Tertia Pars
Lecture 78: The Incarnation: Matter, Genealogy, and Original Sin

Transcript
================================================================================

But lest the feminine sex be despised, it was fitting that he took on flesh. I think that's very well said, very true. When Augustine says in the book on the Christian struggle, do not despise yourselves, men. Men, yeah. The son of God, right? The God and man. Do not despise yourselves, but women, right? For the son of God was born from one. That's marvelous. That's indeed, excellent. Okay, now the second objection here. What about confiding him in that little territory there? Then he suffered at least claustrophobia or something. The second, it should be said, as Augustine says in the 23rd book against Faust, who used this objection, right? I knew there was some heretic in this objection. I've seen this before. Not plainly, he says, the Catholic faith, huh? Which Christ, the son of God, born according to what? From the Virgin. In any way, the same son of God, thus was included or contained in the womb of the mother, as if, what, he was not outside there, right? As if he had given up the administration of heaven and earth. This reminds me of Homer there, you know, who are during the battle there, right? Homer, I mean, Zeus' wife is on the opposite side, right, in the battle. So she comes down and gets dressed up, you know, and seduces the, you know, taking love with her. And then he gets up, he's very mad, you know, because of the battle. But it's like, you know, he being confined in the womb here would not be able to tend to the universe like Zeus and Homer, you know. You can see how they can try to make fun of this, you know. They say he's reduced to being on the level of Zeus, right? As if he, what, as if he had gone out from the Father, right? He was not in the Father. But you, O Manichaeon, right, huh? In that heart by which nothing are you able except to think of bodily things. They didn't apparently believe in immaterial things. They're a little bit like the Sadducees and so on. Are not, are wholly unable to, what, grasp these things, right? I remember my cousin Donald trying to explain to his mother that Christ in his divine nature had no body, and she's going to stand back. What difference I was making? I mean, that's what you are, you know, huh? You know. As he says in the Epistle to Felicianum, of men, this is, what, sense that they are not able to think of, what, anything except, what, bodies, right, huh? Of which no one is able to be, what, the whole, right? Because through, what, yeah, yeah. My text is Patra, I think it must be Parts, though, right? Yeah, Parts. Yeah, Parts here, Parts here. I got an R there after the T. Yeah. Yeah. Tantaparthya. One there has necessary, okay? For much other is the nature of the soul than the body, right, huh? How much more, then, of God, who is the creator of the soul and the body, right, huh? He knows, what, to be everywhere, right, huh? And to be contained by no place, huh? He knows to come not receding from where he was. He knows to go away, not to deserve it. Yeah. We talked about that mission of the person of the Trinity, right? It's not by going to one place to another place, right? They cease to be in one place and come to be in another place. They're said to be someplace by no effect, huh? To the third, it should be said that in the conception of the woman, of the man from the woman, there is not anything unclean insofar as it is the, what, work of God. Whence it is said in Acts 10.15, what God created do not call common, that is, unclean, huh? But there is, nevertheless, there is some uncleanliness coming from, what, sin, huh? Insofar as with, what, lust, huh? One is conceived for a mixture of the man and the woman. Which, nevertheless, in Christ was not, as has been shown above, huh? I was looking at the Pope's dress there for the 7th centenary of Dunsgodis, right? Oh, in the recent? Well, I know this was back in a year or so ago, but I guess he held to my conception in Dunsgodis, huh? I think I've read it before, but it seems to say there's a letter there, you know? If, however, there is some uncleanliness there, from this in no way would the, what, word of God be stained, huh? Who in no way is, what, changeable, right? Prince Augustine says in the book against the five heresies, God says, the creator of man, what is it that, what, would move you in my nativity? I am not conceived by the desire of lust, right? Oh, okay. Okay, that's good. Thank you. I, the mother from whom I was born, I made her, right? Made her without sin, by the way, Tom. And, uh, if the, uh, ray of the sun, uh, knows to dry out the, uh, sordid members of the, uh, terrain, yeah, yeah. Was it, there was a place in the moment that quake a maxima, you always hear about that in the modern books, you know, where all the, the trash of the city, um, but does not know what to be stained by them, right? Much more of the splendor of the eternal life, eternal light, wherever it, uh, radiates, is able to, what, cleanse, huh? But itself not to be, what, polluted, yeah, yeah. The first, the first answer is better there, right? Especially sticking to that. Because I'm sure. So, gotta stop you right now or what? And then Article 511. Okay, so let's say I'm a prayer. