Editing Nicolaism (section)

==Church Fathers==
Several Church Fathers attribute the term ''Nicolaitans'' as deriving from Nicolaus (Νικόλαος), a native of Antioch and one of the first [[Seven Deacons]] mentioned in {{bibleverse||Acts|6:5}}. The nature of the link between Nicolaus and Nicolaitans has not been definitively proven.

Some scholars believe<ref>Daniel Denison Whedon "A popular commentary on the New Testament" New York: Phillips & Hunt (1880) Vol.V Titus-Revelation, Page 342: "Later, and so less trustworthy, authorities exculpate Nicolas, under excuse either that he was misunderstood by his followers or that they claimed his authority falsely, or that it was another Nicolas, a bishop of Samaria, who was their real founder."</ref><ref>James Hastings  "Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics" New York: Charles Scribner's Sons (1917) Vol. 9  Page 364: "Another Nicolas than the deacon must in consequence be sought as the founder of the immoral party at Pergamum. The name was not uncommon, and exact identification is not at present possible. According to pseudo-Dorotheus, there was a Nicolas, bishop of Samaria, who fell into heresy and evil ways under the influence of Simon Magus."</ref> that the Nicolaitans came from another Nicolas and that Nicolas the Deacon did not become apostate.

=== Irenaeus ===
[[Irenaeus]] was of the opinion that Nicolas the Deacon was their founder.
{{blockquote|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.|[[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/IRENAEUS/Against Heresies: Book I/Chapter XXVI.|Irenaeus, '' Adversus haereses'', i. 26, §3]]<ref>''[[On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis|Adversus haereses]]'', i. 26, §3; iii. 11, §1.</ref>}}

He held that the [[Gospel of John]] was written to counter the teachings of [[Cerinthus]], which he believed was influenced by the Nicolaitans (in ''[[Adversus Haereses]]'' III. xi. 1; I. xxvi. 3). Later, [[Augustine of Hippo]] ascribed to them Cerinthian doctrines concerning the creation of the world (in his ''De haeresibus ad Quodvultdeum'', v).

=== Epiphanius ===
[[Epiphanius of Salamis|Epiphanius]] relates some details of the life of Nicolas the deacon, and describes him as gradually sinking into the grossest impurity, and becoming the originator of the Nicolaitans and other libertine Gnostic sects:
{{blockquote|[Nicolas] had an attractive wife, and had refrained from intercourse as though in imitation of those whom he saw to be devoted to God. He endured this for a while but in the end could not bear to control his incontinence.... But because he was ashamed of his defeat and suspected that he had been found out, he ventured to say, "Unless one copulates every day, he cannot have eternal life."<ref>{{cite book |last=Williams |first=Frank |title=The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis |year=1987 |publisher=E.J. Brill |location=Leiden; New York; København; Köln |volume=Book I (Sects 1-46) |page=77}}</ref>|Epiphanius, ''[[Panarion]]'', xxv. 1}}

[[Hippolytus of Rome]] shared the opinion that Nicolas became a heresiarch (in ''[[Refutation of All Heresies]]'' vii. 24).<ref name="Blunt">{{cite book |title=Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought |publisher=Rivingtons |year=1874 |editor=John Henry Blunt M.A., F.S.A. |location=London}}</ref><ref>Stephen Gobar, Photii ''Biblioth''. §232, p. 291, ed. 1824; ''[[Philosophumena]]'', bk. vii. §36.</ref>

=== Jerome ===
[[Jerome]] believed the account of Nicolas succumbing to heresy, at least to some extent.<ref>''Ep.'' 147, t. i. p. 1082, ed. Vallars. &c.</ref> This was also the opinion of the unknown Christian author (writing around 435) of ''[[Praedestinatus]]'' (in i. 4.),<ref name="Blunt" /> as well  as other writers in the 4th century.

