[III.q.89.a.1.arg.1] It would seem that the virtues are not restored through penance. Because lost virtue cannot be restored by penance, unless penance be the cause of virtue. But, since penance is itself a virtue, it cannot be the cause of all the virtues, and all the more, since some virtues naturally precede penance, viz., faith, hope, and charity, as stated above (Question 85, Article 6). Therefore the virtues are not restored through penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.arg.1] Ad primum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod corpora damnatorum cum suis deformitatibus resurgent. Illud enim quod in pœnam peccati inductum est, desinere non debet, nisi peccato remisso. Sed membrum defectus, qui accidunt per mutilationem, in pœnam peccati inducti sunt; 1 Hiatum hic esse putat Nicolai, quem ita supplet: «Non est simile de quantitate et visibilitate; quia visibilitas extrinseca est visibili propter extrinsecum respectum ad videntem. Potest autem et similiter omnes aliæ deformitates corporales. Ergo a damnatis qui peccatorum remissionem non sunt consecuti, in resurrectione non removebuntur.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.arg.2] Further, Penance consists in certain acts of the penitent. But the gratuitous virtues are not caused through any act of ours: for Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. ii, 18: In Ps. 118) that \"God forms the virtues in us without us.\" Therefore it seems that the virtues are not restored through Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut resurrectionio sanctorum erit ad ultimam felicitatem, sic et resurrectionio impiorum erit ad ultimam miseriam. Sed sanctis resurgentibus non auferetur aliquid quod ad eorum perfectionem pertinere possit; ergo nec impiis resurgentibus aliquid auferetur quod ad eorum defectum vel miseriam pertineat. Hujusmodi autem sunt deformitates. Ergo, etc.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.arg.3] Further, he that has virtue performs works of virtue with ease and pleasure: wherefore the Philosopher says (Ethic. i, 8) that \"a man is not just if he does not rejoice in just deeds.\" Now many penitents find difficulty in performing deeds of virtue. Therefore the virtues are not restored through Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, sicut ad defectum passibilis corporis pertinet deformitas, ita et tarditas. Sed a corporibus damnatorum resurgentium tarditas non removebitur, quia eorum corpora non erunt agilia. Ergo eadem ratione nec deformitas removebitur.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.sc] We read (Luke 15:22) that the father commanded his penitent son to be clothed in \"the first robe,\" which, according to Ambrose (Expos. in Luc. vii), is the \"mantle of wisdom,\" from which all the virtues flow together, according to Wisdom 8:7: \"She teacheth temperance, and prudence, and justice, and fortitude, which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in life.\" Therefore all the virtues are restored through Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.sc] Sed contra, I ad Cor., xv, 52: Mortui resurgent incorrupti; Glossa 2: « Mortui, idest, peccatores, vel generaliter omnes mortui resurgent incorrupti, idest sine aliqua diminutione membrorum. » Ergo mali resurgent sine deformitatibus. Præterea, in damnatis non erit aliquid quod sensum doloris in eis impediat. Sed agritudo impedit sensum doloris, inquantum per eam debilitantur organa sentiendi, et similiter defectus membri impediret ne esset universalis dolor in corpore. Ergo sine istis defectibus damnati resurgent.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.co] Sins are pardoned through Penance, as stated above (86, 1). But there can be no remission of sins except through the infusion of grace. Wherefore it follows that grace is infused into man through Penance. Now all the gratuitous virtues flow from grace, even as all the powers result from the essence of the soul; as stated in I-II, 110, 4, ad 1. Therefore all the virtues are restored through Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod in corpore humano potest esse deformitas dupliciter: uno modo ex defectu alicujus membri, sicut mutilatos turpes dicimus, deest enim eis debita proportio partium ad totum: et de tali deformitate nulli dubium est quod in corporibus damnatorum non erit, quia omnia corpora tam bonorum quam malorum integra resurgent. Alio modo deformitas contingit ex indebita partium dispositione, vel ex indebita quantitate, vel qualitate vel situ; quæ etiam proportionem debitam partium ad totum non patitur; et de talibus deformitatibus, et similibus defectibus, sicut sunt febres, et aliæ hujusmodi aegritudines, quæ interdum sunt deforesse simile de quantitate et