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. God, our enlightenment, guardian angels, strengthen the lights of our minds, or to illumine our images, and arouse us to consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas, the angelic doctor. Pray for us. Help us to understand what you're written. Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen. To the fifth one goes forward thus. It seems that the flesh of Christ was not conceived from the most pure blood of the Virgin, huh? I don't know, I think that the biology in these old days was kind of mixed up, you know. The woman's period, you know, that's what you could be comforted out, because the blood could be stamped with the male thing. So, we'll take this to the greater self, what Thomas says anyway. Okay. But something to be learned here. For it is said in the colic, huh? That's the colic of the Mass. It says that the Feast of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary. That the word God, huh? Wished to take his flesh from the Virgin, right? But flesh differs from blood, huh? Therefore, the body of Christ is not taken from the blood of the, what? Virgin, huh? Moreover, as the woman was formed miraculously from the man, that's Eve, huh? So the body of Christ was miraculously formed from that of the Virgin. But the woman is not said to have been formed from the blood of the man, but more from his flesh and from his bones, huh? An extra bone or something, right? That they used. I knew one guy, he could get extra bone, you know. He was Adam again, I guess. What do you thought he was? According to that which is said in Genesis chapter 2, verse 23, this one now is a bone from my bones and flesh from my, what? Flesh. Therefore, it seems that neither should the body of Christ have been formed from the blood of the Virgin, but more from her flesh and bones, huh? Moreover, the body of Christ is of the same species with the bodies of other men. But the bodies of other men are not formed from the most pure blood, but from the seed and the minsterous, what? Blood. That maybe is the old biology, right? It seems kind of probable, you know. But anyway. It doesn't seem to be true. Therefore, it seems that neither was the body of Christ conceived from the most pure bloods. Part of the Virgin, right? Against all this is what Damascene says in the third book, that the Son of God put together, constructed for himself, from the most chaste and pure bloods of the Virgin, a flesh animated by a rational soul. It's a mouthful, a stateful form. I answer it should be said, Thomas says, that it has been said above, in the conception of Christ, it took place according to the condition of nature that he was born from a woman, right? But above the condition of nature, that he was born from a virgin, huh? Now, the natural condition has this, that in the generation of the animal, the woman administers the matter, right? But on the side of the man is the active principle in generation, as the philosopher proves, huh? In the book on the generation of, what, animals. Like I mentioned before, the word semen means, what, seed, right? So it's like saying the whole seed comes from the man, right? But we would say, no, the fertilized egg is, you know, something from both. So, but the woman who conceives from the male is not a, what, virgin, huh? And therefore, to the supernatural way of generation of Christ, it pertains that the active principle, huh? In that generation was the supernatural divine power. But to the natural way of that generation pertains that the matter from which his body was conceived was conformed to the matter which other woman provided to the conception of the offspring, huh? But this matter, oh, Aristotle, huh? But this matter, according to the philosopher in the book on the generation of animals, is the blood of the, what, woman. Not just any one whatsoever, blood, but that which has been led to a more, what, ample or perfect digestion through the generative power of the woman, huh? It might be a matter apt to, what, concept. And that comes closer to the idea of the truth, right? And therefore, from such a matter was the body of Christ, what, conceived, huh? Now, the first objection here, taking that text in the collet. To the first, therefore, it should be said that since the Blessed Virgin was of the same nature with the other woman, consequently it was that she had flesh and bones of the same nature. But flesh and bones in other women are actual parts of the, what, bodies, but ones that are attached, huh? From which is put together, constituted, the wholeness or integrity of the body. And therefore, they cannot be taken away without corruption of the body or diminution of the body, huh? But Christ, who came to repair what is corrupt, ought not to infer any corruption or diminution to the integrity of his, what, mother, huh? Makes sense, huh? And therefore, we're not, not to have the body of Christ formed from the flesh or the bones of the virgin, but of the blood, which was not yet an act, a