booknetsaWebster-secretSocietiesAndSubversiveMovements

ledge of natural law and His doctrines were the outcome of a sect, the whole theory of His divine power and
mission falls to the ground. This is why it is essential to expose the fallacies and even the bad faith on which
the attempt to identify Him with the Essenes is based.
Now, we have only to study the Gospels carefully in order to realize that the teachings of Christ were
totally different from those peculiar to the Essenes.(88) Christ did not live in a fraternity, but, as Dr. Ginsburg
himself points out, associated with publicans and sinners. The Essenes did not frequent the Temple and
Christ was there frequently. The Essenes disapproved of wine and marriage, whilst Christ sanctioned marriage
by His presence at the wedding of Cana in Galilee and there turned water into wine. A further point,
the most conclusive of all, Dr. Ginsburg ignores, namely, that one of the principal traits of the Essenes
which distinguished them from the other Jewish sects of their day was their disapproval of ointment, which
they regarded as defiling, whilst Christ not only commended the woman who brought the precious jar of
ointment, but reproached Simon for the omission: " My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman
hath anointed My feet with ointment." It is obvious that if Christ had been an Essene but had departed from
His usual custom on this occasion out of deference to the woman's feelings, He would have understood why
Simon had not offered Him the same attention, and at any rate Simon would have excused himself on these
grounds. Further if His disciples had been Essenes, would they not have protested against this violation of
their principles, instead of merely objecting that the ointment was of too costly a kind?
But it is in attributing to Christ the Communistic doctrines of the Essenes that Dr. Ginsburg's conclusions
are the most misleading-a point of particular importance in view of the fact that it is on this false hypothesis
that so-called "Christian Socialism" has been built up. " The Essenes," he writes, had all things in
common, and appointed one of the brethren as steward to manage the common bag; so the primitive Christians
(Acts ii. 44, 45, iv. 32-4; John xii. 6, xiii. 29)." It is perfectly true that, as the first reference to the Acts
testifies, some of the primitive Christians after the death of Christ formed themselves into a body having all
things in common, but there is not the slightest evidence that Christ and His disciples followed this principle.
The solitary passage in the Gospel of St. John, which are all that Dr. Ginsburg can quote in support of
this contention, may have referred to an alms-bag or a fund for certain expenses, not to a common pool of all
monetary wealth. Still less is there any evidence that Christ advocated Communism to the world in general.
When the young man having great possessions asked what he should do to inherit eternal life, Christ told
him to follow the commandments, but on the young man asking what more he could do, answered: " If thou
wilt be perfect go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor." Renunciation but not the pooling of al wealth
was thus a counsel of perfection for the few who desired to devote their lives to God, as monks and nuns
have always done, and bore no relation to the Communistic system of the Essenes.
Dr. Ginsburg goes on to say: " Essenism put all its members on the same level, forbidding the exercise of
authority of one over the other and enjoining mutual service; so Christ (Matt. xx. 25-8; Mark ix. 35-7, x. 42-
5). Essenism commanded its disciples to call no man master upon the earth, so Christ (Matt. xxiii. 8-10)."
As a matter of fact, Christ strongly upheld the exercise of authority, not only in the oft-quoted passage,
"Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's," but His approval of the Centurion's speech. " I am a man under
authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and the another, Come, and
he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it." Everywhere Christ commends the faithful servant
and enjoins obedience to masters. If we look up the reference to the Gospel of St. Matthew where Dr. Ginsburg
says that Christ commanded His disciples to call no man master on earth, we shall find that he has not
only perverted the sense of the passage but reversed the order of the words, which, following a denunciation
of the Jewish Rabbis, runs thus: " But not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are
brethren.... Neither be ye called masters: one is your master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you
shall be your servant." The apostles were, therefore, never ordered to call no man master, but not to be
called master themselves. Moreover, if we refer to the Greek text we shall see that this was meant in a spiritual
and not a social sense. The word for " master " here given is in the first verse i.e. teacher, in the
second, literally guide, and the word for servant is. When masters and servants in the social sense are referred
to in the Gospels, the word employed for master is and for servant. Dr. Ginsburg should have been
aware of this distinction and that the passage in question had therefore no bearing on his argument. As a
matter of fact it would appear that some of the apostles kept servants, since Christ commends them for exacting
strict attention to duty:
Which of you, having a servant ploughing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is
come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I
may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterwards thou shalt eat and
drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded to him? I trow not.(89)
Nesta H. Webster — Secret Societies and Subversive Movements — Part I
— 14 —