He is writing; and to these men, being
such and so great, He promised the tree of life, which is in the paradise of
His God.” (Commentary On
The Apocalypse, Notes On Second Chapter)
“14-16.
‘Thou hast there some who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught in the
case of Balak that he should put a stumbling-block
before the children of Israel, to eat and to commit fornication. So also hast
thou them who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes;
but I will fight with them with the sword of
my mouth.’ That is, I will say what I shall command, and I will tell
you what you shall do. For Balaam, with his doctrine, taught Balak to cast a stumbling-block before the eyes of the
children of Israel, to eat what was sacrificed to idols, and to commit
fornication, — a thing which is known to have happened of old. For he gave this advice to the king of the Moabites, and they
caused stumbling to the people. Thus, says He, ye have among you those
who hold such doctrine; and under the pretext of mercy, you would corrupt
others.” (Commentary On
The Apocalypse, Notes On Third Chapter)
Eusebius Of
“At
this time the so-called sect of the Nicolaitans made
its appearance and lasted for a very short time. Mention is made of it in the
Apocalypse of John. They boasted that the author of their sect was Nicolaus, one of the deacons who, with Stephen, were
appointed by the apostles for the purpose of ministering to the poor. Clement
of
Gregory of Nyssa (d. c.387)
“For
after those high-wrought aeons in which, by way of
disparagement of our doctrine, he names as its supporters a Valentinus,
a Cerinthus, a Basilides, a
Montanus, and a Marcion,
and after laying it down that those who affirm that the Divine nature is
unknowable, and the mode of His generation unknowable, have no right or title
whatever to the name of Christians, and after reckoning us among those whom he
thus disparages, he proceeds to develop his own view in these terms: — “But we,
in agreement with holy and blessed men; affirm that the mystery of godliness
does not consist in venerable names, nor in the distinctive character of
customs and sacramental tokens, but in exactness of doctrine.” That when he
wrote this, he did so not under the guidance of evangelists, apostles, or any
of the authors of the Old Testament, is plain to every one who has any
acquaintance with the sacred and Divine Scripture. We should naturally be led
to suppose that by “holy and blessed men” he meant Manichaeus,
Nicolaus,
Colluthus, Aetius, Arius,
and the rest of the same band, with whom he is in strict accord in laying down
this principle, that neither the confession of sacred names, nor the customs of
the Church, nor her sacramental tokens, are a ratification of godliness.” (Against Eunomius,
11:5)
Pacian Of
“If it be not a carnal intention, my
lord, but as I judge, a calling of the Spirit, that thou enquirest
of us the faith of the Catholic verity, thou, before all, taking thy rise as
far as appears, from a streamlet at a distance, and not holding to the fountain
and source of the principal Church, shouldest, in the
first instance, have shewn what or how different are
the opinions which thou followest. Thou shouldest unfold thyself as to what cause more particularly
had loosened thee from the unity of our body. For those parts, for which a
remedy is sought, should be laid bare. Whereas now (if I may so say) the bosom
of correspondence being closed, we see not on what members more especially we
have to bestow our care. For such are the heresies which have sprung forth from
the Christian head, that of the mere names the roll would be immense. For to
pass over the heretics of the Jews, Dositheus the
Samaritan, the Sadducees, and the Pharisees, it were long to enumerate how many
grew up in the times of the Apostles, Simon Magus, and Menander, and Nicolaus,
and others hidden by an inglorious fame. What again in later times were Ebion, and Apelles, and Marcion,
and Valentinus, and Cerdon,
and not long after them, the Cataphrygians, and Novatians, not to notice any recent swarms!” (Epistle 1:1 Of The
Catholic Name)
Epiphanius Of
“Nicolas was one of the seven
deacons who were picked by the apostles alongside of Stephen (the saint and
first person to be martyred), Prochorus, Parmenas and the rest. He was originally from
He
had a very beautiful wife and he had withheld himself from having sexual
intercourse with her trying to imitate the behavior of some people that he had
seen doing so out of devotion to God. He was able to do this for a time but in
the end could not exercise self-control. Instead, because he wished to return
to relations with his wife as a dog returns to its vomit, he looked for
pathetic excuses to do so, and came up with them in defense of his own state of
incontinence. (Being ashamed of his behavior and turning from it would have
been better for him!) Then, failing to remain celibate, he just started having
intercourse with his wife. However, because he was ashamed of losing the battle
against his passions and thinking that people had found out that he was having
relations with his wife again he ventured to say that, “Unless one copulates
every day, he cannot possess eternal life.”