part, right? But in ability or potency, it was a whole, as is said in the book of the generation of what, animals, huh? I suppose the blood brings the nourishment to all the parts of the body, right? And supplies the matter that can be formed into flesh and bones and so on, huh? Anyway. And therefore, it is said that he took flesh from the virgin, not that the matter of the body was an act flesh, but blood, which is flesh in potency. That's the way he solves that objection, huh? He took it from the flesh of the virgin, and not what is an act, the flesh of the virgin, but in ability, right? Oh, that talks good about that, huh? It seems to sound kind of reasonable here to me, but... To the second, it should be said that as has been said in the first part, Adam, who was constituted as the, what, beginning and the principle of human nature, had something in his body, right? That did not pertain... It had in his body something of, what, flesh and bone that did not pertain to his, what, personal wholeness. He had the extra rib, right? Like this friend of mine mentioned. Yeah. But... So things that did not pertain to his integrity, his individual, personal integrity, right? But only insofar as he was the beginning of, what, human nature, right? And of such was formed the woman without any detriment to the man, because it was very surprising. So... So... Listen to... As he pointed out. Okay? But there was definitely such in the body of the virgin, right? From which the body of Christ is able to be formed without some corruption of the, what, eternal body, huh? Now, his third argument is talking... about other men are formed for eximine, right, and sanguine, menstrual. To the third, it should be said that the seed of the woman, right, yeah, oh no, he's tripping a seed to the woman, huh? But it is something imperfect in the genus of what? Yeah. The only thing I know is that the man determines the sex, right? That's it, they make fun of Henry VIII, right? Because he's mad at all this woman, because he's getting doubtless and not men, but the man's responsible for it, whether it's a male or a female, the male principle. So in that sense, the male is more determinative, more active in that sense. On account of the imperfection of the feminine power, right, and therefore such a seed is not the matter which a necessity is required for a conception, as the philosophy says in the book on the generation of animals. And therefore, in the conception of Christ, it was not, huh? Especially because there was not, what? Because although it is imperfect in the genus of seed, right, huh? Nevertheless, it's resolved as a certain concupiscence, huh? Just as the seed of the man. But in that original conception, concupiscence should have, what? No place. And therefore, Damascene says that the body of Christ was not seminality, right? Good seed, even from the imperfect seed there. Now, the menstrual blood, which women emit through, what, months, has a certain natural impurity of corruption, right? Just as the other superfluities, which nature does not need, but expels them, right, huh? And from such menstrual having corruption, which nature is, what, eliminated, right, if not, it doesn't need, are not formed, what, a concept, huh? But this is a certain purgation, huh? Of that pure blood, which by certain digestion is prepared for conception as being more pure and more perfect than other, what, yeah. But it has, nevertheless, the impurity of lust, you might say, huh? In the conception of other men. Insofar as from that mixture of the male and the female, such a blood is attracted to the place of suitable for generation. But this, in the conception of Christ, was not, because by the operation of the Holy Spirit, such blood in the womb of the Virgin was united and formed into a, what, offspring. And therefore, it is said that the body of Christ was formed from the most chaste and the most purified, right, blood of the, what, virgin, huh? That's a pretty important point. Going back to Damascene there, it says in the sitcom chapter. I was reading Thomas there in the, in the last couple of chapters there of the John, you know, and, of course, he's talking about the three apparitions of Christ, huh, to the apostles. And the first time when Thomas is not there, right? The second time when Thomas is there, right? And then the third time when he appears to the seven, we're not all named, but Nathaniel's there, right? I was expecting to think that he really is an apostle, but anyway. But Thomas says, there's kind of an order among these three appearances, huh? Because in the first appearance, he breathes upon, we see, the Holy Spirit, and therefore he manifests his divine nature. Because it says God that he gives them, what? The Holy Spirit, huh? And then in the second appearance, when he says to Thomas, you know, put your fingers here and so on, this is his, what, his personality, his individuality, right? He's the same individual who's on the cross, right? And then in the third appearance, when he has fish and bread with them, right, and eats with them, then he has the same nature as they have, right? He doesn't eat fish and bread because he needs