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."
_______________________

FOURTH ARTICLE [III, Q. 89, Art. 4]

Whether Virtuous Deeds Done in Charity Can Be Deadened?

Objection 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.

Obj. 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.

Obj. 3: Further, the strong is not corrupted by the weak. Now works
of charity are stronger than any sins, because, as it is written
(Prov. 10:12), "charity covereth all sins." Therefore it seems that
deeds done in charity cannot be deadened by a subsequent mortal sin.

_On the contrary,_ It is written (Ezech. 18:24): "If the just man
turn himself away from his justice . . . all his justices which he
hath done shall not be remembered."

_I answer that,_ 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.

Now 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.

Reply Obj. 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.

Reply Obj. 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.

Reply Obj. 3: It is not on account of the strength of sinful deeds
that deeds, previously done in