218 REV. A. IRVING, D.SC., B.A., ON 
would be presumptuous on my part to offer any criticism of what is 
contained in his present communication ; but we must all thank him 
for the light which that seems to throw upon the Genesis cast of 
prehistoric traditions contained in chapters i-xi. I may be per- 
mitted to add that his idea, as to the ‘ Nephilim” being impure 
offspring of a previous race of Homo, of whose remote origin tradition 
had lost all traces, seems to receive support from what I have drawn 
attention to in the Presidential Address of Dr. Smith-Woodward, 
F.R.S., to the Geological Section of the British Association last 
year at Winnipeg.* The Homo (whether Neolithic or otherwise) 
would seem to have developed the same tendency as some other 
races of mammals, “ to store up mere dead mineral matter as bone” 
before they became extinct. It would be interesting to have Mr. 
Proctor’s idea, as to any possible correlation of the primitive Nadu of 
the Eupbrates-Tigris region with the Neolithic men (of unknown 
date as to origin), who were overmastered and superseded by the 
“Bronze” men, as they, in their turn, were by the Achzeans, with 
their use of iron, in Crete. (See Crete the Forerunner of Greece, by 
C. H. and H. B. Hawes, Harpers, 1909.) The Genesis tradition (iv, 
22) seems to point to such superior power of the forgers of 
cutting “instruments of bronze and iron ” among the Cainites. 
It is scientifically impossible to follow the gallant Colonel 
Alves in his speculation. That Dr. Thirtle should attempt to 
make the Genesis narrative carry the burden of such things as 
he refers to in heathen mythology, is bad enough from the theo- 
logical point of view ; but the idea of angels forming alliances with 
women is such a physiological absurdity+ that it must be relegated 
to the limbo of a pre-scientific age. It traverses moreover the 
teaching of the Master of masters, when He tells us in effect that 
the sexual function is something entirely outside the .range of 
angelic existences (Matthew xxii, 30). Science here seems to me to 
make a clean sweep with its besom of a great deal of rubbish, 
which a fanciful exegesis has read into the sacred text, and the 
recognition of a pre-Adamic race moreover renders unnecessary. I 
* See the discussion of the paper on “ Darwinism and Malthus” by 
the Rev. James White, M.A., read before the Victoria Institute on 
April 4th last. 
+ Despite even Hastings’ Dictionary (article ‘‘ Nephilim ”). 