Now
he went from one façade to the next. He noticed that his wife had a beauty
which was unusual for women yet behaved with humility, and he envied her
because of this. He also began to act offensively towards her on every occasion
making slanderous accusations against her in speeches. He did this because he
thought that everyone else was as wanton as he was. Finally, he not only
degraded himself to natural sexual activity, but also to the holding of
blasphemous opinions, to the damage that comes from bad habits and to the
masquerade of the stealthy entry of wickedness.
It
was after this that the founders of what is falsely called “Knowledge” started
their evil growth in the world—I am referring to the ones called Gnostics and Phibionites, those referred to as disciples of Epiphanes, the Stratiotics, Levitics, Borborites and the
rest. For, in order to attract his own heresy with his own desires, each of
these people came up with innumerable ways of doing evil.
Some
of them pay homage to a Barbelo who they claim is on
high in an eighth level of heaven. They say that she has been sent out by the
Father. Some maintain that she is the mother of Ialdabaoth
but others say that she is the mother of Sabaoth. Her
son [according to these people] has ruled over the seventh heaven in a kind of
insolent and autocratic manner. He says to those beneath him, “I am the first
and I am the last, and there is no other God besides me.” Barbelo
[they say] has heard this said, and weeped over it. Barbelo continually appears to the archons in a beautiful
form and, by way of their climax and ejaculations, takes their seed in order to
recover her power (for lack of a better term) which has been sown into various of them.
So this was how and this was the reason why he
subtly brought the mystery hidden in his dirty talk to the world. And as I
said, some of the previous heretics use many base arts to teach their adherents
to get involved in promiscuous sexual relations with women and to do unnatural
acts that are incurably vicious. It is not right to tell how they do it though.
Like the holy apostle says in one place, “It is a shame even to speak of the
things that are done of them in secret.” However, if any person would like to
see the Holy Spirit’s refutation which deals with the sect of Nicolaus, he will have to learn it from the Revelation of
Saint John. In the name of the Lord John writes to one of the churches (that
is, he writes to the bishop placed there with the power of the holy angel at
the altar) and says, “One good thing you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”
Still
others honor a certain Prunicus; and in turn, to
please their own desires, they also say in a mythological type of language of
their way of thinking about this repulsive behavior that, “We gather power of Prunicus from our own bodies and by way of their
emissions.” What they mean is, that they believe that
they gather power of semen and menses. In a while, when I endeavor to talk
about them in particular, I will describe this exactly (not because I want to
dirty the ears of those who are listening or reading, but to stimulate enmity
in the wise against these people and to prevent these evil deeds from being
committed. I will not falsely accuse the guilty groups but make a public and
factual disclosure of the things that they do.
Still
other people give glory to the Ialdabaoth that we
talked about previously. These people claim, as I said previously, that he is Barbelo’s oldest son. They say that he should be honored
because he had made many revelations. So, they make up certain books in Ialdabaoth’s name and create any number of ridiculous names
for the archons (as they call them) and authorities, which are against the
human soul in every heaven. And, simply put, the plot which is created against
humanity by their fraud is a serious one.
In
the same way, other people glorify Kaulakau, naming
an archon with this word, and try hard to impress innocent people to accept
their teachings by presenting a disquieting attitude towards the names, and at
the supposed foreignness of Kaulakau’s name. But how
can the doctrines of their fraud and myth not be exposed at once as
foundationless by those who have experience and have been given grace from God
about every name and subject of his true knowledge?
Now
if they use the term “Prunicus,” this is just a burp
of lavishness and lack of self-control. Anything that is called “prunicus” suggests something that is named for copulation
and for the business of seducing people. This is because there is a Greek expression
which is used by the men who deflower slave women. The expression is “He wantoned so-and-so.” The Greek con artists who write
erotica also record the word in legends by saying that beauty is “wanton”.
In
addition to all of this, how can anyone who has learned about Kaulakau not laugh at it? To plant their fraud in the
simple-minded through something that is made up, they change the good Hebrew
expressions (which have been correctly translated into Greek and still clear to
those who can read Hebrew and which contain nothing obscure) into images,
shapes, real principles making them practically statuary, based upon the model
of the things that their shameful, fake profession plants.
