A heresy is an exaggeration. It settles on one aspect of faith and blows it out of proportion.

It is an opinion or doctrine that is at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of the Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptised church member. According to Glutton (1963), heresy is a separation due to doctrinal divergence. Belloc (1938) defines heresy as dislocation of some complete and self supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein. The Oxford Dictionary of British history defines heresy as the holding of religious views regarded as unacceptable by the church. Heresy is another word for freedom of thought (Graham Green, 1904 to 1991). Several heretical movements have emerged in the second and third centuries such as Arianism, Montanism, Nestorianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Protestantism, Modernism to mention but a few. In this paper, the writer will discuss in detail Arianism and Montanism. According to McGrath (1995), Arianism is a form of Christology which refused to concede the full divinity of Christ. It was initiated by a cleric called Arius in the city of Alexandria. According to Nigg (1962), it started in AD 319 in the city of Alexandria. This was after Alexander the bishop of Alexandria had delivered a lecture to a group of clerics on the oneness which was present in the divine trinity. In the ensuing discussions, Arius contested this view arguing that if the Father had begotten the Son, he who had been begotten had a beginning and therefore must have been a time when the Son did not exist. Arius was excommunicated but the nucleus of the problem which was Christ had not been resolved. According to Cozens (1928), Arius had questions concerning the sense in which the words Son of God were to be understood. Ward (1955), argues that the issue was about trinity not Christology. He further argues that the Arian heresy was concerned with the nature of God rather than the person of Christ. The difficulty was in explaining the difference between the One and Many. According to Nigg (1962), Arius was fighting to keep monotheism from

sinking into ditheism. He fiercely opposed the metaphysical exaggeration of Christ which infringed on the singularity of God. Jews viewed God as the Supreme Being who created the world out of nothing but by his word only. This was so naive to the philosophers whose notion of God was much more abstract than static. Philosophers would argue and asked whether the absolute without body, parts and passion could be a person like us. Arius attempted to solve the Christological problem by proceeding from the rational premises. Nigg (1962), argues that in his attempt to understand Christ, Arius doctrine contained both truth and error. His rational temper prevented him from going into metaphysics. Mystery was alien to him and therefore his doctrine lacked depth. Cozens (1962), states that Arius argued that Jesus was the Spon of God, therefore posterior to the Father and thus not eternal. Since the Father was eternal and the son was not eternal, Jesus then was unlike the Father. When Arius was confronted with Scriptures which ascribe Jesus with divine honour and attributes, he argued that Jesus was all this because the Father willed to make him so. Arianism as a doctrine held that Jesus was a super angelic being, the first and highest creature of God, in fact the only being created directly by God. It argues that the Father brought Jesus into being that by and through him, God might create the universe. . Arius called Jesus the Only begotten meaning Only one directly created. He refered to Jesus as Lord Creator, first born of all creation, God of God meaning made God by God. Due to his fidelity to God, God has caused Jesus to be highly exalted to share in the divine prerogatives. One major weakness of Arius was his reluctance to bring his arguments to academic circles but instead took it to the streets and market places where half christened people debated his position. The major problem with arianism was in trying to rationalise the mystery upon which the church bases itself which is incarnation. It reacted against the supernatural. Belloc (1938), argues that it went against the tradition of the church which stated that Jesus was God come