qualitate quæ est causa visibilitatis ipsius; quia etiam qualitas illa, per quam est visibile, non potest, etc. » mitatis causæ, Augustinus indeterminatum et sub dubio relinquit in Enchirid., cap. xcii, col. 274, t. 6, ut in Littera Magister dicit, IV, dist. xliv. Sed apud doctores modernos est duplex super hoc opinio. Quidam enim dicunt quod hujusmodi deformitates et defectus in corporibus damnatorum remanebunt, considerantes eorum damnationem, qua ad summam miseriam deputantur, cui nihil incommoditatis subtrahi debet. Sed hoc non videtur rationabiliter dici. In reparatione enim corporis resurgentis magis attenditur naturæ perfectio quam conditio quæ prius fuit. Unde et qui infra perfectam ætatem decedunt, in statura juvenilis ætatis resurgent, ut supra dictum est. Unde et illi qui aliquos defectus naturales in corpore habuerunt, vel deformitates ex eis provenientes, in resurrectione sine illis defectibus vel deformitatibus reparabuntur, nisi peccati meritum impediat; et ita, si aliquis cum defectibus vel deformitatibus resurget, hoc erit ei in pœnæ est secundum mensuram culpæ. Contingit autem quod aliquis peccatorum damnandus minoribus peccatis subjectus, aliquas deformitates vel defectus habeat quos non habuit aliquis damnandus, peccatis gravioribus irretitus. Unde si ille qui in hac vita deformitates habuit, cum eis resurgat, sine quibus constat quod resurget alius gravius puniendus, qui eas in hac vita non habuit, modus pœnæ non responderet quantitati culpæ; sed magis videretur aliquis puniri pro pœnis quas in hoc mundo passus fuit; quod est absurdum. Et ideo alii rationabilius dicunt quod auctor qui naturam conditit, in resurrectione naturam corporis integre reparabit. Unde quicquid defectus vel turpitudinis ex corruptione, vel debilitate naturæ sive principiorum naturalium in corpore fuit, totum in resurrectione removebitur; sicut febris, lippitudo, et similia. Defectus autem qui ex naturalibus principiis in humano corpore naturaliter consequuntur, sicut ponderositas, passibilitas, et similia, in corporibus damnatorum erunt; quos defectus ab electorum corporibus gloria resurrectionis excludit.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.ad.1] Penance restores the virtues in the same way as it causes grace, as stated above (Question 86, Article 1). Now it is a cause of grace, in so far as it is a sacrament, because, in so far as it is a virtue, it is rather an effect of grace. Consequently it does not follow that penance, as a virtue, needs to be the cause of all the other virtues, but that the habit of penance together with the habits of the other virtues is caused through the sacrament of Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod cum pœna in quolibet foro infligatur secundum conditionem illius fori, pœnæ quae in hac vita temporali infliguntur pro aliquo peccato, temporales sunt, et ultra vitæ terminum non se extendunt. Et ideo, quamvis peccatum non sit remissum damnatis, non tamen oportet quod easdem pœnas ibi sustineant quas in hoc mundo sunt passi; sed divina justitia requirit ut ibi pœnis gravioribus in æternum crucientur.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.ad.2] In the sacrament of Penance human acts stand as matter, while the formal power of this sacrament is derived from the power of the keys. Consequently the power of the keys causes grace and virtue effectively indeed, but instrumentally; and the first act of the penitent, viz., contrition, stands as ultimate disposition to the reception of grace, while the subsequent acts of Penance proceed from the grace and virtues which are already there.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod non est similis ratio de bonis et malis, eo quod aliquid potest esse pure bonum, non autem pure malum. Unde sanctorum ultima felicitas hoc requirit ut ab omni malo penitus sint immunes: sed ultima miseria non excludet omne bonum, quia « malum, si integrum sit, corrumpit seipsum, » ut Philosophus dicit in IV Ethic., cap. v, ante med. Unde oportet quod miseriæ damnatorum substernatur bonum naturæ in ipsis, quod est opus Conditoris perfecti qui ipsam naturam in perfectione suæ speciei reparabit.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.ad.3] As stated above (Question 86, Article 5), sometimes after the first act of Penance, which is contrition, certain remnants of sin remain, viz. dispositions caused by previous acts, the result being that the penitent finds difficulty in doing deeds of virtue. Nevertheless, so far as the inclination itself of charity and of the other virtues is concerned, the penitent performs works of virtue with pleasure and ease. even as a virtuous man may accidentally find it hard to do an act of virtue, on account of sleepiness or some indisposition of the body.
