on this point, that all are conceived in sin [see Origi- NAi. Sin]. In the position which the Koman Catholic Church thus assumes, we encounter again the vital de- lects of her theology on original sin, that semi-Pelagian- ism against which all the Protestant Confessions have protested as unscriptural. " The Koman Catholic doc- trine puts the essence of original sin solely in defect ; makes it negative ; asserting that it is only the want of that righteousness in which Adam was created; this is, in scholastic usage, the ' formal' part, or the very es- sence of original sin. Concupiscence is not of the na- ture of sin. This is the doctrine of original sin, which Perrone expressly lays down in the opening of his trea- tise (p. 2, 3 sq.),'that the essence of original sin is in the defect of grace or of original righteousness.' This is the only view of the matter Avith which the dogma of the immaculate conception can possibly be reconciled. If this view is false— if original sin, as Protestants hold, accordhig to the Scriptures, be positive and not nega- tive, and come by descent, then the conclusion is irre- sistible that Mary, by descent, must have had a part therein. The dogma of her immaculate conception is possible only with a false view of the nature of the 'sin of birth.' Augustine could not have held it, nor could Aquinas. The dogma is conceived in a defective no- tion of original sin. Yet again, even with this defective view of original sin, the dogma is involved in difficul- ties and internal conflicts by what it asserts and implies as to the origin of the soul of Marj\ The theory on which it rests is, that IMary's soul was directly created by God. It declares that the Virgin Mary, ' at the first instant of her conception,' was preserved immaculate. What is meant by ' conception' here ? It is the so- caUed ' passive conception,' or the infusion of the soul into the seed, the union of the soul of Mary with the body, prepared beforehand in the ' active conception.' Whence, now, this soul? It was ' c/Toferf.' The 'Let- ters,' in another passage, say that Jlary was the ' taber- nacle created by God liimself.' Pius IX also cites the formula of Alexander VII as having ' decretive' authori- ty, and that formula declares ' that Mary's soul, at the first instant of creation and of infusion into the body,' was preserved free from original sin. This hypothesis of ' creatianism' is also the only h3'pothesis consonant with the doctrine. But now put these two positions to- gether, namely, that original sin consists essentially in privation; that is, in the defect of original justice; and that Mary's soul was directly created by God, and we arrive at the following difficidties and dilemmas. The position is this : When Mary's soul was created and m- fused into her body, she was by grace preserved free from original sin. Would the original sin, from which she was kept, have come to her from her body or from her soul ? — for it must have come from one or the other. If one says that it would have come from the soul, this involves the consequence that God usually creates origi- nal sin in the soul before it is imited with the body, and, of course, before it is connected with Adam by de- scent. If one says, on the other hand, that original sin would have come to Mary from her ' active conception,' that is, from her prepared body, then it was aheady there, in germ and seed, before the infusion of the soul. God either creates the human soid with original sin, or the original sin is from the parents. If the former, we have original sin without any connection with Adam ; if the latter, Mary must have been really possessed of it. But it may be said original sin consists in defect, priva- tion, and that the dogma means that God created Ma- ry's soul perfectly holy. This raises another difficulty; for it is also asserted that he created her thus holy ou the ground of Christ's merits, and that, had it not been for Christ's merits, she woidd have shareil the sin of the race. This creation, now, must have been either through the race (the connection with Adam) or above the race, either mediate or immediate. If through the race or mediate, then she must have had a part in its smfulness ; if above the race, or an immediate creation, then there
IMMACULATE CONCEPTION" 510
IMMANUEL
is no theological or rational ground for saying that, as far as her creation was concerned, she was liable to sin, or could be saved from it through Christ's merits. Kor can any reUef be found by conjoining the two points, and asserting that the exemption from original sin con- cerns the time or point of niiion of the soul with the seed, the conjunction of the active with the passive con- ception. For the still unanswered question here is, and must be this : In the union of the soul with the body, from which of the two, soid or body, would the original sm have come, if grace had not prevented ? — for it must have come from one or the other. If from the soul, then you have original sin without any connection with Adam ; if from the body, then original sin must already have been there ; if from both together, this simply dodges the question, or else resolves original sin into some act consequent upon the union — that is, into actual trans- gression. Nor is the matter helped by saying that orig- inal sin is essentially negative, privative; for the priva- tion has respect to either the soul or the body, or to both conjoined, and the same dilemmas result. The ' Let- ters Apostolic,' in other passages, speak of the dogma in this wise : that the ' Blessed Virgin was free i'rom aU contagion of body, soul, and mind ;' that she had ' com- munity with men only in their nature, but not in their fault :' and that ' the flesh of the Virgin taken from Adam did not admit the stain of Adam, and on this ac- count that the most blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself, formed by the Holy Spirit.' These expressions imply that the fault in the case could have been a fault of 'nature;' that the contagion might have been of the 'body;' that the 'stain from Adam' would, under other circumstances, have come to her through the 'flesh.' But in her 'active conception,' before the infusion of the soul and of grace, the ' na- ture,' the 'body,' the 'flesh,' were already extant, ere the ' passive conception' took place : were they with or without the fault? If with the fault, then you have original sin; if without, then it would follow that the flesh, the body, the nature, befo7-e the passive conception, had been already delivered from the bondage of corrui^- tion. In short, if original sin come from the race, fn.ui the ' active conception,' then ]\Iary must have had it ; if it come from the ' passive conception,' then God is its direct author in every individual case. This dogma of the immaculate conception, then, contains contradictory elements ; it rests on a false view of original sin. Even that false view cannot well be reconciled: it assumes the theory that souis are directly created, and here again it involves itself in inextricable difficulties in relation to original sin. It is opposed to Scriptiure, to tradition, aiid it is self-opposed."