FREEMASONRY AND THE ESSENES
by Albert Mackey
Lawrie or I should rather say Brewster - was the first to discover a
connection between the Freemasons and the Jewish sect of the Essenes, a doctrine
which is announced in his History of Freemsonry. He does not indeed trace the
origin of the Masonic Institution to the Essenes, but only makes them the
successors of the Masons of the Temple, whose forms and tenets they transmitted
to Pythagoras and his school at Crotona, by whom the art was disseminated
throughout Europe.
Believing as he did in the theory that Freemasonry was first organized at the
Temple of Solomon by a union of the Jewish workmen with the association of
Dionysian Artificers-a theory which has already been discussed in a preceding
chapter-the editor of Lawrie's History meets with a hiatus in the regular and
uninterrupted progress of the Order which requires to be filled up. The
ingenious mode in which he accomplishes this task may be best explained in his
own words:
"To these opinions it may be objected, that if the Fraternity of Freemasons
flourished during the reign of Solomon, it would have existed in Judea in after
ages, and attracted the notice of sacred or profane historians. Whether or not
this objection is well founded, we shall not pretend to determine; but if it can
be shown That there did exist, after the building of the temple, an association
of men resembling Freemasons, in the nature, ceremonies, and object of their
institution, the force of the objection will not only be taken away, but
additional strength will be communicated to the opinion which we have been
supporting. The association here alluded to is that of the Essenes, whose origin
and sentiments have occasioned much discussion among ecclesiastical historians.
They are all, however, of one mind concerning the constitution and observances
of this religious order."'
The peace making quality of " if " is here very apparent. " If it can be
shown " that there is a chronological sequence from the builders of the Temple
to the Essenes, and that there is a resemblance of both to the Freemasons in "
the nature, ceremonies, and object of their institution," the conclusion to
which Brewster has arrived will be better sustained than it would be if these
premises are denied or not proved.
The course of argument must therefore be directed to these points. In the
first place we must inquire, who were the Essenes and what was their history ?
This subject has already been treated to some extent in a previous portion of
this work. But the integrity of the present argument will require, and I trust
excuse, the necessity of a repetition.
The three sects into which the Jews were divided in the time of Christ were
the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. Of these, while the Saviour makes
repeated mention of the first two, he never alludes in the remotest manner to
the third. This singular silence of Jesus has been explained by some imaginative
Masonic writers, such, for instance, as Clavel, by asserting that he was
probably an initiate of the sect. But scholars have been divided on this
subject, some supposing that it is to be attributed to the fact (which, however,
has not been established) that the Essenes originated in Egypt at a later
period; others that they were not an independent sect, but only an order or
subdivision of Pharisaism. However, in connection with the present argument, the
settlement of this question is of no material importance.
The Essenes were an association of ascetic celibates whose numbers were
therefore recruited from the children of the Jewish community in which they
lived. These were carefully trained by proper instructions for admission into
the society. The admission into the interior body of the society and to the
possession of its mystical doctrine was only attained after a long probation
through three stages or degrees, the last of which made the aspirant a
participant in the full fellowship of the community.
The history of the Essenes has been so often written by ancient and modern
authors, from Philo and Josephus to Ginsburg, that an inquirer can be at no loss
for a knowledge of the sect. The Masonic student will find the subject discussed
in the author's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, and the ordinary reader may be
referred to the able article in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical,
Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. I shall content myself, in fairness
to the theory, with quoting the brief but compendious description given by the
editor of Lawrie's History. It is in the main correct and sustained by other
authorities, except a few deductions which must be attributed to the natural
inclination of every theorist to adapt facts to his hypothesis. A few
interpolations will be necessary to correct manifest errors.
"When a candidate was proposed for admission, the strictest scrutiny was made
into his character. If his life had been hitherto exemplary, and he appeared
capable of curbing his passions and regulating his conduct according to the
virtuous though austere maxims of their order, he was presented, at the
expiration of his novitiate, with a white garment, as an emblem of the
regularity of his conduct and the purity of his heart."
It was not at the termination, but at the beginning of the novitiate, that
the white garment or robe was presented, and it was accompanied by the
presentation of an apron and a spade. " A solemn oath was then administered to
him that he would never divulge the mysteries of the Order that he would make no
innovations on the doctrines of the society and that he would continue in that
honorable course of piety and virtue which he had begun to pursue."
This is a mere abstract of the oath, which is given at length by Josephus. It
was not, however, administered until the candidate had passed through all the
degrees or stages, and was ready to be admitted into full fellowship.
"Like Freemasons, they instructed the young member in the knowledge which
they derived from their ancestors."
He might have said, like all other sects, in which the instruction of the
young member is an imperative duty.
"They admitted no women into their Order."
Though this is intended by the editor to show a point of identity with
Freemasonry, it does no such thing. It is the common rule of all masculine
associations. It distinguishes the Essenes from other religious sects, but it by
no means essentially likens them to the Freemasons.
"They had particular signs for recognizing each other, which have a strong
resemblance to those of Freemasons."
This is a mere assumption. That they had signs for mutual recognition is
probable, because such has been in all ages the custom of secret societies. We
have classical authority that they were employed in the ancient Pagan Mysteries.
