Monies paid by order of the quainted: Its happy influence in favor of religion is equally obvious. The same zeal in the cause of God has, in a measure, been diffused among many of the people in these parts. Some contributions were made the last year, to the amount of about 328 dollars, the principal part of which has been expended in missionary labors, we believe, with hopeful success. We have reason to conclude, that some souls have been delivered from eternal death, through your instrumentality; for which, we desire to ascribe all the praise to sovereign grace: Those who have sincerely cast their bread upon the waters will find it after many days; especially when they come to meet those in heaven, who will be their crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus. Those who have been employed to preach the gospel among our new settlements, and in vacant congregations, have had a very welcome reception, and a pleasing conviction of the great utility of missionary labors. People have often cast in a little to promote the benevelent design. These hopeful beginnings have encouraged the ministers and delegates of the churches in these parts most earnestly to solicit a continuation of your liberality and exertions, in so laudable an employment; fully believing that you will not withhold that pecuniary aid ne'cessary to prosecute an object of so much magnitude and importance. Many of your children and friends have removed to distant parts of this and the neighboring States, where they are not able or disposed to have a settled ministry. Their temporal support and prosperity lies with weight on your minds, which perhaps excites you often to send them supplies. But can you forget to send them the bread of life, to save their perishing souls? This is the best act of kindness you can manifest towards your children, who have removed from you, and may be an expression of those penitential reflections that become you, for past unfaithfulness. This thousand fold of temporal and eternal good to the faithful and liberal. Many of you, whose aid we entreat, will, no doubt be in eternity before the next year; many of those, whose necessities require assistance, will also be gone; and should you have no disposition now to contribute, you may eternally lose the reward, and souls perish through your neglect.-God has done more than enough to convince the candid that missionary exertions are well-pleasing in his sight. Those towns and societies that have watered, have been watered themselves. Those who represent all Missionary Societies as mercenary, adapted to private sinister objects, certainly betray great ignorance of the institution, or hearts unfriendly to morality. We most earnestly entreat the assistance of all, according to their several abilities. Should any be able to cast in only two mites, with faith and prayer, it will doubtless yield a plentiful harvest. "Who then is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the Lord?" While we call upon you to impart, we trust that the precepts we inculcate on others will have a practical influence on ourselves; and that God will dispose us amply to discharge the duty for which we are now pleading. The trustees of the Society engage to give you a just and accurate account annually of the monies received and of their expenditures, that you may not be ignorant of their appropriation. will lay the most probable foundation for you to meet them again, where the pious will never be separated. You need not be informed that what we call our property, is not our own; but that we are the Lord's Stewards, and that he, in his providence, calls for some of it. Will it not We fervently hope, and exbe a kind of sacrilege, or rob-pect, that as you have begun in this good work, you will increase more and more, that you may bing God, to withhold? The Almighty is able to refund a receive a full reward and that the blessing of many ready to perish, may come upon you. That while your hands are casting into this treasury, it may be accompanied with your earnest prayers to the God of all grace, that he would smile on this and all otherSocieties that arejformed for the spread of the glorious gospel and the salvation of immortal souls. Amen. B. WOOSTER, L. HAYNES, of J. BUSHNELL, Consociation. Q Ahasuerus. Committee UESTION. Who was the Ahasuerus that made Esther his queen? Though this question be not of the first magnitude, yet as historians have differed in their answers to it, which has occasioned some confusion in the public mind; if it can be satisfactorily resolved, will it not produce unanimity of opinion, and make the perusal of history more entertaining and agreeable? It is now proposed to attempt it. Some have contended, that this Ahasuerus was the Persian emperor, Xerxes, who made the celebrated expedition into Greece. Others have insisted, that it was the Persian emperor, Artaxerxes, called Longimanus. To this the supposed great age of Mordecai has been objected. The learned historian Prideaux, who adopts this opinion, proposes various hypotheses to remove the objection, and reconcile the age of Mordecai with the reign of Artaxerxes and says the learned and pious Mr. Brown, "to this we should agree-did we not recollect that Artaxerxes began his reign, A. M. 3555, and that Mordecai was carried to Babylon, A. M. 3405, which must have made him at least 155 years old," an age altogeth er disqualifying for the public service ascribed to him in the book of Esther. "We are therefore compelled to consider Ahasuerus to have been Darius Hystaspis," adding reasons to confirm his conjecture. So dif ferent has been the opinion of historians respecting this Ahas uerus, and this diversity has arisen perhaps entirely from the supposition, that Mordecai was carried to Babylon with Je coniah. Now will the public forgive the writer if he presumes to suspect that these learned his torians have erred in supposing, that Mordecai was carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon. As he would not indulge such a suspicion. without some