I have received a letter from your worship, which was welcome to me; and I read it, because yours, with great delight; if you will please to allow for the unpleasantnesse of the subject. For I do assure your worship, I never met with any thing in my life which I did more deeply resent, for that it reflecteth upon the credit of a nation, which amongst so many calumnies, so manifest, (and therefore shamefull) I dare to pronounce innocent. Yet I am afraid, that whilst I answer to them, I shall offend some, whose zeal will not permit them to consider, that self vindication, as defensive armes, is naturall to all; but to be wholly silent, were to acknowledge what is so falsly objected. Wherefore that I may justifie my self to my own conscience, I have obeyed your worships commands: for your request must not be accounted lesse, at least by me. I presume your worship cannot expect either prolix, or polite discourses upon so sad a subject; for who can be ambitious in his own calamity? I have therefore dispatcht onely some concise, and brief relations, barely exceeding the bounds of a letter; yet such as may suffice you, to inform the Rulers of the English nation, of a truth most reall, and sincere; which I hope they will accept in good part, according to their noble, and singular prudence and piety. For innocencie being alwayes most free from suspecting evil, I cannot be perswaded, that any one hath either spoken, or written against us, out of any particular hatred that they bare us, but that they rather supposed our coming might prove prejudiciall to their estates, and interests; charity alwayes beginning at home. Yet notwithstanding I propounded this matter under an argument of profit (for this hath made us welcome in other countries) and therefore I hope I may prove what I undertake. However, I have but small encouragement to expect the happy attainment of any other design, but onely that truth may be justified of her children. I shall answer in order to what your worship hath proposed.
THE FIRST SECTION.
And in the first place, I cannot but weep bitterly, and with much anguish of soul lament that strange and horrid accusation of some Christians against the dispersed, and afflicted Iewes that dwell among them, when they say (what I tremble to write) that the Iewes are wont to celebrate the feast of unleavened bread, fermenting it with the bloud of some Christians, whom they have for this purpose killed: when the calumniators themselves have most barbarously and cruelly butchered some of them. Or to speak more mildly, have found one dead, and cast the corps, as if it had been murdered by the Iewes, into their houses or yards, as lamentable experience hath proved in sundry places: and then with unbridled rage and tumult, they accuse the innocent Iews, as the committers of this most execrable fact. Which detestable wickednesse hath been sometimes perpetrated, that they might thereby take advantage to exercise their cruelty upon them; and sometimes to justifie, and patronize their massacres already executed. But how farre this accusation is from any semblable appearance of truth, your worship may judge by these following arguments.
1. It is utterly forbid the Iewes to eat any manner of bloud whatsoever, Levit. Chapter 7.26. and Deuter. 12. where it is expresly said וכל דם And ye shall eat no manner of bloud, and in obedience to this command the Iewes eat not the bloud of any animal. And more then this, if they find one drop of bloud in an egge, they cast it away as prohibited. And if in eating a piece of bread, it happens to touch any bloud drawn from the teeth, or gummes, it must be pared, and cleansed from the said bloud, as it evidenely appeares in Sulhan Haruch and our rituall book. Since then it is thus, how can it enter into any mans heart to believe that they should eat humane bloud, which is yet more detestable, there being scarce any nation now remaining upon earth so barbarous, as to commit such wickednesse?
2. The precept in the Decalogue Thou shalt not kill is of generall extent; it is a morall command. So that the Iewes are bound not onely, not to kill one of those nations where they live, but they are also oblig’d by the law of gratitude, to love them. They are the very words of R. Moses of Egypt in Iad a Razaka, in his treatise of Kings, the tenth Chapter, in the end, Concerning the nations, the ancients have commanded us to visit their sick and to bury their dead, as the dead of Israel, and to relieve, and maintain their poor, as we do the poor of Israel, because of the wayes of peace, as it is written, God is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. Psal. 145.9. And in conformity hereto, I witnesse before God blessed for ever, that I have continually seen in Amsterdam where I reside, abundance of good correspondency, many interchanges of brotherly affection, and sundry things of reciprocall love. I have thrice seen when some Flemine Christians have fallen into the river in our ward, called Flemburgh, our nation cast themselves into the river to them, to help them out, and to deliver their lives from death. And certainly he that will thus hazard himself to save another, cannot harbour so much cruell malice, as to kill the innocent, whom he ought out of the duty of humanity to defend and protect.