The
word “Kaulakau,” is from the book of Isaiah, and is
an expression in the twelfth vision of that book where it says, “Expect
tribulation upon tribulation, hope upon hope, a little more a little more.” I
am going to give the actual Hebrew here completely, word for word as they are
written. “Tsav l’tsav, tsav l’tsav,” is Hebrew for
“tribulation upon tribulation.” “Qav l’qav, qav l’qav”
is “hope upon hope.” Z’eir sham, z’eir
sham” means, “Expect a little more a little more.”
So
where does this leave their legends? Their desire for
daydreams? How did these tares get into the world? Who forced men to
bring destruction on their own selves? Now if they changed the above terms into
a fictitious thing and knowingly did this, then they are clearly responsible
for their own destruction. However, if they said what they did in ignorance, speaking
things which they did not know, then nothing in the world is more pitiful than
they are. The reason for this is because these things are truly foolish, as
anyone who has had understanding given to them can see. They have destroyed and
are destroying both themselves and those who trust them for the sake of luxury.
Now
realize that there is a spirit of fraud which directs every fool to move
against the truth with an assortment of motions in the same way that breath
works in a flute. Truly, the flute is a copy of the snake through which the
evil one spoke and deceived Eve. Now realize that the flute was created to
deceive men and it was based upon and in imitation of the model of the serpent.
Take notice of what the flutist represents, for he throws his head back and
forth and leans right and left like the snake as he plays his instrument. Now
the devil also makes these same movements too as a way to blaspheme the
heavenly army and to annihilate the creatures of the earth while he gets the
world into his work. He does this by causing chaos and destruction “right and
left” upon those who trust in his fraud and are charmed by it as if they were
charmed by the notes of a musical instrument.
Some
of the other ones come up with new names saying that there was “Darkness”,
“Depth” and “Water” but that the Spirit who was in-between them fashioned their
boundary. Darkness, however, became angry and infuriated at Spirit and it
jumped up, held it, and begat something called “Womb”. After “Womb” was born it
began to desire the Spirit for itself. Four aeons
came out of the “Womb” which in turn produced fourteen more and this produced
“right” and “left” and “darkness” and “light”. After all of these a
dishonorable aeon was emitted. It had sexual
relations with the “Womb” that we were talking about and these two produced
gods, angels, demons and seven spirits. Now, it is not hard to perceive the
poor acting of their masquerade. They have betrayed their falsities by first
declaring that there is one Father and then after this declaring many gods.
This happened to prove that error destroys itself and uses its own falsehoods
against itself while the truth in every circumstance remains consistent at
every point.
So,
Nicolaus, how should I respond to you? What arguments
should I use against you? From what place did you originate to bring to us a
dishonorable aeon, a root of wickedness, a “Womb”
that is fertile, and a whole group of demons and gods? When the apostle says,
“Though there be that are called gods,” he is intimating that they really do
not exist. By using the words “”are called” he
demonstrated that they are gods in name only, not in actual existence but only
in the opinion of certain peoples. He says “But to us” (clearly meaning to us
who are acquainted with the knowledge of the truth) “there is but one God.” He
did not say, “called god,” but actual “God”. That
being said, if “there is one God” for us then it stands to reason that there
cannot be many gods.
The
Lord also says in the Gospel, “that they might know you, the only true God.” He
said this to refute the idea of those who speak of mythology and believe in the
idea of multiple gods. For our God is one—Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, three existences, one Lordship, one Godhead, one Praise—and not
many gods.
And,
Nicolaus, from your way of thinking how do we apply
the words of the Savior which state, “There are some eunuchs which were made
eunuchs of men, and there are some which were eunuchs from birth, and there are
eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”?
If there are eunuchs who exist for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, why have
you deceived yourself and those who trust in you, by holding God’s truth in
unrighteousness in connection with your intercourse, unnatural vice, and by
teaching licentiousness?
And
in what way do you apply the statement “Concerning virgins I have no
commandment of the Lord; but I give my judgment, as one that has attained
mercy, that it is good so to be”? And also the statement, “The virgin cares for
the things of the Lord, how she may please the Lord, that she may be holy in
body and in spirit.” And there is so much to say about purity, self-control and
celibacy (you really shamelessly spell out the entire filth of uncleanness in
what you say!). However, my purpose is served here with these couple or so of
texts that I have placed before the reader to refute this ridiculous sect.