them, right now, but eats them in a human way, right? Showing that he has the same nature as his apostles. It's kind of beautiful the way he puts it up, huh? See, there's another explanation there of the 153 fish besides the one that Augustine gives, huh? A little more extreme, but he says, he uses the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, right? And the seven apostles, if there are all apostles, there are the seven that are there, and seven times seven is 49, right? To which if we add one because of the unity that they have, that's 50, right? And then you multiply that to the trinity, which gives you 150, right? And then you profess this in thought, word, and deed. 153. He's kind of building on it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. See, like Augustine says, you know, to get to heaven, which is what these fish represent, because it wants to get to heaven. They're put up on the shore of eternity, huh? And that's why the net doesn't break, he says, right? Because this is those who are saved, right? By the earlier catch, you know, where the nets broke and some fish, you know, were lost, that's the way the church is in this world, you know, where you can gather men, but some people fall out and so on. So he said, you get to heaven by obeying the Ten Commandments through the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, so then he takes 17, 16, 15, all the way down, and adds up to 153. Sometimes I try to ask those numbers, when I try to wake up in the middle of the night, you know, get to sleep, I try to ask those numbers and say, it comes up to 153. So I've done it many times, I'm pretty sure that it gets up to 153. That's the way, I've tried that before too, whenever you add up a series of numbers like that, it's going to be a series. We'll take the first one and the last one, and you get a certain number, but we'll take the second and the last and the second one, and you get the same number. So you can find out what that number is, divide the total by 2, and then you say, well, it's whatever that number is, let's say 1, 17, is 18, right, 16 and 2 is 18, so you say, well, 17, divided by 2, and 2 is 8, 8 pairs, 8 times 18 plus whatever's left over the middle, it's an odd, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and that's 1, and goes forward thus, it seems that the body of Christ was according to something, what, signatum, individualized you might say, right, in Adam and in the other, what, parts, right, as if the same, what, piece of flesh or whatever it is, individually it was in them, you know, it's come down to him, right, okay, now my little footnote here says, this article has its occasion from the air of those thinking that the body of Christ was formed from a certain determined portion, integrally transfused, right, successfully from person to person from Adam, right, all the way down to this virgin, it said, Hoke is very figmentum, I won't see what Thomas says anyway, for Augustine says in the 10th book on Genesis to the letter that the flesh of Christ was in Adam and Abraham according to bodily, what, substance, no, I understand Augustine, but bodily substance is something, signatum, something, it's kind of a way of speaking of something that is, what, individualized, right, you know, yeah, sometimes you see Thomas when they talk about individual matter, they call matter signata, you know, I think it has that sense, I mean, you wouldn't know it for the word so much, but that's the sense it has, moreover, Romans 1, 3, it is said that Christ was made from the seed of David according to the flesh, but the seed of David was something, what, individually signed, right, in him, therefore Christ was in David according to something, what, signed, yeah, yeah, in the same reason in other fathers, moreover, Christ had a certain affinity to the human race insofar as he took flesh from the human race, but if his flesh was not according to something individually signed in Adam, he would seem to have nothing, no affinity to the human race, eh, that was derived from, what, Adam, eh, but more to other things, eh, to those other things whence the matter of his flesh was, what, taken, eh, so there's got to be some piece of flesh or whatever it is, individual piece of flesh that's been handed down to all these people all the way down to the Virgin and then into Christ, right, otherwise that's where the argument's going on, but against this is what Augustine says in the 10th book upon Genesis to the letter, in whatever way Christ was in Adam and Abraham, right, other men were there, but this is not, what, convertible, huh, because other men were not in Adam and Abraham according to some, what, individually signed matter, but only according to, what, the origin, as it's said in the first part. Therefore, neither was Christ in Adam and Abraham according to something individually signed, and for the same reason, not in the other, what, fathers, huh? I answer, it should be said, that as it's been said above, the matter of the body of Christ was not the flesh and the bone of the Blessed Virgin, nor something that was in act, a part of her body, right, but her blood, the