down to earth and had become incarnate as a man. He was not merely a man influenced by Divinity nor was he a manifestation of the Divinity but was at the same time fully God and fully man. This mystery is incomprehensible therefore man being a rational being tried to rationalise it which was the case with Arianism. It sprang from the desire to visualise clearly and simplify something which is beyond the grasp of human vision and comprehension. Arianism was willing to grant Christ every kind of honour and majesty, short of the full nature of the Godhead. In as much as it gave our Lord Jesus every possible honourexcept of the actual Godhead, it would inevitably have led into a mere Unitarianism and treating Jesus Christ at last as a prophet since it spoke of Jesus as a Supreme agent of God, a Demiurge, and regarded him as the first of the greatest emanations of the Godhead. The other heretical movement to be discussed is Montanism. It was started by Montanus in AD 177 when he was expelled from the church. Montanus was a great visionary and his prophetic visions left a mark upon Christianity. Montanism called for the revival of the primitive Christian enthusiasm which had began by subscribing to the strictest of ethics. According to Nigg (1962), Montanus argued that the upright ways of the early church contrasted greatly with the moral decay of the late Roman Empire. The ethics of Jesus was based upon the expectation of the coming of the kingdom and upon the Apostles possession of the gift of the Holy Spirit. With increasing numbers christian morality could not be maintained at its original high level and this was even worsened when emperor Constantine opened the floodgates and masses of people entered the church out of sheer opportunism. The strictness of Christian ethos was done with and church discipline could no longer deal sternly with the overwhelming forces of secularisation. The worst of this heresy was when Montanus claimed that he himself was the advocate or comforter mentioned in the Gospel of John. He claimed to have new revelations which surpassed the old. He further claimed that the fullness of the gospel would be revealed no

longer in the past but in the present and future. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was no longer to be understood as a unique event which had taken place in the past and ceased but rather he argued that it was on going all the time. This was a radical departure from the conservative interpretation of the churchs Pentecostal doctrine. There was over emphasising on the announcement that the world was soon coming to an end. At that time the church had not yet openly abandoned its expectation of the imminent coming of the kingdom of God and Montanus revived these hopes and fears, for he himself lived in the expectation of the end of all things. Montanus also put forward disciplinary ideas that arose out of eschatological theses. According to Montanist view, a Christian must reform his life because the new Jerusalem was about to descend and its outlines were already visible. The utmost was demanded of the Christian so that he or she would pass the test that lay awaiting him or her. There was a call for Christians to become a band of saints of which the Apostles had written. Montanists imposed severe limitations on marriage on which Christians were to marry only once. According to Ward (1955), a second marriage after the death of a spouse was regarded as successive bigamy which was equivalent to sinful concubinage. He held that the time of marriages was over since the world was soon coming to an end, so human reproduction should cease. Glutton (1963), argues that marriages were to be dissolved and property communalised. New fasting regulations were directed against the pleasures of the palate. Several days of each week and whole sections of years were to be periods of fasts during which the Christian must demonstrate self conquest. In fasting, Montanists were very vigorous and fought any relaxation and demanded that Christians should make real and painful sacrifices for the sake of sanctity.

Martyrdom was to be glorified as a goal to be sought. According to Glutton (1963), one was not supposed to flee persecution but instead expose themselves to it. Nigg (1962 : 105) quoted Tertullian saying, Do not wish to die in beds, nor in child bearing, nor in fevers, but in martyrdom so that he who suffered for you maybe glorified. Church discipline was very strict with all tendencies towards slackness being nipped in the bud. Sins were to be earnestly condemned and the sanctity of the church as a whole not tainted. Struggle against sin was waged with fanatical fury. Montanists would not yield an inch on the field of ethics. They would have the church become a community of Saints, the pure bride of Christ going to meet her Lord and this ideal was obligatory upon all Christians without exception. In conclusion, it can be seen that Montanism was based on absolute purity and on the expectation of a new revelation of the Holy Spirit. As has been defined earlier it can be noted that there was over emphasising of these doctrines above any other. Arianism disputed the divinity of Christ and this mainly emanated in trying to rationalise the mystery of incarnation.

BIBLIOGRAGHY Belloc H (1963), The Great Heresies, Sheed & Ward, New York Cozens M (1928), A handbook of Heresies, Sheed & Ward, New York Glutton J (1963), Great Heresies and Church Councils, Harvil Press, London McGrath A (1995), The Christian Theology Reader, Blackwell Publishers, New York Nigg W (1962), The Heretics: Heresy Through the Ages, Dorset Press, New York Ward J (1955), The Four Great Heresies, Lowe & Brydone, London