=== Clement of Alexandria ===
Not all early writers accepted the connection between the Nicolaitans and Nicolas the Deacon, saying that the Nicolaitans are "falsely so called" (ψευδώνυμοι).<ref>{{ws|[[Ignatius of Antioch|Ignat]]. [[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/IGNATIUS/Epistle to the Trallians: Shorter and Longer Versions/Chapter XI.|''ad Trall''. xi]]}} (longer version): "Flee also the impure '''Nicolaitanes, falsely so called''', who are lovers of pleasure, and given to calumnious speeches." Cf. {{ws|[[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume I/IGNATIUS/Epistle to the Philadelphians: Shorter and Longer Versions/Chapter VI.|''ad Phil''. vi]]}} (longer version): "If any one ... 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." {{ws|[[s:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume VII/Constitutions of the Holy Apostles/Book VI/Sec. II|''Const. Apost.'' vi]]}}: "... some are impudent in uncleanness, such as those who are '''falsely called Nicolaitans'''."</ref> This negative view of Nicolas is irreconcilable with the traditional account of his character given by Clement of Alexandria,<ref>"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" (Clement of Alexandria, ''[[Stromata]]'', ii. 20).</ref> an earlier writer than Epiphanius. He states that Nicolas led a chaste life and brought up his children in purity. He describes a certain occasion when Nicolas had been sharply reproved by the apostles as a jealous husband, and he repelled the charge by offering to allow his wife to become the wife of any other person. Clement also writes that Nicolas was in the habit of repeating a saying which is ascribed to the apostle [[Matthew the Evangelist|Matthias]], ''that it is our duty to fight against the flesh and to abuse'' (παραχρῆσθαι) ''it''. His words were perversely interpreted by the Nicolaitans as authority for their immoral practices.<ref>"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.' ... 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" (Clement of Alexandria, ''Stromata'', iii. 4, §§25-26; and ''apud'' [[wikisource:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book III/Chapter 29|Euseb. ''H. E''. iii. 29]]; see also [[wikisource:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book III/Chapter 25|footnote 31 in Chapter 25 of ''NPNF'']]).</ref> Theodoret repeats the foregoing statement of Clement in his account of the sect, and charges the Nicolaitans with false dealing in borrowing the name of the deacon.<ref>''Haeret. Fab.'' iii. 1.</ref>

Clement (in ''Stromata'' 3, 2) does condemn heretics whose views on sex he sees as licentious, but he does not associate them with Nicolas:
:But the followers of [[Carpocrates]] and Epiphanes think that wives should be common property. Through them the worst calumny has become current against the Christian name. ...he [Epiphanes] says [in his book ''Concerning Righteousness''] that the idea of Mine and Thine came into existence through the [Mosaic] laws so that the earth and money were no longer put to common use. And so also with marriage. 'For God has made vines for all to use in common, since they are not protected against sparrows and a thief; and similarly corn and the other fruits. But the abolition, contrary to divine law, of community of use and equality begat the thief of domestic animals and fruits. He brought female to be with male and in the same way united all animals. He thus showed righteousness to be a universal fairness and equality. But those who have been born in this way have denied the universality which is the corollary of their birth and say, "Let him who has taken one woman keep her," whereas all alike can have her, just as the other animals do.' After this, which is quoted word for word, he again continues in the same spirit as follows: 'With a view to the permanence of the race, he has implanted in males a strong and ardent desire which neither law nor custom nor any other restraint is able to destroy. For it is God's decree. ...Consequently one must understand the saying "Thou shalt not covet" as if the lawgiver was making a jest, to which he added the even more comic words "thy neighbor's goods". For he himself who gave the desire to sustain the race orders that it is to be suppressed, though he removes it from no other animals. And by the words "thy neighbor's wife" he says something even more ludicrous, since he forces what should be common property to be treated as a private possession.'

Clement asks: 
:And how can this man still be reckoned among our number when he openly abolishes both law and gospel by these words...Carpocrates fights against God, and Epiphanes likewise. ...These, so they say, and certain other enthusiasts for the same wickedness, gather together for feasts (I would not call their meeting an ''[[Agape]]''), men and women together. After they have sated their appetites ('on repletion [[Horae#The ten or twelve Hours|Cypris]], the goddess of love, enters,' as it is said), then they overturn the lamps and so extinguish the light that the shame of their adulterous 'righteousness' is hidden, and they have intercourse where they will and with whom they will. After they have practiced community of use in this love-feast, they demand by daylight of whatever women they wish that they will be obedient to the law of Carpocrates-it would not be right to say the law of God. ...Of these and other similar sects Jude, I think, spoke prophetically in his letter - 'In the same way also these dreamers'[Jude 1:8] (for they do not seek to find the truth in the light of day) as far as the words 'and their mouth speaks arrogant things.' [Jude 1:16]

=== Eusebius of Caesarea ===
Eusebius of Caesarea speaks directly about the Nicolaitans and Nicolas (in his ''Church History'' iii, 29), saying "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."