blood, which is flesh in ability and potency. But whatever was in the Blessed Virgin, taken from her parents, was in act, a part of the body of the Blessed Virgin. Whence that which was in the Blessed Virgin, taken from her parents, was not the matter of the body of Christ. And therefore, it should be said that the body of Christ was not in Adam and the other fathers, according to something individually signed, stamped, thus that some part of the body of Adam, right, or some other person, another one, could be, what, designated in a determinate way, so that one could say that from this matter was formed the, what, body of Christ, huh? But it was there according to his, what, origin, kind of like an efficient cause, I guess, just as the flesh of other men, right, huh? Now, the body of Christ had a relation to Adam and to the other fathers by means of the body of his mother, huh? Whence in no other way was in the fathers the body of Christ than the body of his mother was, huh? Which was not in the, what, fathers, according to matter individually signed, just as neither is the body's body of other men, huh? As is said in the first part, huh? I'm not a chip off the old black, I guess, huh? Christ is not a chip off the old, okay. What about these texts now, huh? No, Thomas handled this now. To the first thereof it should be said, when it is said that Christ was an Adam according to bodily substance, right, it should not be understood in this way, that the body of Christ was an Adam according to a certain, what, excuse me, that the body of Christ in Adam was a certain bodily substance, huh? But because the bodily substance of the body of Christ, that is, the matter which he took from the Virgin, was in Adam as in a active principle, like an efficient cause, huh? Not, however, as in a material principle. Because through the generative power of Adam, and of others descending from Adam, right, down to the Blessed Virgin, it was brought about or made that that matter was such a way prepared for the conception of the body of Christ, huh? But that matter formed in the body of Christ, but that body, that matter formed in the body of Christ was not through the power of the seed derived from Adam, huh? It didn't get original sin, I guess. And therefore Christ is said to have been in Adam originally according to body substance, not according to what? The active power of the seed, huh? Okay, you got that, okay? There's a time it says he's seeing a distinction between the way he was in Adam, right, and the other men are, right? The other men are in Adam as in an active principle, right? And Christ's body was not in Adam in that way, but according to body substance, more like in a material way, right? But the active principle is the Holy Spirit, right? I think some kind of question coming up there. Yeah. Now, to the second it should be said that although the body of Christ was not in Adam, and in the other fathers according to a seed-like reason, right? The body, nevertheless, the Blessed Virgin was conceived from the seed of the, what? Man, right? And was in Adam and in the other fathers according to a, what? Seedy reason, right? Seed-like reason. Of course, it might be another problem for Thomas once the Magical Conception is defined, right? And therefore, by means of the Blessed Virgin, Christ according to the flesh is said to be from the seed of David by way of, what? Origenon, because his mother's body was, huh? But that matter was not formed in the body of Christ through the seed. See, derived from David, but his mother's flesh was. To the third, it should be said that Christ had an affinity to the human race according to the likeness of, what, species, huh? It's an animal that has reason, right? But the likeness of a species is to be noted not according to the remote matter, but according to the, what, proximate matter which you made out of. And according to the active principle that generates something like itself in species. Thus, therefore, the affinity of Christ to the human race is sufficiently preserved or conserved through this that the body of Christ was formed from the blood of the Virgin derived by origin from Adam, right? And the other, what, fathers, huh? Nor does it make any difference to this affinity whence that matter of those, of that blood, right, was taken. Just as neither does it refer to make any difference in the generation of other men, right? As in the first part has been said. Seventh article here. To the seventh, one goes forward thus. It seems that the flesh of Christ in thee. To the seventh, one goes forward thus. ancient fathers, right, was not, what, infected with sin. For he said in Wisdom, chapter 7, that in the divine wisdom, nothing stained, shall we say, cannot come, comes in, runs in. But Christ is the wisdom of God, as is said in 1 Corinthians 1, 24. Therefore the flesh of Christ was never, what, stained with sin, right? He's talking about the flesh of Christ and the Father is not the flesh of Christ. In Christ, right? If you can see that distinction. Moreover, Damascene says in the third book that Christ took on the, what, of our nature, yeah. But in the first status, human flesh was