church fathers on genesis 06.4 [sons of god came in unto daughters of men]

7/28/2019 Church Fathers on Genesis 06.4 [Sons of God Came in Unto Daughters of Men]

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/church-fathers-on-genesis-064-sons-of-god-came-in-unto-daughters-of-men 1/17

JULIUS AFRICANUS

[Translated by the Rev. S.D.F. Salmond, M.A.]

THE EXTANT WRITINGS OF JULIUS AFRICANUS.

III.--THE EXTANT FRAGMENTS OF THE FIVE BOOKS OF THE

CHRONOGRAPHY OF JULIUS AFRICANUS.

II.(1) When men multiplied on the earth, the angels of heaven came together with the

daughters of men. In some copies I found "the sons of God." What is meant by the

Spirit, in my opinion, is that the descendants of Seth are called the sons of God on

account of the righteous men and patriarchs who have sprung from him, even down to theSaviour Himself; but that the descendants of Cain are named the seed of men as having

nothing divine in them, on account of the wickedness of their race and the inequality of

their nature, being a mixed people, and having stirred the indignation of God.(2) But if it

is thought that these refer to angels, we must take them to be those who deal with

magic and jugglery, who taught the women the motions of the stars and the

knowledge of things celestial, by whose power they conceived the giants as their children, by whom wickedness came to its height on the earth, until God decreed that the

whole race of the living should perish in their impiety by the deluge.

TERTULLIAN

ON PRAYER

[Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall]

CHAP. XXII.--ANSWER TO THE FOREGOING ARGUMENTS.

They who make this concession[9] ought to reflect on the nature of the word itself--what

is the meaning of "woman" from the very first records of the sacred writings. Here they

find it to be the name of the sex, not a class of the sex: if, that is, God gave to Eve, when

she had not yet known a man, the surname "woman" and "female"[10]--("female,"whereby the sex generally; "woman," hereby a class of the sex, is marked).[11] So, since

at that time the as yet unwedded Eve was called by the word "woman," that word has

been made common even to a virgin.[12] Nor is it wonderful that the apostle--guided, of

course, by the same Spirit by whom, as all the divine Scripture, so that book Genesis, wasdrawn up--has used the selfsame word in writing "women," which, by the example of Eve

unwedded, is applicable too to a "virgin." In fact, all the other passages are in consonanceherewith. For even by this very fact, that he has not named "virgins" (as he does in

another place[13] where he is teaching touching marrying), he sufficiently predicates that

his remark is made touching every woman, and touching the whole sex; and that there is

no distinction made between a "virgin" and any other, while he does not name her at all.For he who elsewhere--namely, where the difference requires--remembers to make the



distinction, (moreover, he makes it by designating each species by their appropriate

names,) wishes, where he makes no distinction (while he does not name each), no

difference to be understood. What of the fact that in the Greek speech, in which theapostle wrote his letters, it is usual to say, "women" rather than "females;" that is,

gunai^kas (gunaikas) rather than thhlei'as (theleias)? Therefore if that word,[1] which by

interpretation represents what "female" (femina) represents,[2] is frequently used insteadof the name of the sex? he has named the sex in saying gunai^ka; but in the sex even the

virgin is embraced. But, withal, the declaration is plain: "Every woman," saith he,

"praying and prophesying with head uncovered,[4] dishonoureth her own head."[5] Whatis "every woman, but woman of every age, of every rank, of every condition? By saying"

every" he excepts nought of womanhood, just as he excepts nought of manhood either

from not being covered; for just so he says, "Every man."[6] As, then, in the masculine

sex, under the name of" man" even the" youth" is forbidden to be veiled; so, too, in thefeminine, under the name of "woman," even the "virgin" is bidden to be veiled. Equally

in each sex let the younger age follow the discipline of the elder; or else let the male

"virgins,"[7] too, be veiled, if the female virgins withal are not veiled, because they are

not mentioned by name. Let "man" and "youth" be different, if "woman" and "virgin" aredifferent. For indeed it is "on account of the angels"[8] that he saith women must be

veiled, because on account of "the daughters of men" angels revolted from God.[9] Whothen, would contend that "women" alone--that is,[10] such as were already wedded ant

had lost their virginity--were the objects of angelic concupiscence, unless "virgins" are

incapable of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? Nay, let us see whether it were notvirgins alone whom they lusted after; since Scriptures saith "the daughters of men;"[11]

inasmuch as it might have named "wives of men," or "females," indifferently.[12]

Likewise, in that it saith, "And they took them to themselves for wives,"[13] it does so on

this ground, that, of course, such are "received for wives" as are devoid of that title. But itwould have expressed itself differently concerning such as were not thus devoid. And so

