logy which he imagines to be concealed in this genealogy, and to be conducive to the exposition in his Gnomon) must appear at first sight. We at least have not experienced that which he thought would be the case, namely, that it would grow less harsh by being more frequently thought over ; for though we have read it again and again at least ten times, and thought it over diligently, it has by this process become more and more repugnant to us : in fact, we are clearly convinced, that what ever is by means of arithmetical operations made out of the numbers which we meet with in the sacred history, ought not to be attributed to the sacred writers, and cannot be referred to their meaning, unless we wish to excel even Jewish ingenuity by our cabalistic sagacity."
Others have followed and added to this censure. For at Leipsic there has appeared both a certain academical exercise and the revision of an academical exercise, in which these words are applied to me, — " He almost surpasses the fabrications of Jews and Cabalists, since he introduces his RAW fancies into the sacred chronology." But I return to the Hallian censure. The author of that censure should take care lest the last words which I have quoted from it strike the sacred writer himself, whose meaning is placed at a far greater distance above mere accommodation to Jewish tastes than the Programm either acknowledges or permits to be acknowledged. If, however, another sufficient interpretation be given, I will willingly give up my own. It has not happened to the author of the Pro gramm to find my opinion grew, upon consideration, less harsh : it does, however, happen to others, who weigh well my notes on ver. 16, 17. For, in fact, I am neither the only one nor the first who have asserted that the Evangelist propounds a chro nology under cover of the genealogy. I have already cited Chrysostom, at p. 30. I must add Daniel Chamier,1 who says that thrice fourteen chronological ages are intended by the
1 A French Protestant writer of considerable ability, born in the sixteenth century.
He was appointed in 1612 Professor of Divinity at Montauban, and during the siege of that town by Louis XIII., was killed by a cannon-ball in 1621. He is supposed to have had great part in composing the Edict of Nantes. — (I.B.)