not infected with sin. Therefore the flesh of Christ was not infected, neither in Adam nor in the other, what, fathers, huh? As if it was preserved from the other parts of the body, right? It's kind of hurt. Moreover, Augustine says in the 10th book on Genesis, the letter, that the human nature always had with the wound, right, the medicine for the wound. But that which is infected cannot be the medicine for the wound, but more it itself feeds medicine, huh? Therefore, always in human nature there was something not infected from which afterwards the body of Christ was formed, huh? You can see these medieval thinkers are pounding over these questions here, huh? For roaring fire in the wintertime, huh? But against this is that the body of Christ does not defer to Adam and to the other fathers except by means of the body of the Blessed Virgin from whom he took flesh, right? But the body of the Blessed Virgin, the whole was in, what? Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's the same contrast. That's not Thomas' opinion. And thus also, according as it was in the fathers, it was, what? Subject to sin, right? Therefore, the flesh of Christ, according as it was in the fathers, was subject to sin, huh? I answer it should be said that when we say that Christ or his flesh was in Adam and in other fathers, right, we compare it, or his flesh, right, to Adam and to the other fathers, right? Now, it is manifest that other was the condition of the fathers and other of Christ, huh? For the fathers were subject to, what? Sin. But Christ was altogether immune, huh? From sin altogether, you know. Two-fold or in two ways, therefore, in this comparison can it happen to err, make a mistake, huh? In one way that we attribute to Christ or to his flesh, huh? The condition that was in the, what? Fathers, huh? And that's a mistake you make about the person's version, too. For example, if we say that Christ sinned in, what? Adam, because in him, in some way, he was, right? Quite false amassed, which is false, huh? Because not in that way, in it was so that to Christ the sin of Adam would pertain, right? Because it was not derived from it according to the law of concupiscence or according to the, what? Seed-like ratio power, huh? It has been said above. In another way, it happens to err, or make a mistake, if we attribute to that which was enacted in the fathers, right? The condition of Christ or his flesh. That's kind of the reverse, huh? That because the flesh of Christ, according as it was in Christ, was not subject to sin, right? So also in Adam and in the other fathers, there was some part of the body, right? which was not subject to sin from which part afterwards the body of Christ was formed as some have, what? Laid down. And my footnote says Hugo St. Victor. See, my name is really Hugo. I must christen Hugo Dwayne Burquist. And my confirmation name is Victor. So, take me to the ground of salt. I'm guilty as charged. There's one of the books talks on St. Paul or something but one of those kind of pieces they had Ugo De Vittoria there. He's this Italian guy. He was St. Victor. That's a big thing we get from the Franciscan nuns you know when they quote from the Desert Fathers and sometimes they'll have some of the father's names in the we say it's Abba Pombo is it Pombone? Abba Pombone. Let's see the other guys Richard St. Victor right? One of my brothers is named Richard you know so Richard and Hugo I thought we had some affinity you know these guys it's just by name but so you can make a mistake going either way right? Which is not able to be he says right? First because the flesh of Christ was not according to some what individually signed matter in Adam that was the thing that was excluding in the previous article I guess and in the other fathers right? That is able then to be distinguished from the rest of his flesh as a pure from the impure right? As has been said above that's there I go we're seeing this one right? Secondly because since human flesh was infected with what? Sin from this that it is conceived through what? Concupiscence just as the whole flesh of another man is conceived by concupiscence so the whole is what? Stained with what? Sin and therefore it should be said that the whole flesh of the ancient fathers was subject to sin now was there in it something immune from sin from which afterwards the body of Christ could be what? Formed huh? My first objection here that stained him in some way right? To the first therefore it should be said that Christ did not take on flesh of humankind subject to what? Sin but cleansed from every infection of sin right? Now there is the cleansing of the Blessed Virgin in his opinion right? And therefore in the wisdom of God nothing what? Stained runs into it right? Second objection here assume the prometias of our nature the second it should be said then that Christ is said to have taken on the first fruits of our nature as regards the likeness of what condition because he took on flesh not infected with sin just as was the flesh of man before sin but not however as this understood according to a continuation of purity of purity such that that flesh of the pure man man