(they who are named) are devoid as much of widowhood as of virginity. So completely

has Paul by naming the sex generally, mingled "daughters" and species together in thegenus. Again, while he says that "nature herself,"[14] which has assigned hair as a

tegument and ornament to women, "teaches that veiling is the duty of females," has not

the same tegument and the same honour of the head been assigned also to virgins? If "it isshameful" for a woman to be shorn it is similarly so to a virgin too. From them, then, to

whom is assigned one and the same law of the head,[15] one and the same discipline[16]

of the head is exacted,--(which extends) even unto those virgins whom their childhood

defends,[17] for from the first[18] a virgin was named "female." This custom,[19] inshort, even Israel observes; but if Israel did not observe it, our Law,[20] amplified and

supplemented, would vindicate the addition for itself; let it be excused for imposing the

veil on virgins also. Under our dispensation, let that age which is ignorant of its sex[21]retain the privilege of simplicity. For both Eve and Adam, when it befell them to be

"wise,"[22] forthwith veiled what they had learnt to know? [23] At all events, with regard

to those in whom girlhood has changed (into maturity), their age ought to remember itsduties as to nature, so also, to discipline; for they are being transferred to the rank of

"women" both in their persons and in their functions. No one is a "virgin" from the time

when she is capable of marriage; seeing that, in her, age has by that time been wedded to

its own husband, that is, to time.[24] "But some particular virgin has devoted herself to



comes the woman who has married; unless the virgin is a third generic class, some

monstrosity with a head of its own. If" it is shameful for a woman to be shaven or shorn,"

of course it is so for a virgin. (Hence let the world, the rival of God, see to it, if it assertsthat close-cut hair is graceful to a virgin in like manner as that flowing hair is to a boy.)

To her, then, to whom it is equally unbecoming to be shaven or shorn, it is equally

becoming to be covered. If" the woman is the glory of the man," how much more thevirgin, who is a glory withal to herself! If "the woman is of the man," and "for the sake of

the man," that rib of Adam(7) was first a virgin. If "the woman ought to have power upon

the head,"(1) all the more justly ought the virgin, to whom pertains the essence of thecause (assigned for this assertion). For if (it is) on account of the angels--those, to wit,

whom we read of as having fallen from God and heaven on account of concupiscence

after females--who can presume that it was bodies already defiled, and relics of human

lust, which such angels yearned after, so as not rather to have been inflamed for virgins,whose bloom pleads an excuse for human lust likewise? For thus does Scripture withal

suggest: "And it came to pass," it says, "when men had begun to grow more numerous

upon the earth, there were withal daughters born them; but the sons of God, having

descried the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to themselves wives of all whomthey elected."(2) For here the Greek name of women does seem to have the sense

"wives," inasmuch as mention is made of marriage. When, then, it says "the daughters of men," it manifestly purports virgins, who would be still reckoned as belonging to their

parents--for wedded women are called their husbands'--whereas it could have said "the

wives of men:" in like manner not naming the angels adulterers, but husbands, while theytake unwedded" daughters of men," who it has above said were "born," thus also

signifying their virginity: first, "born;" but here, wedded to angels. Anything else I know

not that they were except "born" and subsequently wedded. So perilous a face, then,

ought to be shaded, which has cast stumbling-stones even so far as heaven: that, whenstanding in the presence of God, at whose bar it stands accused of the driving of the

angels from their (native) confines, it may blush before the other angels as well; and may

repress that former evil liberty of its head,--(a liberty) now to be exhibited not even before human eyes. But even if they were females already contaminated whom those

angels had desired, so much the more "on account of the angels" would it have been the

duty of virgins to be veiled, as it would have been the more possible for virgins to have been the cause of the angels' sinning. If, moreover, the apostle further adds the

prejudgment of "nature," that redundancy of locks is an honour to a woman, because hair

serves for a covering? of course it is most of all to a virgin that this is a distinction; for

their very adornment properly consists in this, that, by being massed together upon thecrown, it wholly covers the very citadel of the head with an encirclement of hair.

ORIGEN

AGAINST CELSUS, BOOKS IV-V.

BOOK V.



CHAP. LV.

But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candour what he has not discovered in thecontents of the book of Genesis, that "the sons of God, seeing the daughters of men, that

they were fair, took to them wives of all whom they chose,"(2) we shall nevertheless even

on this point persuade those who are capable of understanding the meaning of the prophet, that even before us there was one who referred this narrative to the doctrine

regarding souls, which became possessed with a desire for the corporeal life of men, and

this in metaphorical language, he said, was termed "daughters of men." But whatever may be the meaning of the "sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of men," it will

not at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited mankind as an

angel, and who manifestly became the Saviour and benefactor of all those who depart

from the flood of wickedness. Then, mixing up and confusing whatever he had at anytime heard, or had anywhere found written--whether held to be of divine origin among

Christians or not--he adds: "The sixty or seventy who descended together were cast under

the earth, and were punished with chains." And he quotes (as from the book of Enoch, but

without naming it) the following: "And hence it is that the tears of these angels are warmsprings,"--a thing neither mentioned nor heard of in the Churches of God! For no one was

ever so foolish as to materialize into human tears those which were shed by the angelswho had come down from heaven. And if it were right to pass a jest upon what is

advanced against us in a serious spirit by Celsus, we might observe that no one would

ever have said that hot springs, the greater part of which are fresh water, were the tears of the angels, since tears are saltish in their nature, unless indeed the angels, in the opinion

of Celsus, shed tears which are fresh.

