II. To the Initial Arguments

220. To the first argument [n.189] I concede (according to the authorities from Augustine and Isidore) that sin is frequently dismissed by some motion of attrition or contrition, as through merit by congruity, before reception of the sacrament of penitence, just as in an adult original sin is frequently dismissed before reception of baptism. But it does not follow that it not be dismissed through the sacrament, because if that other dismissal sometimes not be present, this one does not fail; and this one requires less, namely the intention alone of receiving baptism or the sacrament of penance without any obstacle in the way of its effect.

221. To the second argument [n.190] I say that confession is double: of praise or of crime. No one confesses worthily by confession of praise unless he is first raised up -from Jerome in the Epistle ‘You think that I’ [in fact Paschasius Radbert, Epistle on the Assumption of the Holy Virgin Mary, n.36], “Praise in the mouth of a sinner is not seemly” [Ecclesiasticus 15.9]. But confession of crime in the mouth of a sinner is accepted, that is, of a sinner who is still a sinner in the way that, in the first question of this distinction [nn.28-34], exposition was given how sin remains after the act - provided, however, that the sinner not be a sinner in desire (whether in interior or exterior act). I concede therefore that, before worthy reception of penitence, the sinner must be raised up: either simply so, and then the sin is not destroyed by penitence as sacrament [sc. because it was already destroyed in the ‘raising up’, n.220], but the grace that was there before is increased; or raised up in a certain respect, so that he have some displeasure about his sins and a proposal to be wary as to the rest, and should want to receive the sacrament of penitence, wherein attrition becomes contrition and he is, through the sacrament, simply raised up - and this indeed is necessary, as will be stated in d.17 n.50, just as was also said above that for someone justified by the baptism of desire the baptism of water is necessary [Ord. IV d.5 nn.43, 48-51].

222. When argument is made about Lazarus [n.190], that he was raised up first before being loosed of his chains, I reply: the guilty party is obligated to the debt of an eternal penalty, and when this chain is loosed he is obligated to a temporal penalty. But he is raised up first before the first obligation is commuted to the second; or, what is truer, he is raised up first before he is loosed from the second obligation. And in this way does it belong to the priests to loose, not simply, but on the part of the penalty, which they can relax by virtue of the keys (which will be spoken of below [dd.18-19 nn.107-110]). And thus Lazarus, having been vivified by Christ (that is, the sinner is resuscitated by grace from the death of guilt), and having been loosed from the prison of the tomb (that is, the sinner is loosed from the debt of the penalty of hell), is left to the disciples for being loosed from the grave-clothes (that is, from the temporal penalties to which the eternal penalty is commuted, which temporal penalties the priest can relax, the key not being in error).

223. As to the final argument [n.191], I concede that the priest dismisses sin in penitence just as in baptism, and so he absolves just as he baptizes, because on both sides it is simply true that he administers the sacrament; and he causes the effect of the sacrament ministerially, because he causes something on which (according to the disposition or pact of God [cf. n.217]) the effect of the sacrament according to rule follows.

224. To the comment of Jerome [n.191] I say that the affirmative is true, that just as the priest of the Mosaic Law made manifest lepers who were cleansed, so the Gospel priest makes manifest sinners who are justified. But the negative, namely that the Gospel priest is not disposed differently to the spiritually leprous than the priests of the Mosaic Law were to the bodily leprous (namely by making uncleanness manifest on this side as on that), is false. And the reason is that God did not in the Old Law give a ceremony or purification, which, when administered by a suitable minister, he would, as a matter of rule, be present to for cleansing bodily leprosy. But he did in the New Law give a sacrament, which, as a matter of rule, he is by pact present to for cleansing the spiritually leprous, unless the obstacle of a contrary will stand in the way.