The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 3, 1914

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

By C. M. S.

“Rome Never Changes”—No. 4

The Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception

There is perhaps no dogma of the Roman Catholic Church upon which more stress is laid at the present time than the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

In order

to be an adequate, complete, and satisfactory sacrifice for sin, it was necessary that Jesus Christ himself should be free from sin. It was necessary that the kingdom of darkness should have no hold or claim upon him. The sacrifice must be without sin, or it could not be offered as the gift of God; for “he that committeth sin is of the devil,” and “whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.” 1 John 3:8, 9. He who had himself broken the law (committed sin) could not free others from the penalty of sin by sacrificing himself in their behalf. The death of such a one would be but the penalty for his own sin.

Inspiration says of him who is our Sacrifice:—

“Ye know that he was manifested to take away sins; and in him is no sin.” 1 John 3:5.

Of him we read again:—

“Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” 1 Peter 2:21, 22.

That is why it is possible that “the blood of Jesus his Son” can cleanse us “from all sin.” 1 John 1:7. Then have we indeed a Saviour who “is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Heb. 7:25.

There came into the Roman Church during the Dark Ages the idea that Mary the mother of Jesus was a sharer in the redemptive and mediatorial work of the Messiah. She was given the titles of “Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven,” both of which titles were of pronouncedly heathen origin. “The ‘mother of the gods’ was worshiped by the Persians, the Syrians, and all the kings of Europe and Asia, with the most profound religious veneration.”—Joannes Clericus, Philos. Orient., lib. ii. De Persis. cap. 9, vol. ii. page 340. Tacitus proves that the Babylonian goddess, or goddess-mother, was worshiped in the heart of Germany, and Cæsar found this same worship in Britain, the god-mother’s priests bearing the name of druids. From Herodotus we learn that in Egypt the queen of heaven was the greatest and most worshiped of all the divinities.”—Herodotus, Historia, lib. ii. cap. 66, page 117, D.

The worship of the queen of heaven, the mother of the gods, was so prevalent in the days of Jeremiah that many of the chosen people of Jehovah adopted it and burned incense “unto the queen of heaven,” and poured out “drink offerings unto her,” even “in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem.” Jer. 44:15-17. Through the influence of heathenism the worship of the female divinity gradually penetrated the Christian church, and Mary the mother of Jesus was given in the Roman Catholic system the position occupied in heathen religions by such goddesses as Semiramis of Babylon, Aphrodite of Greece, Venus of Rome, and others.

Placed upon that pinnacle of divinity, what follows is but the logical sequence. She is said to be “the life of the sinner, since she obtains for him the pardon of his sins.”—“Glories of Mary,” by Liguori, pages 63, 64. She is declared to be “the hope of all the children of Adam.”—Id., pages 86, 87. She is said to be “the patroness and protectress of the church in every great calamity, to destroy heresies, and to be the entire ground of hope for sinners.”—Id., pages 136, 138. It is further declared that “a sinner can be saved only by having recourse to the blessed Virgin, whose infinite mercy obtains salvation for those who would be condemned by infinite justice.”—Id., page 164. Romanists are taught to say in their prayers to Mary, “We hope for grace and salvation from you, and since you need but say the word, ah! do so; you shall be heard and we shall be saved.”—Id., page 143.

These astonishing declarations are in harmony with the following names, which are given by the Roman Church to Mary: “Mother of Divine Grace,” “Gate of Heaven,” “Refuge of Sinners,” “Ladder of Paradise,” “Advocate of Sinners,” “Way of Salvation,” “Queen of Heaven.” Liguori has gone so far as to declare that, in the matter of a refuge for sinners now, “there is but one, and that is Mary.”

As the One who was to be the Saviour of the race must be without sin, the Roman Church found it necessary to place Mary before the world as a sinless being, if she was to play the part of a savior. Therefore there was evolved the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, which means that Mary herself was without a taint of original sin from the moment when she herself was conceived. This, if true, would make false the declaration of our Saviour that “none is good, save one, even God.” Luke 18:19. As that claim can be truthfully made of none but God alone, it must necessarily follow that Mary is excluded, for she is human and in no sense divine. When Jesus Christ had passed the supreme test, we have the record of him that he was without sin and without guile. But the Scripture nowhere intimates this of his mother. Nevertheless, the decree of Pope Pius IX Ineffabilis Deus, of Dec. 8, 1854, makes this declaration:—

After imploring the protection of the whole ecclesiastical court, and after invoking on Our knees the Holy Ghost the Paraclete, under his inspiration We pronounce, declare, and define, unto the glory of the holy and invisible Trinity, the honor and ornament of the holy Virgin, the Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith and the increase of the Christian religion by the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and in Our own authority, that the doctrine which holds the Blessed Virgin Mary to have been, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God . . . preserved free from all stain of original sin, was revealed by God, and is, therefore, to be firmly and constantly believed by all the faithful. Therefore, if some should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined (which God forbid), they shall know and thoroughly understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the Faith, and fallen away from the unity of the Church; and, moreover, that they by this very act subject themselves to the penalties ordained by law, if by word, or writing, or any other external means, they dare to signify what they think in their hearts.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” pages 183, 184.

That placed the seal of the church on the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. But it was not until the year 1854 that this occurred. It had been discussed previously. The Franciscans long and violently advocated the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and the Dominicans just as violently denied and denounced it. In all, fourteen popes opposed the dogma, and during the first eleven centuries of the Christian era not a single great name can be quoted in favor of it. The writings of the Fathers for the first five centuries do not even mention it. When it was first proposed, it was vigorously opposed by Bernard, who is now a canonized saint of the Roman Church. Later when Duns Scotus championed the doctrine, it was opposed just as strongly by Thomas Aquinas, who also is on the list of saints of the church; and when it was finally promulgated by Pope Pius IX, the Jansenist bishops protested against it. As for the early apostolic church, it was never so much as hinted at in those days.

In spite of this, we have the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as one of the most drastic and compulsory dogmas of the Roman Church. Its acceptance is obligatory upon all. One writer says that although “admittedly unknown to the apostles, unknown to the early Fathers, unknown even to many of the popes, and opposed by others, and that it has been bitterly denied by many of the leading doctors of the church, Romanists are now required to believe it as necessary to their salvation. Pio Nono [Pius IX], in his bull, declared: ‘If any should presume to assail it (this doctrine), let him know that he will incur the indignation of the omnipotent God, and of his blessed apostles, Peter and Paul.’”—“Romanism Analyzed,” page 233. The excerpt from the bull of Pio Nono

is quoted from the Tablet, Jan. 27, 1855.

It cannot be successfully denied that in the matter of the dogma under discussion, the Roman Catholic Church has made a change, a radical change, and a revolutionary change. What the doctors and saints of that church have denied and opposed with all their ability; what that church stood out against, and often vehemently so, for many centuries, is now a compulsory dogma of the church, which no one must question on pain of the church’s curse, and whose acceptance is now made one of the first requisites of salvation. And this revolutionary change was made in order that the Roman Church might exalt Mary to a place which God never designed she should occupy, a place which in the very nature of the case she never could occupy, the place and the rôle of advocate and mediatrix for sinners, a position which only He who died for our sins could occupy.

Rome does change, and every change carries her farther away from the purpose and plan of God than she was before the change was made. C. M. S.