ORIGEN

COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF JOHN BOOKS VI, X

[Translated by Allan Menzies, D.D.]

SIXTH BOOK

25. JORDAN MEANS "THEIR GOING DOWN." SPIRITUAL MEANINGS AND

APPLICATION OF THIS.

Let us look at the words of the Gospel now before us. "Jordan" means "their goingdown." The name "Jared" is etymologically akin to it, if I may say so; it also yields the

meaning "going down;" for Jared was born to Maleleel, as it is written in the Book of

Enoch--if any one cares to accept that book as sacred--in the days when the sons of Godcame down to the daughters of men. Under this descent some have supposed that there is

an enigmatical reference to the descent of souls into bodies, taking the phrase "daughters

of men" as a tropical expression for this earthly tabernacle. Should this be so, what river will "their going down" be, to which one must come to be purified, a river going down,



not with its own descent, but "theirs," that, namely, of men, what but our Saviour who

separates those who received their lots from Moses from those who obtained their own

portions through Jesus (Joshua)? His current, flowing in the descending stream, makesglad, as we find in the Psalms,(4) the city of God, not the visible Jerusalem--for it has no

river beside it--but the blameless Church of God, built on the foundation of the Apostles

and Prophets, Christ Jesus our Lord being the chief corner-stone. Under the Jordan,accordingly, we have to understand the Word of God who became flesh and tabernacled

among us, Jesus who gives us as our inheritance the humanity which He assumed, for

that is the head corner-stone, which being taken up into the deity of the Son of God, iswashed by being so assumed, and then receives into itself the pure and guileless dove of

the Spirit, bound to it and no longer able to fly away from it. For "Upon whomsoever,"

we read, "thou shall see the Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, the same is He that

baptizeth with the Holy Spirit." Hence, he who receives the Spirit abiding on JesusHimself is able to baptize those who come to him in that abiding Spirit. But John baptizes

beyond Jordan, in the regions verging on the outside of Judaea, in Bethabara, being the

forerunner of Him who came to call not the righteous but sinners, and who taught that the

whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For it is for forgiveness of sinsthat this washing is given.

ST. METHODIUS

FROM THE DISCOURSE ON THE RESURRECTION.(1)

[Translated by the Rev. William R. Clark, M.A., Vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, Taunton.]

PART III. I. FROM THE DISCOURSE ON THE RESURRECTION.(5)

VII. He says, as was said also by Athenagoras,(1) that the devil is a spirit, made by God,

in the neighbourhood of matter, as of course the rest of the angels are, and that he was

entrusted with the oversight of matter, and the forms of matter. For, according to theoriginal constitution of angels, they were made by God, in His providence, for the care of

the universe; in order that, while God exercises a perfect and general supervision over the

whole, and keeps the supreme authority and power over all--for upon Him their existencedepends--the angels appointed for this purpose take charge of particulars. Now the rest of

them remained in the positions for which God made and appointed them; but the devil

was insolent, and having conceived envy of us, behaved wickedly in the charge

committed to him; as also did those who subsequently were enamoured of fleshlycharms, and had illicit intercourse with the daughters of men.(1) For to them also, as

was the case with men, God granted the possession of their own choice. And how is this

to be taken?

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM



COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS

[Translated by Robert Charles Hill]

Psalm 4

Children of men, how long will you be dull of heart? Why do you love futility and seek

falsehood?28 (v.2). To whom does he address his remarks, making threats and givingcounsel? Whom does he call “children of men?” Those living in sin, those inclined to

evil. Why on earth? I mean, are not we children of men? While we are children of men by

nature, yet no longer so by grace — rather, children of God. At least, if we maintain his

image in virtue, the gift in our possession will be unsullied; those, after all, who have become children of God through grace must manifest this image also in their way of life.

For proof that those who are more worldly and incline to evil he calls sons of men,

listen to this: “Now, the sons of God saw the daughters of men.”29 You have

contradicted yourself, you may say. Not at all: it gave the name sons of God here tothose born before this to virtuous men, enjoying dignity from God, who later changed

and became worse, forfeiting this dignity. You see, so as to aggravate the charge, it mademention of their dignity, adducing as the grounds of the accusation the most incriminating

fact that, though of that nature and parentage, they fell into such awful wickedness. God

said in another place, “I said, You are gods, and all children of the Most High. But asmortals you

Notice the inspired author’s sagacity. First he demonstrates God’s power, resourcefulness,

inventiveness, kindness and love, his giving us space in tribulation, and acceding to our requests out of pity. Then, when he considers the flood of evil in human beings and the

tyranny of godlessness, as though overcome by discouragement he directs his attention to

those living in sin, as if to say, How is it that with such a God, so loving, so kind, so powerful, you turned aside to godlessness? Take note of his exhortation, how full it is of spirit, of gentleness and of sound advice. What in fact does he say? Children of men, how

long will you be dull of heart? There is an indication here of someone sternly upbraiding

even after a lapse of time. I mean, if failure to grasp God’s beneficence at the outset is acrime, what excuse will there be for blindness to the truth for such a long time?