Eusebius repeats Clement's story about Nicolas and his wife and holds that those he decries as heretics are claiming his name for their sect because they misunderstand the context of his presentation of his wife to the apostles and are "imitating blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, [in order to] commit fornication without shame. But I understand that Nicolaus had to do with no other woman than her to whom he was married, and that, so far as his children are concerned, his daughters continued in a state of virginity until old age, and his son remained uncorrupt. If this is so, when he brought his wife, whom he jealously loved, into the midst of the apostles, he was evidently renouncing his passion; and when he used the expression, 'to abuse the flesh,' he was inculcating self-control in the face of those pleasures that are eagerly pursued. For I suppose that, in accordance with the command of the Savior, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure and the Lord [Matthew 6:24; Luke 16:13]. ...So much concerning those who then attempted to pervert the truth, but in less time than it has taken to tell it became entirely extinct."

[[Eusebius]] (in his ''Church History'', iv, 7) held that as [[Satan]] was shut off from using persecution against Christians "he devised all sorts of plans, and employed other methods in his conflict with the church, using base and deceitful men as instruments for the ruin of souls and as ministers of destruction. Instigated by him, impostors and deceivers, assuming the name of our religion, brought to the depth of ruin such of the believers as they could win over, and at the same time, by means of the deeds which they practiced, turned away from the path which leads to the word of salvation those who were ignorant of the faith." He traces heresy from the biblical figure of [[Simon Magus]] (Acts 8:9-29) through [[Menander (gnostic)|Menander]] to both [[Saturninus of Antioch|Saturnius of Antioch]] and [[Basilides]] of Alexandria. Following Irenaeus, Eusebius says "Basilides, under the pretext of unspeakable mysteries, invented monstrous fables, and carried the fictions of his impious heresy quite beyond bounds." He reports that Christian author [[Agrippa Castor]] "While exposing his mysteries he says that Basilides wrote twenty-four books upon the Gospel, and that he invented prophets for himself named Barcabbas and Barcoph, and others that had no existence, and that he gave them barbarous names in order to amaze those who marvel at such things; that he taught also that the eating of meat offered to idols and the unguarded renunciation of the faith in times of persecution were matters of indifference; and that he enjoined upon his followers, like Pythagoras, a silence of five years. ...Thus it came to pass that the malignant demon, making use of these ministers, on the one hand enslaved those that were so pitiably led astray by them to their own destruction, while on the other hand he furnished to the unbelieving heathen abundant opportunities for slandering the divine word, inasmuch as the reputation of these men brought infamy upon the whole race of Christians. In this way, therefore, it came to pass that there was spread abroad in regard to us among the unbelievers of that age, the infamous and most absurd suspicion that we practiced unlawful commerce with mothers and sisters, and enjoyed impious feasts." Here a doctrine of indifference concerning eating meat sacrificed to idols is put forward along with a doctrine of licentious sex, but no mention of Nicolaitanes is made nor blame assigned to Nicolas.

=== Isidore of Seville ===
The last Western Church Father was [[Isidore of Seville]], who finished the ''[[Etymologiae|Etymologies]]'', in AD 636. In Book VIII titled "The Church and sects (De ecclesia et secta)" he wrote, "The Nicolaites (Nicolaita) are so called from Nicolaus, deacon of the church of Jerusalem, who, along with Stephen and the others, was ordained by Peter. He abandoned his wife because of her beauty, so that whoever wanted to might enjoy her; the practice turned into debauchery, with partners being exchanged in turn. Jesus condemns them in the book of Revelation, saying (2:6): "But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaites."<ref>Stephen A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach and Oliver Berghof (ed.) ''The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville'', Cambridge University Press, 2006, p. 175.</ref>