1822.] 
doms of the earth to the God for whom 
he is about to rebuild the temple at 
Jerusalem,—that is, to Jehovah... 
“Ts it denied with respect to Darius 
the First? Let the enquirer turn to 
the ninth chapter of the book of Esther. 
He will there find that, by order of the 
King of Persia, the Jews gathered to- 
gether in the cities throughout all the 
provinces of the empire, to lay hands 
on such as sought their hurt; that no 
man could withstand them, as‘all the 
rulers of the provinces, the lieutenants, 
deputies, and officers of the king, 
helped the Jews; that the Jews smote 
all their enemies with the stroke of the 
sword, and slaughter, and destruction ; 
and that, in Shushan alone, the Jews 
slew and destroyed five hundred men, 
On the 14th day of the month Adar 
(continues the chronicler,) they rested, 
and made it a day of feasting and 
gladness; and Mordecai sent letters 
unto all the Jews, that were in all the 
provinces of the king, to establish this 
among them, that they should keep the 
fourteenth of Adar, and the following 
day, yearly, asa festival. Accordingly, 
under the name of the Feast of Purim, 
an anviversary commemoration of this 
sanguinary establishment of Judaism 
Was instituted in the temple at Jeru- 
salem, and is retained throughout 
Jewry. to this day. 
Now Darius, the son of Hystaspes, 
was the King of Persia, who thus esta- 
blished Judaism ; for, from the beok of 
Daniel it appears that the same king, 
called in the boek of Esther Ahasuerus, 
was also named Darius ; that he placed 
great confidence in the Jew Daniel, 
and in the Jew Arioch of Elam, who 
was captain of the king’s guard, and 
was entrusted (Daniel ii. 24) with the 
management of the massacre, and that 
Daniel was allowed to concert with 
Arioch yarious exemptions from the 
proscription. This extirpation of ido- 
Jatry is by Herodotus termed the 
agophonia; and is referred to the 
influence of Artistona or Esther, the 
king’s second wife. Herodotus says, 
howeyer, that both Cyrus and Darius 
were Axaimenidus, (for which ought to 
be read A paengechynevs dott, ) that is, Abra- 
hamites, which is stated to have been 
the domineering clan in Persia. 
If Cyrus and Darius the First were 
indubitably Jews; if the latter, by an 
extensivemassacre, established Judaism 
on the ruins of the Babylonish idolatry ; 
and, if no change in the public religion 
MontHiy Mac. No. 368. 
Persian Monarchy. — Law Case? 
401 
is recorded of the succeeding sove- 
reigns, it will follow that they all con- 
tinued to profess Judaism. Concern- 
ing Xerxes, moreover, Josephus (Ant. 
xi, 5.) specifically records, that he con- 
firmed the privileges granted by his 
father to the Jews. And concerning 
Artaxerxes Longimanus, the protec- 
tion shown by him to the recoloniza- 
tion of Jerusalem under Nehemiah 
renders his Judaism, his recognition of 
Palestine, as a holy and privileged 
land, sufficiently obvious. 
The canon of Scripture having been 
closed by Nehemiah, can contain no 
later notices of the religion of the court 
of Persia: but be it observed, that this 
canon probably included the book of 
Enoch, which was said to be written 
by Ezra or Zoroaster, and which had 
diffused a fanciful system of angelic 
mythology, Jost to the modern world, 
and only recoverable through the 
Abyssinian canon. Dr. Lawrence, 
however, in his recent and learned 
translation, has on feeble grounds en- 
deavoured to assign a later origin to 
this book, of which much is said in 
your 11th vol. p. 18 and p. 300. 
— a 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N a pamphlet lately published, enti- 
tled, ‘“‘ Curia Oxoniensis, or Obser- 
vations on the Statutes which relate to 
the Vice-Chancellor’s Court, and the 
Power of Searching Houses: with 
some cursory remarks on the Procura- 
torial Office in the University of 
Oxford,” and which, from its subject, 
and some extraordinary facts it con- 
tains, has excited considerable atten- 
tion in this place, reference is made to 
the case of Williams versus Brickenden, 
in our Vice-Chancellor’s Court, for 
false imprisonment. This case was 
decided in the year 1811, and the pro- 
ceedings were printed by a late head 
of a house in our University, though 
not for sale. The pamphlet is now, 
and always was, extremely scarce; as 
the very few copies that were printed 
were presented to bis intimate friends. 
Some years ago one was: lent to me, 
and, unfortunately, I have lost the 
notes I took relating to it; but 1 recol- 
lect that it commenced with the case 
of the plaintiff, and the opinions of Mr. 
Serjeant Williams and Mr. Holroyd. 
Perhaps some gentleman who has 
the pamphlet will favour me and the 
public, through the medium of your 
3E _ Magazine, 