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM

HOMILIES ON SECOND TIMOTHY

[Translated by the Rev. James Tweed, M.A., of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; re-edited by the Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D.]

HOMILY VIII: 2 TIMOTHY iii. 1-4.

IF any now takes offense at the existence of heretics, let him remember that it was so



from the beginning, the devil always setting up error by the side of truth. God from the

beginning promised good, the devil came too with a promise. God planted Paradise, the

devil deceived, saying, "Ye shall be as gods." (Gen. iii. 5.) For as he could show nothingin actions, he made the more promises in words. Such is the character of deceivers. After

this were Cain and Abel, then the sons of Seth and the daughters of men; afterwards

Ham and Japhet, Abraham and Pharaoh, Jacob and Esau; and so it is even to the end,Moses and the magicians, the Prophets and the false prophets, the Apostles and the false

apostles, Christ and Antichrist. Thus it was then, both before and at that time. Then there

was Theudas, then Simon, then were the Apostles, then too this party of Hermogenes andPhiletus. In short, there was no time when falsehood was not set up in opposition to truth.

Let us not therefore be distressed. That it would be so, was foretold from the beginning.

Therefore he says, "Know that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall

be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection." The unthankful then is unholy,

and this is natural, for what will he be to others, who is not grateful to his benefactor?

The unthankful man is a truce-breaker, he is without natural affection.

ST. JEROME

HOMILIES ON THE PSALMS

[Translated by Sister Marie Ligouri Ewald, I.H.M.]

HOMILY 45

ON PSALM 132 (133)

‘It is a dew like that of Hermon, which comes down upon the mountains of Sion.’ Thedew of Hermon. We have read in a certain apocryphal book’ that when the sons of

God were coming down to the daughters of men, they descended upon Mount

Hermon and there entered into an agreement to come to the daughters of men and

make them their wives. This book is quite explicit and is classified as apocryphal. The

ancient exegetes have at various times referred to it, but we are citing it, not as

authoritative, but merely to bring it to your attention. ‘It is a dew like that of Hermon,

which comes down upon the mountains of Sion.’ I have read about this apocryphal

book in the work of a particular author who used it to confirm his own heresy. What

does he say? He says: The sons of God who came down from heaven upon Mount

Hermon and coveted the daughters of men are angels descending from the heavens

and souls that desired bodies since bodies are the daughters of men. Do you detect

the source of the teachings of Manichaeus, the ignorant? Just as the Manichaeans

say that souls desired human bodies to be united in pleasure, do not they who say

that angels desired bodies-or the daughters of men-seem to you to be saying the

same thing as the Manichaeans? It would take too long to refute them now, but I

merely wanted to indicate the coincidence, as it were, of the book that opportunely

confirmed their dogma.



ST. JEROME

HEBREW QUESTIONS ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS

[Translated with introduction and Commentary by C. T. R. HAYWARD CLARENDON

PRESS . OXFORD 1995]

Hebrew Questions on the Book of Genesis by Saint Jerome the Presbyter

6:2 So when the Sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were comely. The

Hebrew word eloim is of common number; for both ‘God’ and ‘gods’ are designated in

the same way. For this reason Aquila dared to say ‘sons of the gods’, in the plural,

understanding ‘gods’ as holy ones or angels. For God stood up in the assembly of the

gods: moreover, in the midst of the gods He gives judgement. Consequently, Symmachustoo follows the sense of this kind of rendering, and says: The sons of the mighty saw the

daughters of men, and the rest.3 And the Lord God said: My Spirit shall not remain in these men for ever, because they

are flesh. In Hebrew is written: My Spirit shall not judge these men for evermore, since

they are flesh. That is, because a frail condition exists in mankind, I shall not preservethem for everlasting tortures, but shall pay them here what they deserve. Therefore

Scripture refers, not to the strictness of God as is read in our codices, but to the mercy of

God when this sinner is visited for his wicked deed. So when God is angry, He speaks tocertain people: I shall not visit [i.e. punish] their daughters when they commit

fornication, nor their wives, when they commit adultery. And in another place [He says]:

I will visit their iniquities with the rod, and their sins with whips; but I shall not takeaway My mercy from them. Next, lest He might seem to be cruel on the grounds that He had not given a place of

repentance for sinners, He added: But their days shall be 120 years. This means they

shall have 120 years to do penance. So human life is not shortened to 120 years, as manymistakenly suppose; but 120 years were given to that generation for repentance. For

indeed we find that after the Flood Abraham lived for 175 years, and others lived more

than 200 or 300 years. However, because they made light of doing penance, God wasunwilling to wait for the time which He had decreed; but the time was cut short by the

space of twenty years, and He brought in the Flood in the hundredth year appointed for

their doing penance.

4 Moreover there were giants on the earth in those days; and after these things, as the sons of God were accustomed to go in to the daughters of men, so they would breed with

them. Those were the giants from of old, men called by name. In the Hebrew, it has the

following: Falling ones (that is, annaphilim) were on the earth in those days. And after these things, when the sons of the gods used to go in to the daughters of men and breed

with them, these were the mighty ones from the beginning, men called by name. Instead of

falling ones or giants, Symmachus translated ‘violent ones’. The name falling ones isindeed fitting both for angels and for the offspring of holy ones.



