cret society (a club). For my part I think both the etymologies false: massoney is doubtless originally the same word with maison and magione; and the primitive etymon of all three words is clearly the Latin word mansio in the sense of the middle ages. It means simply a residence, or place of abode; and was natural ly applied to the dwelling-houses of the Templars. Their meetings were held in mansione Templariorum, i. e. in the massoney of the Templars. On the suppression of the order, their buildings still remained and preserved the names of Temples, Templar mansions, &c. just as at this day we find many convents in Hanover though they are no longer occupied by monks or nuns; and in Italy there are even yet churches to be found which are denominated de la Mason, which Paciaudi properly explains by della Magione, these churches having been attached to the dwellings of the Knights Templars. It is therefore very possible that a Templar Mas soney may have subsisted in London in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's church up to the end of the 17th century. Some notice of such a fact Lessing perhaps stumbled on in the course of his reading: he mistook the building for a secret society of Templars that still retained a traditional knowledge of the principles peculiar to the ancient order of Knights Templars: next he found that Sir Christopher Wren had been a frequenter of this massoney: he therefore was a Knight Templar: but he was also an architect; and by him the Templar doctrines had been moulded into a symbolic conformity with his own art, and had been fitted for diffusion amongst the people. Such is the way in which a learned hypothesis arises: and on this particular hypothesis may be pronounced what Lessing said of many an older one-Dust! and no thing but dust!-In conclusion I may add, what Nicolai has already observed, that Lessing was wholly misinformed as to the history and chronology of Free-masonry: so far from arising out of the ashes of the Templar traditions at the end of the 17th century, we have seen that it was fully matured in the 46th year of that century, and there

fore long before the re-building of St. Paul's. In fact Sir Christopher Wren was himself elected Deputy Grand-Master of the Free-masons in 1666; and in less than 20 years after (viz. in 1685) he became GrandMaster.

3. Baphomet.-But, says Mr. Nicolai, the Templars had a secret; and the Free-masons have a secret; and the secrets agree in this, that no uninitiated person has succeeded in discovering either. Does not this imply some connexion originally between the two orders: more especially if it can be shown that the two secrets are identical? Sorry I am, my venerable friend, to answer-No: sorry I am, in your old days, to be under the necessity of knocking on the head a darling hypothesis of yours which has cost you, I doubt not, much labour of study and research-much thought--and, I fear also, many many pounds of candles. But it is my duty to do so: and indeed, considering Mr. Nicolai's old age and his great merits in regard to German literature, it would be my duty to show him no mercy, but to lash him with the utmost severity for his rotten hypothesis-if my time would allow it. But to come to business. The Templars, says old Nicolai, had a secret. They had so. But what was it? According to Nicolai, it consisted in the denial of the Trinity, and in a scheme of natural religion opposed to the dominant Popish Catholicism. Hence it was that the Templars sought to make themselves independent of the other Catholic clergy: the novices were required to abjure the divinity of Christ, and even to spit upon a crucifix and trample it under foot. Their Anti-Trinitarianism Mr. Nicolai ascribes to their connexion with the Saracens, who always made the doctrine of the Trinity a matter of reproach to the Franks: he supposes that during periods of truce or in captivity, many Templars had by communication with learned Mohammedans become enlightened to the errors and the tyranny of Popery: but, at the same time strengthening their convictions of the falsehood of Mahometanism, they had retained nothing of their religious doctrines but Monotheism. These heterodoxies

however, under the existing power of the hierarchy and the universal superstition then prevalent, they had the strongest reasons for communicating to none but those who were admitted into the highest degree of their order-and to them only symbolically. From these data, which may be received as tolerably probable and conformable to the depositions of the witnesses on the trial of the Templars, old Mr. Nicolai flatters himself that he can unriddle the mystery of mysteries-viz. Baphomet (Baffomet, Baphemet, or Baffometus); which was the main symbol of the Knights Templars in the highest degrees., This Baphomet was a figure representing a human bust, but sometimes of monstrous and caricature appearance, which symbolized the highest object of the Templars and therefore upon the meaning of Baphomet hinges the explanation of the great Templar mys tery.

