Francisco Lopes Suasso, second Baron d'Avernas le Gras (ca. 1657 – 22 April 1710) was a banker and financier of the Dutch Republic. He was also known within the Sephardic community as Abraham Israel Suasso.
After being expelled from the Iberian Peninsula, most of the Sephardic Jews settled in trading cities such as London and Antwerp. By the late sixteenth century they were arriving in Amsterdam and The Hague. The Lopes Suassos were a rich old Sephardic family of Marranos, or Jews who had been forced to convert to Christianity under pressure from the Portuguese Inquisition, but once in Amsterdam they openly returned to their true religion, Judaism.
A notable instance of the support of the house of Suasso to the Dutch stadtholders is the loan of two million guilders which Suasso made to William of Orange in 1688 in support of his invasion of England to claim the thrones of King James II. The story is told that William asked Suasso what he wanted as collateral for the millions, to which Suasso replied: "If thou art felicitous, I know thou wilt return them to me; art thou infelicitous, I agree to having lost them." However, this may be apocryphal. Suasso was responsible for a number of elements of the invasion, and through his father-in-law in Hamburg he was able to make speedy arrangements for the transport of Swedish and Pomeranian troops provided in November 1688 by Charles XI of Sweden to assist William. The coffer in which William repaid the loan to Suasso is today on display in the Willet-Holthuisen Museum in Amsterdam.
On 5 November 1688, a huge flotilla of ships, four times the size of the Spanish Armada that had tried to invade England a century earlier, made land at Torbay, in Devon, on the south coast of England. It was the beginning of the Glorious Revolution, when the Catholic James II of England was overthrown by the Protestant Dutch prince William of Orange whose wife Mary was James’ daughter but also a Protestant.
The Glorious Revolution has come to be seen, in the English liberal tradition at least, as a bloodless event, a watershed in British history which established the supremacy of parliament over the crown, and set Britain on the path towards constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy. In truth, it was not bloodless, hardly a revolution and its glory was stained. William’s march through England may have shed relatively little blood, but in Scotland and Ireland conflict was vicious and brutal. William’s triumph was less the product of a revolution than of a conspiracy to effect a foreign invasion.
Alarmed not just by James’ Catholicism, but also his attempts to suspend penal laws against Catholics and to grant toleration to some Protestant dissenters, a number of leading English peers including the earls of Danby and Halifax, and Henry Compton, Bishop of London, invited William to usurp the throne. William was only too glad to oblige.
In the 1670s and 1680s, the decades following the Civil War, the Commonwealth and the restoration of the monarchy, England was still convulsed by political, economic and religious conflict. The religious confrontation between Protestants and Catholics was but the outward expression of deeper political and class conflict, of the power struggle between Parliament and the King, and between the King, the aristocracy, the nascent middle class, and the artisans, tenant farmers and the landless.
The liberal defence of Parliament over the monarch was interwoven with illiberal hostility towards Catholics.The Whigs, the party of parliamentary democracy, the party from which the English liberal tradition developed, were also the party of anti-Catholic bigotry. Before the Revolution the Whigs sought to exclude James from the English throne because of his Catholicism. After the Revolution,a battery of laws that were created specifically to harass, humiliate and oppress Catholics. Catholics were excluded from most public offices, could not stand for parliament and were denied the vote; no Catholic could become the monarch, or even marry one, a prohibition that has only just been expunged from the statute books; they were forced out of many professions from teaching to the law; they were barred from English universities, but barred also from studying abroad; they were forbidden from holding firearms, from serving in the armed forces and even from owning a horse valued at over £5; they could not inherit Protestant land and could not buy land with a lease of more than 31 years; Protestants were banned from converting to Catholicism, and Catholics banned from marrying Protestants.
The events of 1688 may have been ‘glorious’ in the sense that they helped constrain the power of the monarchy and pave the way for parliamentary democracy; but its inglorious legacy was the institutionalization of anti-Catholic bigotry and the marginalizing of the more radical democratic voices.
A few weeks after William had touched down in Torbay and marched into London, the Dutch royal yacht arrived in London, bringing with it William’s wife Mary. On board also was the English philosopher John Locke, who had spent five years in exile in the Netherlands.