ST. AUGUSTINE

THE CITY OF GOD

BOOKS XIV-XV

[Translated by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.]

BOOK XV. ARGUMENT: HAVING TREATED IN THE FOUR PRECEDING BOOKS

OF THE ORIGIN OF THE TWO CITIES, THE EARTHLY AND THE HEAVENLY,AUGUSTIN EXPLAINS THEIR GROWTH AND PROGRESS IN THE FOUR BOOKS

WHICH FOLLOW; AND, IN ORDER TO DO SO, HE EXPLAINS THE CHIEF

PASSAGES OF THE SACRED HISTORY WHICH BEAR UPON THIS SUBJECT. INTHIS FIFTEENTH BOOK HE OPENS THIS PART OF HIS WORK BY EXPLAINING

THE EVENTS RECORDED IN GENESIS FROM THE TIME OF CAIN AND ABELTO THE DELUGE.

CHAP. 22.--OF THE FALL OF THE SONS OF GOD WHO WERE CAPTIVATED BY

THE DAUGHTERS OF MEN, WHEREBY ALL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF EIGHT

PERSONS, DESERVEDLY PERISHED IN THE DELUGE.

When the human race, in the exercise of this freedom of will, increased and advanced,

there arose a mixture and confusion of the two cities by their participation in a commoniniquity. And this calamity, as well as the first, was occasioned by woman, though not in

the same way; for these women were not themselves betrayed, neither did they persuade

the men to sin, but having belonged to the earthly city and society of the earthly, they had been of corrupt manners from the first, and were loved for their bodily beauty by the

sons of God, or the citizens of the other city which sojourns in this world. Beauty is

indeed a good gift of God; but that the good may not think it a great good, God dispenses

it even to the wicked. And thus, when the good that is great and proper to the good

was abandoned by the sons of God, they fell to a paltry good which is not peculiar to

the good, but common to the good and the evil; and when they were captivated by

the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their

brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society. And

thus beauty, which is indeed God's handiwork, but only a temporal, carnal, and lower

kind of good, is not filly loved in preference to God, the eternal, spiritual, and

unchangeable good. When the miser prefers his gold to justice, it is through no fault of the gold, but of the man; and so with every created thing. For though it be good, it may be

loved with an evil as well as with a good love: it is loved rightly when it is loved

ordinately; evilly, when inordinately, It is this which some one has briefly said in theseverses in praise of the Creator:(1) "These are Thine, they are good, because Thou art good

who didst create them. There is in them nothing of ours, unless the sin we commit when

we forget the order of things, and instead of Thee love that which Thou hast made."



But if the Creator is truly loved, that is, if He Himself is loved and not another thing in

His stead, He cannot be evilly loved; for love itself is to be ordinately loved, because we

do well to love that which, when we love it, makes us live well and virtuously. So that itseems to me that it is a brief but true definition of virtue to say, it is the order of love; and

on this account, in the Canticles, the bride of Christ, the city of God, sings, "Order love

within me."(2) It was the order of this love, then, this charity or attachment, which thesons of God disturbed when they forsook God, and were enamored of the daughters

of men.(3) And by these two names (sons of God and daughters of men) the two

cities are sufficiently distinguished. For though the former were by nature children

of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace. For in the same

Scripture in which the sons of God are said to have loved the daughters of men, they

are also called angels of God; whence many suppose that they were not men but

angels.

CHAP. 23.--WHETHER WE ARE TO BELIEVE THAT ANGELS, WHO ARE OF A

SPIRITUAL SUBSTANCE, FELL IN LOVE WITH THE BEAUTY OF WOMEN, AND

SOUGHT THEM IN MARRIAGE, AND THAT FROM THIS CONNECTION GIANTSWERE BORN.

In the third book of this work (c. 5) we made a passing reference to this question,

but did not decide whether angels, inasmuch as they are spirits, could have bodily

intercourse with women. For it is written, "Who maketh His angels spirits,"(4) that is,He makes those who are by nature spirits His angels by appointing them to the duty of

bearing His messages. For the Greek word a'ggelos, which in Latin appears as "angelus,"

means a messenger. But whether the Psalmist speaks of their bodies when he adds, "and

His ministers a flaming fire," or means that God's ministers ought to blaze with love aswith a spiritual fire, is doubtful. However, the same trustworthy Scripture testifies that

angels have appeared to men in such bodies as could not only be seen, but also touched.

