given by Africanus. Chrysostom deals at length with the subject in his 22nd homily on Genesis. He calls the old interpretation blas- phemous, and holds that it is precluded by the words of Christ, that “in the resurrection men shall be like angels, neither marrying nor given in marriage’’. Augustine (Civ. Dei, xv. 23) thinks it cannot be -denied ‘“ Silvanos et Faunos, quos vulgo incubos vocant . . . mulierum appetisse ac peregisse concubitum. . . . Dei tamen angelos sanctos nullo modo sic labi potuisse crediderim, nec de his dixisse Apostolum Petrum . . . sed potius de illis qui primum apostatantes a Deo cum diabolo principe suo ceciderunt,” unless we are rather to understand this of the children of Seth. A little later Philastrius (Haer. 107) goes so far as to condemn the old opinion as a heresy.
The sympathies of Christians in the present day must assuredly be with those who endeavoured to eliminate from the Scriptures all that might seem to be dishonouring to God and injurious to men. But the methods employed with this view were often such as we could not now accept. For instance, the allegorical method borrowed from the Stoics by Philo, and adopted from him by many of the Fathers, is too sub- jective and arbitrary to be of any value in getting rid of moral diffi- culties. We have replaced this now by the historical method, first enunciated by our Lord, when he contrasted the spirit of the Gospel with that of the old Dispensation.1 There is a continuous growth in the ideal of conduct as set before us in the Bible. Much that was commanded or permitted in the days of Abraham or Moses or David is forbidden to those who have received the fuller light of Christianity. So, what it was found possible for men to believe about God Himself and about the holy angels, is impossible for us now. The words put into the mouth of God in Gen. iii. 22, and in xi. 6, 7, we feel to be in- consistent with any true idea of the power and wisdom and love of God, and only suitable to a very low state of human development. So also for the story of the fall of the angels. But is it a satisfactory explanation of the latter to suppose that ‘‘sons of Seth” are meant by ‘‘sons of God”? Ryle (Early Narratives of Genesis, 91-95) points out that ‘‘ there is nothing in the context to suggest this, no sign that the Sethites were distinguished for piety : they are not even exempted from the charge of general wickedness which brought on the Flood”. Equally untenable is the Jewish explanation that ‘‘ sons of God” are’ the nobles. I think no one who has studied with any care the recent
- investigations as to the origin of the book of Genesis, of which Driver’s Book of Genesis may be taken as a specimen, can doubt that it con- tains much which is unhistoric, though full of moral and spiritual
1Cf. Matt. v. 21-48, xix. 8; Luke ix. 54-56.