It is involved in the very intimacy of the relation which exists between our Lord and His blessed Mother that she should be unique in the human race.  We feel that we are right in saying that the Incarnation which waited for the preparation of the world socially and spiritually, must also be thought of as waiting for the coming of the woman who would so completely surrender herself to the divine will that in her obedience could be founded the antidote to the disobedience which was founded in Eve.  The race waited for the coming of the new mother who should be the instrument in the abolishing of the evil of which the first mother was the instrument.  And from the very beginning of the thought of the Church about blessed Mary there was no doubt that it was implied in her office in bearing the God-Man that she should be without sin—­sinless in the sense of never having in any least degree consented to evil the thought of the Church has ever held her to be.  It was held incredible that she who by God’s election bore in the sanctuary of her womb during the months of her child-bearing Him who was Lord and Creator and was come to save the world from all the stain and penalty of sin should herself be a sinner.  Without actual sin, therefore, was Mary held to be from the time that the thought of the Church was turned upon her relation to our Blessed Lord[6].

[Footnote 6:  It is true that a few writers among the Fathers see in blessed Mary traces of venial sin; who think of her intervention at Cana as presumptuous &c.  But such notices are not of sufficient frequency or importance to break the general tradition.]

For some time this seemed enough.  It was not felt that any further thought about her sinlessness was needed.  But as the uniqueness of Mary forced itself more and more upon the brooding thought of theologians and saints they were compelled to face the fact that her freedom from actual sin was not a full appreciation of her purity, was not an exhaustive treatment of her relation to our Lord.  The doctrine of the nature of sin itself had been becoming clearer to the minds of Christian thinkers.  All men are conceived and born in sin, it was seen.  After S. Paul’s teaching, the problem of sin was not the problem of sins but the problem of sinfulness.  The matter could not be left with the statement that all men do sin; the reason of their sinning must be traced out.  And it was traced out, under S. Paul’s guidance, to a ground of sin in nature itself, to a defect in man as he is born into the world.  He does not become a sinner when he commits his first sin:  he is born a sinner.  In other words, the problem of man’s sinfulness is the problem of original sin.

What then do we mean by original sin?  Briefly, we mean this.  At his creation man was not only created innocent, but he was created in union with God, a union which conferred on him many supernatural gifts, gifts, that is, which were not a part of his nature, but were in the way of an addition to his nature.  “By created nature man is endowed with moral sense, and is thus made responsible for righteousness; but he is unequal to its fulfilment.  The all-righteous Creator could be trusted to complete His work.  He endowed primitive man with superadded gifts of grace, especially the supernatural gift, donum supernaturale, of the Holy Spirit[7].”