3. It is forbidden Exodus 21.20. to kill a stranger; If a man smite his servant, or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall surely be punished, notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. The text speaks of a servant that is one of the Gentile nations, because that he onely is said to be the money of the Iew, who is his master, as Aben Ezra well notes upon the place. And the Lord commands, that if he die under the hand of his master, his master shall be put to death, for that as it seems, he struck him with a murderous intent. But it is otherwise if the servant dies afterwards, for then it appeares, that he did not strike him with a purpose to kill him; for if so, he would have killed him out of hand, wherefore he shall be free, and it may suffice for punishment that he hath lost his money. If therefore a Iew cannot kill his servant, or slave that is one of the nations, according to the law, how much lesse shall he be impowred to murder him that is not his enemy, and with whom he leads a quiet and a peaceable life? and therefore how can any good man believe that against his holy law, a Iew (in a strange countrey especially) should make himself guilty of so execrable a fact?
4. Admit that it were lawfull (which God forbid) why should they eat the bloud? And supposing they should eat the bloud, why should they eat it on the Passeover? Here at this feast, every confection ought to be so pure, as not to admit of any leaven, or any thing that may fermentate, which certainly bloud doth.
5. If the Iewes did repute, and hold this action (which is never to be named without an epethite of horrour) necessary, they would not expose themselves to so eminent a danger, to so cruell and more deserved punishment, unlesse they were moved to it by some divine precept; or at least, some constitution of their wise men. Now we challenge all those men who entertain this dreadfull opinion of us, as obliged in point of justice, to cite the place of Scripture, or of the Rabbins, where any such precept, or doctrine is delivered. And untill they do so, we will assume so much liberty, as to conclude it to be no better then a malicious slander.
6. If a man, to save his life, may break the Sabbath, and transgresse many of the other commands of the law, as hath been determined in the Talmud; as also confirmed by R. Moses of Egypt, in the fifth Chapter of his treatise of the fundamentalls of the law; yet three are excepted, which are, idolatry, murther, and adultery; life not being to be purchased at so dear a rate, as the committing of these heinous sins: an innocent death being infinitely to be preferred before it. Wherefore if the killing of a Christian, as they object, were a divine precept, and institution, (which far be it from me to conceive) it were certainly to be null’d and rendred void, since a man cannot perform it, without indangering his own life; and not onely so, but the life of the whole congregation of an entire people; and yet more, since it is directly a violation of one of these three precepts, Thou shalt do no murder: which is intended universally of all men, as we have said before.
7. The Lord, blessed for ever, by his prophet Ieremiah Chap. 29.7. gives it in command to the captive Israelites that were dispersed among the heathens, that they should continually pray for, and endeavour the peace, welfare and prosperity of the city wherein they dwelt, and the inhabitants thereof. This the Iewes have alwayes done, and continue to this day in all their Synagogues, with a particular blessing of the Prince or Magistrate, under whose protection they live. And this the Right Honourable my Lord St. Iohn can testifie; who when he was Embassadour to the Lords the States of the united Provinces, was pleased to honour our Synagogue at Amsterdam with his presence, where our nation entertained him with musick, and all expressions of joy and gladnesse, and also pronounced a blessing, not onely upon his honour, then present, but upon the whole Common-wealth of England, for that they were a people in league and amity; and because we conceived some hopes that they would manifest towards us, what we ever bare towards them, viz. all love and affection. But to return again to our argument, if we are bound to study, endeavour, and sollicite, the good and flourishing estate of the city where we live, and the inhabitants thereof, how shall we then murder their children, who are the greatest good, and the most flourishing blessing that this life doth indulge to them.