Whereunto we answer, 1. That both those feasts were appointed to be kept with the consent of the whole congregation of Israel and body of the people, as is plain from Esth. ix. 32, and 1 Maccab. iv. 59. Therefore, they have no show of making aught of such feasts as ours, which are tyrannically urged upon such as in their consciences do condemn them. 2. It appears, that the days of Purim were only appointed to be days of civil mirth and gladness, such as are in use with us, when we set out bonfires, and other tokens of civil joy, for some memorable benefit which the kingdom or commonwealth hath received. For they are not called the holidays of Purim, but simply the days of Purim,—“A day of feasting and of sending portions one to another,” Esth. ix. 19, 22. No word of any worship of God in those days. And whereas it seemeth to Bishop Lindsey,(844) that those days were holy, because of that rest which was observed upon them; he must know that the text interpreteth itself, and it is evident from ver. 16 and 22, that this rest was not a rest from labour, for waiting upon the worshipping of God, but only a rest from their enemies. _Sect._ 9. But Bishop Andrews goeth about to prove by six reasons, that the days of Purim were holidays, and not days of civil joy and solemnity only.(845) First, saith he, it is plain by verse 31, they took it in _animas_, upon their souls,—a _soul matter_ they made of it: there needs no soul for _feria_ or _festum_, play or feasting. They bound themselves _super animas suas_, which is more than _upon themselves_, and would not have been put in the margin, but stood in the text: thus he reprehendeth the English translators, as you may perceive. _Ans._ The Bishop could not be ignorant that _nephesch_ signifieth _corpus animatum_, as well as _anima_, and that the Hebrews do not always put this word for our souls, but very often for ourselves. So Psal. vii. 2. and Psal. lix. 3, we read _naphschi_,—_my soul_ for _me_; and Psal. xliv. 25,—_naphschenu, our soul_ for _we_; and Gen. xlvi. 26, _col-nephesch_—_omnis animae_, for _omnes homines_. What have we any further need of testimonies? Six hundred such are in the holy text. And in this place, Esth. ix. 31, what can be more plain, than that _nighal-naphscham, upon their soul_, is put for _nghalehem, upon themselves_, especially since _nghalehem_ is found to the same purpose, both in ver. 27 and 31. If we will make the text agree well with itself, how can we but take both these for one? But proceed we with the Bishop. Secondly, saith he, the bond of it reacheth to all that _religioni eorum voluerunt copulari_, ver. 27, then, a matter of religion it was, had reference to that: what need any joining in religion for a matter of good fellowship?