THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SECRET.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume IV, Issue 188, 3 November 1876, Page 12

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SECRET.

On Sunday evening last, at St. Joseph's Church, Dunedin, His Lordship the Bishop of the diocese delivered the second sermon of the series announced by him; on subjects selected from ecclesiastical history. Before commencing to preach, his Lordship said that his discourses would be interrupted for a time, as he proposed to set out the following day for New South Wales, whither he was "oin<r to be present at an important ceremony, and begged that his congregation would of their charity pray for his safe arrival at his journey s end as well as for his return to his diocese. He was going to Bathurst, where there was about to be opened an ecclesiastical seminary, which would be conducted in accordance with the decree of the Council of Trent, and where youths would be educated tor the office of the sacred ministry. The future welfare of the diocese in which this establishment was situated, and of other dioceses as well, would depend on the success of the undertaking and the congregation would see the importance of it, so that their" prayers miglit be secured in order to obtain a blessing on it His Lordship then proceeded with his sermon, of which the subject was what is known from ecclesiastical history concerning the discipline of the secret. In the early ages of Christianity, for the first 400 years at least, it was the custom that those who^ave rengious instruction should not at first place before the catechumens —as they wno were being orally .instmcted for baptism were called --the most mysterious dogmas of our holy faith. For instance, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in one of his lectures to those who were about to receive the sacrament of baptism, says, " Hitherto, I have not placed before you some of the more important mysteries of religion, but the time is now come, because you have lon°- been under instruction, and you show all due dispositions for thereception of the sacrament." He then proceeds to instruct them concerning the Holy Trinity. When the Apostles and their successors preached Christianity their first care was to teach that there was only one God, the Lord and Creator, infinite and eternal; then they taught other truths inculcating faith, eternal chastisements and rewards, explaining to the catechumens the doctrines of the Christian religion respecting heaven, purgatory, and hell, the incarnation of Christ, His labor's and His divine nature ; instructing them also in the decalogue tf-e more important points of discipline, the sacramental system,' and especially baptism. When they were sufficiently instructed and believing, and were anxious to proceed, further information was imparted to them. That the discipline of the secret commenced with the apostles

is testified to by Or^gen, Tertuliian, St. Augustine, and Sb-Cyril of Jerusalem. This is a very important matter in controversy. It frequently happens that those persons who do not believe in theHoly Trinity or the Blessed Eucharist object that these doctrines are seldom mentioned by the earliest writers ; but the discipline of the secret explains thia. If they were kept concealed from Pagans, and Jews, and catechumens, it is not strange that they are seldom mentioned, but it is certain that they are mentioned by the early Fathers, and it is no objection to say that they are not often so mentioned. Some of those who -wroto did not find it necessary ta speak of these matters. 1 The reason why these mysteries were obscured by the apostlesand their successors was, that when Christianity was first preached, erroneous ideas prevailed amongst the idolators, who acknowledged a multitude of gods. If, therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity had been preached at once, it was manifest that it would have been ia danger of being misunderstood, and it would have been taken aa an excuse for saying that Christianity also admitted a plurality of gods ; men would not have paid sufficient attention to instruction on abstruse points, so that they would not have been able to take up accurate ideas of them. Until the apostles had first made it clear that there was no such thing as the plurality of gods, it would have been dangerous to speak openly of the Trinity. It wasnecessary first to teach that there was one God only, and when this had been received as an obvious truth, there would be no dangerin teaching that there are three personalities distinct yet constituting- only one God. There were three reasons for the introduction of the disciplineof the secret. Ist. It was established on the principle that holy things should not be given to dogs, nor pearls cast before swine. It would have been imprudent to expose certain mysteries indiscriminately ; it would only have given occasion for blasphemy, and placed obstacles to faith. 2nd. The great truths of religion should be treated with a respect corresponding to their dignity, and there should be a certain preparation of the mind and reason for their ! reception. 3rd. To withhold their explanation was calculated toexcite curiosity. It was customary, contrary to the desire of theChurch, for the catechumens occasionally to put off their baptism till they were on the point of death, but if the explanation of certain mysteries was deferred until the eve of baptism, they were induced to hasten the reception of the sacrament. | No one dreams of denying the existence of the discipline of the secret, the authorities for it are too strong; but it has been said that it referred only to disciplinary matters, and those who have said so, justify their opinion by quoting our blessed Lord's words,. " That which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the house-tops." Christ, they say, commanded us to preach openly. But our Divine Redeemer only speaks here of the crime of denying him. The passage alluded to only commands us openly to profess our faith,, as may be seen by its termination ; but it did not enjoin upon the apostles the necessity of preaching right and left indiscriminately,, and exposing to blasphemy and sneers all truths indifferently. This would have been casting pearls before swine. As a matter of ' fact, the apostles, to whom these words were spoken, themselves established the discipline of the secret. The doctrine of the Holy Eucharist was not explained to the catechumens so soon as that of the Blessed Trinity. The doctrineof the Trinity was explained before baptism, because the catechumens were "baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, but until after they had been baptised they could not receive Holy Communion. The discipline of the secret is a strong proof of the truth of the doctrine of the Church concerning the Blessed Eucharist. If Christ had not been really present in the Blessed Sacrament, what would there have been toconceal ? The Pagans and Jews knew that Christ had died, that He had been a great prophet, and that His followers filled the empire 60 years after His death. What could they have found strange in a commemoration, of His death being made, or in a symbol being Jused for this purpose ? If Christ were not believed to be really present in the Blessed Eucharist, there would havebeen no reason for concealment. An objection is brought against the nature of the discipline of the secret from the apology of Justin Martyr, who explains the points of doctrine said to have been hidden, but Justin Martyr did not write until more than 100 years after the establishment of the discipline referred to, and then he was obliged to transgress the--^ rule, by the prospect of the whole force of the empire being employed to crush the Christian religion. He wrote under peculiar circumstances, and addressed the Antonines only, so that no argument can be deduced from his having done so. ° Although the discipline of the secret is not now a law of the Church, it is followed by missionaries in pagan countries, whose good sense teaches them to refrain from explaining the deeper mysteries of the faith until they have prepared their converts to receive them.