But there is no authority for saying that these signs of the Essenes bore any
resemblance to those of the Freemasons. The only allusion to this subject is in
the treatise of Philo Judaeus, De Vita Contemplativa, where that author says
that - the Essenes meet together in an assembly and the right hand is laid upon
the part between the chin and the breast, while the left hand hangs straight by
the side."
But Philo does not say that it was used as a sign of recognition, but rather
speaks of it as an attitude or posture assumed in their assemblies. Of the
resemblance every Mason can judge for himself "They had colleges, or places of
retirement, where they resorted to practice their rites, and settle the affairs
of the society; and after the performance of these duties, they assembled in a
large hall, where an entertainment was provided for them by the president, or
master, of the college, who allotted a certain quantity of provisions to every
individual."
This was the common meal, not partaken on set occasions and in a particular
place, as the writer intimates, but every day, in their usual habitation and at
the close of daily labor.
"They abolished all distinctions of rank and if preference was ever given, it
was given to piety, liberality, and virtue. Treasurers were appointed in every
town to supply the wants of indigent strangers. The Essenes pretended to higher
degrees of piety and knowledge than the uneducated vulgar, and though their
pretensions were high, they were never questioned by their enemies. Austerity of
manners was one of the chief characteristics of the Essenian Fraternity. They
frequently assembled, however, in convivial parties, and relieved for awhile the
severity of those duties which they were accustomed to perform."
In concluding this description of an ascetic religious sect, the writer of
Lawrie's History says that " this remarkable coincidence between the chief
features of the Masonic and Essenian Fraternities can be accounted for only by
referring them to the same origin." Another, and, perhaps, a better reason to
account for these coincidences will be hereafter presented.
While admitting that there is a resemblance in some points of the two
institutions to each other, such as their secrecy, their classification into
different degrees, although there is no evidence that the Essenian initiation
had any form except that of a mere passage from a lower to a higher grade and
their cultivation of fraternal love, which resemblances may be found in many
other secret associations, I fail to see the identity " in the nature, the
object, and the external forms of the two institutions " which Brewster claims.
On the contrary, there is a total dissimilarity in each of these points.
The nature of the Essenian institution was that of an ascetic and a bigoted
religious sect, and in so far has certainly no resemblance to Freemasonry.
The object of the Essenes was to preserve in its most rigid requirements the
observance of the Mosaic law; that of Freemasonry is to diffuse the tolerant
principles of a universal religion, which men of every sect and creed may
approve. As to the external form of the two institutions, what little we know of
those of the Essenes certainly does not exhibit any other resemblance than that
which is common to all secret associations, whatever may be their nature and
objects.
But the most fatal objection to the theory of a connection between them,
which is maintained by the author of Lawrie's History, has been admitted with
some candor by himself.
"There is one point, however," he says, "which may, at first sight, seem to
militate against this supposition. The Essenes appear in no respects connected
with architecture; nor addicted to those sciences and pursuits which are
subsidiary to the art of building."
This objection, I say, is fatal to the theory which makes the Essenes the
successors of the builders of Solomon's Temple and the forerunners of the
Operative Masons of the Middle Ages, out of whom sprang the Speculative Masons
of the 18th century. Admitting for a moment the reality of the organization of
Masonry at the building of the Temple in Jerusalem, any chain which unites that
body of builders with the Freemasonry of the present day must show, in every
link, the presence and the continuance of pursuits and ideas connected with the
operative art of building. Even the Speculative Masons of the present day have
not disturbed that chain, because, though the fraternity is not now composed,
necessarily, of architects and builders, yet the ideas and pursuits of those
professions are retained in the Speculative science, all of whose symbolism
founded on the operative art.
The Essenes were not even Speculative Masons. Their symbolism, if they had
any, was not founded on nor had any reference to the art of building. The apron
which they presented to their novice was intended to be used, according to their
practice, in baptism and in bathing; and the spade had no symbolic meaning, but
was simply intended for practical purposes.
The defense made by the author of the History, that in modern times there are
" many associations of Freemasons where no architects are members, and which
have no connection with the art of building," hardly needs a reply. There never
has been an association of Freemasons, either Operative or Speculative, which
did not have a connection with the art of building, in the former case
practically, in the latter symbolically.
It is absurd to suppose the interpolation between these two classes of an
institution which neither practically nor symbolically cultivated the art on
which the very existence of Freemasonry in either condition is based.
But another objection, equally as fatal to the theory which makes the Essenes
the uninterrupted successors of the Temple builders, is to be found in the
chronological sequence of the facts of history. If this succession is
interrupted by any interval, the chain which connects the two institutions is
broken, and the theory falls to the ground.
The Temple of Solomon was finished about a thousand years before the
Christian era, and, according to the Masonic legendary account, the builders who
were engaged in its construction immediately dispersed and traveled into foreign
countries to propagate the art which they had there acquired. This, though
merely a legend, is not at all improbable. It is very likely that the Tyrian
workmen, at least (and they constituted the larger number of those employed in
the building), returned to their homes after the tasks for which they had been
sent to Solomon, by the King of Tyre, had been accomplished. If there were any
Jewish Masons at all, who were not mere laborers, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that they would seek employment elsewhere, in the art of building which
they had acquired from their Tyrian masters. This is a proper deduction from the
tradition, considered as such.
