the ease and security of the heathen, and an expectation that they would soon be employed to that effect. It is as much as to say, "How long shall the heathen oppress thy people and keep thy cities, and especially thy metropolis Jerusalem and its temple, in disgraceful ruins? The term

of seventy years assigned to the desolation of the sanctuary is expired, and the time of its renewal and restoration is arrived. Wilt thou retain thine anger beyond the appointed period?"

The term of seventy years here alluded to, is not that foretold in Jeremiah xxv. 11 and xxix. 10, which began with the first captivity of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar, and ended on their return by the decree of Cyrus; but another, which is not the subject of any prediction, yet determined, as hence appears, in the councils of God. For the equality of the two terms invites, and doubtless was intended to invite comparison;-seventy years of captivity to the people;-seventy years of indignation upon the cities of Judah. As the former was the subject of a divine decree, so, too, was the latter, though it be enunciated in a different manner; the former having been predicted before its commencement, the latter now first

declared upon its termination*,

* Vitringa in the main agrees with me; but he considers the prophecy of Jeremiah, as comprehending in one predicted term, a twofold completion in the seventy years captivity and the seventy years indignation.

The latter term began with the invasion of Judea, in the year B. c. 590, when Nebuchadnezzar poured out the divine judgements upon it, by the capture of its towns and cities, and by forming the siege of Jerusalem, which was taken in less than two years after and was destroyed together with the temple. Now in the second year of Darius Hystaspides, answering to the year B. c. 520, those seventy years were just expired, or on the point of expiring, and therefore we conclude that of them the angel here speaks*. But since this second term of seventy years, extending, as it did, sixteen years beyond the term of the captivity, was not specifically predicted among the woes denounced by the prophet upon the Jews; it is therefore animadverted upon

with

* Bishop Newton in his eighth Dissertation, following Dean Prideaux, Connection, Book 3, part 1, reckons the seventy years from the actual destruction of Jerusalem to the decree of Darius Hystaspides for the restoration of the temple, in the fourth year of his reign: but since the angel does not fix prophetically a period, from which we are to reckon forward, but historically, a period, from which we are to count backward the seventy years, and since that period falls in the second year of Darius, the former mode of computing the term appears to be the correct one. See Dr. Blaney's note on the passage, and Vitringa's Prolegomena p. 17, and his Comment. on the text. I do not find, that Dr. Hales, in his analysis, has given a computation of these seventy years, or referred to this part of Zechariah's vision. Some disagreement will be found, and must be expected, in the arrangement of this intricate and perplexed portion of chronology.

considerable freedom by the angel, as an instance of great hardship upon that people, who were not prepared for an indignation, which must seem to them to exceed the appointed period.

The intercession is addressed with emphasis to the Lord of hosts, the God "to whom all things in heaven, in earth, and under the earth do bow and obey," but with a particular respect to his providential administration of human affairs, for the accomplishment of his purposes in favour of his peculiar people, by the agency of his angels. By thus coupling the mention of the divine government with an allusion to the divine purpose, the interceding angel evidently intends to arouse, if I may so speak, the jealousy of the Almighty to a vindication of his majesty in the eyes of men, by the chastisement of the haughty, domineering nations of the earth, and by the restoration of the people and land of Judah to a state of security and prosperity.

Upon this intercessory address, we are informed

that

13. Then Jehovah answered the angel that talked

with me, good words, comfortable words. Since the answer proceeded from Jehovah himself, in words heard by the prophet, is it allowable to add a supplement to the scene and to suppose the presence of Jehovah in glory?

In favour of this, it may be urged, that several personages are in the course of the vision brought upon the scene with great abruptness. But then, we are not left in doubt as to their being really introduced; and, therefore, those instances cannot be considered as cases in point for the supposition just mentioned; nor do I think, that we can allow ourselves, in the absence of all authority, to hazard such a supplement to the word of God. It is however certain, that a divine being in some manner was present in the vision, a person in the Godhead, to whom the incommunicable name of right belonged, and whose kind consolatory words, Zechariah heard addressed to the angel interpreter, from whose mouth he again received them. But those comfortable words certainly did not proceed from the interpreting angel, for to him they were addressed; nor from any of the company of horsemen, for they were only the messengers sent by Jehovah; still less can they be imagined to have come from Zechariah himself; and since no other person but the angel intercessor is described to be present, they must have proceeded from him.

Besides, it is observable, that the words are addressed, not to the angel of Jehovah, who made the intercession in behalf of Judah and Jerusalem, to which they are in point of fact the

reply, but to the interpreting angel. Now, this circumstance is utterly unaccountable, if we suppose the presence of some other person, to whom the sacred name is applied; and the same difficulty stands in the way, if we suppose the words to have been pronounced by an unseen speaker in a voice from heaven. In short, there cannot be any reason assigned, why the answer should be directed to the angel interpreter, rather than to the intercessor, whose warm and vehement address had called for it, except this, that not only the intercession, but the reply proceeded from him, and therefore the latter could not be directed to him.

Hence it follows by immediate consequence, that the angel of Jehovah is no other than Jehovah himself. Nor ought we to be surprised at this, for the characters which he sustains are such, as to warrant his assumption of the holiest name of deity.

For I. He appears as leader and captain of the angelic band, to whom it is given in charge to survey the condition of God's people in the world, and make report concerning it to their almighty sovereign. From such an exalted office the mind can hardly separate the idea of divinity; and that first impression is confirmed and settled by the authority of scripture. The