The manifold fnfuinefs of the Popi.P Holy-days. 469 e an holy time. Minifters do not then preach with any Refpea at all to the time, as nwre holy then other Times ; that were Superftiti- ous. The Work is not done for the Times fake, but the Time ap- pointed for the Works fake : They do not preach with refpe& to any fuppofed Holinefs of the Time ; but appoint the Time fo as may be molt convenient for doing the Work. Obj. 2. Some obje& the Days of Purim, which were anniverfary Few Rivais. Efih. 9. At2fw. " This hath been feven hundred Years fince objected by Pa- t. pifts unto the Walden f s, as Amefsus (Fre(h Suit, part 2. pag.315. ) " obferves, and fince by all Papifts that have written againft Prote- " Rants about Ceremonies, as Gregorius de Valentia, Bellarrnine, Suarez, " and we need not feek for new Anfwers about it ; for that which " our Divines have anfwered to the Papifts is fufficient in two Words. I. That it cannot be evinced, that thofe Days of Purim were reli- gious Feafts. Junius (in Bell. de Cultu Sangt. lib. 3. cap. ro.) faithPr r- ceptum fait p,liticum, they were only Days of civil Rejoycing, and, as Writer learned (Re-exam.Art. Perth. pag. 19r.) obferves, " They are only called the Days ofPurim, not the Holy -days ofPurim, " they are not called Chaggim. No peculiar Sacrifice was appointed; nor any holy Convocation of thePeople enjoined ; the Ordinance `t required but Feafting and Joy, and fendingof Portions to one ano- " ther. The Reif mentioned Effb. 9. was only from their Enemies : " So much Work as might Rand with a Feafting-day was not forbid- " den. Bithop Andrews (Serm, on Efth. 9. 31.) his Arguments to prove that they were Holy-days, and not days of civil Joy and Solem- nityonly, are fully anfwered by Mr.Gillefpy, (Eng. Pop. Cerem. part 3. cap. 6. pag. 99. roo.) who thews, that the molt of them are meerly grounded upon the Corruptions of thevulgar Latin Tranflation, which the Bithop choofeth to follow. And for that one Argument from the Hebrew, that they took it in animas, Verf. 31. from whence the Bi- íhop infers, they made a Soul matter of it, the Hebrew Word nephejh hath no fuch Emphafis, but lignifies corpus animatum as well as anima, and is commonly taken not for our Souls, but for our felves ; as Gen. 46. 26. all the Souls that came with facob, that is, all thePerlons. Yea, that it may appear how far the Word is from any fuch Emphafis as the Bithop would put upon it, it is often ufed even for a dead Carkafs, as in Numb. 9.6. Flagg. 2.13. and in fundry other Places. 2. Neither can it be evinced that this Feaft ofPurim was tneerly of Humane lnftitution, if we fuppofe it to be a religious Feaft. Mordecai did it, faith Dr. Whitaker, (deSacram. p. 206.) God injpiring him, and perad-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=