First then Mr. Nicolai tells us what Baphomet was not. It was not Mohammed. According to the genius of the Arabic language out of Mohammed might be made Mahomet or Bahomet, but not Baphomet. In some Latin historians about the period of the Crusades, Bahomet is certainly used for Mahomet, and in one writer perhaps Baphomet (viz. in the Epistola Anselmi de Ribodimonte ad Manassem Archiepiscopum Remensem, of the year 1099, in Dachery's Spicilegium Tom. ii. p. 431-" Sequenti die aurorâ apparente altis vocibus Baphomet invocaverunt; et nos Deum nostrum in cordibus nostris deprecantes impetum fecimus in eos, et de muris civitatis omnes expulimus." Nicolai, supposing that the cry of the Saracens was in this case addressed to their own prophet, concludes that Baphomet is an error of the press for Bahomet, and that this is put for Mahomet. But it is possible that Baphomet may be the true reading: for it may not have been used in devotion for Mahomet, but scoffingly as the known watch-word of the Templars). But it contradicts the whole history of the Templars to suppose that they had introduced into their order the worship of an image of Mahomet. In fact, from all the records of their trial and

persecution, it results that no such charge was brought against them by their enemies. And moreover Mahometanism itself rejects all worship of images.

Secondly, not being Mahomet, what was it? It was, says Mr. Nicolai, Baon unreç, i. e., as he interprets it, the word Baphomet meant the baptism of wisdom; and the image so called represented God the universal father, i. e. expressed the unity of the divine being. By using this sign therefore under this name, which partook much of a Gnostic and Cabbalistic spirit, the Templars indicated their dedication to the truths of natural religion.

Now, in answer to this learned conceit of Mr. Nicolai's, I would wish to ask him

First, in an age so barbarous as that of the 12th and 13th centuries, when not to be able to read or write was no disgrace, how came a body of rude warriors like the Templars to descend into the depths of Gnosticism?

Secondly, if by the image called Baphomet they meant to represent the unity of God, how came they to designate it by a name which expresses no attribute of the deity, but simply a mystical ceremony amongst themselves (viz. the baptism of wisdom)?

Thirdly, I will put a home question to Mr. Nicolai; and let him parry it if he can: How many heads had Baphomet? His own conscience will reply-Two. Indeed a whole length of Baphomet is recorded which had also four feet: but, supposing these to be disputed, Mr. Nicolai can never dispute away the two heads. Now what sort of a symbol would a two-headed image have been for the expression of unity of being? Answer me that, Mr. Nicolai. Surely the rudest skulls of the 12th century could have expressed their meaning better.

Having thus upset my learned brother's hypothesis, I now come forward with my own. Through the illumination which some of the Templars gained in the east as to the relations in which they stood to the Pope and Romish church, but still more perhaps from the suggestions of their own great power and wealth opposed to so rapacious and potent a

supremacy, there gradually arose a separate Templar interest no less hostile to the Pope and clergy of Rome, than to Mahomet. To this separate interest they adapted an appropriate scheme of theology: but neither the one nor the other could be communicated with safety except to their own superior members: and thus it became a mystery of the order. Now this mystery was symbolically expressed by a two-headed figure of Baphomet : i. e. of the Pope and Mahomet together. So long as the Templars continued orthodox, the watchword of their undivided hostility was Mahomet: but, as soon as the Pope became an object of jealousy and hatred to them, they devised a new watchword which should covertly express their double-headed enmity by intertwisting the name of the Pope with that of Mahomet.* This they effected by cutting off the two first letters of Mahomet and substituting Bap or Pap-the first syllable of Papa. Thus arose the compound word Baphomet; and hence it was that the image of Baphomet was figured with two heads, and was otherwise monstrous in appearance. When a Templar was initiated into the highest degree of the order, he was shown this image of Baphomet, and received a girdle with certain ceremonies which referred to that figure. At sight of this figure in the general chapters of the order, the knights expressed their independence of the church and the church creed, by testifying their abhorrence of the crucifix and by worshipping the sole God of heaven and earth. Hence they called a newly initiated member a "Friend of God, who could now speak with God if he chose," i. e. without the intermediation of the Pope and the church. Upon this explanation of Baphomet, it becomes

sufficiently plain why the secret was looked upon as so inviolable that even upon the rack it could not be extorted from them. By such a confession the order would have exposed itself to a still more cruel persecution, and a more inevitable destruction. On the other hand, upon Mr. Nicolai's explanation, it is difficult to conceive why, under such extremities, the accused should not have confessed the truth. In all probability. the court of Rome had good information of the secret tendency of the Templar doctrines; and hence no doubt it was that Pope Clement V. proceeded so furiously against them.