\n[III.q.89.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod tarditas est de illis defectibus qui naturaliter consequuntur principia humani corporis, non autem deformitas; et ideo de eis non est similis ratio.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.arg.1] It would seem that man is not restored by Penance to his former dignity: because a gloss on Amos 5:2, \"The virgin of Israel is cast down,\" observes: \"It is not said that she cannot rise up, but that the virgin of Israel shall not rise; because the sheep that has once strayed, although the shepherd bring it back on his shoulder, has not the same glory as if it had never strayed.\" Therefore man does not, through Penance, recover his former dignity.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod corpora damnatorum futura sint impassibilia. Quia, secundum Philosophum in VI Topic., cap. 11, loco 49, « omnis passio magis facta abjicit a substantia. » Sed « a finito si semper aliquid abjiciatur, necesse est illud tandem consumi, » ut dicitur in I Physic., text. 37. Ergo si corpora damnatorum erunt passibilia, et semper patientur, quando deficient et corrupentur, quod falsum esse ostensum est. Ergo erunt impassibilia.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.arg.2] Further, Jerome says: \"Whoever fail to preserve the dignity of the sacred order, must be content with saving their souls; for it is a difficult thing to return to their former degree.\" Again, Pope Innocent I says (Ep. vi ad Agapit.) that \"the canons framed at the council of Nicaea exclude penitents from even the lowest orders of clerics.\" Therefore man does not, through Penance, recover his former dignity.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, omne agens assimilat sibi patiens. Si ergo corpora damnatorum patientur ab igne, ignis ea sibi assimilabit. Sed non consumit aliter ignis corpora, nisi inquantum ea sibi assimilans resolvit. Si ergo corpora damnatorum erunt passibilia, ab igne quando consumentur: et sic idem quod prius.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.arg.3] Further, before sinning a man can advance to a higher sacred order. But this is not permitted to a penitent after his sin, for it is written (Ezekiel 44:10-13): \"The Levites that went away . . . from Me . . . shall never [Vulgate: 'not'] come near to Me, to do the office of priest\": and as laid down in the Decretals (Dist. 1, ch. 52), and taken from the council of Lerida: \"If those who serve at the Holy Altar fall suddenly into some deplorable weakness of the flesh, and by God's mercy do proper penance, let them return to their duties, yet so as not to receive further promotion.\" Therefore Penance does not restore man to his former dignity.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, animalia quæ in igne sine corruptione dicuntur vivere, ut de salamandra dicitur, ab igne non affliguntur; animal enim, vel anima, dolore corporis non affligitur, nisi corpus aliquo modo lædatur. Si ergo corpora damnatorum in igne sine corruptione remanere possint, sicut et animalia prædicta, ut Augustinus, in lib. XXI De civit. Dei, cap. 11 et 14, col. 709, t. 7, dicit, videtur quod nullam afflictionem ibi sustinebunt; quod non esset, nisi eorum corpora impassibilia essent. Ergo, etc.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.sc] As we read in the same Distinction, Gregory writing to Secundinus (Regist. vii) says: \"We consider that when a man has made proper satisfaction, he may return to his honorable position\": and moreover we read in the acts of the council of Agde: \"Contumacious clerics, so far as their position allows, should be corrected by their bishops. so that when Penance has reformed them, they may recover their degree and dignity.\"
\n[III.q.89.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur I Corinth., xv, 52: Et nos immutabimur; Glossa 4: « Nos boni tantummodo immutabimur gloriæ immutabilitate et impassibilitate. » Ergo non erunt corpora damnatorum impassibilia. Præterea, sicut corpus cooperatur animæ ad meritum, ita cooperatur ei ad pecatum. Sed propter cooperationem prædictam non solum anima, sed etiam corpus post resurrectionem præmiabitur. Ergo et simili ratione damnatorum corpora punientur; quod non esset si impassibilia forent. Ergo erunt passibilia.