***Hmmm, I smell a strong Jewish connection. The Netherlands is where the Jews financed all the English trouble-making and it is said when they had installed William on the throne who had been in exile in Amsterdam, the Jews basically took control of the English monarchy and as the protocols say democracy and republicanism was invented by Jews to undermine the monarchy. It's also claimed Puritanism is Judaized Christianity and Protestantism was essentially part of Jewish subversion of the Roman Catholic Church. It certainly paved the way for the English Revolution which was necessary to then have a French Revolution and so on, all led behind the curtain by Jews and currently covered up. It is claimed John Calvin was actually a Jew named Cohen, so there you go! This is basically where I see the NWO beginning, startiing soon after the Spannish Inquisition with Rich Jewry relocating in Amsterdam and funding both sides of the "Thirty Years War" The fact that Locke became big after his return to England from five years in Amsterdam and pushed a mindset that was "good for Jews" is too in your face to ignore***
Locke’s royal return seemed to enthrone him as the philosopher of 1688, the man whose ideas gave intellectual bottom to the policies of constitutional monarchy, individual liberty and religious tolerance. He has come to be regarded, and not just in Britain, as the philosopher who laid the foundations of liberalism, and of liberal democracy.
From Thomas Jefferson to Voltaire, Locke’s liberalism provided inspiration for eighteenth century mainstream Enlightenment thinkers. Locke’s philosophical outlook helped create an intellectual climate that, as historian Norman Hampson has noted, fostered ‘toleration’, ‘the acceptance of the potential equality of man’ and ‘the assumption that society, by the regulation of material conditions, could promote the moral improvement of its members.’ Yet, against the background of the ferment created by the early Enlightenment, Locke’s philosophy can sometimes appear as ambiguous as the Glorious Revolution itself, and nowhere more so than in his discussion of ‘tolerance’.
John Locke was born in 1632 in Wrington, Somerset, to Puritan parents of modest means. His father was a country lawyer who served in a Puritan cavalry company in the Civil War. With the patronage of Alexander Popham, his father’s military commander, Locke gained a place at the prestigious Westminster School in London, and then at Christ Church, Oxford, where his friends included Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton. After leaving Oxford, Locke became physician and secretary to the moral philosopher Anthony Ashley Cooper, Lord Shaftesbury, one of the richest and most powerful political figures in England. A founder of the Whig movement, Shaftesbury was at the heart of many of the battles and intrigues of the age, and expressed the full gamut of Whig political ambiguities. He supported the rights of Parliament over the monarch, and advocated religious freedom for Protestant dissenters, but was also deeply and unpleasantly anti-Catholic, leading the campaign to exclude James, and all ‘popists’, from the English throne. As these struggles played themselves out in the years before the Glorious Revolution, so Shaftesbury’s fortunes, and those of his friend Locke, waxed and waned. In 1676, and again five years later, Shaftesbury was imprisoned in the Tower of London, and was eventually forced to flee to the Netherlands, where he was shortly afterwards followed by Locke.
While in exile Locke published anonymously, and in Latin, his Epistola de Tolerentia, later translated into English as A Letter Concerning Toleration. It is an immensely powerful argument in defence of religious tolerance. It is also an immensely restricted argument in defence of religious tolerance.
Locke’s starting point is the insistence that it is the duty of every individual to seek his own salvation. The means to do so are his religious belief and the ability openly to worship. The power of human political authority cannot, therefore, rightfully extend over either sphere. The proper concern of a magistrate or civil government is the protection of life, liberty, health and property. The magistrate can use force and violence where this is necessary to preserve civil interests against attack. This is the central function of the state. One’s religious concerns with salvation, however, are not within the domain of civil interests, and so lie outside of the legitimate concern of the magistrate or the civil government. In effect, Locke adds an additional right to the natural rights of life, liberty, health and property - the right to choose one’s own road to salvation.
The only power that the state possesses is the use of force. Religion consists of genuine inward persuasion of the mind. The power of the state cannot, therefore, genuinely alter people’s religious beliefs, nor show them the path to true religion. Nor, Locke insisted, would it necessarily be a good thing if force could change people’s minds. Many of the magistrates of the world believe in religions that are false. Accepting faith as defined by a government or a magistrate would not always, or even often, guide people to the true religion.
Locke’s was a brave and controversial argument, particularly at a time when the whole of Europe was rent by tempestuous religious strife, and when intolerance and persecution were the norm. But Locke’s concept of liberty was also exceedingly narrow. ‘Locke’s toleration’, as Jonathan Israel observes, ‘revolves primarily around freedom of worship and theological discussion, placing little emphasis on freedom of thought, speech and persuasion beyond what relates to freedom of conscience.’ Because it is a theological conception, ‘Locke’s toleration is grudging, on doctrinal grounds, in according toleration to some groups and emphatic in denying toleration to others.’