There is, too, a very general rumor, which many have verified by their own experience, or which trustworthy persons who have heard the experience of others corroborate, that

sylvans and fauns, who are commonly called "incubi," had often made wicked assaults

upon women, and satisfied their lust upon them; and that certain devils, called Duses bythe Gauls, are constantly attempting and effecting this impurity is so generally affirmed,

that it were impudent to deny it.(5) From these assertions, indeed, I dare not

determine whether there be some spirits embodied in an aerial substance (for this

element, even when agitated by a fan, is sensibly felt by the body), and who are

capable of lust and of mingling sensibly with women; but certainly I could by no

means believe that God's holy angels could at that time have so fallen, nor can I think

that it is of them the Apostle Peter said, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, butcast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto

judgment."(1) I think he rather speaks of these who first apostatized from God, along

with their chief the devil, who enviously deceived the first man under the form of aserpent But the same holy Scripture affords the most ample testimony that even godly

man have been called angels; for of John it is written: "Behold, I send my messenger

(angel) before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way."(2) And the prophet Malachi, by a

peculiar grace specially communicated to him, was called an angel.(3)



But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection

between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men

like our own breed, but giants; just as if there were not born even in our own time

(as I have mentioned above) men of much greater size than the ordinary stature.

Was there not at Rome a few years ago, when the destruction of the city nowaccomplished by the Goths was drawing near, a woman, with her father and mother, who

by her gigantic size over-topped all others? Surprising crowds from all quarters came to

see her, and that which struck them most was the circumstance that neither of her parentswere quite up to the tallest ordinary stature. Giants therefore might well be born, even

before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with

the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the

sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain. For thus speaks eventhe canonical Scripture itself in the book in which we read of this; its words are: "And it

came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were

born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair [good];

and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord God said, My Spirit shallnot always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and

twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when thesons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same

became the giants, men of renown."(4) These words of the divine book sufficiently

indicate that already there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons

of God took wives of the children of men, when they loved them because they were

good, that is, fair. For it is the custom of this Scripture to call those who are beautiful in

appearance "good." But after this connection had been formed, then too were giants

born. For the words are: "There were giants in the earth in those days, and also

after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men." Therefore there

were giants both before, "in those days," and "also after that." And the words, "they bare

children to them," show plainly enough that before the sons of God fell in this fashionthey begat children to God, not to themselves,--that is to say, not moved by the lust of

sexual intercourse, but discharging the duty of propagation, intending to produce not a

family to gratify their own pride, but citizens to people the city of God; and to these theyas God's angels would bear the message, that they should place their hope in God, like

him who was born of Seth, the son of resurrection, and who hoped to call on the name of

the Lord God, in which hope they and their offspring would be co-heirs of eternal

blessings, and brethren in the family of which God is the Father.

But that those angels were not angels in the sense of not being men, as some suppose,

Scripture itself decides, which unambiguously declares that they were men. For

when it had first been stated that "the angels of God saw the daughters of men that

they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose," it was immediately

added, "And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with these men, for thatthey also are flesh." For by the Spirit of God they had been made angels of God, and sons

of God; but declining towards lower things, they are called men, a name of nature, not of

grace; and they are called flesh, as deserters of the Spirit, and by their desertion deserted

[by Him]. The Septuagint indeed calls them both angels of God and sons of God, though



all the copies do not show this, some having only the name" sons of God." And Aquila,

whom the Jews prefer to the other interpreters,(5) has translated neither angels of God

nor sons of God, but sons of gods. But both are correct. For they were both sons of God,and thus brothers of their own fathers, who were children of the same God; and they were

sons of gods, because begotten by gods, together with whom they themselves also were

gods, according to that expression of the psalm: "I have said, Ye are gods, and all of youare children of the Most High."(1) For the Septuagint translators are justly believed to

have received the Spirit of prophecy; so that, if they made any alterations under His

authority, and did not adhere to a strict translation, we could not doubt that this wasdivinely dictated. However, the Hebrew word may be said to be ambiguous, and to be

susceptible of either translation, "sons of God," or "sons of gods."

Let us omit, then, the fables of those scriptures which are called apocryphal, because

their obscure origin was unknown to the fathers from whom the authority of the

true Scriptures has been transmitted to us by a most certain and well-ascertained

succession. For though there is some truth in these apocryphal writings, yet they contain

so many false statements, that they have no canonical authority. We cannot deny thatEnoch, the seventh from Adam, left some divine writings, for this is asserted by the

Apostle Jude in his canonical epistle. But it is not without reason that these writings haveno place in that canon of Scripture which was preserved in the temple of the Hebrew

people by the diligence of successive priests; for their antiquity brought them under

suspicion, and it was impossible to ascertain whether these were his genuine writings,and they were not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have

carefully preserved the canonical books by a successive transmission. So that the

writings which are produced under his name, and which contain these fables about

the giants, saying that their fathers were not men; are properly judged by prudent men to be not genuine; just as many writings are produced by heretics under the names both of

other prophets, and more recently, under the names of the apostles, all of which, after

careful examination, have been set apart from canonical authority under the title of Apocrypha. There is therefore no doubt that, according to the Hebrew and Christian

canonical Scriptures, there were many giants before the deluge, and that these were

citizens of the earthly society of men, and that the sons of God, who were according to

the flesh the sons of Seth, sunk into this community when they forsook

righteousness, Nor need we wonder that giants should be born even from these. For all

of their children were not giants; but there were more then than in the remaining periods

since the deluge. And it pleased the Creator to produce them, that it might thus bedemonstrated that neither beauty, nor yet size and strength, are of much moment to the

wise man, whose blessedness lies in spiritual and immortal blessings, in far better and

more enduring gifts, in the good things that are the peculiar property of the good, and arenot shared by good and bad alike. It is this which another prophet confirms when he says,

"These were the giants, famous from the beginning, that were of so great stature, and so

expert in war. Those did not the Lord choose, neither gave He the way of knowledge untothem; but they were destroyed because they had no wisdom, and perished through their

own foolishness."(2)



ST. JOHN CASSIAN

THE CONFERENCES: Part I, Conferences VI-X.