support for it in his own mind, he will not suggest it to the public without submitting his rea sons to candid consideration.Let the history be examined, Esther ii. 5, 6. Now in Shuthan the palace was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, who had been carried from Jerusalem with Jechoniah king of HaJudah. And he brought up dassah, (that is Esther) his uncle's daughter. Upon this let it be enquired, 1. According to a grammatical construction of the text, what is the antecedent to the relative who? Who was carried to Bab ylon? Was it Mordecai or Kish? Is it usual in a connected sentence to pass three intervening nouns and fix upon the fourth as the antecedent to the relative? If an instructor should demand of a pupil, Who was carried to Babylon? and he should reply, Mordecai; would he not correct him, and say it was Kish? So the following words, And he brought up Hadassah-according to direct grammatical construction refer to Kish as the person. But, supply and read the text in Esther-according to Ezra. Now there was in Shuthan the palace a certain Jew named Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite who was carried away, &c. This Mordecai, brought up Esther.Does not this make it a perfect parallel with Ezra, move all obscurity from the passage and make it as evident, that it was Kish who was carried to Babylon, as it is, that Aaron was the progenitor of Ezra. If it be admitted,that it was Kish who was carried away to Babylon, as Mordecai was the fourth generation from him, was not Mordecai cotemporary with Artaxerxes? and of an age quali 2. As Mordecai is the person introduced, and the subsequent history decidedly makes him the person who educated Esther, has not the grammatical construction been disregarded? and has it been inadvertently received, that Mordecai was carried away captive, when the history designed only to give his genealogy up to the captivity, as Lukefying him for the eminent offices gave the genealogy of Christ to David, Abraham, &c. and then proceed to give a narrative of the facts to be recorded of him; but affirms that it was Kish, who was carried to Baby-rated by his liberal disposition lon. In support of this hypothesis let us now consider, 3. A parallel passage. Now in the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia,Ezra, the son of Seriah, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eleazer, the son of Aaron the chief priest. This Ezra went and services ascribed to him in the book of Esther? and does not this, by obviating the objec tion from this supposed great age of Mordecai, and corrobo and the royal favors which he conferred on the Jews, address satisfactory evidence to the mind, that the Ahasuerus who made Esther his queen, was Artaxerxes Longimanus ? TUPIKOS. ORDINATION. up from Babylon, Ezra vii. 1—6. Let us for this Ezra, substitute the relative Who went up according to the text in Esther, and would not the grammatical construction make it Aaron who went up from Babylon, as the grammatical construction of Esther makes it Kish who was carried away captive to Babylon. But the insertions of the words, This Ezra, transfers the grammatical construction from Aaron to Ezra and removes all ambigui-terford made the introductory ty from the passage. Let us now prayer. The Rev. Thomas Rob ORDAINED, on Wednesday the 8th of January last, over the first religious, congregational society in Marietta, (Ohio,) the Rev. Samuel Prince Robbins.The public exercises of the occason were performed in a solemn and impressive manner. The Rev. Jacob Lindsly of Wa QU Ahasuerus. UESTION. Who was the Ahasuerus that made Esther his queen? Though this question be not of the first magnitude, yet as historians have differed in their answers to it, which has occasioned some confusion in the public mind; if it can be satisfactorily resolved, will it not produce unanimity of opinion, and make the perusal of history more entertaining and agreeable? It is now proposed to attempt it. Some have contended, that this Ahasuerus was the Persian emperor, Xerxes, who made the celebrated expedition into Greece. Others have insisted, that it was the Persian emperor, Artaxerxes, called Longimanus. To this the supposed great age of Mordecai has been objected. The learned historian Prideaux, who adopts this opinion, proposes various hypotheses to remove the objection, and reconcile the age of Mordecai with the reign of Artaxerxes and says the learned and pious Mr. Brown, "to this we should agree-did we not recollect that Artaxerxes began his reign, A. M. 3555, and that Mordecai was carried to Babylon, A. M. 3405, which must have made him at least 155 years old," an age altogether disqualifying for the public service ascribed to him in the book of Esther. "We are therefore compelled to consider Ahasuerus to have been Darius Hystaspis," adding reasons to confirm his conjecture. So dif ferent has been the opinion of historians respecting this Ahas 'uerus, and this diversity has arisen perhaps entirely from the supposition, that Mordecai was carried to Babylon with Jeconiah. Now will the public forgive the writer if he presumes to suspect that these learned historians have erred in supposing, that Mordecai was carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon. As he would not indulge such a suspicion. without some support for it in his own mind, he will not suggest it to the public without submitting his reasons to candid consideration.Let the history be examined, Esther ii. 5, 6. Now in Shuthan the palace was a certain Jew, whose name was Mordecai, the son of Jair, the son of Shimei, the son of Kish, a Benjamite, who had been carried from Je rusalem with Jechoniah king of Judah. And he brought up Hadassah, (that is Esther) his uncle's daughter. Upon this let it be enquired, 1. According to a grammati cal construction of the text, what is the antecedent to the relative who? Who was carried to Babylon? Was it Mordecai or Kish? Is it usual in a connected sentence to pass three intervening nouns and fix upon the fourth as |