‘No opinions contrary to human society, or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society’ Locke insisted, ‘are to be tolerated by the magistrate’. This led him at best to equivocate about Catholics, at worst to be openly intolerant. Catholics owed their primary allegiance to Rome, not to London, and so could not expect tolerance or protection. It is a claim few make these days about Catholics, but many continue to do so about Jews and Muslims. And those ‘who deny the being of a God’, Locke maintained, are ‘not at all to be tolerated’. Atheism, for Locke, undermined all morality and therefore was a threat to the very foundations of society. ‘The taking away of God, though but even in thought’, he wrote, ‘dissolves all’ because ‘Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.’ In any case, ‘those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration.’ In other words, since tolerance was only tolerance of religious freedom, those without religion did not have a claim upon such tolerance.
There is a striking contrast between Locke’s conception of tolerance and that of Baruch Spinoza, whose starting point is not the salvation of the soul but promotion of individual liberty. ‘The less freedom of judgment is granted to men’, he believed, ‘the further are they removed from the most natural state and consequently the more repressive the regime’. All attempts to curb free expression not only curtail legitimate freedom but are futile. ‘If no man, then, can give up his freedom to judge and think as he pleases, and everyone is by absolute natural right master of his own thoughts, it follows that utter failure will attend any attempt in a state to force men to speak only as prescribed by the sovereign despite their different and opposing opinion.’ Spinoza’s real fear was not that dissenting views might undermine the power of faith, but that ecclesiastical power might undermine individual liberty. Hence he advocated the use of the state to limit the size and power of religious congregations. To our age, in which state and church are separated in most liberal democracies, and in which the power of the church has diminished while that of the state has grown, this might seem as illiberal an attitude as Locke’s refusal to tolerate Catholics or atheists. Yet in an age in which state and church were fused, and ecclesiastic power was immense, and often an obstacle to individual liberty, Spinoza’s argument was truly radical. ‘The right of the sovereign, both in the religious and secular spheres’, he wrote at the close of the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, ‘should be restricted to men’s actions, with everyone being allowed to think what he wishes and say what he thinks’. It is a view that seems startling even today.
For an understanding on the ideological source of this event, refer to
"The Liberal Protestant Tradition": http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...tant-Tradition
For understanding John Locke's religious background, refer to "Puritans were more Jewish than Protestants": http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...an-protestants
A Puritan is a name often misunderstood. During the 17th century English Civil War (known as the Puritan Revolution), the Puritans were Protestant fundamentalists who wished to “purify” the Church of England. Some of the Puritans, known as Separatists “separated,” forming their own church. The Puritans felt that Parliament, and not the King, should have the final say and that the moral guidance for all legal decision should come from the Jewish Bible which they considered to be the highest authority in all matters.
The Puritans were obsessed with the Bible and came to identify their political struggle against England with that of the ancient Hebrews against Pharaoh or the King of Babylon. Because they identified so strongly with ancient Israel, they chose to identify with the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible). (World Book Encyclopedia & Encyclopaedia Judaica)
In 1620, the “Separatists” sailed for America on the Mayflower. The Separatists/Puritans who settled at Plymouth Colony called themselves “Pilgrims” because of their wanderings in search of religious freedom. The Puritan culture of New England was marked from the outset by a deep association with Jewish themes. No Christian community in history identified more with the Israelites of the Bible than did the first generations of settlers of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, who believed their own lives to be a literal reenactment of the biblical drama of the chosen people―they were the children of Israel and the ordinances of God’s Holy covenant by which they lived were His divine law.
Since they viewed themselves as the persecuted victims of the sinful Christian establishment of the Old World (England), the Puritans also had a natural sympathy for the Jews of their own time. The Protestant Puritan leader Cotton Mather repeatedly referred to the Jews in his prayer for their conversion as God's "Beloved People.” The New Israel―The influence of the Hebrew Bible marks every step of the Puritan exodus to their Zion in the wilderness of the New World. The Jewish Bible formed their minds and dominated their characters; its conceptions were their conceptions.
The "Separatists,” ready to depart from England for the new land, fasted in a manner reminiscent of the fasts held by the Israelites before any new undertaking. Their Pastor Robertson read I Samuel 23:3-4 and then they sailed to the New Canaan in America. The biblical basis for this procedure is manifest; just as the ancient Israelites prayed and fasted before undertaking an uncertain venture, so did the Puritans. And once settled in America, the custom was retained and frequently renewed. Early in 1620, the very year of the Pilgrims' landing in the new Plymouth, a solemn day of prayer was observed; Pastor Robinson spoke, again quoting from I Samuel 23:3-4, by which he strove to ease their fears and strengthen their determination. This custom, combining prayer and fasting with biblical readings on momentous occasions, persisted and as late as 1800, President Adams likewise called a national day of prayer and fasting.