[Translated by the Rev. Edgar C. S. Gibson, M.A., Principal of the Theological College,Wells, Somerset.]

VIII. THE SECOND CONFERENCE OF ABBOT SERENUS.

ON PRINCIPALITIES.

CHAPTER XX: A question about the fallen angels who are said in Genesis to have

had intercourse with the daughters of men.

GERMANUS: Since a passage of Genesis was a little while ago by the providence of

God brought forward in our midst, and happily reminded us that we can nowconveniently ask about a point which we have always longed to learn, we want to know

what view we ought to take about those fallen angels who are said to have had

intercourse with the daughters of men, and whether such a thing can literally take

place with a spiritual nature. And also with regard to this passage of the gospel which

you quoted of the devil a little while back, "for he is a liar and his father,"(1) we shouldlike in the same way to hear who is to be understood by "his father."

CHAPTER XXI: The answer to the question raised.

SERENUS: You have propounded two not unimportant questions, to which I will reply,

to the best of my ability, in the order in which you have raised them. We cannot possibly

believe that spiritual existences can have carnal intercourse with women. But if this

could ever have literally happened how is it that it does not now also sometimes take

place, and that we do not see some in the same way born of women by the agency of

demons without intercourse with men? especially when it is clear that they delight inthe pollution of lust, which they would certainly prefer to bring about through their own

agency rather than through that of men, if they could possibly manage it, as Ecclesiastes

declares: "What is it that hath been? The same that is. And what is it that hath been done?

The same that is done. And there is nothing new that can be said under the sun, so that aman can say: Behold this is new; for it hath already been in the ages which were before

us."(2) But the question raised may be resolved in this way. After the death of righteous

Abel, in order that the whole human race might not spring from a wicked fratricide, Sethwas born in the place of his brother who was slain, to take the place of his brother not

only as regards posterity, but also as regards justice and goodness. And his offspring,

following the example of their father's goodness, always remained separate from

intercourse with and the society of their kindred descended from the wicked Cain, as

the difference of the genealogy very clearly tells us, where it says: "Adam begat Seth,

Seth begat Enos, Enos begat Cainan, but Cainan begat Mahalaleel, but Mahalaleel begat

Jared, Jared begat Enoch, Enoch begat Methuselah, Methuselah begat Lamech, Lamech



begat Noah."(3) And the genealogy of Cain is given separately as follows: "Cain begat

Enoch, Enoch begat Cainan, Cainan begat Mahalaleel, Mahalaleel begat Methuselah,

Methuselah begat Lamech, Lamech begat Jabal and Jubal."(4) And so the line which

sprang from the seed of righteous Seth always mixed with its own kith and kin, and

continued for a long while in the holiness of its fathers and ancestors, untouched by

the blasphemies and the wickedness of an evil offspring, which had implanted in it aseed of sin as it were transmitted by its ancestors. As long then as there continued that

separation of the lines between them, the seed of Seth, as it sprang from an excellent

root, was by reason of its sanctity termed "angels of God," or as some copies have it

"sons of God;"(5) and on the contrary the others by reason of their own and their fathers'

wickedness and their earthly deeds were termed "children of men." Though then there

was up to this time that holy and salutary separation between them, yet after this the sons

of Seth who were the sons of God saw the daughters of those who were born of the lineof Cain, and inflamed with the desire for their beauty took to themselves from them

wives who taught their husbands the wickedness of their fathers, and at once led them

astray from their innate holiness and the single-mindedness of their forefathers. To whom

this saying applies with sufficient accuracy: "I have said: Ye are Gods, and ye are all thechildren of the Most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes;"(6)

who fell away from that true study of natural philosophy, handed down to them by their ancestors, which the first man who forthwith traced out the study of all nature, could

clearly attain to, and transmit to his descendants on sure grounds, inasmuch as he had

seen the infancy of this world, while still as it were tender and throbbing andunorganized; and as there was in him not only such fulness of wisdom, but also the grace

of prophecy given by the Divine inspiration, so that while he was still an untaught

inhabitant of this world he gave names to all living creatures, and not only knew about

the fury and poison of all kinds of beasts and serpents, but also distinguished between thevirtues of plants and trees and the natures of stones, and the changes of seasons of which

he had as vet no experience, so that he could well say: "The Lord hath given me the true

knowledge of the things that are, to know the disposition of the whole world, and thevirtues of the elements, the beginning and the ending and the midst of times, the

alterations of their courses and the changes of their seasons, the revolutions of the year

and the disposition of the stars, the natures of living creatures and the rage of wild beasts,the force of winds, and the reasonings of men, the diversities of plants and the virtues of

roots, and all such things as are hid and open I have learnt."(1) This knowledge then of all

nature the seed of Seth received through successive generations, handed down from the

fathers, so long as it remained separate from the wicked line, and as it had received it inholiness, so it made use of it to promote the glory of God and the needs of everyday life.