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.co] By sin, man loses a twofold dignity, one in respect of God, the other in respect of the Church. In respect of God he again loses a twofold dignity. one is his principal dignity, whereby he was counted among the children of God, and this he recovers by Penance, which is signified (Luke 15) in the prodigal son, for when he repented, his father commanded that the first garment should be restored to him, together with a ring and shoes. The other is his secondary dignity, viz. innocence, of which, as we read in the same chapter, the elder son boasted saying (Luke 15:29): \"Behold, for so many years do I serve thee, and I have never transgressed thy commandments\": and this dignity the penitent cannot recover. Nevertheless he recovers something greater sometimes; because as Gregory says (Hom. de centum Ovibus, 34 in Evang.), \"those who acknowledge themselves to have strayed away from God, make up for their past losses, by subsequent gains: so that there is more joy in heaven on their account, even as in battle, the commanding officer thinks more of the soldier who, after running away, returns and bravely attacks the foe, than of one who has never turned his back, but has done nothing brave.\"
\nBy sin man loses his ecclesiastical dignity, because thereby he becomes unworthy of those things which appertain to the exercise of the ecclesiastical dignity. This he is debarred from recovering: first, because he fails to repent; wherefore Isidore wrote to the bishop Masso, and as we read in the Distinction quoted above (Objection 3): \"The canons order those to be restored to their former degree, who by repentance have made satisfaction for their sins, or have made worthy confession of them. On the other hand, those who do not mend their corrupt and wicked ways are neither allowed to exercise their order, nor received to the grace of communion.\"
\nSecondly, because he does penance negligently, wherefore it is written in the same Distinction (Objection 3): \"We can be sure that those who show no signs of humble compunction, or of earnest prayer, who avoid fasting or study, would exercise their former duties with great negligence if they were restored to them.\"
\nThirdly, if he has committed a sin to which an irregularity is attached; wherefore it is said in the same Distinction (Objection 3), quoting the council of Pope Martin [Martin, bishop of Braga]: \"If a man marry a widow or the relict of another, he must not be admitted to the ranks of the clergy: and if he has succeeded in creeping in, he must be turned out. In like manner, if anyone after Baptism be guilty of homicide, whether by deed, or by command, or by counsel, or in self-defense.\" But this is in consequence not of sin, but of irregularity.
\nFourthly, on account of scandal, wherefore it is said in the same Distinction (Objection 3): \"Those who have been publicly convicted or caught in the act of perjury, robbery, fornication, and of such like crimes, according to the prescription of the sacred canons must be deprived of the exercise of their respective orders, because it is a scandal to God's people that such persons should be placed over them. But those who commit such sins occultly and confess them secretly to a priest, may be retained in the exercise of their respective orders, with the assurance of God's merciful forgiveness, provided they be careful to expiate their sins by fasts and alms, vigils and holy deeds.\" The same is expressed (Extra, De Qual. Ordinand.): \"If the aforesaid crimes are not proved by a judicial process, or in some other way made notorious, those who are guilty of them must not be hindered, after they have done penance, from exercising the orders they have received, or from receiving further orders, except in cases of homicide.\"
\n[III.q.89.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod principalis causa quare corpora damnatorum ab igne non consumentur, erit divina justitia, qua eorum corpora ad pœnam perpetuam sunt addicta. Sed divinæ justitiae servit etiam naturalis dispositio ex parte corporis patientis et ex parte agentium, quia, cum pati sit recipere quoddam, duplex est modus passionis, secundum quod aliquid in aliquo recipi potest dupliciter. Potest enim aliqua forma recipi in aliquo subjecto secundum esse naturale materialiter, sicut calor ab igne recipitur in aere materialiter: et secundum hunc modum receptionis est unus modus passionis, qui dicitur « passio naturæ. » Alio modo aliquid recipitur in alio spiritualiter per modum intentionis cujusdam, sicut similitudo albedinis recipitur in aere et in pupilla; et hæc receptio assimilatur illi receptioni qua anima recipit similitudines rerum; unde secundum hunc modum receptionis est alius modus passionis, qui vocatur « passio animæ. » Quia igitur post resurrectionem, motu cæli cessante, non poterit aliquod corpus alterari a sua naturali qualitate, ut dictum est, nullum corpus pati poterit passione naturæ: unde quantum ad hunc modum passionis corpora damnatorum impassibilia erunt, sicut et incorruptibilia. Sed, cesante motu cæli, adhuc remanebit passio quæ est per modum animæ: quia et aer a sole illuminabitur et colorum differentias deferet ad visum. Unde et secundum hunc modum passionis corpora damnatorum passibilia erunt. Et quia in tali passione sensus perficitur 2, ideo in corporibus damnatorum sensus pœnæ erit sine mutatione naturalis dispositionis. Corpora vero gloriosa, etsi reci- 2 Ita communiter. An « patitur, » ut Theologi volunt? pient aliquid, et quodammodo patientur in sentiendo, non tamen passibilia erunt, quia nihil recipient per modum afflictivi vel læsivi, sicut recipient corpora damnatorum, quæ ob hoc passibilia dicuntur.