The next major group of Puritan settlers to arrive in New England (1630) was headed by John Winthrop (1588–1649) and founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They were ruled initially by an elite of leading Puritan families - since the colony itself was based on biblical principles and was moved by the Puritan spirit of the Scriptures—was the Holy Jewish Bible. The Puritans wholeheartedly believed that it was their special mission to establish in America a society precisely modeled on the precepts of Sacred Jewish Scriptures. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was at the very least a state inspired by and thoroughly devoted to the Jewish Bible. "If we keep this covenant," Governor John Winthrop assured his people, "we shall find that the God of Israel is among us, but if we deal falsely with our God... we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going." The Jewish covenant concept was thus the bedrock of all Puritan religious communities.
When the Puritans, a bitterly persecuted people by the English government, reached America, they drew clear analogies between themselves and the Jews of antiquity. They constantly referred to the Hebrew Bible, renewing the similarities to their own experience, so that its philosophy and spirit came to permeate their lives. Also, like Israel of old, the Pilgrims (and their fellow Puritan counterparts) regarded them-selves as the elect of God, so that throughout the Revolutionary War they visualized their enemies as Amalekites or Philistines. And in a manner reminiscent of the traditional Jewish Passover night, the Pilgrims too memorialized their passage into freedom. In searching the Scriptures for readings pertinent to their own situation, the Puritans readily discovered the general similarity between themselves and the ancient Israelites, and proceeded to draw from it some very particular conclusions. They firmly believed that the Hebrew prophets were speaking to them as directly as they had spoken to the Israelites. Thus the history of the Israelites as related in the Bible served, according to the ministers of the day, as a mirror in which the Puritans could see their own activities reflected. Still considering themselves as Christian Protestants, the Puritans related to the Israelites and their Jewish belief for their fundamental “grounding.
In this respect they differed sharply from the majority of traditional Christian theologies. To the Puritans the primary lesson of the Old Testament was that a nation as well as an individual could enter into a covenant with God. The Puritans reasoned in America the concept of the covenant would assume new dimensions. Once they reached the colonies a new factor entered into the matter of the covenant. In this New Israel the Puritans established a completely new society based solely upon the Jewish concept of a covenant between God and man. Thus the Puritans made certain of the biblical system they wished to establish in the New World. When, during a convention of Puritan ministers at Boston on May 26, 1698, they confirmed the belief that "under the Old Testament, the Church was constituted by a covenant." Because of this concept, the Puritan Church was not ruled by a formal and rigid papal hierarchy but derived its direction immediately from God, ruled by His word as revealed in the sacred Jewish Scriptures.
The Bible was in all circumstances and for all occasions the ultimate source of knowledge and precedent. The Jewish Bible was the inspired word of God which was for them a matter of absolute conviction, and, hence, indisputable. Accordingly, failure to abide by the strict reading and literal interpretation of the Scriptures was severely punished: If any "Christian, so called,” spoke contemptuously of the Scripture, or the holy penmen thereof, they were to be punished by fine or whipping. Laws were also passed punishing those who violated the Sabbath. Laws and regulations adopted by them, which, at the present day, are stigmatized as singularities, were in many instances, the legitimate fruits of their strict adherence to the teaching of the Bible.
Most of the official acts of the colonies were determined by the Jewish Scriptures. One of these, the Connecticut Code of 1650, adopted a near Mosaic form of government. Its fifteen Capital Laws, Pentateuchal citations and language are later found in the Massachusetts Code of 1660. The guide of early Connecticut was Thomas Hooker, a man deeply touched by the Bible and its spirit, and called by some "the founder of American democracy." He wrote in a letter (1648) to Governor Winthrop of Massachusetts on the subject of liberty under the law: Sit liber judex, as the lawyers speak. Deuteronomy 17:10–11: "Thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform, according to the sentence of the law. Thou shalt seek that Law at his mouth: not ask what his discretion allows, but what the Law requires."The Puritans' incorporated the Mosaic code and injunctions from the Old Testament into their own legal framework. It is worthy of note that fully half of the statutes in the Code of 1655 for the New Haven colony contained references to or citations from the Old Testament, while only three percent referred to the New Testament.