The
next thing that I am going to do is to describe the heretical group that is
closely associated with Nicolaus. This group is like
a wooded area that is overgrown with field grass, a group of thorns that are
inter-tangled in every way, or a big pile of trees that are dead and scrub
grass in a field, ready to be placed in the fire to be disposed of. I describe
them in this way because of their union with the heretical group of the
wretched Nicolaus. Now just as human bodies catch
sickness from other human bodies by inoculation, a really bad itch, or leprosy
so the ones who are referred to as “Gnostics” are somewhat connected to and
with the Nicolaitans because they took their
promptings from Nicolaus himself and his precursors—I
am talking about Simon et al. They are referred to as “knowledgeable” but
people know them all too well for the evilness and obscene behavior that they
promulgate in the business of their unclean trade.
Now
we have taken the reed that was placed in Christ’s hand and we have truly hit
and destroyed this man also who practiced sexual self-restraint for a short
time and then gave it up. His behavior is similar to the animal called the newt
who comes up from the water to the dry land and then
returns again to the water. Let us now go on to the heresies which follow.” (Panarion, Heresy 25)
“And
he was brought up to heaven in his own body, soul and mind, putting them
together as one unity and perfecting them as a divine and spiritual unit. He
took his seat at the right hand of the Father after he sent messengers into the
whole world: Simon Peter, Andrew his brother, and James and John (the sons of
Zebedee) whom he had chosen at the beginning. Also Philip,
Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, Judas, Thaddeus, and Simon the Zealot. Now
even though Judas Iscariot had been one of the twelve to begin with, he became
a traitor and was taken off of the sacred roll of the apostles.
And he sent out another seventy-two
people also to preach. Among these seventy-two were the seven who had been put
in charge of the widows—Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, TImon, Parmenas and Nicolaus—but before these was Matthias, who
was given a place among the apostles in the stead of Judas. Following these
seven and Matthias who came before them, he sent Mark, Luke, Justus, Barnabas,
Apelles,
Ambrose Of
“How could John say that we should not pray for the sin unto death,
who himself in the Apocalypse wrote the message to the angel of the
“In
advising fornication and sacrilege, Balaam proved himself unjust; even in the
Apocalypse of John the Evangelist this is plainly written, where the Lord Jesus
says to the Angel of the Church of Pergamum: ‘Thou hast there some who hold the
teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a
stumbling block before the children of Israel, that they might eat and commit
fornication. So thou hast also some
who hold the teaching of the Nicolaites.’
Hence comes the sacrilege of the Manichaeans
and of Manasse, who mingle and unite sacrilege with
impiety.” (Letter To
Bishops, Letter 14 To Chromatius)
Constitutions
Of
The Holy Apostles (Late 4th Century)
“But
when we went forth among the Gentiles to preach the word of life, then the
devil wrought in the people to send after us false apostles to the corrupting
of the word; and they sent forth one Cleobius, and
joined him with Simon, and these became disciples to one Dositheus,
whom they despising, put him down from the principality. Afterwards also others
were the authors of absurd doctrines: Cerinthus, and
Marcus, and Menander, and Basilides, and Saturnilus. Of these some own the doctrine of many gods,
some only of three, but contrary to each other, without beginning, and ever
with one another, and some of an infinite number of them, and those unknown
ones also. And some reject marriage; and their doctrine is,
that it is not the appointment of God; and others abhor some kinds of food: some are impudent in uncleanness, such
as those who are falsely called Nicolaitans.”