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.ad.1] The same is to be said of the recovery of virginity as of the recovery of innocence which belongs to man's secondary dignity in the sight of God.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Philosophus loquitur de illa passione per quam transmutatur patiens a sua naturali dispositione. Talis autem passio non erit in corporibus damnatorum, ut dictum est.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.ad.2] In these words Jerome does not say that it is impossible, but that it is difficult, for man to recover his former dignity after having sinned, because this is allowed to none but those who repent perfectly, as stated above. To those canonical statutes, which seem to forbid this, Augustine replies in his letter to Boniface (Ep. clxxxv): \"If the law of the Church forbids anyone, after doing penance for a crime, to become a cleric, or to return to his clerical duties, or to retain them the intention was not to deprive him of the hope of pardon, but to preserve the rigor of discipline; else we should have to deny the keys given to the Church, of which it was said: 'Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'\" And further on he adds: \"For holy David did penance for his deadly crimes, and yet he retained his dignity; and Blessed Peter by shedding most bitter tears did indeed repent him of having denied his Lord, and yet he remained an apostle. Nevertheless we must not deem the care of later teachers excessive, who without endangering a man's salvation, exacted more from his humility, having, in my opinion, found by experience, that some assumed a pretended repentance through hankering after honors and power.\"
\n[III.q.89.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod similitudo agentis est dupliciter in patiente: uno modo per modum eumdem quo est in agente, sicut est in omnibus agentibus univocis, ut calidum facit calidum, et ignis generat ignem: alio modo per modum diversum a modo quo est in agente, sicut est in omnibus agentibus æquivocis, in quibus quando contingit quod in agente est forma spiritualiter, quæ in patiente materialiter recipitur, sicut forma quæ est in domo facta per artificem, est materialiter in ipsa, et in mente artificis est spiritualiter; quandoque vero e contrario est materialiter in agente, et recipitur spiritualiter in patiente; sicut albedo materialiter est in pariete, a quo recipitur spiritualiter in pupilla et in medio deferente. Et similiter est in proposito, quia species quæ materialiter est in igne, recipitur spiritualiter in corporibus damnatorum; et sic ignis sibi assimilabit damnatorum corpora, nec tamen ea consumet.
\n[III.q.89.a.3.ad.3] This statute is to be understood as applying to those who do public penance, for these cannot be promoted to a higher order. For Peter, after his denial, was made shepherd of Christ's sheep, as appears from John 21:21, where Chrysostom comments as follows: \"After his denial and repentance Peter gives proof of greater confidence in Christ: for whereas, at the supper, he durst not ask Him, but deputed John to ask in his stead, afterwards he was placed at the head of his brethren, and not only did not depute another to ask for him, what concerned him, but henceforth asks the Master instead of John.\"
\n[III.q.89.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod, secundum Philosophum in libro De proprietatibus elementorum, aliquant. a princ., « nullum animal in igne vivere potest. » Galenus etiam, in libro De simplicibus medicamentis, dicit quod « nullum corpus est quod tandem ab igne non consumatur; » quamvis quandoque quædam corpora sint quæ ad horam in igne sine læsione permaneant, ut patet de ebeno. Quod autem inducitur de salamandra, non potest omnino esse simile, quia non posset perseverare finaliter in igne sine corruptione, sicut corpora damnatorum in inferno. Neque tamen oportet quod, quia corpora damnatorum ab igne inferni per corruptionem aliquam non lædentur, propter hoc ab igne non affligantur, quia sensibile non solum natum est delectare vel affligere sensum, secundum quod agit actione naturæ comfortando vel corrumpendo organum, sed etiam secundum quod agit actione spirituali: quia quando sensibile est in debita proportione ad sentiendum, delectat; e contrario autem quando se habet in superabundantia vel defectu. Unde et colores medii et voces consonantes sunt delectabiles; inconsonantes autem offendunt auditum.