But when it had been mingled with the evil generation, it drew aside at the suggestion of

devils to profane and harmful uses what it had innocently learnt, and audaciously taught by it the curious arts of wizards and enchantments and magical superstitions, teaching its

posterity to forsake the holy worship of the Divinity and to honour and worship either the

elements or fire or the demons of the air. How it was then that this knowledge of curiousarts of which we have spoken, did not perish in the deluge, but became known to the ages

that followed, should, I think, be briefly explained, as the occasion of this discussion

suggests, although the answer to the question raised scarcely requires it. And so, as

ancient traditions tell us, Ham the son of Noah, who had been taught these superstitions



and wicked and profane arts, as he knew that he could not possibly bring any handbook

on these subjects into the ark, into which he was to enter with his good father and holy

brothers, inscribed these nefarious arts and profane devices on plates of various metalswhich could not be destroyed by the flood of waters, and on hard rocks, and when the

flood was over he hunted for them with the same inquisitiveness with which he had

concealed them, and so transmitted to his descendants a seed-bed of profanity and perpetual sin. In this way then that common notion, according to which men believe that

angels delivered to men enchantments and diverse arts, is in truth fulfilled. From these

sons of Seth then and daughters of Cain, as we have said, there were I born still worsechildren who became mighty, hunters, violent and most fierce men who were termed

giants by reason of the size of their bodies and their cruelty and wickedness. For these

first began to harass their neighbours and to practise pillaging among men, getting their

living rather by rapine than by being contented with the sweat and labour of toil, and their wickedness increased to such a pitch that the world could only be purified by the flood

and deluge. So then when the sons of Seth at the instigation of their lust had transgressed

that command which had been for a long while kept by a natural instinct from the

beginning of the world, it was needful that it should afterwards be restored by the letter of the law: "Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son to wife, nor shalt thou take a wife of

his daughters to thy son; for they shall seduce your hearts to depart from your God, and tofollow their gods and serve them."(2)

CHAPTER XXII: An objection, as to how an unlawful intermingling with the daughtersof Cain could be charged against the line of Seth before the prohibition of the law.

GERMANUS: If that command had been given to them, then the sin of breaking it might

fairly have been brought against them for their audacity in so marrying. But since theobservance of that separation had not yet been established by any rule, how could that

intermingling of races be counted wrong in them, as it had not been forbidden by any

command? For a law does not ordinarily forbid crimes that are past, but those that arefuture.

ST. PHOTIOS THE GREAT

MYSTAGOGY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

It is possible to find many other examples in our holy and blessed fathers. I have in mind

Clement, one of the bishops of [Old] Rome. Consider the books which are known from

him as Clementine (I do not say write because, according to ancient report, Peter theCoryphaeus commanded they be written). Consider also Dionysius of Alexandria, who in

stretching out his hand against Sabellius nearly joins with Arius. Consider also the

splendour of the sacred-martyr, Methodius the Great of Patara, who did not reject

the idea that angels fell into mortal desire and bodily intercourse, even though they

are incorporeal and without passions. I shall pass over Pantaenos, Clement, Pierios,

Pamphilos and Theognostos, all holy men and teachers of holy disciples whom we hymn

with great honour and affection, especially Pamphilos and Pierios, distinguished by the



trials of martyrdom. Although we do not accept all of their statements, we grant them

honour for their patient disposition and goodness of life and for their other doctrines. In

addition to those previously mentioned, there is Irenaeus, the bishop of God, whoreceived the supervision of sacred things in Lyons and also Hippolytus, his disciple, the

Episcopal martyr: all of these were admirable in many ways, though at times some of

their writings do not avoid departing from orthodoxy.

ST. GREGORY PALAMAS

HOMILIES

VOLUME ONE HOMILIES I - XXI

[Translated and edited by Christopher Veniamin, Associate Professor of Patristics andLiturgical Theology, Saint Tikhon's Seminary]

HOMILY FIVE

On the Meeting of Our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ

Including the subject of Chastity and its evil opposite

15. The first to be called sons of God in the Scriptures are the descendants of Enos ,

who was the first to hope to be called by the Name of the Lord (cf. Gen. 4:26 Lxx).53

Enos was the son of Seth, whose family was separate from the accursed family of Cain,and lived chastely. For their sake the world continued until, according to the Scripture,

they saw the daughters of men, that is, the women of Cain’s stock , that they were fair

(Gen. 6:2). Overcome by their corrupt beauty, they took wives of all whom they chose,and learnt their ways. Then evil increased on earth and the flood came and swept them allaway (Gen. 6: 17ff). If on earth in those days Noah and his Sons had not been found to be

chaste54 - as shown by the fact that each man had one wife with whom he went into the

Ark (Gen. 7:13) - there would have been no root or source from which a second worldcould begin.

church fathers on genesis 06.4 [sons of god came in unto daughters of men]

Documents