(Constitutions Of
The Holy Apostles, 6:2:8)
Pseudo-Ignatius
Of
“Do
ye also avoid those wicked offshoots of his, Simon his firstborn son, and
Menander, and Basilides, and all his wicked mob of
followers, the worshippers of a man, whom also the prophet Jeremiah pronounces
accursed. Flee also the impure Nicolaitanes, falsely so called, who are lovers of
pleasure, and given to calumnious speeches. Avoid also the children of
the evil one, Theodotus and Cleobulus,
who produce death-bearing fruit, whereof if any one tastes, he instantly dies,
and that not a mere temporary death, but one that shall endure for ever. These
men are not the planting of the Father, but are an accursed brood. And says the Lord, “Let every plant which my heavenly Father has
not planted be rooted up.” For if they had been
branches of the Father, they would not have been “enemies of the cross of
Christ,” but rather of those who “killed the Lord of glory.” But now, by
denying the cross, and being ashamed of the passion, they cover the
transgression of the Jews, those fighters against God, those murderers of the
Lord; for it were too little to style them merely
murderers of the prophets.” (Epistle To The Trallians [Longer Version],
11)
“If
any one confesses the truths mentioned, but calls lawful wedlock, and the procreation
of children, destruction and pollution, or deems certain kinds of food
abominable, such an one has the apostate dragon
dwelling within him. If any one confesses the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, and praises the creation, but calls the incarnation merely an
appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one
has denied the faith, not less than the Jews who killed Christ. If any one confesses these things, and
that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, even
as the soul also is in the body, because it was God that inhabited it, and not
a human soul, but affirms that unlawful unions are a good thing, and places the
highest happiness in pleasure, as does the man who is falsely called a Nicolaitan, this person can neither be a lover of God, nor
a lover of Christ, but is a corrupter of his own flesh, and therefore void of
the Holy Spirit, and a stranger to Christ. All such persons are but
monuments and sepulchers of the dead, upon which are written only the names of
dead men. Flee, therefore, the wicked devices and snares of the spirit which
now worketh in the children of this world, lest at any time being overcome, ye
grow weak in your love. But be ye all joined together with an undivided heart
and a willing mind, “being of one accord and of one judgment,” being always of
the same opinion about the same things, both when you are at ease and in
danger, both in sorrow and in joy.” (Epistle
To The Philadelphians [Longer Version], 6)
Jerome (c.340-420)
“Not all bishops are bishops indeed. You consider Peter; mark
Judas as well. You notice Stephen; look
also on Nicolas, sentenced in the Apocalypse by the Lord’s own lips, whose
shameful imaginations gave rise to the heresy of the Nicolaitans.
“Let a man examine himself and so let him come.” For it is
not ecclesiastical rank that makes a man a Christian.” (Letter 14:9)
“Such being the state of the case, what object is served by “silly
women laden with sins, carried about with every wind of doctrine, ever learning
and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth?” Or how is the cause
helped by the men who dance attendance upon these, men with itching ears who
know neither how to hear nor how to speak? They confound old mire with new
cement and, as Ezekiel says, daub a wall with untempered
mortar; so that, when the truth comes in a shower, they are brought to naught.
It was with the help of the harlot Helena that Simon Magus founded his sect. Bands of women accompanied Nicolas of
“Have mercy I beseech you upon your soul. Consider that God’s
judgment will one day overtake you. Remember by what a bishop you were
ordained. The holy man was mistaken in his choice; but this he might well be. For even God repented that he had anointed Saul to be
king. Even among the twelve apostles Judas was found a traitor. And Nicolas of
“When the blood of Christ was but lately shed and the apostles
were still in Judæa, the Lord’s body was asserted to be
a phantom; the Galatians had been led away to the observance of the law, and
the Apostle was a second time in travail with them; the Corinthians did not
believe the resurrection of the flesh, and he endeavored by many arguments to
bring them back to the right path. Then came Simon
Magus and his disciple Menander. They asserted themselves to be powers of God.
Then Basilides invented the most
high God Abraxas and the three hundred and
sixty-five manifestations of him. Then
Nicolas, one of the seven Deacons, and one whose lechery knew no rest by night
or day, indulged in his filthy dreams. I say nothing of the Jewish
heretics who before the coming of Christ destroyed the law delivered to them…”
(The Dialogue Against
The Luciferians, 23)
“As we have made mention of that distinguished saint, let us show
also from his Apocalypse that repentance unaccompanied by baptism ought to be
allowed valid in the case of heretics. It is imputed (Revelation 2:4) to the
angel of
Augustine
Of
Hippo (354-430)
“But it will be urged that the bad outside are worse than those
within. It is indeed a weighty
question, whether Nicolaus, being already severed
from the Church, or Simon, who was still within it, was the worse, — the one
being a heretic, the other a sorcerer. But if the mere fact of
division, as being the clearest token of violated charity, is held to be the
worse evil, I grant that it is so. Yet many, though they have lost all feelings
of charity, yet do not secede from considerations of worldly profit; and as
they seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s, what they are unwilling
to secede from is not the unity of Christ, but their own temporal advantage.