\n[III.q.89.a.4.arg.1] It would seem that virtuous deeds done in charity cannot be deadened. For that which is not cannot be changed. But to be deadened is to be changed from life to death. Since therefore virtuous deeds, after being done, are no more, it seems that they cannot afterwards be deadened.
\n[III.q.89.a.4.arg.2] Further, by virtuous deeds done in charity, man merits eternal life. But to take away the reward from one who has merited it is an injustice, which cannot be ascribed to God. Therefore it is not possible for virtuous deeds done in charity to be deadened by a subsequent sin.
\n[III.q.89.a.4.arg.3] Further, the strong is not corrupted by the weak. Now works of charity are stronger than any sins, because, as it is written (Proverbs 10:12), \"charity covereth all sins.\" Therefore it seems that deeds done in charity cannot be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin.
\n[III.q.89.a.4.sc] It is written (Ezekiel 18:24): \"If the just man turn himself away from his justice . . . all his justices which he hath done shall not be remembered.\"
\n[III.q.89.a.4.co] A living thing, by dying, ceases to have vital operations: for which reason, by a kind of metaphor, a thing is said to be deadened when it is hindered from producing its proper effect or operation.
\nNow the effect of virtuous works, which are done in charity, is to bring man to eternal life; and this is hindered by a subsequent mortal sin, inasmuch as it takes away grace. Wherefore deeds done in charity are said to be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin.
\n[III.q.89.a.4.ad.1] Just as sinful deeds pass as to the act but remain as to guilt, so deeds done in charity, after passing, as to the act, remain as to merit, in so far as they are acceptable to God. It is in this respect that they are deadened, inasmuch as man is hindered from receiving his reward.
\n[III.q.89.a.4.ad.2] There is no injustice in withdrawing the reward from him who has deserved it, if he has made himself unworthy by his subsequent fault, since at times a man justly forfeits through his own fault, even that which he has already received.
\n[III.q.89.a.4.ad.3] It is not on account of the strength of sinful deeds that deeds, previously done in charity, are deadened, but on account of the freedom of the will which can be turned away from good to evil.
\n[III.q.89.a.5.arg.1] It would seem that deeds deadened by sin are not revived by Penance. Because just as past sins are remitted by subsequent Penance, so are deeds previously done in charity, deadened by subsequent sin. But sins remitted by Penance do not return, as stated above (88, 1,2). Therefore it seems that neither are dead deeds revived by charity.
\n[III.q.89.a.5.arg.2] Further, deeds are said to be deadened by comparison with animals who die, as stated above (Article 4). But a dead animal cannot be revived. Therefore neither can dead works be revived by Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.5.arg.3] Further, deeds done in charity are deserving of glory according to the quantity of grace or charity. But sometimes man arises through Penance to lesser grace or charity. Therefore he does not receive glory according to the merit of his previous works; so that it seems that deeds deadened by sin are not revived.
\n[III.q.89.a.5.sc] on Joel 2:25, \"I will restore to you the years, which the locust . . . hath eaten,\" a gloss says: \"I will not suffer to perish the fruit which you lost when your soul was disturbed.\" But this fruit is the merit of good works which was lost through sin. Therefore meritorious deeds done before are revived by Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.5.co] Some have said that meritorious works deadened by subsequent sin are not revived by the ensuing Penance, because they deemed such works to have passed away, so that they could not be revived. But that is no reason why they should not be revived: because they are conducive to eternal life (wherein their life consists) not only as actually existing, but also after they cease to exist actually, and as abiding in the Divine acceptance. Now, they abide thus, so far as they are concerned, even after they have been deadened by sin, because those works, according as they were done, will ever be acceptable to God and give joy to the saints, according to Apocalypse 3:11: \"Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.\" That they fail in their efficacy to bring the man, who did them, to eternal life, is due to the impediment of the supervening sin whereby he is become unworthy of eternal life. But this impediment is removed by Penance, inasmuch as sins are taken away thereby. Hence it follows that deeds previously deadened, recover, through Penance, their efficacy in bringing him, who did them, to eternal life, and, in other words, they are revived. It is therefore evident that deadened works are revived by Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.5.ad.1] The very works themselves of sin are removed by Penance, so that, by God's mercy, no further stain or debt of punishment is incurred on their account: on the other hand, works done in charity are not removed by God, since they abide in His acceptance, but they are hindered on the part of the man who does them; wherefore if this hindrance, on the part of the man who does those works, be removed, God on His side fulfills what those works deserved.