Who, then, were left to continue the due succession of the fraternity?
Brewster, in Lawrie's History, and Oliver, in his Antiquities, affirm that it
was the Essenes.
But we do not hear of this sect as an organized body until eight centuries
afterward. The apocryphal statement of Pliny, that they had been in being for
thousands of years-"pler seculorum millia "has met with no reception from
scholars. It is something which, as he himself admits, is incredible; and Pliny
is no authority in Jewish affairs.
Josephus speaks of them, as existing in the days of Jonathan the Maccabaean;
but this was only 143 years before Christ. They are never mentioned in any of
the books of the Old Testament, written subsequently to the building of the
Temple, and the silence of the Saviour and the Apostles concerning them has been
attributed to the fact that they were not even at that time an organized body,
but merely an order of the Pharisees. The Rabbi Nathan distinctly says that
"those Pharisees who live in a state of celibacy are Essenes;" and McClintock
collates from various authorities fourteen points of resemblance, which are
enumerated to show the identity in the most important usages of the two
institutions. At all events, we have no historic evidence of the existence of
the Essenes as a distinct organization before the war of the Maccabees, and this
would separate them by eight centuries from the builders of Solomon's Temple, of
whom the theory under review erroneously supposes them to be the direct
descendants.
But Brewster seeks to connect the Essenes and the builders of Solomon through
the Assideans, whom he also calls "an order of the Knights of the Temple of
Jerusalem who bound themselves to adorn the porches of that magnificent
structure and to preserve it from injury and decay." He adds that "this
association was composed of the greatest men of Israel, who were distinguished
for their charitable and peaceful dispositions; and always signalized themselves
by their ardent zeal for the purity and preservation of the temple." Hence he
argues that "the Essenes were not only an ancient fraternity, but that they
originated from an association of architects who were connected with the
building of Solomon's temple."
All this is very ingenious, but it is very untrue. It is, however, the style,
now nearly obsolete, it is to be hoped, in which Masonic history has been
written.
The fact is that the Assideans were not of older date than the Essenes. They
are not mentioned by the canonical writers of the Scriptures, nor by Josephus,
but the word first occurs in the book of Maccabees, where it is applied, not, as
Brewster calls them, to men of " peaceful dispositions," but to a body of
devoted and warlike heroes and patriots who, as Kitto says, rose at the signal
for armed resistance given by Mattathias, the father of the Maccabees, and who,
under him and his successors, upheld with the sword the great doctrine of the
unity of God, and stemming the advancing tide of Grecian manners and idolatries.
Hence the era of the Assideans, like that of the Essenes, is removed eight
centuries from the time of the building of the Solomonic Temple.
Scaliger, who is cited in Lawrie's History as authority, only says that the
Assideans were a confraternity of Jews whose principal devotion consisted in
keeping up the edifices belonging to the Temple; and who, not content with
paying the common tribute of half a shekel a head, appointed for Temple repairs,
voluntarily imposed upon themselves an additional tax.
But as they are not known to have come into existence until the wars of the
Maccabees, it is evident that the Temple to which they devoted their care must
have been the second one, which had been built after the return of the Jews from
their Babylonian captivity. With the Temple of Solomon and with its builders the
Assideans could not have had any connection.
Prideaux says that the Jews were divided, after the captivity, into two
classes-the Zadikim or righteous, who observed only the written law of Moses,
and the Chasidim or pious, who superadded the traditions of the elders. These
latter, he says, were the Assideans, the change of name resulting from a common
alteration of the sounds of the original Hebrew letters.
But if this division took place after the captivity, a period of nearly five
centuries had then elapsed since the building of Solomon's Temple, and an
uninterrupted chain of sequences between that monarch's builders and the Essenes
is not preserved.
After the establishment of the Christian religion we lose sight of the
Essenes. Some of them are said to have gone to Egypt, and there to have founded
the ascetic sect of Therapeutists. Others are believed to have been among the
first converts to Christianity, but in a short time they faded out of all
notice. I think, from what has been said, that there can be no hesitation in
pronouncing the theory of the descent of Freemasonry to modern times through the
Assideans and the Essenes to be wholly untenable and unsupported by historical
testimony.
In relation to what has been called the " remarkable coincidences " to be met
with in the doctrines and usages of this Jewish sect and the Freemasons, giving
to them all the weight demanded, the rational explanation appears to be such as
I have elsewhere given, and which I may repeat here.
The truth is that the Essenes and the Freemasons derive whatever similarity
or resemblance they may have from that spirit of brotherhood which has prevailed
in all ages of the civilized world, the inherent principles of which, as the
natural results of any fraternization, where all the members are engaged in the
same pursuit and governed by one common bond of unity, are brotherly love,
charity, and generally that secrecy and exclusiveness which secures to them an
isolation, in the practice of their rites, from the rest of the world. And
hence, between all fraternities, ancient and modern, these "remarkable
coincidences" will be apt to be found.
back to top |
