Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1855-05-11
Rev. DIR. Rice'S Lecture on the I'm
maCullte Conception.

hear DR.. Rice's lecture. More than haI
the seats were filed by persons enterin
through the vestry before the Church wa
lit up. or the front opened Gin. Gaz.
The Doctor commenced by saying:
On the Slh day of December last
event occurred, unimpoftant in ITSELF bu
which has attracted the attention of th
whole civilized world. All have heard G
the doctrine Of the Immaculate Conception
and that Plus TX has decided tha, this
a doctrine of the Church Of Rome, not 4
be denied but upon pain of heresy. Al
were taken aback by this doctrine, for the
supposed that Rome stereotyped, her faill
established centuries ago, and neve
changed
An anticipation of speedy ful6llmen
Of prophecy had turned the attention o
many Protestants towards her, so that tbt
eyes Of a large part of the world were a
that time turned to Rome.
This doctrine Of the immaculate concep
ton is, that Mary was uncontaminated By
orig nal sin, was free from the curse of The
fan, and her soul perfectly pure from the
moment it entered the body.
There are certain points in this new
doctrine to which l wish to call your at.
tention.
l. The whole subject is one about which
the Egangelists and inspired apostles are
profoundly silent. The New Testament
contains a certain simple history of facts
but not one syllable beyond this; yet this
same Testament is scrupulous in enioining
the giving 10 all their rigbts-in urging 10
"render 10 Cesar the things that are Cm-
sar's," and yet not one word about worship
due to the Virgin Mary. Why these A
postles would certainly be pronounced her
etics if they lived in this day.
2 This doctrine not only is not found in,
but is even contrary to The Bible. There
is no intimation in it that Mary was free
even from actual sin. She certainly had
not discovered that celibacy was more
holy state than matrimony, or she certain
y would have never "been espoused."
Further-We can understand how sim
ful men suffer death, for "Sin entered into
the world, and death by sin for that sin
bath passed upon all men" Suffering and
death are the consequences of sin, but how
are they 10 be accounted for in her case I?
They must have either been unjust or Vi
cariouS.
Strange as it may seem, we suddenly
6nd Rome moving; but ihe world is NOV
ing, and the only difference is, that while
The world is moving forward Rome is NOV
ing backward. Now Rome will have to
take one more step, that is, to say that Ma
ry's sutferings we're vicarious-an atone
ment for our sas-and were necessary for
our salvation; md then Mary will be our
Saviour Instead of Christ.
"Ihere are none good, no not one y
'All have sinned." How could Paul talk
so, when be knew there was one conceived
without sin But he didn't know it, and
Mary didn't know it either.
8. The history of this doctrine serves to
show how the creed of Rome has been
formed. In the 9TH century they began
to talk about the Virgin Mary; afterward
about her being free from actual sin, until
at lenth, in the 18th century, feast was
held at Lyons, in France, in honor of the
immaculate conception. The good St Ber-
nard denied it; the Council of Trent left
1t undecided; all that the Church had said
about it was equivocal; but it went on
growing like revolving snow ball-Cath-
oiics being free to receive or reject it-until
at length the Pope ventures to make it a
doctrine.
For $50 years this point was in agitation.
Protestants want creed that viii not take
$50 years to expound; we cannot wait
here on earth for that.
The council of Trent supposed the faith
OF the Church full grown; but it has prov
en- not to have been so; and Catholics
let me ask you have you now all your
faith? Are there not now opinions tba.
are candidates for doctrines? Rome once
started, in this railroad age, may make
doctrines at great speed.
4. As to the infallbility of the Church
They tell US they have now put the crown
on Mary's head; that she has a right to
that crown, for she was conceived without
sin; but she was conceived more than 1900
years ago. and yet for that long period tn
falti6ility has left her without her Just due.
Is il not a wonder that she has not sent
some plague upon them for :hds dishonor-
ing her? Where does this neglect rest =?
just where infallibility rests. Would God
commit infallibiity to unfaithful men?
On the morning of the sth Of December
if Dominican had died denying this doc
trine he nigh: have been saved, but if be
bad died in the afternoon denying it, he
would have been lost; for the Church now
declares faith in il essential TO salvation
Think of i'll A Catholic getting up in the
morning orthodox, and going to bed her.
etc, and yet having not changed one iota
The Church says that it does not make
doctrines, it only declares what God has
said, yet Catholics may for ages deny Gods
doctrine, but the moment the Pope declares
1t, all must embrace it. 1t is then necessa-
ry to salvation? Does not this show that
he is sitting on the Temple of God, show
ing himself that he is God ?"
If this doctrine is necessary to salvation
now, why was it not 1900 years ago? It
may be that souls are suffering in purgato-
ry for the want of it, and what trials the
Church must have struggled through with
out il! Is this from its neglect, or must
we doubt its infallibility?