Now then I come to my conclusion, which is this: If the Knights Templars had no other secret than one relating to a political interest which placed them in opposition to the Pope and the claims of the Roman Catholic clergy on the one hand, and to Mahomet on the other, then it is impossible that there can have been any affinity or resemblance whatsoever between them and the Freemasons: for the Free-masons have never in any age troubled themselves about either Mahomet or the Pope: Popery + and Mahometanism are alike indifferent to the Free-masons, and always have been. And in general the object of the Free-masons is not political. Finally it is in the highest degree probable that the secret of the Knights Templars perished with their order: for it is making too heavy a demand on our credulity-to suppose that a secret society never once coming within the light of history can have propagated itself through a period of four cen turies-i. e. from the 13th to the 17th century, in which century it has been shown that Free-masonry first

arose.

X. Y. Z.

John Leicester, Bart. exercising his Troop of Cheshire Yeomanry.-The costume wants taste; it is too fine and glittering; and there is such a quantity of trappings about the person of the rider, in contact with the dapple grey of his horse, as quite distracts the eye. We could hardly persuade ourselves at first that the cavalry in the back ground were innocently performing so many prodigies of valour; and the martial as pect of the gallant commander, which is an excellent likeness, keeps up the illusion: he seems as much in earn est as his horse-but we suppose the catalogue contains the Gazette account. No. 357, The Portrait of Copenhagen, the Horse rode by the Duke of Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo, is Mr. Ward's best picture: the horse is, indeed, most beautifully painted.

No. 38.-Portrait of Lord Stowell. By Sir Thomas Lawrence, PRA. This picture is flat in its effect, but the head is finely painted. By the by, the Phrenologists would do well to look at this head, and consider whether their decisions are not a little contradicted by those of his Lordship. To aid their inquiry, there is a very good bust of Lord Stowell, by Behnes (1013), containing in a more tangible form all the same cha racteristics.

No. 59.-Portrait of H. R. H. the Duchess of Gloucester, by Sir Thomas Lawrence, is a most successful picture, and in our opinion one of the finest portraits ever exhibited in the Academy. The effect is forcible, from its extraordinary breadth, and the absence of shade, yet all this is attended with extreme delicacy of execution; the arms are beautifully and exquisitely painted. No artist can surmount the difficulties which stand in the way of his art better than Sir Thomas. In this portrait, there is no ostentation, no display, no jewelry-the attitude is very simple, easy, and dignified; and the character has all the attributes of high rank without pretending to any thing. -No. 98, the Portrait of the Earl of Clanwilliam, by the same hand, does not possess much interest. The next, No. 99, Portraits of the Children of Charles B. Calmady, Esq. is not only a first-rate performance, but may vie in expression with any picture of a

similar subject of any age-nay, we much doubt whether its equal is to be met with in the world. The vivacity of the boy is quite surprising, his eyes are particularly clear and transparent, and have really the look of life, while all the muscles of the face, and especially those about the eyes, are in full play, and have that shifting, supple, momentary expression which belongs to a happy child in perfect health, and possessing exuberant spirits. We wonder how the artist could succeed in transferring to his canvass the perpetually varying graces of such a character, for it would be impossible to arrest the attention of a child like this long enough to fix any thing from nature: the power must be in the imagination. But if this be so, and the President could succeed so well in the higher department of art as this picture evidently proves he could, how much reason have we to regret that he has not the honourable ambition to rise above the level even of the first portrait painter of the age, and vindicate his better genius. The hair of the girl is painted with consummate skill-the drapery is in the florid scattered style peculiar to this painter, but perhaps in this instance it is not inconsistent with the sentiment of the picture-we cannot however commend it. The colour is generally very beautiful, but the mouth of the boy is too red and coarse, for the juicy, luscious character of such a mouth.

We have not

often seen a more remarkable triumph over the general incapacity of painting to exhibit speaking grace, and intellectual animation, than in No. 119, The Portrait of Mrs. Harford, by Sir Thomas Lawrence: the beauty of this countenance is its expression, and it so engages the mind that we turn from it as reluctantly as if the lady were actually addressing us. We can now believe what one of our poets has said:

Heard melodies are sweet, but those un

heard

Are sweeter.

This lady speaks to the spirit, and it seems to comprehend her meaning. The other parts of this picture are not very remarkable ;-tasteful, but slightly executed. No. 291, The Portrait of Sir William Curtis, is