Theos-Talk Archives (May 1996 Message tl01341)

Hello,

At Vol III chapter VII, (In portuguese edition, Unveiled Isis was
published in 4  volumes: Vol I and II Science, Vol III and IV Theology), HPB
states that Nicolaus, the christian deacon (Acts6:5), was the same person
condemed by John at Revelations (Rev2:6). His heresy (in Blavatsky's view)
was the marriage, condemned by John. HPB gives no reference to such statement...

In this posting I refer to some ancient texts that makes clear that surely
Nicolaus was the christian deacon, BUT HE CONDEMNS MARRIAGE, INSTEAD
OF GIVE SUPPORT.

The text you can find at http://ccel.wheaton.edu/fathers.
ECF24.TXT
EUSEBIUS, ECCLESIASTIC HISTORY, BOOK III,CHAPTER XXIX.
Nicolaus and the Sect named after him.
1 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 Alexandria, in the third book of his Stromata, relates the
following things concerning him. "They say that he had a beautiful wife, and
after the ascension of the Saviour, being accused by the apostles of jealousy,
he led her into their midst and gave permission to any one that wished to marry
her.  For they say that this was in accord with that saying of his, that one
ought to abuse the flesh.  And those that have followed his heresy, imitating
blindly and foolishly that which was done and said, 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 Saviour, he did not wish to serve two masters, pleasure
and the Lord. But they say that Matthias also taught in the same manner that we
ought to fight against and abuse the flesh, and not give way to it for the sake
of pleasure, but strengthen the soul by faith and knowledge." 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.

ECF02.TXT
THE STROMATA, OR MISCELLANIES.BOOK II.
CHAP. XX.--THE TRUE GNOSTIC EXERCISES PATIENCE AND SELF-RESTRAINT.
    "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 reigned 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
courtezan, 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,[1] "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 buffed in the mire of vice;
following as they do the teaching of pleasure itself, not of the apostolic man.

THE FIVE BOOKS AGAINST MARCION.
APPENDIX. AGAINST ALL HERESIES.[1]
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL.]
CHAP. I.--EARLIEST HERETICS:[2] SIMON MAGUS, MENANDER, SATURNINUS, BASILIDES,
NICOLAUS. [THE WORK BEGINS AS A FRAGMENT.]
  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."

As you can see Eusebius (Ecclesiastic History), Clement of Alexandria (Stromata)
and Irinee (Against Heresies) confirms that Nicolaus was the same deacon
sanctified by Holy Spirit in Acts and condenmed by John in Revelations. But
Nicolaus was considered heretic because he preaches the lust and luxury,
condemns the celibacy, and the marriage; because flesh is bad and then
"must be abbused". So Blavatsky commits an error when she says that Nicolaus
was condenmed because he defends the marriage.

Abrantes