9. There are some Christians, that use to insult against the _Iewes_, as Christian homicides, that will venter to give a reason of these pretended murtherous practises. As if the accusation were then most infallibly true, if they can find any semblance of a reason why it might be so. As they say, that this is practised by them in hatred and detestation of Jesus of Nazareth. And that therefore they steal Christian Children, buffeting them in the same manner that he was buffetted; thereby to rub up, and revive the memory of the aforesaid death. And likewise they imagine that the _Iewes_ secretly steal away crosses, crucifixes, and such like graven images, which Papists privately and carefully retein in their houses, and every day the _Iewes_ mainly strike, and buffet, shamefully spitting on them, with such like ceremonies of despight, and all this in hatred of Jesus. But I admire what they really think, when they object such things as these, laying them to our charge. For surely we cannot believe, that a people, otherwise of sufficient prudence, and judgement, can perswade themselves into an opinion that the _Iewes_ should commit such practises, unlesse they could conceive they did them in honour and obedience to the God whom they worship. And what kind of obedience is this they perform to God blessed for ever, when they directly sin against that speciall command _Thou shalt not kill_? Besides, this cannot be committed without the imminent, and manifest perill of their lives and fortunes, and the necessary exposing themselves to a just revenge. Moreover, it is an _Anathema_ to a _Iew_ to have any graven images in his house, or any thing of an idol, which any of the nations figuratively worship, _Deut._ 7.26. 10. _Matthew Paris_ p. 532. writes, how that in the year 1240. the _Iewes_ circumcised a Christian child at _Norwich_, and gave him the name _Iurnin_, and reserved him to be crucified, for which cause many of them were most cruelly put to death. The truth of this story will evidently appear upon the consideration of its circumstances. He was first circumcised, and this perfectly constitutes him a _Iew_. Now for a _Iew_ to embrace a Christian in his armes, and foster him in his bosome, is a testimony of great love and affection. But if it was intended that shortly after this child should be crucified, to what end was he first circumcised? If it shall be said it was out of hatred to the Christians, it appears rather to the contrary, that it proceeded from detestation of the _Iewes_, or of them who had newly become proselytes, to embrace the _Iewes_ religion. Surely this supposed pranck (storied to be done in popish times) looks more like a piece of the reall scene of the Popish _Spaniards_ piety, who first baptiz’d the poor _Indians_, and afterwards out of cruel pity to their souls, inhumanely butchered them; then of strict-law-observing _Iewes_, who dare not make a sport of one of the seales of their covenant.