Whence it is said in praise of charity, that she ‘seeketh
not her own.’” (On Baptism, Against The Donatists, 4:10:16)
John Cassian (c.360-c.435) & Abbott Piamun (4th Century)
“Finally if we bear in mind that Satan was chosen among the angels, and Judas among the apostles, and Nicholas the
author of a detestable heresy among the deacons, it will be no wonder that the
basest of men are found among the ranks of the saints. For although some maintain that this Nicholas was not the same man
who was chosen for the work of the ministry by the Apostles, nevertheless they
cannot deny that he was of the number of the disciples, all of whom
were clearly of such a character and so perfect as those few whom we can now
with difficulty discover in the coenobia.” (The Conferences Of
John Cassian, Conference Of Abbott Piamun On The
Three Sorts Of Monks,
“The remaining writings which
have been compiled or been recognised by heretics or schismatics the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church does
not in any way receive; of these we have thought it right to cite below a few
which have been handed down and which are to be avoided by catholics…These
and those similar ones, which Simon Magus, Nicolaus, Cerinthus, Marcion, Basilides, Ebion, Paul of Samosata, Photinus and Bonosus, who suffered from similar error, also Montanus with his obscene followers, Apollinaris, Valentinus the
Manichaean, Faustus the African, Sabellius, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Novatus, Sabbatius, Calistus, Donatus, Eustasius, Jovianus, Pelagius, Julian of Eclanum,
Caelestius, Maximian, Priscillian from Spain, Nestorius of Constantinople, Maximus the Cynic, Lampetius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, Peter and the
other Peter, of whom one disgraced Alexandria and the other Antioch, Acacius of Constantinople with his associates, and what
also all disciples of heresy and of the heretics and schismatics,
whose names we have scarcely preserved, have taught or compiled, we acknowledge
is to be not merely rejected but eliminated from the whole Roman Catholic and
Apostolic Church and with their authors and the followers of its authors to be
damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.” (Gelasian
Decree, 5)
Gildas The Wise (c. 500 – 570)
“As I beheld sheep of one fold
unlike one another, I called Peter, with good reason, most blessed on account
of his sound confession of Christ, but Judas most unhappy because of his love
of covetousness; Stephen I called glorious, because of the martyr's palm; Nicolas, on the contrary, miserable,
owing to the mark of unclean heresy.” (The Ruin Of
“For what is so impious and so wicked as, after the pattern of Simon Magus, though meanwhile
no indiscriminate sins intervene, that any one should wish to purchase the
office of bishop or presbyter for an earthly price, an office that is more
becomingly obtained by holiness and upright character? But the error of those
men lies the more grave and desperate in the fact that they buy counterfeit and
unprofitable priesthood, not from apostles or the successors of apostles, but
from tyrants and from their father the devil. Nay, furthermore, they place upon
the edifice of an infamous life a kind of roof and covering for all sins, in
order that admitted desires, old or new, of covetousness and gluttony should
not be easily placed to their charge by any one, seeing that, having oversight
of many, they carry on their pillage with greater ease. For if truly such a
stipulation of purchase had been presented by those shameless men, let me not
say to the apostle Peter, but to any holy priest and pious king, they would
have received the same answer as the originator of the same, the magician
Simon, received from the apostle when Peter said: Thy money perish with
thee. But perhaps, alas! they who ordain those candidates, nay, rather, who
abase them and give them a curse for a blessing, because out of sinners they
make, not penitents, which would be more befitting, but sacrilegious and
irremediable offenders, and in a way appoint Judas, the betrayer of the Lord,
to the chair of Peter, and Nicolaus,
the founder of a foul heresy, in place of Stephen the martyr----perhaps
they were summoned to the priesthood after the same manner. For this reason, in
the case of their sons, they do not greatly detest (they rather approve), that
it is a matter of utmost certainty that things should come to pass afterwards
as with the fathers. Since, if they could not find this kind of pearl, because
fellow-labourers resisted them in a diocese, and
sternly refused them so profitable a business, they are not so much grieved as
delighted to send messengers before them, to cross seas and travel over broad
countries, so that in any way such display and incomparable dignity, or to
speak more truly, such diabolical mockery, be acquired, even by the sale of all
their substance. Afterwards, with great state and magnificent show, or rather
foolery, they return to their own country, and show their haughty gait more haughty. While hitherto their gaze was at the tops of
mountains, they now direct their half-sleepy eyes straight to heaven, or to the
light fleecy clouds, and obtrude themselves upon their country as creatures of
a new mould; nay, rather as instruments of the devil, just as aforetime Novatus at Rome, the tormentor of the Lord's jewel, the
black hog, their purpose is to stretch forth their hands violently upon the
holy sacrifices of Christ, hands worthy not so much of the venerable altars as
of the avenging flames of hell, because they are men placed in a position of
this kind.” (The Ruin Of
Andrew of
“Rev.