Accordingly, the first settlers in New England called themselves "Christian Israel." Comparison of the Puritan leaders with the great leaders of ancient Israel—especially Moses and Joshua—were common. So the names of Daniel, Jonathan, Esther, Enoch, Ezra, Rachel and a host of others were in constant use among the Puritans. Interestingly enough, there was a conspicuous absence of the names of Christian saints. Names of cities, towns and settlements likewise derived from Hebraic sources. This widespread use of biblical names, however, was not confined to the naming of offspring, cities and towns - names of many biblical heights were eventually bestowed upon the great mountains of America. Mount Carmel and Mount Horeb, home of the Prophets, were popular names, as was Mount Nebo, the final resting place of Moses. Names like Mount Ephraim, Mount Gilead, Mount Hermon, Mount Moriah, Mount Pisgah, were all popular as well. Some mountains in the New World were even called Mt. Sinai, Mount Zion and Mount Olive. .
Puritan obsession with the Bible led them to try and incorporate many aspects of the Jewish commandments into their lifestyle based on their literal interpretation of Hebraic laws. One of the most significant was the concept of the Sabbath as a day of rest and meditation. Puritan Sabbath observance began at sundown and no work of any kind, even household chores, was allowed for the next 24-hours. Sabbath observance was strictly monitored by local officials.
In summary:The majority of the earliest settlers were Puritans from England. Unlike their cousins back home, these American Puritans strongly identified with both the historical traditions and customs of the ancient Hebrews of the Old Testament. They viewed their emigration from England as a virtual re-enactment of the Jewish exodus from Egypt: England was Egypt, the English king was Pharaoh, the Atlantic Ocean their Red Sea, America was the Land of Israel, and the Indians were the ancient Canaanites. They were the new Israelites, entering into a new covenant with God in a new Promised Land.
These settlers found themselves in a New World which had no existing laws or govern-ment. Their first task, therefore, was to create a legal framework for their communities and the first place they looked for guidance was the Hebrew Bible. Thus most of the early legislation of the colonies of New England was determined by Scripture. The most extreme example was the Connecticut Code of 1650 which created a form of fundamentalist government based almost entirely on Jewish law using numerous citations from the Bible. The same held true for the code of New Haven and many other colonies.
At the first assembly of New Haven in 1639, John Davenport clearly declared the primacy of the Bible as the legal and moral foundation of the colony: "Scriptures do hold forth a perfect rule for the direction and government of all men in all duties which they are to perform to God and men as well as in the government of families and commonwealth as in matters of the church ... the Word of God shall be the only rule to be attended unto in organizing the affairs of government in this plantation."
Thanksgiving which has evolved into a national day of feasting and celebration was initially conceived by the Pilgrims, in 1621, as a day similar to the Jewish Sukkot, the holiday of joy as told in Leviticus 23:40. It was for the Puritans and is for the Jews a day of great joy because it was the time of the year for the gathering grain and fruits from their fields into their homes. A time for introspection and prayer, because it was God, not man who allowed the first harvest.
1. H. B. Alexander, "The Hebrew Contribution to the Americanism of the Future" in: The Menorah Journal, VI, no. 2 (1920), 65–66.
2. W. De-Loss Love, Jr., The Fast and Thanksgiving Days (1895), 61–62.
3. Cf. S. Morgan, "Responsibilities of a Puritan Parent," More Books: The Bulletin of the Boston Public Library, XVII, no. 4 (1942), 141–159.
4. S. Broches, Jews in New England (1942), 4–6.
5. J. Davis, New England's Memorial (1669), 36.
6. C. Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana (1702), III, 100; cf., Appendix, Bay Psalm Book.
7. P. Miller, The New England Mind (1939), 475.
8. Ibid., 477.
9. I. Mather, The Order of the Gospels (1700), 30.
10. P. Miller and T. H. Johnson, The Puritans (1938), 49, 54.
11. J. Banvard, Plymouth and the Pilgrims (1856), 204, 231–2.
12. R. Calef, More Wonders of the Invisible World (1700), 152.
13. P.M. Simms, The Bible in America (1936), 337–342.
14. L. I. Newman, Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements (1925), 641.
15. P. Masserman and M. Baker, The Jews Come to America (1932), 69.
16. C. Mather, op. cit. I, 109–110.
17. J. Davis, op. cit., 272.
18. G. R. Stewart, Names on the Land (1945), 123 ff.
19. C. E. Whiting, Studies in English Puritanism from the Restoration to the Revelation, 1600–1688 (1931), 445 ff.
20. C. Mather, op. cit. I, 63.
21. G. R. Stewart, loc. cit.
22. L. M. Friedman, Jewish Pioneers and Patriots (1942), 96.
23. Sivan, Gabriel, The Bible and Civilization, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1973, p. 236.
24. Katsh, Abraham I., The Biblical Heritage of American Democracy, New York: p. 97. Ktav Publishing House, Inc., 1977, Chapter 3 & 5