2. The disciplina arcani gradually fell into disuse; no precise date of its end can be given. Rothe (Her- zog, Real-Encnldopiidie, i, 471) remarks that so long, on the one hand, as the church stood in the midst of a heathen world, and as long, on the other hand, as, within the church, delay of baptism (the procrasi natio baptismi) to an advanced age, or even to the dying hour, was practised, the arcani disciplina might have been a useful sj'stem ; but just in proportion as infant baptism became more general, and the pagan world was christianized, the secret discipline lost its significance; for, in consequence of these changes, the class of per- sons for whom it had been instituted no longer exist- ed. In a general way, we may name the end of the sixth century as the period when it passed away. The Western Church gradually stripped its liturgy of all secret usages ; and Bona (Per. Lituryicar. 1. 1,16, 6) asserts that about 700 the catechu menal system was entirely gone. The Eastern Church, however, holds on to her antiquated formulas, by which the catechu- mens are dismissed from divine worship, notwithstand- ing that church has no catechumens, and practises infant communion.
3. The original grounds for the adoption of the ar- cani disciplina cannot lie known ; but conjectures, and even plausible sources, are not wanting. The reasons for it were, according to Bingham, first, that the plain- ness and simplicity of the Christian rites might not be contemned by the catechumens, or give scandal or of- fence to them, before they were thoroughly instructed aliout the nature of the mysteries; secondly, to con- ciliate a reverence in the minds of men for the mj'ste-
ARC AN I DISCIPLINA
363
ARCH
ries so concealed; and, thirdly, to make the catechu- mens more desirous to know them, or to excite their curiosity. Augustine says, "Though the sacraments are not disclosed to the catechumens, it is not because they cannot bear them, but that they may so much the more ardently desire them, by how much they are more honorably hidden from them" {Horn, in Joh. 90). Kothe goes into an elaborate inquiry on the subject in the article above cited (and also in his treatise De Dis- cipline A rcani Origine (Heidel. 1841 , 4 to), of which the following is the substance. Casaubon {De reb. sacris Em re. xvi, Genev. 1G54, 4to) traces the origin of it to a desire, on the part of Christians, to have mysteries of their own, and so not to be outdone by heathenism, which set great store by them. Kothe disputes this, on the ground of the bitter opposition of the Anti-Ni- cene Christians to all heathen ideas and usages. But he forgets that mysteries are congenial to human na- ture in all ages; a spirit akin to that which preserves Free-masonry could very well have existed in the early church. With less probability, certain writers, e. g. Frommann {De Disciplina Arcani, Jena, 1833), find the origin of the secret system in Judaism, which did not admit proselytes at once to all sacred services. Had this been so, we should find traces of it in the N. T. and in the apostolic age; but the whole S3'stem is quite foreign to apostolic usage, which practised the utmost openness. Moreover, during that early period of Christianity when the church borrowed from Ju- daism, the disciplina arcani did not yet exist ; and besides, the Jewish custom appears to be of so late an origin that it may itself be an imitation of a Chris- tian institution. August! (Hcndb. d. christl. Archcc- olcgie, i, 93 sq. ; Denkici'tri'igbitm, iv, 897) thinks that the early Christians adopted the secret discipline be- cause their public worship was forbidden by law, and that this compulsory secrecy grew into a usage. But if this were true, all parts of worship would have shared in the secrecy, whereas only certain portions were made mysteries of. Credner (Jen. Lilerar. Zei- tung, 1846, Nos. 164 and 165) traces the origin of the secret discipline back to the apostolic age, and finds the ground of it in the natural unwillingness of Jew- ish Christians to admit heathen converts at once to baptism. He finds confirmation of his theory in the fact that Clement of Alexandria {Quis Dives, c. 42), Irenseus {adv. fleer, iv, 23, 24), and Tertullian {De Bap- tismo, c. 18) trace the origin of the catechumenate back to the apostles. But even this would not prove his point ; there might be, and for some time were, cate- chumens, without a disciplina arcani; and, moreover, there is ample proof of openness in ritual usages up to the second century. But yet the true origin of the secret discipline is doubtless to be found in the cate- chumenate (see Bothe, 1. c). The catechumens were probationers in the church, not full members; and this novitiate was designed, first, to keep unworthy persons out of the church, and, secondly, to train new- converts in Christian doctrine and morals. At this day the Methodist Episcopal Church has such a cate- chumenate {Discipline, ch. ii, § 1), but without any se- cret discipline. But in the early church, during the persecutions, it Avas dangerous at once to admit pro- fessed converts, who might be spies, into the assem- blies of the faithful. They were accordingly taught apart. But the tendency of this state of things would naturally be to make two kinds of Christianity, tire esoteric, or that of the baptized believers (jideles), and the exoteric, or that of the unbaptized catechumens. The former shared in the Lord's Supper, but not the latter. Here is a plain starting-point for making mys- teries of the two sacraments in liturgical practice as well as in theory. What was at first accidental final- ly grew into a rule.