2:2-5a 1know your works and your toil and your patience and that you cannot
bear evil, and you have tested those calling themselves apostles, and they are
not, and you found them false. 3And you have endurance and patience on account
of my name and did not grow weary. 4But I have against you that you have left
your first love. 5aRemember, therefore, from where you fell and repent and do
the works (you did at) first. Accepting the church in two ways, he
reprimands it in one way. He has put the one (reprimand) in the middle and the
achievements on either side. He praised the hard work and patience for
the faith and estrangement from the wicked ones, because, not believing every
spirit, she (the Church) tested the false apostles and, having determined them
to be false, dismissed them, and besides this because he has hated the works of the shameful Nicolaitans.
He complained that the love of neighbor and beneficence had grown lukewarm, and
he called her to return to this (love) by those (words) which follow, on
account of which he says, do the works you did at first.” (Commentary On The Apocalypse, Note On
Revelation 2:2-5a)
“Rev.
2:5b- 6 If not, I will come to you soon and I will move your lampstand from its place, if you do not repent. 6But this
you have: that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also
hate. The movement of the church (means) to deprive them
of divine grace, by which he brings down upon them swells and waves of evil
spirits and evil men ministering to them. Some understood the removal of
the lampstand (to refer to) the archpriest's throne
of
“Rev.
2:14-15 But I have a few things against you: that you have (some people) there
keeping the teaching of Balaam, who in Balaam taught Balak
to put a stumbling block before the sons of
“Rev
2:19-20 19I know your works and your love and faith and service and your
patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20But I have
this very much against you, that you allow the woman Jezebel, who calls herself
a prophet, to teach and to lead my servants astray to practice immorality and
to eat food sacrificed to idols. "Even
if I accept your piety by reason of faith, service to the needy and endurance,
yet I justly find fault. For you allow the heresy of Nicolaitans"
— clearly identified as 'Jezebel' on account of the impiety and licentiousness
— "to speak freely, thus placing a stumbling block before my servants
through their simplicity of thought and attracting them toward food sacrificed
to idols, which they rightly renounced. You are obligated to silence her, also
because, animated by an evil spirit, she pretends to be a prophet." (Commentary On The
Apocalypse, Note On Revelation 2:19-20)
Venerable Bede (c.672-735)
“15. Nicolaitans. The Nicolaitans
are named from Nicolas the deacon, of whom Clement relates that when he was
reproved for his jealousy of a most beautiful wife, he answered that whoever would might take her to wife, and says that, on account of
this, unbelievers taught that the Apostles allowed to all a promiscuous and
common intercourse with women. And the Nicolaitans
are reported to have put forth some fabulous and almost heathen statements
concerning the beginning of the world, and not to have kept their meats
separate from things offered to idols.” (Explanation
Of The Apocalypse, Note On Revelation 2:15)
John Of
The
Nicolaitans
stem from Nicolas, who was ordained to serve by the Apostles. Because of
jealousy for his wife, he was motivated to teach his disciples the practice of
immorality with others. He also introduced to the world the doctrine of Caulacau, Prunicus, and other barbaric
names.” (The Fount Of
Knowledge, On Heresies, 25)
Photius of
“The author reports some suspicions
that Hippolytus and Epiphanius encouraged concerning Nicholas, one of the seven
deacons, whom they condemn energetically. On the other hand the divine
Ignatius and Clement, the author of the Stromateis,
and Eusebius Pamphilus and Theodoret of Cyr condemn
the heresy of the Nicolaitans but deny that Nicholas
was connected with it.” (Bibliotheca,
Codex 232)
________________________
After reading the ancient references
to the Nicolaitanes it becomes clear that the ancient
writers generally held to one of either two diverging understandings of who the
Nicolaitanes were. As noted in the references above, the early Christians all
seem to agree that the Nicolaitanes were somehow connected to Nicolaus the deacon (a man who apparently displayed some
very ascetic and jealous behavior towards his very attractive wife and ended up
being interviewed by the apostles for this). They diverge in what happened
beyond this with some seeming to indicate that he continued on in his Christian
faith and service with later individuals creating a cult of sorts based upon a
warped view of his asceticism while others imply that his behavior went from
bad to worse and that he himself was the creator of the cult. Modern
interpreters have offered an alternative suggestion. They look to the Greek
composition of the word Nicolaitane and speculate
that it is a compound word composed of the two Greek words Nicao, meaning “to conquer” and
For
my own part I would like to believe the best about Nicolaus—that
his teachings on asceticism were taken out of context and became the basis for
the Nicolaitanes and hence the basis for them being
referred to as Nicolaitanes. Clement of
Sources:
New
Testament
King James Version
Clement Of
Stromata (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A.
Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 2)
Stromata (The Library of Christian Classics:
Volume II, Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and
Origin with Introduction and Notes by John Ernest Leonard Oulton,
D.D., Regius Professor of Divinity in the University
of Dublin; Chancellor of St. Patrick’s and Henry Chadwick, B.D., Fellow and
Dean of Queens’ College Cambridge, Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1954)
Irenaeus Of
Against
Heresies (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 1)
Pseudo-Tertullian
Against
All Heresies (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds.,
Vol. 3)
Tertullian
Prescription
Against Heretics (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts
& J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 3)
The
Five Books Against Marcion
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 3)
On
Modesty (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 4)
Pseudo-Hippolytus
On
The Seventy Apostles (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts & J. Donaldson,
eds., Vol. 5)
Hippolytus Of
The
Refutation Of All Heresies (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A.
Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 5)
Discourse
Upon The Resurrection To Mammea,
The Queen (B.H.Cowper, Syriac
Miscellanies [1861])
Victorinus
Of Pettau
Commentary
On The Apocalypse (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts & J. Donaldson,
eds., Vol. 7)
Eusebius Of
Church
History (Nicene
& Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Philip Schaff,
ed., Vol. 2)
Gregory of Nyssa
Against
Eunomius (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, Philip Schaff, ed., Vol. 5)
Pacian
Of
Epistle 1: Of The Catholic Name (The Extant Works of S. Pacian,
Library of Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, C. H. Collyns, Tr., Vol.
17 [1842])
Epiphanius Of
Ambrose Of
Two Books Concerning Repentance (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, Philip Schaff, ed., Vol. 10)
Letter
To Bishops, Letter 14 To Chromatius
(Saint Ambrose Letters, 1-91, Mary Melchoir Bevenka, Tr., Fathers Of The Church, Vol. 26)
Anonymous
Constitutions
Of The Holy Apostles (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A.
Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 7)
Pseudo-Ignatius Of
Epistle
To The Trallians [Longer
Version] (Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 1)
Epistle
To The Philadelphians [Longer Version]
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, A. Roberts & J. Donaldson, eds., Vol. 1)
Jerome
Letter 14 (Nicene
& Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Philip Schaff,
ed., Vol. 6)
Letter
133 (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Philip Schaff, ed., Vol. 6)
Letter 147 (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, Philip Schaff, ed., Vol. 6)
The Dialogue Against
The Luciferians (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series,
Philip Schaff, ed., Vol. 6)
Augustine Of
Hippo
On Baptism, Against The Donatists (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series,
Philip Schaff, ed., Vol. 4)
John
Cassian
The Conferences Of John Cassian (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers,
Second Series, Philip Schaff, ed., Vol. 11)
Gelasius I
Gelasian
Decree (Roger Pearse,
Tr. http://www.tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm)
Gildas
The Wise
The
Ruin Of
Andrew of
Commentary On The
Apocalypse (Eugenia Constantinou, Tr., Andrew
of Caesarea and the Apocalypse in the
Venerable Bede
Explanation
Of The Apocalypse (Edward Marshall, Tr., James
Parker & Co., [1878])
John Of
The
Fount Of Knowledge, On Heresies (
Photius of
Bibliotheca (Roger Pearse,
Tr., http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_07bibliotheca.htm)
**All texts are either in the public
domain or used in accordance with the fair use clause of United States copyright
law.**
TO GOD BE
THE GLORY!