\n[III.q.89.a.5.ad.2] Deeds done in charity are not in themselves deadened, as explained above, but only with regard to a supervening impediment on the part of the man who does them. On the other hand, an animal dies in itself, through being deprived of the principle of life: so that the comparison fails.
\n[III.q.89.a.5.ad.3] He who, through Penance, arises to lesser charity, will receive the essential reward according to the degree of charity in which he is found. Yet he will have greater joy for the works he had done in his former charity, than for those which he did in his subsequent charity: and this joy belongs to the accidental reward.
\n[III.q.89.a.6.arg.1] It would seem that the effect of subsequent Penance is to quicken even dead works, those, namely, that were not done in charity. For it seems more difficult to bring to life that which has been deadened, since this is never done naturally, than to quicken that which never had life, since certain living things are engendered naturally from things without life. Now deadened works are revived by Penance, as stated above (Article 5). Much more, therefore, are dead works revived.
\n[III.q.89.a.6.arg.2] Further, if the cause be removed, the effect is removed. But the cause of the lack of life in works generically good done without charity, was the lack of charity and grace. which lack is removed by Penance. Therefore dead works are quickened by charity.
\n[III.q.89.a.6.arg.3] Further, Jerome in commenting on Haggai 1:26: \"You have sowed much,\" says: \"If at any time you find a sinner, among his many evil deeds, doing that which is right, God is not so unjust as to forget the few good deeds on account of his many evil deeds.\" Now this seems to be the case chiefly when past evil \"deeds\" are removed by Penance. Therefore it seems that through Penance, God rewards the former deeds done in the state of sin, which implies that they are quickened.
\n[III.q.89.a.6.sc] The Apostle says (1 Corinthians 13:3): \"If I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.\" But this would not be true, if, at least by subsequent Penance, they were quickened. Therefore Penance does not quicken works which before were dead.
\n[III.q.89.a.6.co] A work is said to be dead in two ways: first, effectively, because, to wit, it is a cause of death, in which sense sinful works are said to be dead, according to Hebrews 9:14: \"The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works.\" These dead works are not quickened but removed by Penance, according to Hebrews 6:1: \"Not laying again the foundation of Penance from dead works.\" Secondly, works are said to be dead privatively, because, to wit, they lack spiritual life, which is founded on charity, whereby the soul is united to God, the result being that it is quickened as the body by the soul: in which sense too, faith, if it lack charity, is said to be dead, according to James 2:20: \"Faith without works is dead.\" In this way also, all works that are generically good, are said to be dead, if they be done without charity, inasmuch as they fail to proceed from the principle of life; even as we might call the sound of a harp, a dead voice. Accordingly, the difference of life and death in works is in relation to the principle from which they proceed. But works cannot proceed a second time from a principle, because they are transitory, and the same identical deed cannot be resumed. Therefore it is impossible for dead works to be quickened by Penance.
\n[III.q.89.a.6.ad.1] In the physical order things whether dead or deadened lack the principle of life. But works are said to be deadened, not in relation to the principle whence they proceeded, but in relation to an extrinsic impediment; while they are said to be dead in relation to a principle. Consequently there is no comparison.
\n[III.q.89.a.6.ad.2] Works generically good done without charity are said to be dead on account of the lack of grace and charity, as principles. Now the subsequent Penance does not supply that want, so as to make them proceed from such a principle. Hence the argument does not prove.
\n[III.q.89.a.6.ad.3] God remembers the good deeds a man does when in a state of sin, not by rewarding them in eternal life, which is due only to living works, i.e. those done from charity, but by a temporal reward: thus Gregory declares (Hom. de Divite et Lazaro, 41 in Evang.) that \"unless that rich man had done some good deed, and had received his reward in this world, Abraham would certainly not have said to him: 'Thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime.'\" Or again, this may mean that he will be judged less severely: wherefore Augustine says (De Patientia xxvi): \"We cannot say that it would be better for the schismatic that by denying Christ he should suffer none of those things which he suffered by confessing Him; but we must believe that he will be judged with less severity, than if by denying Christ, he had suffered none of those things. Thus the words of the Apostle, 'If I should deliver my body to be burned and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing,' refer to the obtaining of the kingdom of heaven, and do not exclude the possibility of being sentenced with less severity at the last judgment.\"
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n