C. Specifically to the Arguments of Bernard

52. To Bernard’s argument [nn.9, 11] the reply can be made that in the instant of conception of the natures [sc. body and soul] there would have been sanctification, not from the guilt that was then present, but from the guilt that would have been present if grace had not then been infused in the soul.

53. And if it is argued that ‘there was lust there’, this is false of the conception of natures, although it could be conceded that there was lust in the conception and mixing of the seeds. And given that in the conception of the seeds there would have been conception of the soul, there would not have been anything making it unacceptable that grace was then infused in the soul because of which grace the soul would not have contracted any infection from the flesh, or from the body, along with the lust sown; for just as infection of the body - contracted through propagation - has been able to remain along with grace in the cleansed soul after the first instant of baptism, so can this be the case in the first instant if God then created grace in Mary’s soul.